Quotes of the Day - newspapers and falsehoods

While the quotes below might not surprise you, their author might:

"I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false."

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables."

~ Thomas Jefferson

Newspapers lobbying legislators - who knew?

I want to share with you two posts that I did for Ohio Watchdog:

Newspapers battle against special postal rates for Valassis

This is a story about how the newspaper industry is lobbying members of congress, including Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, to oppose a Negotiated Service Agreement (NSA) with Valassis, a direct mail company.

Valassis worked with the U.S. Postal Service to increase the number of pieces they mail in established markets and, in return, the USPS will give them discounted rates on the increased amount. The mail pieces are circulars - like for Sears, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, etc.

They are the same ones you see in your Sunday papers, so obviously, the newspapers don't like the idea that a competitor might actually compete. So the newspaper industry is lobbying members of congress to oppose the NSA which is currently pending approval by the Postal Regulatory Commission which has the final say.

Brown agreed with the newspapers - surprise - and wrote a letter opposing the agreement.

The second post is an opinion piece:

It's time for the newspaper industry to come clean

The newspapers that are asking for favors from members of congress are the same newspapers that are supposed to objectively report on the actions of the very elected officials they're lobbying. They're the same entities that issue endorsements.

But they have a code of ethics that requires them to avoid conflicts of interest and to reveal them when they are unavoidable. Did you know the newspaper industry was involved in lobbying, and then editorializing about, the people they report on?

The newspaper industry has lost readers and respect, and income as those two items have resulted in less advertising revenue. Lobbying the people you write about - and not telling everyone that you're doing so - is another nail in their coffin that only serves to reinforce the bias and further undermine their credibility.

They should stop the lobbying, and refuse to endorse when the target they lobbied is a candidate.

And then, just for fun, read this opinion piece: "Don't kid yourself, daily newspapers cannot be replaced."

Be sure to read the comments - they're priceless!

Obama's budget, hypocrisy and 'out of the mouths of babes'

As regular readers of my blog know, hypocrisy and double standards are things I abhor.  Sadly, there are too many examples of these two things in the political and media world.

President Barack Obama's budget was recently introduced to Congress and, for the second time received not a single vote.

Despite both Obama and the media blaming the Republican-controlled House of Representatives for the failure, no Democrat cast a 'yes' vote.  And, again, this was the second time his budget got no votes.

Can you imagine the indignant claims of incompetence from the other side of the political aisle if this had been a Republican president who couldn't get even one vote from his own party for his budget?!?

Could you imagine what the media would be doing? 

Every newscast and the top and bottom of every hour would be proclaiming that, for the second time, the Republican President had failed in his budget.  There would be a line of people waiting to issue statements, go on talk shows and shout to the world that any president incapable of getting even one vote from his own party for his budget needed to go.

But we have a biased media who are clearly rooting for Obama, so you hear nothing ... or a mimicking of the spin from the White House.

To me, the issue isn't just the abysmal failure of the President (that's well-documented for anyone who cares to look at his record with an eye to the Constitution), it's the double standard of allowing/condoning/excusing something from your own party while protesting/criticizing/objecting when it is done by your opponent.

Don't get me wrong, Republicans do it, too.  It's human nature, I suppose, but it's wrong and we should all object.

Additionally, it's the media bias.  I don't mind - and, in fact, greatly appreciate - liberal and conservative opinions.  A respectful and fact-based (rather than emotional) discussion of a point from opposite perspectives is educational and allows all of us to learn and understand an issue more completely - even when the result is an agreement to disagree.

But today's media claims to be objective when they are not. 

The left criticizes people like Rush Limbaugh as an example of media bias.  But Limbaugh isn't a newscaster.  He's a talk radio host and makes no qualms about his conservative bias.  I would never use Ed Schultz as an example of media bias for the same reason - he's a talk show host.  But when the bias comes from Katie Couric or in the news sections of your local paper, that's hypocrisy because that is where it's supposed to be not just the facts, but a complete and fair/accurate reporting of both sides of the issue.

There is hope, though, which leads me to the second portion of my headline 'out of the mouths of babes.'

My friend Jason is 14 years old.  He's a tennis aficionado, as his brand new business cards explain.  At the age of two, he informed his mother (and anyone else who would listen) that he wanted to take tennis lessons.  She made him wait until he was five, thinking the interest would quickly turn to something else (or multiple other things) by then.  But on his fifth birthday, he asked if he could finally start tennis lessons.  And he did.

I'm definitely biased, but not so much as to be able to recognized that he is truly skilled in this sport.  And he loves it.  I believe he's even ranked in the boys - 14 & under group.

Jason is not just a good tennis player, he's also a good person, both on and off the court.  He's a stickler for the rules and  exhibits a true Corinthian spirit in his chosen sport.  (Corinthian - someone who plays sport with the highest possible principles, way exceeding normal sportsmanship.)

He recently decided to start a tennis blog, writing about the sport he loves.  JJ's Tennis View is well written and Jason has a good - and unique - perspective on the sport.  He recently predicted an upset in a women's match, and was correct (something he was especially proud of, being 13 at the time, because no one else did).

Jason and his mom are going to her home town of Charleston for spring break where he will be attending the Family Circle Cup.  He plans to write about the matches, but, being 14, wants to support one of his favorite players, get his t-shirt signed by others and generally be a kid.  Good for him!

His mom researched media credentials for him, thinking that might give him better access to the players for his blog.  He would definitely qualify under the guidelines issued by the Family Circle Cup - but Jason declined.

Now why, you might wonder, would a tennis fan like Jason decline special access to his favorite players?

I just thought it would be unprofessional if I was jumping up and down with signs and shirts for players as a media worker. There's already enough media bias!!!

Indeed.

But if a 14-year-old can understand this, why can't the main stream media?

Networks ignore occupiers' call for anti-capitalist revolt

My apologies, but there will be light postings over the next several days as I work with a client on a project.

In the meantime, here is a great article from the Business & Media Institute on how the Networks Won't Admit Occupiers Want 'Socialist' Revolution - Marxism abounds at Wall Street protests, but ABC, CBS and NBC barely mention call for anti-capitalist revolt.

The Occupy Wall Street protests marked off a full month of occupation Oct. 17, and the network news media continue to gloss over protesters calls for "revolution" as well as the socialistic mentality espoused by many of the protesters.

One protest speaker was videotaped saying, "Long live the revolution! Long live socialism!" Others in Chicago and Philadelphia marched with Communist flags. And Oakland, Calif. occupiers articulated their desire for income equality, a new political system and disgust for the bourgeoisie (whether they be landlords or hot dog stand owners.)

Socialists, communists and Marxists roam the Occupy Wall Street rallies, yet zero network news stories since the protests began used any of those three words to label protesters or their goals. Network reporters won't even explain that protesters are calling for a revolutionary-style change.

Business & Media Institute analyzed 115 news reports, briefs and anchor reads that mentioned the Occupy protests. BMI found that only 6 percent (seven stories out of 115) have even mentioned the word "revolution" in stories about the protests. In one of those instances, the word was actually describing the violent Middle East uprisings that supposedly inspired the occupiers. The other mentions were in passing and none stories explained what "revolution" means to the occupiers.

In their own words it means the overthrow of capitalism, potentially through violence. The Occupy L.A. speaker who cheered "Long live socialism!" advocated using violence, as in the French revolution, because it "made fundamental transformation, but it was bloody." He went on to advocate such a bloody revolution here in the U.S. saying: "So ultimately bourgeoisie won't go without violent means. We'll have the revolution yes, revolution that is led by working class. Long live revolution. Long live socialism." He was cheered on by members of the crowd.

Read more....

Lack of tough questioning during campaign hurts Obama now

I have opined in various forums that the press was too easy on President Barack Obama during his campaign and his first months in the presidency.

And I'm not the only one. Numerous strategists, campaign professionals, bloggers and journalists have noted that he gets quite a lot of 'easy' questions - soft balls - because, it is believed, of an affinity for the man and his positions.

My concern, in noticing his lack of tough questioning, was not just the unfairness (you know how liberals love 'fair') and double standard, but the results of such lack of vetting and preparation.

When the media ask candidates tough questions during a campaign, two things happen: 1) the public gets to see how the candidate responds to difficult issues thus informing the public about the character and the positions of the candidate; and 2) the candidate gets practice for what should be even tougher issues and questions if he should win.

For the first point, having been in the situation, I can tell you that nothing prepares a person more than having to stand in front of cameras and microphones with lights and no one whispering in your ear and have a difficult question thrown at you. Such questions and challenges (for they are challenging you) require you to know your position and be able to articulate it, to respectfully disagree with what an opponent has claimed, to demonstrate your poise in handling the situation, and, hopefully, sway people to your side.

What the public saw with Obama was emotional, for the most part. He sounded good and looked good, but there was very little substance (details) in much of his positions. He really didn't get the type of questions that required him to delve into policy or philosophy, so the public didn't get to see that aspect of him. If you wanted to know those sorts of things, you had to seek out such information on your own. As a result, many people did not really know his positions, just his general approach of 'hope and change.'

On the second point, Obama, because he did not have the tough questions and probing in the campaign, now finds himself unprepared for the type of questions he's beginning to get. He's being challenged on the health care issue and had to admit he hadn't actually read the bill he's promoting, but he's supporting it anyway. He also finds his words about the bill contradicted by the actual language in the legislation.

Additionally, he's being questions on details of the health 'reform' - details he was not expected to produce during the campaign. Remember when he said that 95% of Americans would see a tax cut? Rarely, if ever, did anyone sit him down and ask him to explain various points of this promise, like: what impact will such a 'cut' have on the deficit; if he's giving tax cuts to 95% will he increase taxes on 5%, what about the people who don't pay anything in the first place; how will he pay for the cost of his promises if he's cutting those taxes; will fees or other charges go up instead? Reporters, if they did ask such questions, didn't insist on real answers, just accepting whatever words came from Obama's mouth.

This was a disservice to the man, the candidate, and now, to the President. He is unprepared for the types of challenges he's getting on the issues. He's being asked why, when he promised the stimulus would keep unemployment from going above 8%, the rate is now 10%. He's being asked why, if he doesn't want to 'own' General Motors, he's taken it over. He's being asked why ... and he's starting to get that question a lot, mainly from people and, increasingly, from the media.

Had he been challenged regarding these types of things during the campaign, he'd be better prepared for them now. He'd know that platitudes won't cut it when it comes to talking about medical care for you when you're sick. He'd know that 'feel-good' messages might win you a vote, but it won't win you long-term support if you can't back it up with facts, logic and reason.

As a candidate, I was the underdog in all four of my campaigns. I was the Republican in a Democrat-leaning jurisdiction, my opponents were always much more well-known and better financed, and I was often described as 'young' which was portrayed as a negative at the time. I knew, going into these races and in office, that I had to be twice as good as my opponent just to be perceived as equal.

Perhaps my upbringing in a family business had something to do with that approach - always having to prove myself to my co-workers so they knew I wasn't just 'handed' a position in the company. I earned it.

The media helped me during my time in office - not by supporting my positions, but by challenging them. They asked me the tough questions, they evaluated my answers, they critiqued my campaign promises and compared them to my performance. Their examinations prepared me for the even tougher challenges I faced when making decisions in office.

As a result of what I went though, I was a better elected official. I was routinely more prepared than my colleagues, always had documentation to support my positions, always read everything that came across my desk - myself, and was never without a solid position that I knew how to articulate in the 30-second sound bite. Even my detractors complimented me on my preparedness with one saying that knowing how prepared I would be made him work to be as prepared as well.

President Obama has had no such experience, so he relies upon hand-picked attendees at town hall meetings, pre-screening questions at press conferences and teleprompters. While I don't want to say he's afraid of an unscripted event, he certainly appears to avoid them at all costs, perhaps knowing that he isn't prepared for the randomness and isn't confident in his own ability to handle the unexpected.

If the media had done their job, this wouldn't be an issue.

So what should he do? Some might call me presumptuous offering advice to "the president," but that's what I'm going to do. I think he should do his homework and then go out and participate in unscripted events. Let people question him about all the difficult things and be honest in responding with answers, not just words. Allow the follow-ups when people don't think he's really answered the question. Experience now what he didn't on the campaign trail and use it to get better.

Yes, it will be difficult at first, because mistakes will be made. But that is how we learn. Pres. Obama, being a smart man, will learn quickly ... and that will be good for him - and for us.

The 'piling on' toward Sarah Palin

I've said it before, and I say it again, the place for opinions in the print media is on their editorial pages. But are four editorials in 10 days a bit of piling on?

That's what our local paper, The Blade, has done with the vice presidential pick of Gov. Sarah Palin.

They start on Aug. 30 with "McCain's Machinations," where they dismiss her experience as a governor and mayor, saying McCain picked "a candidate who makes Mr. Obama's resume seem substantial by comparison."

On Sept. 4, they claim that McCain's selection is a 'cynical ploy' designed to distract Americans from the issues. They also tell you that McCain, with his many years in the Senate, is perpetuating the problem - even though his opponents have more combined years in that body than he does. They also make a point of implying that her family obligations are enough to prevent her from doing her job well - an issue that has gotten way too much coverage in this day and age when women are told they can have it all.

Three days later, on Sept. 7, they call Palin a dog in their editorial, "Palin as pit bull." They say she gave a good speech at the Republican Convention, but that it was light on facts and details. Perhaps they missed Sen. Barack Obama's speech? It was equally light on facts and details, especially on how he was going to fund all those give-aways he was promising, but received no such editorial.

While even Democrats acknowledged she hit some sore points with some of her comments - and the way they began defending against them certainly proves that - The Blade editorial board wrote, "Her zingers about the Democratic ticket tended to slide around reality, to be charitable,..." I think that means they think she lied, but they provide no evidence that anything she said about her opponents was inaccurate.

Today's editorial, "Northern Exposure," (wonder if that's a violation of copyright on the TV series?) critiques her record. While such a critique is appropriate for the editorial page, it wasn't something that's been done with her opponents.

I have no problem with such attention to detail when it comes to a candidate's record, but the bias comes into play when you do it for one candidate, but not the other. If people need to know the Republican Vice Presidential candidate's record, shouldn't we also know the Democrat's? And certainly, if such a critique is warranted, it is warranted for the Presidential candidates from both parties.

I've already pointed out the lack of intellectual honesty in news of the campaigns, but four editorials in 10 days is part of the reason why so many people, especially women, think the piling on is too much. It's also showing signs of backfiring on liberals, with some voters looking more favorably at the McCain-Palin ticket because of the excessive negativity being heaped on Palin. And it's cost at least two MSNBC anchors their election coverage positions.

As a former Republican elected official who survived four very tough campaigns in Democrat-dominated jurisdictions, I don't have a problem with intense media coverage and tough questions. I do have a problem, however, when the tough questions are directly only to me and not to my opponents. Knowing I was going to be scrutinized more because I was Republican made me better prepared to handle all sorts of inquiries - and that made me not only a better (and successful) candidate, but it made me a better elected official as well, contributing to my reputation for 'always doing my homework.' I'm certain Sarah Palin feels the same way.

But if the media wants to help voters really know the candidates, they won't reserve such treatment only for the candidate(s) they hope will lose. Perhaps that's the point. Perhaps, in their hearts, they know that the American public wouldn't support their favored candidates if they really knew the objective and unbiased truth about them, so they don't tell you.

Of course, such activity leads to a loss of readers, declining sales and a loss of credibility - which is where many in the media find themselves today, with so many people turning to alternative sources for their news. So maybe this isn't such a bad thing after all.

Intellectual honesty in campaign news coverage

While I shouldn't be surprised, the main stream media (lame stream as a fellow blogger called it) exposes their bias in the way the selection of running mates for this presidential election are covered.

After Sen. Barack Obama selected fellow Sen. Joe Biden, the media was aglow with praise for the wise selection, chronicling Biden's career and 'extensive' foreign policy experience. (Now, I've never really understood how serving on senate committee on foreign relations actually gives you foreign policy experience, but I'll save that question for another day.) While the blogosphere included a review of Biden's plagiarism issue, the MSM took a while to even mention the hint of controversy in his background.

But following Sen. John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, it wasn't even two hours before the criticism started. In those two hours, I knew more about an investigation into her staff regarding the firing of an individual than I did about anything else, including her fiscal policy, her confrontation with fellow Republicans over ethics issues and even her family.

In our local paper, The Blade, the headlines for the news stories were the same: 'Obama taps Biden to be running mate' and 'Governor of Alaska chosen as John McCain's running mate.'
The first paragraph of the Biden story:

Barack Obama named Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his vice presidential running mate early Saturday, balancing his ticket with a seasoned congressional veteran well-versed in foreign policy and defense issues.

The first paragraph of the Palin story:

In a surprise move to bolster his "maverick" credentials and directly appeal to disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, John McCain yesterday picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as history's first Republican woman vice presidential candidate.

Obama is 'balancing his ticket' while McCain is trying to 'bolster his credentials.' Biden is 'seasoned' and Palin is 'a woman.'

In the 21st paragraph of the Biden story, you get the first criticism of the selection:

No sooner had word spread of his selection than McCain's campaign unleashed its first attack. Spokesman Ben Porritt said in a statement that Biden had "denounced Barack Obama's poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be president."

Note that the McCain spokesman used Biden's own words against him. Also note the choice of words: 'no sooner,' 'unleashed,' and 'first attack.'

In the Palin story, it only takes seven paragraphs to get to the criticism:

"The pick of Ms. Palin brought raves from anti-abortion groups. But Democratic nominee Barack Obama's campaign immediately questioned her resume.

"John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said."

Notice the attack is twisted by focusing on Palin's time as a mayor without mentioning her time as governor?

Also note the choice of words compared to the coverage of Biden's criticism. The Obama campaign's reaction was almost immediate and the term 'no sooner' could certainly be applied. And 'unleashed its first attack' would be as appropriate to the Obama campaign reaction as it was to the McCain campaign reaction. However, the stories portray the McCain camp as 'attacking' while the Obama camp is only 'questioning' a resume.

Furthermore, in the Biden story, the comment from the McCain camp is the only criticism, other than a couple of references to how people found out about the choice. In the Palin story, there are three other references critical to her, including a quote from the Ohio Democratic Party and from a female attendee at the announcement.

Finally, there is the conclusion of the stories - the clincher, if you will - that leaves you with your final impression.

""Obviously, the most important question is: Is this person ready to be president?" Obama told "The Early Show" on CBS. Second, he said, was: "Can this person help me govern? Are they going to be an effective partner in creating the kind of economic opportunity here at home and guiding us through some dangerous waters internationally?"

And, he added: "I want somebody who is going to be able to challenge my thinking and not simply be a yes person when it comes to policymaking."

This is a positive, reassuring quote - designed to support the selection.

"Tricia Bowcher of Maineville, about an hour from Dayton, attended the rally at the Ervin J. Nutter Center on the campus of Wright State University. If Mr. McCain were intent on picking a woman, she said she would have preferred Ms. Hutchinson.

"She's more experienced than what this woman is," she said. "To be honest, I would have preferred Mitt Romney over everyone really, because he's conservative and just embodies the Republican base.""

This isn't positive and is designed to prove the point that others would have been a better selection.

While editorials are clearly opinion - and every paper has one - the choice of words are in stronger contrast. This is certainly the place for opinion, but both presidential candidates selected individuals as running mates for the same reasons: they bring a different perspective, they are strong where the candidate is weak, they appeal to targeted voters and are, hopefully, going to help the candidate win. That is, after all, the goal.

But while Obama's selection is praised for doing this, McCain's selection is called 'machination.' They're both doing the same things, but one gets positive words and the other gets negative words for the exact same thing.

According to the paper, Obama's selection might seem odd but makes good political sense. The exact same could be said of Palin, but it's not. McCain's choice "represents a maverick's gamble if ever there was one."

Overflowing with praise, the editors opine:

To those who think that the Obama candidacy is a lightweight craft sailing in rough seas, Senator Biden brings a heavy keel of experience to solidify the Democratic boat.

While McCain, with his lengthy resume needs no such steadying, gets this:

He has gone with a candidate who makes Mr. Obama's resume seem substantial by comparison. Ms. Palin is only 44 and has been governor for less than two years. Before that, she was mayor and a member of City Council in Wasilla, a small Alaskan town. She reportedly served with distinction, but she has not served long.

"Reportedly served with distinction"? No attempt at denigration, there.

Obama's selection answers his critics over his "alleged shortcomings in experience." With Palin, McCain's campaign "is making a calculated gamble that she will be as much help as hindrance."

Actually, Palin's selection answers the critics as well, especially when it comes to McCain's age and his lack of appeal among the conservative base. Biden's selection is truly a calculated gamble in that his penchant for 'opening mouth and inserting foot' could seriously hamper the Obama campaign. Biden's own words, used strategically by the McCain campaign, are not complimentary to Obama and picking someone who made such comments is more of a gamble than Palin. And with Obama's claim for 'change,' picking someone who represents the status quo and business as usual in Washington, certainly qualifies as being 'as much help as hindrance.'

News stories should be objective and fair. If you're going to do a straight story on the selection of the Democrat VP, you should do the same for the Republican VP. If you're going to get opposing commentary on the Republican VP, you should do so with the Democrat VP. That's what's missing in our local coverage of the news of the selections.

In the editorials, you expect a bias. They are designed to be opinion with persuasive words. However, the intellectual honesty is missing. The criteria for opinion isn't the same. You cannot honestly call one selection a gamble while failing to acknowledge that the description applies to both campaign decisions.

You cannot honestly emphasize one person's experience level while calling the other's inexperience 'alleged.' At least with the Republican ticket, the experience is at the top of the ticket, where it belongs, rather than in the second place.

If Biden can make a pitch to blue-collar voters, shouldn't the same be true of Palin, who was a union member and is married to one? Biden's never been in a union, but that's not ever pointed out. If you're going to compare the two choices fairly so you can make a good decision, knowing these things is critical.

Even if you are trying to persuade people that one choice is better than the other, the most effective way to do so is to be honest about their backgrounds, experience and policy - and then demonstrate why one is better than the other. To leave out key information opens you up to criticism that you are only telling others what you want them to know.

And that's the difference. I've tried to follow the rule that if you give people all the information and present them with facts, they'll agree with your conclusion - if you've made good one. I've always been comfortable in arguing a point, not just because I believe it to be correct, but also because I believe most people with all the data will agree that it is correct. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen much in the MSM - and it's certainly an anomaly in Toledo.

If you're hiring a team to do a job for you, you'd first examine the job description and decide on the skills necessary to perform the tasks and duties. You'd take a look at the experience in doing those tasks and you'd make a decision. Electing a president and vice president - or any other office holder, for that matter - is no different.

The key is to be honest with yourself while doing so. It's okay to pick the less-qualified candidate because you think they're a better fit. But don't claim they're less-qualified when you do so.

Obama 'misspeaks' when it comes to his Senate committees

According to TheNextRight.com, Sen. Barak Obama doesn't know what committees he serves on.

Now, I realize that, during a campaign, you get a bit distracted, but I think this statement and the lack of challenge from the 'lame street media' is more indicative of a press who doesn't challenge this candidate. Could you imagine how many times you'd have seen the footage of this 'misstatement' if it had been McCain? Along with references to his age???