Journalists can say a lot in just a few words. This is a blessing and a curse. Sometimes journalistic conciseness distills the truth. Other times, brevity obscures important issues. On Tuesday, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, respectively, provided examples of each.
First, from the New York Times (Obama Meets Party Donors in New York, Dec. 5, 2006):
"Amid intensifying presidential musings by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama met with George Soros, the liberal billionaire philanthropist, then some other [prominent Democratic] donors last night at Mr. Soros’s offices. Afterward he spoke at a charity event that was to be followed by a news conference.
"One of the donors who met with Mr. Obama, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to offend Mrs. Clinton, said that he and several others had supported Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaigns but were not committed to her as a presidential candidate."
(Emphasis added).
We have previously expressed concern about uncritical enthusiasm for greater disclosure, and this quote illustrates why. If this gentleman doesn’t want it known that he even talked about donating to a potential candidate for fear of "offending" another (more powerful?) candidate, then it is ludicrous to suggest that disclosure requirements don’t deter some people from actually donating for fear of causing similar "offense" to those in power.
Unfortunately, not all news stories are so enlightening. From the Los Angeles Times, comes an article with the following title and subtitle:
Nevada high court to debate judicial ethics
Proposed rules include banning jurists from personally soliciting campaign funds. Free speech may be an issue.
(emphasis added).
William Strunk, Jr. advised that "A sentence should contain no unnecessary words…." Allow us to omit one from the L.A. Times’ subtitle: Free speech is an issue. No qualifier is necessary.
Update: Make that "Free speech was an issue." The Nevada Supreme Court has rejected the proposal. "[T]he court’s seven justices ruled unanimously that the measure would impose an unconstitutional restriction on judges’ right to free speech."