The Newseum's new online presence foreshadows its reopening in Fall 2007

The Newseum, which is preparing to open a new James Polshek-designed seven-story building in Washington, D.C. later this year, has redesigned its website in anticipation of its reopening. The site features a video of ongoing construction and a virtual museum tour. When it reopens, the museum, housing exhibits on the history of journalism and its role in society, will be located at Pennsylvania Avenue and Sixth Street, N.W., at the base of Capitol Hill next to the National Mall.
Newseum's press kit.
Newseum's Today's Front Pages feature.

Rupert Murdoch Forced to Fund Newsweek

I’ve already expressed my disgust over the suppression of “If I Did It,” the O.J. Simpson offering that HarperCollins had intended to publish until self-appointed decency czars pressured Rupert Murdoch into withholding the book from readers. In a nutshell, I detest censorship - especially anything that resembles prior restraint - for all the usual reasons. In particular, I don’t want to be deprived of choices simply because certain busybodies are offended, even when I might share their revulsion.

Among the outlets that strongly denounced “If I Did It” (and the Fox TV special that was to have cross-promoted it), is the venerable Newsweek, which back in November concluded the Simpson project signifies that “our violent, sex-obsessed, celebrity-crazed culture” has sunk lower than “the very farthest depths of depravity.” But this week Newsweek surprisingly published extensive excerpts from the most controversial chapter of the book it harshly condemned only two months ago. Although the magazine never lobbied for censorship as others did, Newsweek initially suggested that “If I Did It” is so “depraved,” those who are financially enriched by it should “donate profits from the book to victims of domestic violence.”

In an email to Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Mark Miller, who co-authored the November screed, and solely penned the new article in which worthless depravity is transformed into an important scoop, I asked what rule HarperCollins broke by paying Simpson. I also wondered why Newsweek isn’t guilty of the same offense by printing what Simpson and his ghostwriter were paid to deliver to HarperCollins. Miller’s reply:

“We did have a vigorous internal debate over publishing the story I wrote about the book. Here was our rationale: This was a book that caused enormous controversy, led to an unprecedent apology from a major media mogul (Murdoch), the firing of the high profile publisher (Regan), the recall of a book that was already published and shipped, and the filing or anticipated filing of several lawsuits. And yet we still didn't know what what the book said. We thought telling readers what was actually in the book was news. And of course, no money exchanged hands -- we did not pay Mr. Simpson or anyone else to obtain the reporting.”

Miller’s note sufficiently addresses the newsworthiness of “If I Did It,” but when he implies it’s somehow relevant that Newsweek didn’t pay Simpson, he evades my question about what sin HarperCollins supposedly committed. Everybody knows it’s customary for publishers to pay authors for writing books, so the remuneration does not by itself qualify as an impropriety.

The real problem here is that influential elitists have attached undue significance to their disapproval of Simpson. Because Miller is unwilling to confront this issue, he dances around it by pretending the payment to Simpson is ipso facto unethical, and he remains silent about the deplorable role his peers played in preventing a book they hadn’t even read from reaching the marketplace.

The pundits and other punks who wish to impose restrictions on him, still haven’t bothered to reveal under what circumstances Simpson might be entitled to earn income, or in what forum he might be allowed to discuss the murders of his ex-wife and her friend. Nor have they explained why it’s perfectly fine for Newsweek to publish the very same material these vigilantes had previously insisted must be stifled.

When there’s an acquitted defendant to be tormented, cheap emotions rule the day, and principles become moot. In other words, don’t expect Newsweek to donate its profits to victims of domestic violence. That sort of charity is expected of others. Newsweek’s role is to dutifully exploit its competitor’s investment. -- Jeff Norman

World Opinion: What the Foreign Press Thinks About U.S.

WatchingAmerica makes available in English articles written about the U.S. by foreigners for foreign audiences. The site offers its own translations and is updated frequently. "If coverage of an issue, on a particular day, surprises or irritates," the editors write, "remember that we are reporting what is out there, and trying to show the fullest range of views. We don't endorse the content presented, or imply anything about the motivation behind or accuracy of the original sources. Watching America does not seek to influence opinion by selective presentation, but sometimes global opinion can be quite polarized. It may, therefore, fall outside the spectrum of debate in the United States or appear one-sided." The site is supported by ads and donations. <http://watchingamerica.com/>

Lazy Reporter Ignores Heart of the Story

When it comes to news stories about crime and legal matters, the press tends to not merely bury the lede, but omit it. A case in point is how San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Sabin Russell covered a New Year’s Day altercation on the Golden Gate Bridge involving police and roughly a dozen antiwar activists including Medea Benjamin of CodePink. The peaceniks had planned to walk across the bridge at noon in honor of the 3,000 American soldiers who have died in Iraq. But the group was met by a phalanx of cops from three different law enforcement agencies who wouldn’t let them use the designated pedestrian walkway. A standoff ensued which culminated three hours later in the arrest of Benjamin and her cohorts for trespassing.

The obvious point that needs to be addressed is why it suddenly became illegal to use a bridge that is generally open to the public for pedestrian traffic. But Russell’s article probed the question of alleged lawlessness only so far as to report that the police had “security concerns.” Russell’s pathetically slight nod to a rather salient issue left readers with the impression that police authority in post-9/11 San Francisco is determined solely by how the cops assess safety considerations. But actually, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District requires a permit for demonstrations on the bridge no matter how the police feel about any particular gathering, and assembling there without such official permission is what theoretically authorizes the cops to arrest people for trespassing on public property.

It apparently never occurred to Russell to politely ask one of the many officers in his proximity to identify the law that applies to the situation on the bridge, nor did the reporter bother to look up the pertinent statute before he filed his dispatch. (When we spoke by phone, Russell told me he had been on the scene, but it was too difficult to get information out of the cops, and he didn’t have much time to write his piece.)

Admittedly, the law is confusing, but it nonetheless represents the heart of this story, and Russell should have ascribed significance to it, instead of just barely alluding to it as if it were an incidental detail. Section F(2) of Master Ordinance 2006, which sets forth regulations pertaining to use of district properties for expressive activities, states: “No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies, or demonstrations...without a permit issued by the District...” And according to Section F(7) of the same ordinance: “Any person who conducts any activity on District property in violation of any provision of this Regulation shall be deemed to have trespassed on District property not intended for public use and shall be subject to the sanctions for criminal trespass established in California Streets and Highway Code, Section 27174.2.”

The above statutory text might seem unambiguous enough, but it's not. For one thing, Section 27174.2 consists of more than one subsection, and when I spoke yesterday to California Highway Patrol spokeswoman Mary Ziegenbein, she told me that the CodePink arrestees had been cited for allegedly violating subsection (a), which I quickly found out refers only to people who trespass “on any portion of the bridge that is not intended for public use.” But as I later reminded Ziegenbein, Benjamin and her group were on a portion of the bridge that is intended for public use. I also told Ziegenbein that subsection (b) states: “Every person who trespasses on district property other than that referred to in subdivision (a) is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Although there’s no explicit reference to it, the walkway could accurately be described as “property other than that referred to in subdivision (a).” As such, if the pedestrians violated anything, it would be subsection (b), not (a). Understandably, Ziegenbein replied, “Hmm...”

This morning I received the following email message from Ziegenbein: “After our discussion, I looked at the citations that were issued to the protestors and observed that the correct (b) subsection was cited. It was a clerical error in the printed arrest log which was what I was reading off of.”

Ziegenbein's note implies finality, but as I mentioned above, Section F(7) of the Master Ordinance (great name, by the way) refers only to individuals who are on “property not intended for public use.” So as the statute is worded, even if someone violates a portion of Section F while on a part of the bridge that is for public use, the person is to be charged as if he or she is actually in an area that is not for public use. Take a deep breath (and maybe a nap), folks, and then let me know if you come up with some other meaning.

If my interpretation is correct, the question of whether or not the pedestrians were properly cited has presented itself anew, because subsection (b) of 27174.2 seems to be inapplicable inasmuch as Section F(7) of the good old Master Ordinance indicates. Of course, subsection (a) also seems to be inapplicable, because it refers only to conduct on a part of the bridge that is “not intended for public use.”

For her part, Benjamin insists her peace posse had planned a “solemn march,” and she points out that large groups of tourists and cyclists often travel across the bridge without a permit. Benjamin has a valid argument; it's not known how authorities distinguish between clustered humans who need a permit, and those who don’t.

So what is the City of San Francisco to do? I don’t see that it has any choice but to dismiss the charges and rewrite the statutes using language that adequately informs the public when and where a permit is required.

In the aftermath of Monday’s incident, there's been much talk about whether or not the police acted appropriately. It’s hard for me to judge, because I didn’t witness whatever happened. But given that they reasonably believed the marchers required a permit and didn’t have one, I think it’s fair to conclude that the cops exhibited a generous amount of restraint by hanging out with Benjamin’s group for half of the afternoon before making any arrests. On the other hand, if the police gave undue emphasis to their “security concerns” (which are mostly irrelevant), and too little emphasis to the permit requirement (which is supposed to be the primary determinant for a trespassing violation), they deserve to be faulted for mishandling the situation. Also, one cop lost his cool and abused a television cameraman. You can see video of that encounter by clicking here, and a still photo by clicking here.

Safety is certainly a legitimate concern with respect to vehicular traffic. Mary Currie, the Public Affairs Director of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, told me that when CodePink protested on the bridge in October (also without a permit), the action caused four fender benders. Since I’ve spared Chronicle staffers the time and trouble of doing legal research, they can now devote themselves to either corroborating or refuting Currie’s claim. If it turns out she’s wrong, one could plausibly argue that demonstrating on the bridge is relatively harmless. But if it can be confirmed that the antiwar agitators are responsible for rubbernecking that led to multiple car accidents, someone at the Chronicle should ask Benjamin to explain how repeatedly subjecting innocent people to peril is consistent with CodePink’s well-known commitment to nonviolence. -- Jeff Norman

Britney Spears Cover-up

There appears to be some fudging of the facts regarding supermom Britney Spears and her New Year’s Eve escapades at Caesars Palace. Norm Clarke, a staff writer for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports “the hard-partying Spears was carried out of a nightclub” after she had “collapsed.” But Clarke’s story, which Matt Drudge quickly highlighted on his site, doesn’t include any description of the alleged collapse, nor are readers told how Clarke determined that the singer keeled over. Moreover, Clarke quotes an unnamed source who insists Spears actually “was not carried out.” The discrepancy between the source’s account and Clarke’s contention is not addressed in the article, and I can’t figure out why any journalist would quote an anonymous source whom he doesn’t believe.

I emailed Clarke and Sherman Frederick, who publishes the Review-Journal, to ask for a clarification. Frederick promptly wrote back: “We trust Norm and his sources. His track record is impeccable.”

It’s beyond me how Frederick can trust two messengers who are contradicting one another. As for the impeccable Clarke, he also replied with a note that left unanswered the question of what happened to Spears, and how he knows it: “Upon reading a report that Britney had collapsed, I called her manager, Larry Rudolph, and asked him for comment. Larry and I are friends--in fact he introduced me to Britney last night. I asked Larry if she was OK and mentioned the report that had her collapsing. He said she was fine, just tired and there was no reason for her to get medical attention.”

Apparently, the people of Sin City are serious when they say what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, because these folks have my head spinning. -- Jeff Norman