Paul McLeary of the CJRDaily blog (which is associated with the Columbia Journalism Review) has been a collaborator of Nation columnist and MSNBC Altercation blogger Eric Alterman. He recently did a series of reports about the practice of journalism from Iraq. On the other hand, Atrios once named him “Wanker of the Day” for a statement that bloggers were somehow more partisan than mainstream media figures. Most of the time, his heart seems in the right place, but some of the things he comes up with make me wonder where his head is.
Take the Dubai Ports World deal. Last Tuesday, he wrote 500 words on the genesis of the “six ports” figure that’s been a prominent point in most stories. His conclusion? That it was five ports, not six, and that “the incorrect reports can be sourced to a press release issued by New York Senator Hillary Clinton.” No link to the press release was provided.
His basis for this claim is that “the confusion could lie in the difference between ‘container terminals’ and ports where the company performs stevedoring operations.” He came to that conclusion after speaking to one Robin Dolan, who is the VP for business development of P&O Ports, the operator being purchased by DPW. McLeary writes: “As Dolan notes, the release ‘stated that the New York and New Jersey ports were separate, when they’re one port.'” Actually, the P&O Ports North America lists them separately, as well.
Intrigued, I looked at Sen. Clinton’s site. The first press release there mentioning the port issue announced legislation from Clinton and Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) to block foreign governments from controlling US ports. It’s dated 17 February, and contains this language (emphasis added):
Dubai Ports World has announced plans to buy P&O Ports, the company that runs commercial operation at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, as well as other U.S. cities.
Note that this sentence mentions “commercial” operations and is not limited to containers. In fact, container terminals are not mentioned at all in this press release, although the final paragraph does say that only 5% of containers entering the US are inspected.
This is an important point, because the P&O operation in New York is actually the cruise line terminal on the Hudson River that handles over 800,000 passengers a year (emphasis added).
The New York City Passenger Ship Terminal, owned by the City of New York and operated by P&O Ports North America, provides five 1,000-foot-long berths suitable for servicing the worldÕs largest cruise vessels at a convenient location on the Hudson River only a few blocks west of Times Square in the heart of Manhattan. The terminal occupies the West Side of 12th Avenue between 46th and 54th streets.
P&O Ports North America customers include Carnival, Celebrity, Costa, Crystal Cruises, Cunard, Holland America, Norwegian, P&O Cruises, Princess, Radisson Seven Seas, Royal Caribbean, Seabourn and Silversea. The terminal is also home to an array of trade shows and special events managed by P&O Ports North America.
Was Sen. Clinton’s press release the origin of the six port figure? A couple of minutes with Google got me this AP story:
UAE Co. Poised to Oversee Six U.S. Ports
Company From United Arab Emirates Poised to Oversee Six American Ports Due to Sale
By TED BRIDIS
WASHINGTON, Feb 11, 2006, (AP)A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.
…
The $6.8 billion sale is expected to be approved Monday. The British company is the fourth largest ports company in the world and its sale would affect commercial U.S. port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Again, the language in the article is not limited to “container” operations, using “significant operations” and “commercial U.S. port operations”, both of which include the activities at the New York City Passenger Ship Terminal. The article goes on to quote Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) but does not mention Sen. Clinton. It appeared nearly a week before the earliest press release from Sen. Clinton archived on her web site.
In comments to the CJRDaily article, I posted links last Wednesday to both the AP article (which may not be the earliest mention of the deal) and to Sen. Clinton’s press release. I pointed out that there was no link in the CJRDaily article to the Clinton press release McLeary and the P&O spokeman claim originated the “six ports” figure. After receiving an email from McLeary that said “what we’re talking about here” is container ships and not cruise ships, I pointed out to him and CJRDaily managing editor Steve Lovelady that neither the Clinton press release or the pre-dating AP article specified containers and that cruise ships are “commercial” shipping. I also invited him to send me a copy of a Clinton press release mentioning the six ports figure that eas earlier than the AP article I referenced, just in case one hadn’t made it to her web site or I’d missed it.
Now, I’ve never been a fan of Hillary Clinton (and I wasn’t particularly impressed by Bill, even during the 1992 campaign), but I find it troubling that someone working at one of the bastions of journalistic criticism would publish something accusing her of not knowing what she was talking about and either not have the evidence to back it up or the integrity to issue a retraction. It puts me in mind of the smirking and finger-pointing that the media indulged in when they were talking about the nerdy Al Gore in 2000. Rather than examine issues (Has Dubai actually proven itself as a reliable ally in the past four years? Is everyone in the ruling class there who might have supported bin Laden’s cause in 2000 completely reversed their ideals? Do any of them work for DPW?) people like McLeary find some meme (Al Gore exaggerated his involvement in the creation of the Internet! Hillary Clinton exaggerates the potential threat of foreign operation of ports! She doesn’t even know how many there are!) and run with it because it makes them look like “sensible” people who don’t toe any party line.
Too bad if the time you don’t bother to check whether the facts back up your gut instinct comes back to bite you. Of course, you could say the same thing about the Bush administration.
The sole reason for the existence of McLeary’s article is to claim that the number of ports involved in the deal has been reported incorrectly. He blames that incorrect number solely on Hillary Clinton, without any verifying documentation. As I’ve outlined above, I believe that he’s wrong about Clinton’s office being the source of the “six ports” figure, it’s only “incorrect” if you accept the premise of the P&O Ports spokesman that the discussion has been limited to container shipping (which is not the language used in most articles), and despite several requests to McLeary to provide a link or date of a Clinton press release that originates the figure, he has not provided one.
Finally, let me just add that it doesn’t take a shipping container to bring in something like a nuclear warhead.
This is a photo of a US W80 nuclear cruise missile warhead. It has a potential yield (150 kilotons) of up to 10 times the strength of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. It weighs about 300 lbs., is a foot in diameter and is under three feet long. Even with packaging around them to disguise its inherent “bombiness” you could fit an awful lot of these babies into the dark corners of the “world’s largest cruise vessels”. Heck, with something like a W80 parked in a ship “only a few blocks west of Times Square” you wouldn’t even need to bother to offload. The nuclear warheads the Soviet Union built for their Kh-55 cruise missile are likely a little larger and heavier (with a yield of 200kt). But presumably the warheads would be easier to get hold of. Certainly the missiles themselves are: Ukraine sold 18 older Kh-55s to both China and Iran.