I didn't hear it at Gov. Jay Nixon's swearing-in, and I doubt sincerely I'll hear it at President-elect Obama's either.
It's the third rail of American politics, despite its instrumental role in lifting us out of every significant recession we have ever faced.
That dirty word?
Tax.
That's right, tax, as in, why is there absolutely no talk of taxes unless it is in the context of cutting taxes? Is there no editorial board in Missouri, or the United States, for that matter, courageous enough to throw tax increases on the table?
In Missouri, we'll apparently cut social services, let our public schools stagnate at best and gut our university system before we'll even discuss the "t word..." Madness, I say....
CD
Monday, January 12, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The push polls keep coming
I thought with the election over that I would no longer be subject to push polls.
Last night proved me wrong. I was push polled by none other than Mike Huckabee, who introduced himself on the phone as the former Governor of Arkansas rather than a talk show host (current job) or recent GOP candidate for President.
The topic: potential federal regulation and possible funding of family planning agencies--or at least, that's how the poll began. The introduction included a claim that President-elect Obama has promised to provide certain sorts of federal funding to various agencies, among them Planned Parenthood. I have no idea if this claim is in any way true.
However, it didn't take more than a couple of questions for the real issue to become clear: abortion. I was asked whether I agreed with statues that would require those under 18 to obtain parental consent before obtaining an abortion. I was asked whether I agree with statutes that would prohibit what the anti-abortion movement has erroneously labeled partial-birth abortions. In all, I was asked about 20 questions on various aspects of the issue--each questioned framed as a "yes" or "no" response and many including erroneous or unsubstantiated assertions.
What's wrong here. There are at least a couple of things. First, Huckabee doesn't really want my opinion. In fact, he was a recording. I have no idea what was "done" with my opinion, because I was never told. This is deceptive. As a citizen, I should know why I'm being polled. Second, the questions should at least adhere to the facts. In the best of all possible worlds, they should include context. And, they certainly should provide me with more options than "yes" or "no". For example, I should be able to tell my supposed questioner that young women who are the victims on incest--and I wrote those stories as a police reporter--should not have to obtain permission from their molester to obtain an abortion. But, there was no place for that sort of thinking, logic or dialog in this supposed search for my opinion.
But, as a journalist, this poll gives me another sort of clue. There's a story here. What group in Missouri is planning what sort of political initiative? How are those who answer in a way the "pollster" deems appropriate being placed on mailing lists, fund raising lists, and in other sorts of political support groups? Who paid for this "poll"?
As much attention as we give to the internet, we also need to remember that the telephone--after the front porch and the back fence--remains an important social networking tool. I also think it remains just as newsworthy.
Last night proved me wrong. I was push polled by none other than Mike Huckabee, who introduced himself on the phone as the former Governor of Arkansas rather than a talk show host (current job) or recent GOP candidate for President.
The topic: potential federal regulation and possible funding of family planning agencies--or at least, that's how the poll began. The introduction included a claim that President-elect Obama has promised to provide certain sorts of federal funding to various agencies, among them Planned Parenthood. I have no idea if this claim is in any way true.
However, it didn't take more than a couple of questions for the real issue to become clear: abortion. I was asked whether I agreed with statues that would require those under 18 to obtain parental consent before obtaining an abortion. I was asked whether I agree with statutes that would prohibit what the anti-abortion movement has erroneously labeled partial-birth abortions. In all, I was asked about 20 questions on various aspects of the issue--each questioned framed as a "yes" or "no" response and many including erroneous or unsubstantiated assertions.
What's wrong here. There are at least a couple of things. First, Huckabee doesn't really want my opinion. In fact, he was a recording. I have no idea what was "done" with my opinion, because I was never told. This is deceptive. As a citizen, I should know why I'm being polled. Second, the questions should at least adhere to the facts. In the best of all possible worlds, they should include context. And, they certainly should provide me with more options than "yes" or "no". For example, I should be able to tell my supposed questioner that young women who are the victims on incest--and I wrote those stories as a police reporter--should not have to obtain permission from their molester to obtain an abortion. But, there was no place for that sort of thinking, logic or dialog in this supposed search for my opinion.
But, as a journalist, this poll gives me another sort of clue. There's a story here. What group in Missouri is planning what sort of political initiative? How are those who answer in a way the "pollster" deems appropriate being placed on mailing lists, fund raising lists, and in other sorts of political support groups? Who paid for this "poll"?
As much attention as we give to the internet, we also need to remember that the telephone--after the front porch and the back fence--remains an important social networking tool. I also think it remains just as newsworthy.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Views of the News, Jan. 7, 2009
Is the Obama "honeymoon" over? ... Is there bias in coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict? ... And, what impact is the economy having on print media? Panelists: Mike McKean, Lee Wilkins, Charles Davis.
Listen to the show.
Subscribe to the podcast.
Listen to the show.Subscribe to the podcast.
Outsourcing your coverage
American television viewers will note that American news crews are not being allowed in Gaza to cover the war there.
Last night, NBC announced that it had hired a local (meaning inside Gaza) journalist to provide video of the events. The network supplemented this work with a phone interview with the physician who was the protagonist in a story about the impact of the war on medical care, hospital care and emergency care for wounded civilians in Gaza.
What does this choice explain about television news and news reporting in general?
Journalists are biased toward information THEY discover--even if that information is not as good, complete or accurate as what might be available in other news outlets.
Part of this unadmitted but very real bias is an issue of quality control: news outlets that are serious about their journalism can fact check, examine, and just plain have time to think about stories that are produced in house--even under deadline pressure. That's a good reason to be biased in favor of the work of your own staff.
But, a less laudatory reason is ego. Rather than give readers, listeners and viewers the best available information--regardless of source--news organizations too often settle for the best information THEY can uncover, even if it is demonstrably inferior to what is available elsewhere. Journalists used to explain this result away by noting that competition, over the long haul, makes for better journalism even if individual stories are not always up to snuff. This was always weak reasoning, but in the age of the internet, it's absurd.
So, what choices did NBC have? Obviously, the choice the network made was to outsource some of its reporting--probably in an effort to maintain some quality control and the perception of objectivity.
Another option: spend the same money to purchase coverage from the Arab television networks--the only broadcast media outlets currently being allowed in Gaza. Why might this option be unacceptable? Because the networks may have reasoned that US audiences would find content generated by Arab-owned networks potentially biased and hence not meeting standards of objectivity.
Or spend the same money and purchase coverage from another US news organization--for example, the New York Times. This option would have deprived the network of compelling video--which drives television--but have told potentially the same story.
None of these choice is ideal from the networks' point of view. From the viewers' perspective--and thanks to the web--we can compare NBC's coverage with that provided by the Arab journalists and come to our own conclusions.
One final point: shutting down news coverage of this conflict is, long-term, not going to help the residents of Gaza or of Israel who have endured so much. What is needed is more journalism--and from lots of perspectives.
Last night, NBC announced that it had hired a local (meaning inside Gaza) journalist to provide video of the events. The network supplemented this work with a phone interview with the physician who was the protagonist in a story about the impact of the war on medical care, hospital care and emergency care for wounded civilians in Gaza.
What does this choice explain about television news and news reporting in general?
Journalists are biased toward information THEY discover--even if that information is not as good, complete or accurate as what might be available in other news outlets.
Part of this unadmitted but very real bias is an issue of quality control: news outlets that are serious about their journalism can fact check, examine, and just plain have time to think about stories that are produced in house--even under deadline pressure. That's a good reason to be biased in favor of the work of your own staff.
But, a less laudatory reason is ego. Rather than give readers, listeners and viewers the best available information--regardless of source--news organizations too often settle for the best information THEY can uncover, even if it is demonstrably inferior to what is available elsewhere. Journalists used to explain this result away by noting that competition, over the long haul, makes for better journalism even if individual stories are not always up to snuff. This was always weak reasoning, but in the age of the internet, it's absurd.
So, what choices did NBC have? Obviously, the choice the network made was to outsource some of its reporting--probably in an effort to maintain some quality control and the perception of objectivity.
Another option: spend the same money to purchase coverage from the Arab television networks--the only broadcast media outlets currently being allowed in Gaza. Why might this option be unacceptable? Because the networks may have reasoned that US audiences would find content generated by Arab-owned networks potentially biased and hence not meeting standards of objectivity.
Or spend the same money and purchase coverage from another US news organization--for example, the New York Times. This option would have deprived the network of compelling video--which drives television--but have told potentially the same story.
None of these choice is ideal from the networks' point of view. From the viewers' perspective--and thanks to the web--we can compare NBC's coverage with that provided by the Arab journalists and come to our own conclusions.
One final point: shutting down news coverage of this conflict is, long-term, not going to help the residents of Gaza or of Israel who have endured so much. What is needed is more journalism--and from lots of perspectives.
Topic links for this week's show
New Theme Music
What do you think of our funky new opening and closing music for Views of the News? It's from a composition called "Home Alone" by Joi Veer. If you'd like to hear the entire piece, here's a link from FreePlayMusic.com.
Monday, January 5, 2009
So we are leaving
It's sometimes impossible to know when journalists have made a good ethical decision because the result is something that does not appear in print or on air.
Such is the case this morning on NBC.
The background: As the entire country knows, today is the first day that President-elect Barak Obama's two daughters will attend their new, Washington-D. C. school. This is a minor story--but a newsworthy marker of the impending change in political power.
However, covering it raises privacy concerns, particularly about two children who have a lot of adjusting to do both with and without the presence of journalists, crews and cameras. Here the ethical question is straightforward: how much and what sort of coverage to provide of this event.
In my view, NBC made the correct choice. It reported that the Obama girls had left the White House for their new school--both with video of the kids leaving their temporary hotel residence and with what broadcast journalists call a "stand up" in front of the new school.
And, then, the reporters and camera crews left. NBC won't be airing footage of the girls as they walk into their new school.
Good call. The public needs to know that the girls are going to a new school. We don't need to watch them enter it. The girls do need to begin to make this tremendous adjustment in some privacy.
One example of journalists doing something right--even if it means the curious among us don't have quite every picture we might want.
Such is the case this morning on NBC.
The background: As the entire country knows, today is the first day that President-elect Barak Obama's two daughters will attend their new, Washington-D. C. school. This is a minor story--but a newsworthy marker of the impending change in political power.
However, covering it raises privacy concerns, particularly about two children who have a lot of adjusting to do both with and without the presence of journalists, crews and cameras. Here the ethical question is straightforward: how much and what sort of coverage to provide of this event.
In my view, NBC made the correct choice. It reported that the Obama girls had left the White House for their new school--both with video of the kids leaving their temporary hotel residence and with what broadcast journalists call a "stand up" in front of the new school.
And, then, the reporters and camera crews left. NBC won't be airing footage of the girls as they walk into their new school.
Good call. The public needs to know that the girls are going to a new school. We don't need to watch them enter it. The girls do need to begin to make this tremendous adjustment in some privacy.
One example of journalists doing something right--even if it means the curious among us don't have quite every picture we might want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)