 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
July 09, 2008
Governance as Usual: Film at 11
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change | Journalism, Science & Environment | Science + Politics
I have long considered Andy Revkin of the New York Times to be the dean of reporters covering climate science. But there is one issue that I think he consistently gets wrong, and that is his coverage of the politics of internal bureaucratic-politician conflicts. His story in today's NYT is a good example.
Andy writes, breathlessly:
Vice President Dick Cheney’s office was involved in removing statements on health risks posed by global warming from a draft of a health official’s Senate testimony last year, a former senior government environmental official said on Tuesday.
Watergate this is not. In fact, the editing of testimony probably occurs just about every time that an employee of the executive branch is set to testify before Congress, and this has been standard operating procedure for decades. The more significant the issue the higher up the chain of command the review takes place. The procedure is clearly outlined in OMB Circular-21 (PDF):
Unless a specific exemption is approved by OMB, materials subject to OMB clearance include:• All budget justifications and budget-related oversight materials;
• Testimony before and letters to congressional committees;
• Written responses to congressional inquiries or other materials for the record; . . .
Now if you or I were in a decision making position in the Executive Branch we might make decisions about what to allow in testimony differently than those in the current administration. But make no mistake, such decisions are under the discretion of the administration. Federal employees who don't like those decisions are free to go public or even resign (both occurred in this case).
A spat between elected and career officials may or may not be significant, as they happen all the time. My problem with the track record of coverage of such disputes on climate change by the NYT is that it they have been very misleading about what the news is in such situations. The headline reads: "Cheney’s Office Said to Edit Draft Testimony" suggesting that there is something improper or perhaps even illegal about the editing of testimony in the Executive Office of the President. There is not.
Revkin and I have disagreed on this same issue before. At the time I called the NYT coverage of Bush officials editing Bush Administration documents a "manufactured controversy" and I think that statement applies to today's revelations as well.
Here are the comments I left on Andy's blog, to which, perhaps understandably, he reacted a bit snippily:
Andy-Posted on July 9, 2008 01:44 PMThis is a "dog bites man" story in the form of "pit bull bites man". It is red meat for those who do not like pit bulls, but at the same time, everyone knows that pit bulls bite.
Can you name a presidential administration in which senior officials did not play a role in shaping testimony on important issues? This is a loaded question, because of course you cannot.
I’m no fan of Bush or Cheney, or their approach to climate, but at the same time I think that it is only appropriate to present to your readers an accurate sense of how policy making actually works. In this case, Marburger’s explanation [cited on Andy's blog] is exactly correct.
It is perfectly fair for people to disagree with the actions taken by the Bush Administration on this testimony, but was it improper or even illegal? No, not even close.
Science does not dictate particular policies, and presidential administration’s have wide latitude in what information they present and how they present it. This is spelled out in OMB Circular 22:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a11/current_yea r/s22.pdf
Dog bites man is not news.
[ANDY REVKIN says: Roger, maybe you forgot to read the entire 2004 story, which made the points you’re making now.]
— Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr.
Comments
I truly believe that facts do not matter in an election year.
When a Senator not up for re-election campaigns against a Vice President not in the running at all, by call for still another investigation, it gets easier to see why the approval rating for Congress is now in the single digit percentage.
See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance
BRIAN M FLYNN
Posted by: BRIAN ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 9, 2008 04:36 PM
I think that you are widening considerably the definition of what we consider the "executive branch" here, Roger. While the president appoints his cabinet and the heads of most federal agencies, staff scientists are not really directly employed by the president. They are career civil servants who often continue through several administrations. This is similar to the issue with the firing of states attorney general. The executive branch has grown too powerful and too extensive in comparison to what has been its history in American government and what is intended in the constitution.
Posted by: gamoonbat at July 10, 2008 04:42 AM
I think that you are widening considerably the definition of what we consider the "executive branch" here, Roger. While the president appoints his cabinet and the heads of most federal agencies, staff scientists are not really directly employed by the president. They are career civil servants who often continue through several administrations. This is similar to the issue with the firing of states attorney general. The executive branch has grown too powerful and too extensive in comparison to what has been its history in American government and what is intended in the constitution.
Posted by: gamoonbat at July 10, 2008 04:42 AM
I think Roger is correct. I, for example, work for the Federal government. I do not work for the legislative branch, nor the judicial branch. There are only three branches. Therefore by the process of elimination, I must work for the executive branch.
Further, my boss's boss's boss's boss is appointed by the President (I may be off a couple of levels) and checked out by Congress. This is another clue.. I work in the Executive Branch no matter how many levels away from a political appointee.
So, answer to people offended by review of testimony and want a different answer.. vote for a Democrat! Then we will all work for folks with your inclinationa and D's will be editing testimony.
That's how our government works; so far the US government is not a technocracy of career federal scientist.
Posted by: docpine at July 10, 2008 12:26 PM
There isn't a single mention of illegality or "improper" behavior in Revkin's blog post or the 2004 article, nor is there any possible way for a reader to determine if a writer has written something "breathlessly" (Roger... I guess you could ask Revkin directly??).
This editing is news because there is a pattern of being delusional from Cheney and his associates about a range of subjects that have governed or influenced policy. Of course politicians are not generally expected to be impeccable purveyors of truth, but the list of fantasies that Cheney et al. have tried to promote has done great harm. In fact, it could be argued that the false statements from the Bush admministration about WMDs, Sadaam's involvement in 9-11, privatizing SS, AGW, ID, NCLB, Plame/Wilson leaks, permanent bases in Iraq, tax cuts, etc., etc. are what characterize them have led directly to the failure of the Bush administration. The worst part of it seems that (I imagine) some of them believe the bs that they tell us. I think that this is the case with AGW and Cheney. I have less of a problem with disinformation that is driven by cynical motivation if there is some success. Cheney is a dangerous clown who has had his hands on the levers of power now for 7 1/2 years; that the track record of he and his pals for acheivement is abyssmal is directly related to the fact that they believe that they can "make up their own facts."
Who, in what complex endeavor will succeed with this attitude?
So yes, this is an extremely important story.
Posted by: kickbass at July 10, 2008 03:04 PM
Gamoonbat said: "I think that you are widening considerably the definition of what we consider the "executive branch" here, Roger. "
Sorry, two degrees in PubAdmin and a 30+ year career in Govt (most Fed) tells me you are really, really wrong here.
Junior and Mid level bureaucrats (think James Hansen) DO NOT MAKE GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY without explicit authority. To do so is egomaniacal, and grounds for removal.
Posted by: Counter Revolutionary at July 10, 2008 04:24 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)