President-elect Barack Obama loses his Blackberry
By Gareth Powell
President-elect Barack Obama has had to stop using his Blackberry. The Secret Service sense there is something inherently dangerous in the modern technology surrounding his Verizon BlackBerry 8830 World Edition smartphone and the president-elect goes off line and stays off line when he is sworn in.
There are two reasons.
One is concern regarding the President and his classified communications.
The second is legal: Barack Obama must comply with the federal Presidential Records Act and that puts all of his correspondence in the official record and ultimately available for public review. (That is what the act says. George W. Bush may not be falling the exact letter of the law when it comes to correspondence.)
People who know the new president says he will be going cold turkey on communications.
State Rep. William “Smitty” Pignatelli, D-Lenox, said, ‘For me, it’s a lifeline. I can access my e-mails, I have a calendar, and I have all my contacts on it. I would say it’s invaluable for my duties.’
State Sen. Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield said, ‘It goof-proofs many of the things I do.’
On the other hand he adds: ‘The president of the United States has enough staff so that he’ll be kept in the loop. I think he’ll manage.’
According to The Berkshire Eagle Jeff Van Lingen, coordinator of information technology at BerkshireWorks Career Center in Pittsfield, said he thinks the new way of life will be difficult for Obama.
He said, ‘I’m sure President Obama will have a tough time. It would not be easy for me. With these things, once you’re hooked, you’re hooked.’
Downing said he has several maps programmed into his BlackBerry, enabling him at a moment’s notice to find various sites and buildings in his district.
He said,
‘It helps me get in and out of places that are not familiar to me in a minimum of time.
‘If I’m in a meeting, or at a function, and someone comes up to me with a question, I can e-mail my staff and have an answer in minutes. If I have a speech to write, and I think of something that needs to go into it, instead of searching around for a piece of scrap paper, I can write a note to myself on the BlackBerry.’
Now Barack Obama, the president-elect of the United States, will have to depend on his staff to keep him in the loop and totally up-to-date.
There are many who, if they found themselves in that situation, would prefer a Blackberry.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Sunday, January 18th, 2009 at 2:06 am
under
Read more entries by Gareth Powell.
Stumble It!
January 18th, 2009
>George W. Bush may not be falling the exact letter of the law when it comes to correspondence
What exactly do you mean by that?
January 18th, 2009
@James:
Many of the writers here just can’t resist taking shots at Bush at any opportunity.
Don’t look to this site for any journalistic fairness.
January 18th, 2009
The Federal Law states quite clearly that all correspondence created during a President’s term of office must be made available if there are no major security considerations.
Richard Nixon broke that in place where it suited him. It seems that George Bush is using a Presidential decree to exempt all his stuff.
No, I am not totally against Bush. He did, indeed, some excellent work when he was President. The paper of record in Australia, The Australian, has just run a very serious, well-researched article on the Bush years and the good things he did.
It will be a long time before we get a totally balanced view of the Bush years. Dammit, we haven’t yet sorted out Nixon.
The idea of journalistic fairness is pretty close to being an unattainable nonsense. The news comes in and you publish it. You do not slant it for or against Bush. You just report it.
I have been around newspapers a long, long time and I have NEVER, never once, worked on a newspaper which had the idea of slamming a particular politician. Mostly, they do that job for you. You just report it.
January 18th, 2009
Then it would have been proper to do this:
http://tinyurl.com/bushdecree
It doesn’t deal if it’s recorded or not, just changes the release criteria.
And Nixon wasn’t under this particular act, it was enacted in 1978 and for Presidential records starting in 1981.
http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html
It states the documents belong to the country, not the President. There are valid points on both side as to conditions for releasing them. It may be to ensure the advice being given to a sitting President doesn’t get slanted when the adviser is aware it’s going to become public in 12 years with no 5th amendment protections. It doesn’t have to be a plot to murder the public right to know.
The Bush comment had nothing to do with anything relating to Obama getting his Blackberry pulled and it’s pretty clear you didn’t understand the law making it needed.
Mr. Powell doesn’t seem to under the sway of Bush Derangement Syndrome, but I agree it’s found a good place to thrive here. Saying fairness is unattainable implies no sense in trying.
Journalists might have a blog, but bloggers are a long way from journalists.
January 19th, 2009
Such an intelligent and reasoned reply from Ken (and he uses tinyurl) deserves a careful reply.
You are, of course, correct on Nixon and I apologize. I must research more carefully.
The release of such documents is not confined to the United States. Britain has a similar law although the period is longer.
The sentence: The Bush comment had nothing to do with anything relating to Obama getting his Blackberry pulled and it’s pretty clear you didn’t understand the law making it needed.
Barack Obama now has his Blackberry back. And I am quite will to concede an error. But that sentence is less than crystal clear.
True fairness IS unattainable but there are journalists, and I think of myself as one, who try are damndest. In says it is unattainable I am in no way saying there is no sense in trying. And that applies to many aspects of my life. To be perfect is unattainable for mortal beings — but you should give it the best try you can.
The last sentence I actually used in a missive and was, quite correctly, kicked in the nuts over it. Many, many bloggers leave journalists for dead in the way the go for the truth. They may not have my experienced glibness but, oh boy, do they did up great stories.
Thanks for your message. It gave me much to think about. And I must do better in future.
January 20th, 2009
Sorry for my mis-constructed sentence. I meant to convey the Bush reference had little to do with the rest of the article.
Probably my fault, I’ve gotten tired of pathological Bush bashing, and it seems every blog by non-US residents needs to work in a comment regardless of relevance.
The internet has been a game changer, and will have a profound influence far beyond even Gutenberg.
There are undeniable benefits of a basically free printing press and zero cost distribution, to the blogger, of a potential audience of millions.
The drawback is it totally blew credibility into tiny pieces. People now need to be their own fact checkers.
Many have embraced the freedom of “citizen journalism” but have blown off the responsibility. You used to be able to have a reasonable amount of confidence that a fact was indeed a one. Fact checkers and a legal department were used. Retractions and corrections were listed.
Sadly, in an attempt to compete with the various advantages of 24/7, instant access and real time reporting, the traditional media has decided to expand the editorial page to the entire paper. In the States the old separation of broadcast news and entertainment management ceased to exist.
Do bloggers break stories? Of course. The Smoking Gun and The Drudge Report and many others are actually journalists. If a fact is used or a an argument advanced you’ll get links and references. It has little to do with glibness, a greeting card or one of those calendars with a thought of the day might be glib.
It is not the turn of phrase or a clever quip or any training in language or a degree. If I read an article where a figure is just tossed out with no link to where the info comes from, I’ll usually try to run it down.
A blogger who seems to give great weight to putting information in the hands of the people wrote an article extolling the success of OSX with a figure and no link and went on to gig the failure of Vista.
I did a search found the source and a second chart by version of OS that showed Vista had 3 times the share. Posted it and asked for a clarification.
Unlike yourself, most of the stuff like that is just ignored, I guess with the rational of not feeding the troll and he’ll go away.
I’m frequently an abrasive ass about such things and if an article is an obvious opinion piece fine. This wasn’t, it was reported as a news piece.
Bloggers should at least take responsibility of making sure sources are cited if they are acting as a news reporter. Readers are going to take it at face value.
If they are spreading errors from your writings because you are a sloppy author or lazy, you aren’t a journalist or credible.
A diary or opinion blog has a lesser expectation, but if you want to be taken seriously advancing opinions with references showing the process is both instructive and a service.
Fairness is not in the slant, it’s in the airing of the process so readers can draw conclusions.
January 20th, 2009
Wow Ken!!! Bravo, and “hear, hear” etc…
Without being at all flippant, when are you going to take on a role as an official Blorge columnist? You frequently provide a good measure BS detection when it is desperately needed.
I concur on your sentiments about providing references for info. Anyone who does tertiary level study and essay writing is forced to do that by convention – why do some journalists and bloggers find it difficult to do the same?
This is especially true of any journalist who has a degree, because they should have learnt such good practice in the course of their education.
Surely, being seen to consistently provide links as to where you get your info from, and taking care to ensure its veracity, enhances your own reputation as a commentator or reporter.
And if one has made an error in judgement, being gracious enough to readily admit it can only help to preserve one’s credibility.
Thanks also for clarifying the “Bush Derangement Syndrome” comment that I have seen apearing in your posts lately.
I was starting to wonder if you were one of the deluded; now I realise that you are simply sick of being reminded of the bleedingly obvious.
We had our own version of the same problem in Australia until November 2007 (John Winston Howard). Thankfully he is now almost a thing of the past.
January 22nd, 2009
You guys are annoying…
Why blog about crap like this?