PBS defends Obama

Last night, the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS sought to "correct" a McCain commercial on Obama's failure to visit injured American servicemen and women at a military hospital in Germany. McCain's commercial charges that Obama could have visited the hospital but chose not to and went to a gym instead. The ad says Obama didn't go because cameras couldn't accompany him. McCain says he would have gone without the cameras.

The NewsHour didn't merely question whether the ad was accurate but specifically said it wasn't. Judy Woodruff said "It's not true." She was backed up by Brooks Jackson of Factcheck.org who, under questioning from Woodruff, seemed to agree with Woodruf that the ad wasn't accurate. Washington Post reporter Dan Balz, who also appeared on the segment, was more objective and carefully related what both campaigns have alleged.

It isn't clear which version of events, McCain's or Obama's, is accurate but the NewsHour should have been more careful about taking sides on this. More important, the NewsHour should explain why it chose to make this a part of last night's show. Woodruff said the ad has appeared on television only a few times. Given that, why was it important enough to be discussed on last night's show? Surely, there were other, more newsworthy subjects they could have explored. Surely the NewsHour wasn't taking a shot at McCain's campaign.

LAT: U.S. among "the world's most disreputable nations"

A favorite liberal theme appeared in a LAT editorial today on capital punishment, cited in the heading above. Capital punishment ought to be banned in the U.S., the LAT argues, because it's a "moral abomination" and a "stain" on this nation.

"Moral abomination" tells us very little. "Disreputable" and "stain" are inappropriate because they're untrue. Use of these words amounts to name calling, not argument.

The LAT ought to say that capital punishment, like abortion, is wrong because it involves the taking of a human life which is precious and sacred because it is God-given, even if the life has been poorly lived. Humans haven't the right to terminate human life. Only God has that right.

On a practical level, capital punishment is unnecessary. Killers can be sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole, which may be tougher for the criminal and which protects society as well as capital punishment does.

LAT reorganizes

Sunday's edition of the LAT included a spadea announcing a shuffling of newspaper parts and a reorganization of the whole. On the front, a statement by editor Russ Stanton tried to sell the changes to readers. In the first sentence of that statement, curiously repeated in a side bar, Stanton said the LAT needs to satisfy online and other readers of the newspaper by delivering "news and other information that is unique, far-reaching and indispensable."

All media outlets report the same news, more or less. The LAT is unlikely to provide news that is unique unless they make it up. "Far-reaching" is a nebulous term that means whatever one wants it to mean. Not much news is "indispensable" and besides it has a short shelf life. Rather than aim at providing news that is "unique, far-reaching and indispensable" the LAT would do well to offer news that is timely, accurate and balanced.

LAT adores Chemerinsky

A LAT editorial today argues that UCI's new law school dean, the ultra-liberal Erwin Chemerinsky, "has assembled a list of 18 sterling academics and others" to staff the new law school. Of the first 12 appointed, 10 were women and one of those was Chemerinsky's wife. The LAT doesn't tell us who the other six are.

LAT: Obama trip proves Bush a loser

As if it matters, the LAT's Paul Richter writes this morning that Obama's reception in Europe has given President Bush "heartburn." "The tour has brought into focus how world leaders already are positioning themselves for a new American president," Richer says.

Any leader who may need to deal with a visiting leader in the future will treat that visitor well. What does it cost? Not much. What would Sarkozy or any other European gain by treating Obama poorly? Why would a European leader take that risk?

Europeans leaders are not taking sides in the American election. They dare not. They must work with whomever is elected. They do not love Obama. They do not hate Bush or McCain. To them, its strictly business.

Lexington thinks Obama did well on his trip

Well, OK, Obama drew a large crowd in Germany, but other politicians have done that -- Adolph Hitler comes to mind. David Brooks had it about right on tonight's NewsHour on PBS when he said that Obama spoke platitudes and not much else. It's Obama's specialty. The constant repetition of "change" is sickening because it has no meaning. It's puzzling that so many people hear what Obama says and think he's different -- brighter, smarter, more well-meaning or whatever. Obama is a politician like the rest, maybe a little smoother than the others but no more likely to be a competent president. He's so inexperienced, so untested, that voting for him would be like drawing to an inside straight.

But Obama's the only liberal running who has a chance to win. Lexington is a liberal. Therefore, Lexington likes Obama.

Gosselin calls Paulson a socialist

Not really, though LAT socialistic economics writer Peter Gosselin does suggest that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has given up on free market principles and has become an interventionist, which Gosselin sees as akin to becoming a socialist.