The Volokh Conspiracy has had a couple of excellent posts about judicial filibusters in recent days.

Juan Non-Volokh says that, contrary to recent claims by Democrats and their shills, President Bush has the lowest appellate nominee confirmation rate of the last three Presidents. And that’s even before he has hit lame duck status!

Meanwhile, Todd Zywicki analyzes the history of the filibuster, and says that (contrary to Harry Reid) it has traditionally been thought of as a tool to ensure full debate, rather than as a minority veto:

I can’t find anything in the Senate history that suggests that it has ever been thought an appropriate use of the filibuster to kill legislative action even after all debate and deliberation is effectively complete.

Good posts, both of them.

Earlier, I reported that the L.A. Times edited out information about a satellite recording which proved that the car bearing Giuliana Sgrena was speeding towards a U.S. checkpoint, just as the U.S. had always maintained.

It turns out that even Al Jazeera has reported about the satellite footage:

The CBS television network reported yesterday that satellite data had shown the car had been travelling at about 60mph.

When Al Jazeera is giving you a more complete picture than your own hometown paper, you know you’re in trouble.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh notes that the Islamic Republic News Agency (the official news agency of Iran) has also reported on the satellite recording.

Vik Rubenfeld has an excellent critique of an L.A. Times sub-headline that reads:

Thirty years after the fall of Saigon, the firmly Communist nation has a flourishing economy, social freedom and deep ties with the U.S.

Vik shows how the article itself shows that Vietnam’s economy is anything but communistic. As Vik notes:

The subhead could just as well have been: “Capitalism Brings Vietnam Out of a Communist Dark Age.”

An excellent post. Read it all.

Los Angeles Times editors have edited a Reuters story to remove critical facts supporting the U.S. position on an important international issue.

This morning’s L.A. Times publishes an article about the March 4 shooting by U.S. soldiers of a car bearing Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena. The shooting killed Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari, and created an international controversy, which strained U.S.-Italian relations.

An important contested issue in the controversy was the speed of the car as it approached a U.S. checkpoint. Sgrena has maintained that the car was traveling at a “regular speed” — no more than 25-30 mph. Americans have said that the car was traveling at least 50 mph.

The L.A. Times story today portrays that critical issue as a still-unresolved queston:

WASHINGTON — The United States and Italy disagreed Friday in the conclusions of a joint investigation into the slaying of an Italian agent by U.S. troops in Iraq, further straining ties between the two allies.

. . . .

A U.S. Army official said this week that Italy was disputing two issues in the report: the car’s speed as it approached the checkpoint and the nature of communications between the Italians and American forces before the shooting.

Italy’s government has said the Italians were driving slowly, received no warning, and advised U.S. authorities of their mission to evacuate Sgrena from Iraq.

The Army says the car was speeding toward the checkpoint and that U.S. soldiers tried to get it to stop by using hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and firing warning shots, and then shot into its engine block when it did not stop.

As presented in the L.A. Times, the question of the car’s speed is a “he said, she said” issue, with no definitive evidence that would resolve the disagreement.

Here’s where it gets interesting.

The L.A. Times story is actually an edited version of a Reuters story that appeared on the news service yesterday afternoon. The Reuters story reported that investigators using satellite footage of the incident have conclusively determined that the car was speeding, just as the U.S. has always maintained. On page two of the story, the Reuters news service reported:

CBS news has reported that a U.S. satellite had filmed the shooting and that it had been established the car carrying Calipari was traveling at more than 60 mph per hour [sic] as it approached the U.S. checkpoint in Baghdad.

Thus, the Reuters story reported that there is definitive proof that the car was speeding towards the checkpoint — critical information that tends to justify U.S. soldiers’ decision to fire on the car. But in the version appearing in the L.A. Times, editors cut out the passage reporting that proof.

The evidence is conclusive that this cut was made by L.A. Times editors. We know this because the version of the Reuters story that was printed by the L.A. Times is unique to the L.A. Times. This can be seen by a simple comparison of the first sentences of the respective stories. The Reuters version opens with this sentence:

The United States and Italy on Friday disagreed on the conclusions of a joint investigation into the killing of an Italian agent by U.S. troops in Iraq, further straining ties between the two allies.

A Google search of that sentence reveals 58 hits, all of which are reprints of the story, using the same sentence worded in the same way.

The L.A. Times slightly alters that first sentence to read as follows:

The United States and Italy disagreed Friday in the conclusions of a joint investigation into the slaying of an Italian agent by U.S. troops in Iraq, further straining ties between the two allies.

In this edited version of the sentence, Times editors moved the word “Friday,” changed the word “killing” to “slaying,” and replaced the word “in” with “on,” making the sentence grammatically awkward. [UPDATE: In the comments, Dafydd ab Hugh notes that the use of the word "slaying" tells you something about where L.A. Times editors are coming from.]

As of the time of this post, a Google search of the first sentence of the Times version of the piece reveals only one hit — in the L.A. Times.

The evidence is incontrovertible: this edited version of the Reuters story is unique to the Los Angeles Times. Times editors removed the fact that there is proof, in the form of satellite footage, supporting the U.S. version of the event.

There is no excuse for the L.A. Times story not reporting this information.

P.S. Following up on that last point, I did a review of the The Times’s past reporting on the issue of the speeding car. The paper repeatedly trumpeted Sgrena’s contention that the Americans had no reason to shoot at the car, because it was only going 25-30 miles per hour. In the extended entry, I provide a detailed history of the paper’s reporting on this issue.

Extended entry:

(more…)

Ernest Miller catches the L.A. Times misquoting a source.

I’m not entirely sure, but I’m starting to suspect that the L.A. Times wants readers to believe that there have been some recent missteps by Arnold Schwarzenegger:

From an April 28 news story:

Since his speech in January, the governor has watched his political fortunes fall amid a series of missteps and miscalculations.

From an April 27 editorial:

Buoyed by such missteps, Democrats went on the attack.

From an April 26 news story:

During an appearance in Chatsworth, Shriver dismissed reports that she was worried about recent political missteps by her husband and his aides.

From an April 26 letter to the editor:

After reading how Maria Shriver felt compelled to “step in” to help her husband correct his missteps, the phrase “girlie governor” came to mind.

From an April 22 news story:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is facing infighting among his senior staff and campaign team, which has contributed to a series of political missteps that threaten the once soaring governor’s ambitious agenda, more than a dozen aides and lawmakers said Thursday.

But the folks at The Times don’t have a one-dimensional view of Schwarzenegger. They chronicle his missteps, to be sure . . . but, on the other hand, they also tell readers about his miscalculations:

From the April 28 news story mentioned above:

Since his speech in January, the governor has watched his political fortunes fall amid a series of missteps and miscalculations.

From an April 25 news story:

Although outside forces played an important part in Schwarzenegger’s slump, even those sympathetic to the governor say many of his problems are self-inflicted, a result of overreaching, hubris, poor staff work and serious miscalculations.

. . . .

Above all, Schwarzenegger’s friends and enemies agree, the governor miscalculated by trying to accomplish too much in too short a time, without laying the necessary groundwork.

Not surprisingly, Democrats agree. From an April 10 Steve Lopez column:

But that’s the governor’s fault, said Democratic consultant Darry Sragow, who helped promote the governor’s borrowing and budget-balancing propositions last year.

“I think he made an incredible set of miscalculations,” Sragow said.

I’m sure Democrats are pleased to see their point of view so faithfully represented in the L.A. Times — time and time and time again.