Mainstream Media

Yesterday, as Rush Limbaugh is announcing his eight-year, $400 million contract extension, the LA Times is announcing that it was cutting 250 jobs because of declining advertising revenue.

I think we need more Fairness Doctrine.

Study: News media bias can net mistakes at the ballot box

A recently released news article from the UIUC shows that our news media bias does have an impact at the ballot box.  Some interesting quotes are below.

     "...even though voters typically take the spin into account rather than following blindly and that the media only slant news rather than falsifying it, selective reporting can still factor into mistakes at the polls...

     "One of the authors is quoted as saying "Biased media suppresses information that is unfavorable to ‘their’ candidate, and even smart voters cannot completely recover the truth from their reports"

     "Media bias could play an even bigger role in this year’s presidential race because Obama is still a relative unknown whose positions and past will be selectively reported as they surface during the campaign"

     "The problem is to avoid making mistakes you’re asking voters to work harder, and it’s not necessarily in their self-interest to do that,” Bernhardt said. “So there’s this paradox. Becoming better informed could potentially help everybody else because we would vote better and wouldn’t make mistakes. But people don’t internalize the consequences for everybody else, they only internalize their own. So they under invest in information. Most do.”

This may be just a little bit over-the-top. 

Instead, we have the political equivalent of a roadside bomb, a dangerous weapon dropped off anonymously and in the dead of night. If Illinois government is to take such a drastic and unprecedented step, shouldn't the Speaker of the House, the man suggesting impeachment proceedings, be accountable and answerable? Not, apparently, in Speaker Madigan's world.

Roadside bomb?

Katie Couric, on the media coverage of the 2008 Democratic Primary.

However you feel about her politics, I feel that Sen. Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I've ever seen.

Two thoughts:

For me, the most refreshing thing about this otherwise disappointing election season is the shocked realization by some Democrats (Clinton supporters, mostly) that the legacy media is absolutley politically biased and terribly monolithic, and that when they want to push their narrative, they will do so without shame and without relenting.  Republicans have been dealing with this for at least as long as I can remember, while getting a Democrat to admit to a left-wing media bias was difficult.  Now, maybe not so much, at least among Clinton's supporters.

Couric ain't seen nothing yet: I'm no McCain shill, but the media's treatment of McCain will be much, much more unfair than that of Clinton.

Instapundit:

I can think of no better reason to vote against Obama than the prospect of an administration where any criticism of the President is treated as racism.

Well, yeah.

Of course, the fact that some of the people opposed to Obama actually are racists isn't helping, as they will be the subject of much attention (and much deserved criticism) from our friends on the left and/or in the media. 

Unmentioned by those same folks will be the fact that some of the people supporting Obama are doing so primarily because of race, too.  Also unmentioned will be this larger campaign by Obama's supporters to delegitimze criticism of him by labeling critics as racist.

It's Hope and Change and Unity and all that.

I should be a bigger person than to take pleasure in something like this.

But I'm not.

Majority of Americans satisfied with their healthcare plans.

Gallup's annual Healthcare survey, conducted Nov. 11-14, finds 57% of Americans saying they are satisfied with the total cost they pay for their healthcare, while 39% are dissatisfied. These percentages have been quite stable in recent years, after a slight dip in reported satisfaction between 2001 (64%) and 2002 (58%).

That stability is somewhat at odds with other recent trends in the poll. For example, of the roughly 6 in 10 Americans who have private health insurance plans, a shrinking number report that that their employers pay their full premiums. In 2001, 24% said their employers paid the full premium; now, just 15% do. During that time, there has been an increase in the percentage saying the premiums are shared between themselves and their employers.

Implications:  Americans may express a desire for changing the U.S. healthcare system but a perhaps surprisingly large number are content with the health insurance and health coverage they currently have.

(Emphasis added)

My question to those who are pushing universal single payer health care has always been:  how do you convince the majority of Americans who are relatively happy with their current health insurance to support such a drastic change?

There's more here.

(Hat tip:  Stephen Bainbridge)

Blogging is a very new medium. It is so new that there aren't any real guidelines set forth. No, I don't mean censorship. I'm talking about responsibility. When a blogger puts up a post they add words to the collective knowledge. Whether that addition is useful or misleading is solely the responsibility of the individual. At least, that is the case when a site like Blogger or WordPress is involved, but what happens when a newspaper is doing the hosting?

I believe in news papers. It is corny sounding I know, but I believe in the power of the press to transform lives and enrich communities. I read a number of online news papers everyday, but only one actually materializes on my door step. Only one I read cover to cover with my daughter spreading each section around the living room as I finish them. I subscribe to The News-Gazette.

When the paper puts out a story it takes responsibility for it. Corrections are made to the smallest of errors. This does not carry over to the blogs they host. While I can respect the goal of offering a variety of view points from here in Champaign-Urbana. However they are, in at least one case, giving voice to someone that is a true embarrassment to the community.

The News-Gazette web log "Against The Tide" is written by Rhonda Robinson and it is woefully misleading and at times seriously offensive. Post titles include:

Are schools responsible for science and suicide?
Are a few Muslim taxi drivers taking the US on the road to a Muslim state?
Terrifying liberals
Local psychologist battles new McCarthyism
Are large families breeding contempt?
Maine Middle School now teaching Reading, Writing and Contraception

Her opinions are far from my own which isn't a crime and it's why I have kept my mouth shut thus far, but she has crossed the line with her post concerning the NIU tragedy. Please, read this. Does she present this post as an opinion or is it geared to look as though it is a legitimate article? Most of the post is made up from quotes taken from a Dr. Julian Whitaker, someone whose sells vitamins on the internet among other things, and who I imagine would be horrified to see his words connected to the phrase "emotionless killing zombie."

To see our local paper publishing her blog on their site is mind numbingly frustrating. This isn't the first time she's done this. She takes a fact or a quote out of context and spins it into something she can use to push her agenda. That's fine if she is publishing somewhere neutral, but not under the banner of my paper. I don't want people around the world visiting The News-Gazette Online to have this woman for an ambassador. This is an embarrassment to the community and completely unnecessary. This is a large community of diverse viewpoints and home to an excellent university. If the News-Gazette wants someone to stir up a little controversy then let them choose someone who can do so with intelligence and a respect for the truth.

I'm sorry if this is a bit much, but I haven't slept over this.

After reading the New York Times articles from last week about the unaffair and today about the unqualification, I thought I'd take a crack at breaking their story for next week that combines these two elements.  My apologies up front.

After two weeks of assaults by various people regarding his fidelity to his marriage and whether he is qualified under the Constitution to be President, John McCain found another trouble at his doorstep this week.  Sources have told the New York Times that McCain's mother Roberta had an "interesting" relationship with a Panamanian busboy during her time in the Canal Zone with her husband.

Sen McCain, when asked whether he would exhume the body of his deceased father of 27 years to attempt to get DNA evidence that would lay this story to rest said, "If we pull him out of his grave, I'm putting you in it."  Once again, the refusal to address this issue head on, combined with his adamant refusal to admit to an affair that many believe happened, have left the McCain campaign reeling.

I received a copy of a FOIA request from the News-Gazette to a local government official.  My guess is that the News-Gazette is fishing for some technical violations of the Freedom of Information Act.  For example, here is one part of the Freedom of Information Act

(5 ILCS 140/4) (from Ch. 116, par. 204)
    Sec. 4. Each public body shall prominently display at each of its administrative or regional offices, make available for inspection and copying, and send through the mail if requested, each of the following:
    (a) A brief description of itself, which will include, but not be limited to, a short summary of its purpose, a block diagram giving its functional subdivisions, the total amount of its operating budget, the number and location of all of its separate offices, the approximate number of full and part‑time employees, and the identification and membership of any board, commission, committee, or council which operates in an advisory capacity relative to the operation of the public body, or which exercises control over its policies or procedures, or to which the public body is required to report and be answerable for its operations; and
    (b) A brief description of the methods whereby the public may request information and public records, a directory designating by titles and addresses those employees to whom requests for public records should be directed, and any fees allowable under Section 6 of this Act.

It's hard to imagine that some small town library board is going to have "a block diagram giving its functional subdivisions,"  However, the law is the law, and I hope that the various officials out there are doing their best to comply with this request.

About five years ago I received this same sort of request via an intern from the News-Gazette.  I responded to the intern who failed to pass my response on to her superiors.  I ended up on the front page of the paper under the headline "Not So Open Records".  Within the body of the article, it was clear I wasn't in violation of the law.  But the headline wasn't too much fun.

FOIA violators can take solace though.  Probably the most egregious violations of FOIA in recent years have come from Steve Beckett, Julia Rietz, and Barb Wysocki.  Each of them was subsequently endorsed by the News-Gazette editorial board. 

Along the lines of my last rant, Prof. Brian Gaines  of the University of Illinois wrote an article that was in the News-Gazette last week that talks about the absurdity of declaring winners in primaries.  While the News-Gazette won't let you get it, you're lucky because the Springfield Journal Register has the column available on line.

Is the VA banning the traditional flag-folding recitation at military funerals because some evil secularist complained about the religious and specifically Christian themed lines?

Short Answer: No!

Long answer here.

The News-Gazette now has a message board.

Wait a second...

The News-Gazette has a message board?!?

UPDATE:  Looks like they've been up since early September, at least.  And, given the traffic, it appears I'm not the only one who hasn't noticed.  Either way, good luck to them - more citizen journalism is a great thing for all of us, even if it's a message board on a newspaper website.

I guess when I post something like this, I should get ready for a deluge of comments about how blindly partisan and out-of-touch I am.

Ever since the Sept. 10 testimony of Gen. David Petraeus, we've heard less and less from the mainstream media about the war in Iraq. The old adage "no news is good news" has never been truer.

That the media are no longer much interested in Iraq is a sure sign things are going well there. Instead, they're talking about the presidential campaign, or Burma, or global warming, or . . . whatever.

Why? Simply put, the news from Iraq has been quite positive, as Petraeus related in his report to Congress.

Understand that I've been completely withdrawn from current events for the past week or so, but it sure feels like we haven't been hearing much about Iraq lately.  And the Democrats in the Senate just voted (very quietly) to fund the War for a while longer, while all of the major Democratic Presidential candidates (including Sen. Barack Obama) conveniently deciding to skip the vote.

So what do you think is going on over there, anyway?  And why do you think we're hearing less about it?  Or am I crazy for thinking that we are?

Have you ever completely stopped paying attention to the news for a few days or a week, and then tried to catch up?  It's such an odd feeling of disconnect, and I experienced it last night as I started to catch up on some of my subscriptions in my feedreader. 

Even when I go camping or go on vacation, I don't withdraw as fully from current events as I have during the past week. Reading about such trivial things that I'm sure seemed so important on Thursday and Friday is just odd.

(I do wish I had DVRed the Illini game from Saturday, though.  Oh, that's right - I couldn't, because the Big Ten Network still sucks.  Whoever thought that killing the exposure of the conference would be such a great idea, anyway?)

The News-Gazette may wish to note that the New York Times has tried charging users for content, and they have failed.

The New York Times will stop charging for access to parts of its Web site, effective at midnight Tuesday night.

The move comes two years to the day after The Times began the subscription program, TimesSelect, which has charged $49.95 a year, or $7.95 a month, for online access to the work of its columnists and to the newspaper’s archives. TimesSelect has been free to print subscribers to The Times and to some students and educators.

In addition to opening the entire site to all readers, The Times will also make available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge, as well as those from 1851 to 1922, which are in the public domain. There will be charges for some material from the period 1923 to 1986, and some will be free.

The Times said the project had met expectations, drawing 227,000 paying subscribers — out of 787,000 over all — and generating about $10 million a year in revenue.

“But our projections for growth on that paid subscriber base were low, compared to the growth of online advertising,” said Vivian L. Schiller, senior vice president and general manager of the site, NYTimes.com.

What changed, The Times said, was that many more readers started coming to the site from search engines and links on other sites instead of coming directly to NYTimes.com. These indirect readers, unable to get access to articles behind the pay wall and less likely to pay subscription fees than the more loyal direct users, were seen as opportunities for more page views and increased advertising revenue.

“What wasn’t anticipated was the explosion in how much of our traffic would be generated by Google, by Yahoo and some others,” Ms. Schiller said.

That's not to say that the NYT is always right, that there weren't other factors or that such a business model cannot work.  Just pointing it out...

I am already tired of hearing about OJ Simpson and his latest troubles.  It does not affect my life, and being deluged in OJ-related non-news makes me want to scream.

Please don't turn this into a multi-week media extravaganza.  One weekend is enough, and it's now time to move to stories that actually matter.

Thank you.

Jim Turpin is trying to deal with a radio call-in troll right now on WDWS' Penny For Your Thoughts.

And I thought we were the only place in town that had to deal with such problems.

I hope Jim has more luck with them than I do.  :-)

All I can say about this story is, "Huh?"

According to testimony in the two-day trial, Davis had been a newsroom intern at WICD in Champaign for about three weeks on Sept. 16, 2006. After getting off work about 11 p.m. that day, she went to the apartment of Emily Carlson, 24, a WICD reporter, in the 800 block of Oakland Avenue in Urbana. Davis said Carlson purchased and served her two drinks of orange juice and vodka and two additional shots of vodka.

Davis said Carlson also called fellow newsroom employee and anchor Kent Ninomiya, 41, to come to the apartment. Davis said Carlson, who did not testify, wanted both of them to have sex with Ninomiya.

Carlson and Ninomiya, who previously worked together in Minnesota, are no longer employed at the station...

Asked why she left, Davis said: "I thought they were going to make me have sex with them. I don't remember a thing the minute I walk out of the apartment. I had to get out of there," she said.

However, Davis said she did remember being hit with an air bag.

Dison and Pugh agreed that Davis hit two parked cars in the parking lot of Merry Ann's Diner, 1510 S. Neil Street, C, miles from Carlson's apartment off Cunningham Avenue in Urbana, then continued north with air bags deployed and driving on three flat tires. At 12:50 a.m., UI police officer Barb Robbins, who was at the corner of Sixth and Green streets, spotted the damaged car eastbound on Green. She found it minutes later in a parking garage at Fifth and Daniel streets with Davis outside it on her cell phone.

Robbins quickly determined Davis was intoxicated, arrested her and took her to the hospital for a blood draw after Davis vomited in the back of the squad car. Davis' blood-alcohol level was 0.20 percent, the attorneys agreed.

Another officer, Robbins said, was alerted to the hit-and-run at Merry Ann's and linked Davis to that.

Arguing to the nine-woman, three-man jury, Pugh said the trial wasn't about a sex crime and that even if they believed Davis, they should reject her belief that she felt she had to drive to escape her situation.

Read the whole thing.

This looks interesting:

The University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) and the College of Law are partnering with local ABC affiliate, WDWS-AM 1400, to present a weekly radio show “Government Insight” covering state and local government, politics, and legal topics. The show, set to debut on Tuesday, September 4 during the 4 p.m. hour of the “Gary O’Brien Show,” is hosted by former Illinois State Senator Rick Winkel. Senator Winkel is a visiting senior fellow of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) and an adjunct professor of law in the College of Law at the University of Illinois, where he teaches a course on legislation and legislative process.

“We’re excited to partner with the University of Illinois College of Law and the Institute of Government and Public Affairs to produce this informative new program,” said Mike Haile, General Manager of WDWS-AM 1400 and Lite Rock 97.5. “This program not only provides valuable information to our listeners but further strengthens the relationship between our radio stations and the University of Illinois campus.”

“Government Insight” will also be available online at www.igpa.uillinois.edu and www.law.uiuc.edu.

“This show will provide listeners with an insider’s view of the decision-making process and the people and personalities involved in local, state, and national government,” said Professor Winkel. “This should be fun and informative for our listeners, to find out who is involved in key decisions and the ramifications of those decisions on all of us as private citizens.”