By Erin Sherbert
By Erin Sherbert
By Leif Haven
By Erin Sherbert
By Chris Roberts
By Kate Conger
By Brian Rinker
By Rachel Swan
In the trickle-up theory of journalism, bloggers enliven the news business by pushing ignored stories mainstream.
So it was a few weeks ago that Fox News' Chris Wallace drew out of Bill Clinton a riveting exchange about an issue of dear interest to blog writers on the right and the left. Wallace had lured Clinton to a sit-down putatively to discuss the ex-president's Global Initiative confab, which raised $7 billion in Earth-bettering contributions from tycoons, including $3 billion from Virgin honcho Sir Richard Branson. Once the cameras rolled, however, Wallace announced that Fox viewers actually wanted him to compare Clinton's ghoul-killing score card to George W. Bush's.
Regarding Osama bin Laden, Clinton said, "I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody's done since." Clinton then scolded Wallace for veering from the agreed-upon story line.
Seemingly cowed, Wallace got back on subject: "When you look at the $3 billion from Branson, plus billions that Gates is giving, and Warren Buffett, what do you make of this age of philanthropy?"
The exchange churned a round of TV and blogosphere hoopla, which was then recycled into newspaper hoopla, more blog commentary, and TV.
Wallace called a bigwig on his shit. The bigwig lunged back. Fans, detractors, and the press box went wild. Bully, right?
Hardly. By kowtowing to blog-world obsessions that is to say, easily left-right bifurcated subjects, preferably ones that have already been rehashed a million times, so that anyone can identify his team's side Wallace missed a chance to go after Clinton for his real shit. By shutting his door on the score card checkers for a few hours in advance of his interview and thoroughly researching Clinton and Branson's bogus claim to bettering the world, Wallace could have assembled charges against Clinton for hypocrisy, phony grandstanding, and misrepresenting the truth and made the charges stick. Wallace would have begun his interview in the catbird seat, armed with a dossier showing Clinton and Branson colluding in a lucrative enviro-hoax.
Clinton's Global Initiative clambake represented a longtime specialty of the ex-president: the grandiose yet misleading PR announcement. Branson's $3 billion wasn't philanthropy by any definition: The Virgin conglomerate chieftain promised to invest profits from his transport operations for the next decade in different types of nonpetroleum fuel especially ethanol, most often made from corn in the process scooping up hundreds of millions in federal corn-ethanol subsidies, profits, and political advantage. The supposed anti-global warming benefit of Branson's commitment, meanwhile, is false: Distilling ethanol from corn consumes more fossil energy than what's contained in the final bio-fuel product.
The billionaire's bio-fuel initiative doesn't benefit the cause of philanthropy or the cause of preserving the planet. The benefits to these titans of spin, however, are plain.
Clinton is in campaign mode for his wife's presidential bid, and Hillary's legitimacy borrows from his. The New Yorker just ran a profile characterizing Clinton's efforts to address global ailments as pompous and thin. Seemingly attracting billions of tycoon dollars in commitments to better the planet seemed to erase that PR cloud within a week or so, spawning a news cycle that repeatedly placed Clinton in the same sentences as truly significant philanthropists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
Branson, meanwhile, gained on multiple fronts financial and, more critical for his bottom line, political. Branson's conglomerate faces a January decision by the Department of Transportation over whether he'll be allowed to launch an SFO-based Virgin America airline. By creating a domestic version of his international airline, Branson could rip U.S. legacy carriers to bits and further fatten his global empire.
But there's a federal roadblock to Branson's world-domination scenario: He's been accused of gaming the federal regulations that keep foreigners from owning more than a quarter of a U.S.-based airline. Among the questions regulators are scheduled to consider is whether Branson's ample loans to his American enterprise count alongside his equity and other investments.
It's this kind of deliberative process that political grease was invented to ease.
And for all the things it's not environmentally friendly, economically efficient, socially beneficial ethanol does have a fabulous upside for someone in a position like Branson's: Ethanol is pork.
On the federal level, subsidies for the corn-based gasoline additive are a Bush-supported vote-ensuring program targeting farm states. In this spirit, Democratic and Republican politicians have thrown mountains of money at the ethanol business. The fuel has benefited from a 52-cent-per-gallon tax credit at the pump, additional tax credits to its producers, and price supports to corn farmers whose end product goes into ethanol. Last year Bush successfully urged Congress to pass an energy bill that called for doubling the amount of ethanol America uses to 7.5 billion barrels yearly. Last week Bush floated the idea of even more ethanol subsidies at a fundraising breakfast. Also last week, Dick Lugar, a Republican Senator from Indiana, announced legislation to throw even more federal subsidies at ethanol and, additionally, to require the Secretary of Energy to study crisscrossing the continent with special ethanol pipelines to increase the "environmental security of the United States," as Lugar put it.