It was 30 years (and one day) ago when I was witness to one the most amazing spectacles ever. The city of Houston has hosted some pretty big events in its day including Super Bowls, Final Fours, World Series games, as well as numerous festivals and concerts, but none compare to what took place at the foot of downtown.
The city was literally shut down by a concert featuring Jean-michel Jarre. For a period of time, it held a place in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest outdoor “rock concert” in history, with figures varying from 1 to 1.5 million in attendance.
Freeways were jammed by cars whose passengers simply stopped where they were and got out to watch the show, some even climbing highway exit signs to get a better view. The low hanging clouds provided a ceiling for the light show and fireworks that added even more drama.
It is hard to fathom the technology available to Jarre to pull off such an extravaganza in 1986. Computers were in their infancy and nobody had heard about the worldwide web, but after a blistering rain storm the day before which tore down equipment, threatening to have the concert canceled, Jarre enthralled an entire city with lights, fireworks, video displays and of course, music.
Something interesting is taking place in the world of journalism. The world is buzzing about the release of the Panama Papers which reveled prominent world leaders hiding millions of dollars in offshore accounts and avoiding paying taxes.
(It was also hard to believe there was gambling going on at Rick’s Place in Casablanca).
The fallout has already begun with Iceland’s Prime Minister resigning after the leaked documents showed his wife owned an offshore company with big claims on collapsed Icelandic banks. More resignations are expected as the U.S.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) reveal more names from the more than 11.5 million documents leaked from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.
This poses an interesting question for ICIJ and other journalists. Is it ethical to use stolen materials to publish a story, even if it is in the public’s interest to do so?
Back in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers which showed how the Johnson administration systematically lied, not only to the public, but to congress as well about the Vietnam War.
Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property, but the charges were later dropped after prosecutors investigating the Watergate Scandal learned that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg.
Much like the Panama Papers, Ellsberg took the papers and released them to the N.Y. Times. At the time, Ellsberg said:
I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.
The Times v. United States is generally thought of as a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint. Its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents.
There is big difference between classified documents and documents from a business, but the point ends up being the same; should the press use material that was stolen and not authorized?
The press faced a similar question when former CIA employee Eric Snowden leaked classified information from the National Security Agency to journalists with stories appearing in The Guardian and The Washington Post. Snowden has been called a hero, whistleblower, patriot and traitor.
I am all for outing the bad guys, but do two wrongs make it right? I guess that, once again is determined by what side of the fence you are sitting on.
Like many Americans, I am watching the primary season with great fascination. After months of campaigning, candidates taking swings at each other (and in some instances, their wives) and generally looking very tired (I still have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to be president) the road to the White House continues.
It seems that the one constant is reporters asking the candidates, ‘what do you think of what Donald Trump said/did’? I understand why they ask the question. Talking about The Donald pumps up the ratings. Viewers/readers/listeners are drawn to anything related the TV reality star like the proverbial moth to a flame. I get that.
What I don’t get is why the other candidates (especially Cruz and Kasich) answer the questions. If I was offering advice, I would have them respond with something like, ‘thank you for your question, here is my plan to fix/improve (insert topic here).
The conversation is being dominated by what Trump says, what Trump does and what Trump wants, which is great for Trump, but not so great for the others. They need to tell us why their ideas are right for America.
Reporters and editors might not like this, and you do run the risk of getting less airtime and coverage, but how much value do you think they are currently getting talking about an opponent. It makes sense when your opponent attacks you and mentions you by name, but I would otherwise steer clear.
I am reminded of Mitt Romney during a debate at the last presidential election. The reporter chided Romney for not answering his question. Romney’s reply? ‘You can ask the question any way you like and I can answer it any way I like’.
It was 30 years (and one day) ago when I was witness to one the most amazing spectacles ever. The city of Houston has hosted some pretty big events in its day including Super Bowls, Final Fours, World Series games, as well as numerous festivals and concerts, but none compare to what took place at the foot of downtown.
