I will be on the Ed Morrissey Show at 2pm Central Time. Click that link and follow directions to listen in!

Labels: hot air, Media

Thanks to Powerline for the following paragraph to which I'll pose two questions:

Judge Sotomayor has disclosed to the Senate that she belonged to an all-female club called the Belizean Grove. She claims that her club "did not discriminate in an inappropriate way."

If Judge Sotomayor had been a Republican, would the mainstream media, dominated by independents who vote for democrats, have ignored this [sexist] membership?

Secondly, does Judge Sotomayor's comment, highlighted above, mean that they discriminated in an appropriate way?

Labels: Feminists, Media

Just another day showing the media support of Democrats. Cindy Sheehan stages her own protest and the media is everywhere. What mainstream media covers 600 protesters of Nancy Pelosi? The latter happened in Houston on Friday, January 12. Did you see anything about this in the media?

Zip, nada, zero, etc. Why? Maybe the media doesn't want the American people to know what is really happening in the US. But, thanks to Politico, we have a video.

Americans are being cheated when their news is filtered through the lens of a media beholden or whatever to one political party. Our mainstream media has become so enamored (?) with the Democrats that they refuse to show anything that portrays their ignorance, arrogance or negative attitudes. This omission is unfair and unjust to all of us. Freedom of the press means the good, bad and ugly of BOTH sides is covered as evenly as possible. Silly me, I thought the First Amendment meant that.

Labels: Democrats, Media

When Dave Aeikens was on my program on Saturday he mentioned an citizen's journalism academy he was hoping to run for Minneapolis. It appears to be a go:

I am writing to let you know that the Society of Professional Journalists will be bringing one of its national training programs to Minneapolis in June. The Citizen Journalism academies are designed to help provide advice and information to journalists not affiliated with newsrooms or who have not had formal training about gathering and reporting news. The program provides primers on ethics, state open records laws, media law, writing for online audiences and a look at the latest technological trends that people are using to cover the news. The Minneapolis Academy is the fifth in a series that started in 2008. We have had successful stops in North Carolina, Los Angeles and Chicago. A program is planned for Denver in May.

Minneapolis is an obvious place to conduct this event because of the great outpouring of citizen journalists in Minnesota.

I am hoping you will help me spread the word about this event to your friends and colleagues. I have provided a link that better explains the programs and describes some of the speakers we have lined up for Minneapolis. We will be completing the program lineup in the next few weeks.

http://www.spj.org/cja.asp

Word spread, Dave. The link says the Minneapolis session is June 13, at the StarTribune. Cost is $40 which includes lunch.

Labels: Media

Saturday's Final Word featured Society for Professional Journalists and St. Cloud Times reporter Dave Aeikens, the podcast of which is now available (link when it's live.) Following on our discussion of the press restrictions of the Minnesota Legislature, Dave provided us with examples where online and "legacy" journalists (hey, if it works for toxic assets, why not?) are working together to blur the lines between who is a journalist and who is not. In fact, he was adamant that the line could not be drawn.

In the second half we turned to the idea of media bias; I am one who does not think there is groupthink in the media (Janet might disagree with me here, but read through to be sure), but that writers tend to reflect individual preferences and are reinforced in doing so when they think their audience will favor. Some of the economic research that convinces me of this is a paper by Mullainathan and Shleifer (2005 AER, ungated copy here, hereinafter MS.) It was their example of the two stories on the unemployment rate that I read to Dave. I think there's slanting of stories, which as MS point out can be a rational response to a biased readership. The market for the StarTribune contains the congressional district of Keith Ellison, so you write stories Ellison supporters would like. That's not bias, that's responding to incentives.

With that in mind, consider this opinion piece written by Randy Krebs in the Sunday St. Cloud paper. He illustrates his belief that he has intolerant readers by reporting on phone calls he receives after the paper reports on "Rep. Steve Gottwalt’s bill requiring people to remove headgear for their driver’s license photo." A few sentences later he writes, "A couple of different readers called separately to express support for Gottwalt’s initial idea." Mr. Krebs takes the rest of the column to call these two callers intolerant. Wouldn't a reader think that by extension Krebs thinks Gottwalt is, too?

Except that the paper reported weeks ago (in an article co-authored by Dave Aeikens, just to tie this together) that after meeting with Muslim groups, who felt the law was discriminatory against their religious practices, Gottwalt revised the bill to strike a better balance. This point appears nowhere in the Krebs opinion unless you ask why Krebs called it "Gottwalt's initial idea." It seems to me Krebs was aware of that change, but because it was inconvenient to his story he made his way quickly around that point to get back to attacking the droogs who dared ring his phone.

So is that bias? I don't think so; even if it is, Mr. Krebs is certainly entitled in an opinion piece to express it. I suspect though it's a bit more like slanting; there is nothing false about what Krebs has written, but he's in need of props to tell his story of religious intolerance and found these callers handy. It would muddy his story to remind people of Gottwalt's revision, so that doesn't make it into the op-ed.

Dave argues in the podcast that without newspapers bloggers have nothing to say. But newspapers in fact present us with something to do: to demonstrate slanting, and yes, re-slant for our readers. Since it appears more liberals self-select into careers in journalism (see for example here and here for evidence, for starters), those who want a different slant are served by both Fox and by center-right bloggers.

Labels: economics, Gottwalt, Media, St. Cloud

Two appearances on central Minnesota radio this morning, talking about the local economy and last Friday's report:

• Up Front, with Rod Grams, KLTF in Little Falls, 9:40-10am.
• Jay Caldwell, WJON, around 10:15am.

There are audio streams available from each of those links (I do not think either podcasts.)

Labels: Media

The usefulness of economists continues, so I get to reappear on The Ed Morrissey Show at 2pm today to talk about the Geithner Plan. I haven't posted about it yet, so listen in, and then check back here for a summary.

Labels: Media

I'll be on the Ed Morrissey Show at 2:30pm CT today. I believe he's doing movies in the first half hour, so tune in for the whole show. I don't have a scorecard for what he wants to talk about, but I bet it will be economicky.

UPDATE: Different show link, and found out he wants to talk Fed. Google for Operation Twist to prepare...

Labels: economics, hot air, Media

Marty Owings, whose fight to get access to the Minnesota Legislature was chronicled on our show last Saturday and earlier, is now credentialed to the Minnesota House. How many others? We don't yet know:

My remaining concerns are simple. If there are new rules for "online" media, I haven't seen any. Perhaps we all fall under the umbrella of "Press", but then there remains the issue of updating the language to remove words like "television" and "radio", to be replaced with the more generic term "Press". If the process has not changed and the rules are what they've always been, then will every Journalist who applies for credentials have to wait two months and pester Legislators endlessly until they approve them?

So we do not yet know if anything has been done for Dan Ochsner. As Sunshine Week conitnues, let's keep working for equal access to all journalists, regardless of their media. Let's hope that Marty getting a pass and Dan losing his is the result of a process that provides equal access and not because Marty and Dan are on different sides of most issues.

Labels: DFL legislature, Media, Minnesota

For the discussion happening on Janet's post last night, permit me to recall a few earlier posts on the topic pre-Janet:

• A discussion of Groseclose and Milyo on media bias (June 2004); updated copy of the paper here;
• Daniel Sutter, Cato Journal 2001;
• Does the town of a newspaper determine its bias?

See also this from Steve Levitt and this from Freakonomics Blog co-contributor Melissa Lafsky.

Labels: Media

I'll join Ed Morrissey on Hot Air Radio at 2:30pm CT today to talk about the stimulus package, the mortgage bailout, and whither goeth the Obama economic plan. Be sure to tune in!

Labels: hot air, Media

In this post, I discussed the beheading of an Islamic woman, Aasiya Hassan, by her husband in Buffalo, NY. Also mentioned in that post was the silence of NOW. As in the past, the national president of NOW, Ms. Gandy, makes inane comments that attempt to equate all domestic violence or simply says nothing. Quoted in the Best of the Web Today, February 17, by James Taranto are the NOW responses to murder and/or violence perpetrated on women. Note Ms. Gandy's different reactions (or lack thereof) when the victim is from another culture:

One popular R&B singer, Chris Brown, assaulted and threatened singer Rihanna. Comment by Ms. Gandy: "Everyone is talking about this case because it involves two popular recording artists, but the sad reality is that domestic violence and dating violence happen every day, even among young teens, and the impact is both far-reaching and under-reported."

Relating to the Buffalo murder by Mr. Hassan, NOW issued this statement: ...

Two other cases were described: one from Murietta, CA where a Mr. Muhummed was sentenced to multiple life sentences for torturing and abusing some of his children and imprisoning two of his three wives; the brutalization of a woman by her husband, a vice consul at the Afghanistan Consulate in Queens. Ms Gandy of NOW issued this statement: ...

However, there may be a new wind blowing. Regarding the Buffalo murder, the NOW president in NY, Marcia Pappas, said: “This was apparently a terroristic version of honor killing, a murder rooted in cultural notions about women’s subordination to men.” She decried the scant national media attention paid to the story.

From Mr. Auhdi Jasser, founder and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy,
"It [the murder of Mrs. Hassan] certainly has all the markings of [an honor killing]," Jasser told FOXNews.com. "She expressed through the legal system that she was being abused, and at the moment she asked for divorce, she's not only murdered — she's decapitated."

His final comment is quite important: "The most dangerous aspect of this case is to simply say it's domestic violence," NOW, pay attention. Western press, pay attention. All behavior is NOT equal.

Labels: Feminists, Media

If this event had happened, there would be an immediate media firestorm. That story would have legs, with multiple angles for reporting: Religious hypocrisy. Sex and gore. Domestic Violence. A gruesomely unusual method of killing.

There can be no doubt that national and international newspapers and television would run endless breathless stories. Think Nicole Simpson, Mathew Shepard, Lorena Bobbitt, and Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker. Outraged women's groups would be interviewed. There would be no holding back, even though the public image of Christianity would take another hit.

Now consider a real story with the potential headline: Beautiful Wife of Televangelist Beheaded

Virtual silence by the same media. As of the time of this post, a search on Google News turns only a handful of published stories, mostly local, about the murder of this beautiful woman.

What accounts for the difference? Most people would have no difficulty completing this analogy: crucified::Christianity beheaded::??

The Associated Press carried the following short item on Friday:

ORCHARD PARK, N.Y. (AP) - A Buffalo-area man who runs an American-Islamic television station is accused of beheading his wife.

Orchard Park police say 44-year-old Muzzammil Hassan told police Thursday evening that his wife was dead at his office. That's where police found the body of 37-year-old Aasiya Hassan.

Hassan is now charged with second-degree murder [J:???] and police believe the killing occurred sometime late Thursday afternoon. Authorities say his wife had recently filed for divorce and had an order of protection that had him out of the home as of February 6th.

Hassan is the founder and chief executive of Bridges TV, which he launched in 2004 in hopes of portraying Muslims in a better light. [J: oh, really?]

Police didn't know Friday if Hassan had an attorney.

The only major outlets carrying the story as of now are the Toronto Star and the New York Post. Craven cowardice and political correctness reign. Update - Mark Steyn and Michelle Malkin have posted.

Where are the feminists? NOW? The media that is so quick to ridicule and condemn Christians and Jews? Just how fair and just is this barbaric behavior so easily ignored by western press?

Footnote: the standard texts to be read in our Lutheran church today condemns religious hypocrisy in this passage from I Corinthians Chapter 9, Verse 27: I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Don't you wonder what is being preached in mosques today?

Labels: Feminists, Media

I am on the KNSI Morning Show Wednesday through Friday this week, 6-8am CT.  Hope you listen in!  Streaming is available from the link, but alas no podcast.

Labels: KNSI, Media

I'll be on The Ed Morrissey Show at 2pm today CT. We'll discuss new data on housing. Let me also point to this article in the WSJ this morning on the same data, with some additional city-level data. Please listen in!

Labels: hot air, Media

I will be sitting in for Dan "The Ox" Ochsner on 1450 KNSI from 8 to 11 am tomorrow morning, joined by Mike Landy. For those of you who listen to me on Final Word, the format is pretty similar, but this Mike is not Michael. (More on him tomorrow, since Saturday is MDE's swan song from FW.)

There's streaming audio from the KNSI link; please listen in, and call 320-251-1990 to participate!

Labels: Final Word, KNSI, Media

Some of you know that I taught elementary school a number of years ago. This was before the politically correct movement got in the way of real education. I teach a college class now and all I can say is we're cheating our children by giving them As, letting them think each of them is perfect all the time, that there is no evil except the USA and that all children deserve to win everything and get gold stars. When we don't demand standards and knowledge, we all lose, but more importantly, we are handicapping them for life.

Now, I've found this video about the Hamas (you know, those Palestinians whom Israel is fighting because these Palestinians seem to think they can fire rockets into Israeli homes, schools, etc. with abandon and nothing will be done about it because the mainstream press and the United Nations (UN) turn a blind eye towards this practice and do nothing).

Watch this video. Something is radically wrong when a culture teaches its 5 year olds to hate and become a "martyr" which in reality is murder. Would you want your kid or grand kid to be raised in such an environment of hate, prejudice and sheeer stupidity with a total disregard for all human life?

I think not. It's time that civilized nations and so-called psychologists look at the real damage being done to Palestinian kids. Start raising the noise level on this practice. The problem is not Israel - you won't find sane nations teaching guerrilla warfare to kindergartners - you will in Palestine - it's been going on for a very long time.

Labels: education, Media

Finals have been graded, giving me time to get onto The Ed Morrissey Show today at 2:30pm CT. Hope yuo can join us!

Labels: Media

I'll be on KKMS (AM 980) in the Twin Cities in a few minutes with Jeff Shell and Lee Michaels, talking about the current economy. For those of you outside the Twin Cities, KKMS is the sister station of The Patriot. The interview should last until 4pm CT. Listen in! (Stream on the station link.)

Labels: AM1280, Media

Kathy's son and mine went to the same school for 7th and 8th grades. We got to know each other fairly well and have kept in touch ever since. The fact that the Strib is dropping her column says volumes about the bias in the paper. Yes, Nick Coleman is going, too - finally - but he's got an entire chorus behind him so his leftist view of the world will be perpetuated.

Kathy's view, is another issue. Her columns provide much needed fresh air and common sense. They covered issues too much of the mainstream media is either afraid to write about or is incapable of comprehending. If you wish to make your sentiments known, please contact the paper's editor, Nancy Barnes at: nbarnes@startribune.com. While I doubt Ms. Barnes will even consider hiring a conservative replacement, letting her know why releasing Ms. Kersten is a horrible mistake has a slight chance of making an impact.

When papers and media present only one side of an issue or ignore an issue in its entirety, they are cheating themselves and their audience. A press that engages in such self-censorship is no longer free - it has voluntarily given up its freedom - without a fight.

Labels: free speech, Media, StarTribune

I'll be on at 2pm with Ed Morrissey of Hot Air to talk about the bank/auto/Armenian economics professor bailout plan. :) Excuse my voice in advance -- I have a cold and am hitting the honey and lemon tea right now to effect repairs.

Labels: banking, economics, Media

Fire Joe Morgan is no more.

How the hell is firetimmcarver.com still available?

Labels: Media, sports

One of my nieces is friends with a 13-year-old student reporter for Scholastic News Online, and I've been watching the press conference they are having for the last ten minutes before going to lunch. I hope they get jobs as reporters in the future; there may be hope yet to resurrect that profession.

Labels: education, Media

It is no secret that the press has been in the bag for Senator Obama.  Howard Kurtz' last Friday made it quite plain:

Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois. 

Obama's coverage was more balanced during the six-week period from Sept. 8 through last Thursday, with 36 percent of the stories clearly positive, 35 percent neutral or mixed and 29 percent negative. 

McCain has struggled during this period and slipped in the polls, which is one of the reasons for the more negative assessments by the 48 news outlets studied by the Washington-based group. But the imbalance is striking nonetheless.

We have joked often about bias at the StarTribune, which made last Saturday's endorsement of Senator Coleman for re-election all the more remarkable. When it turns out that the media are taking their children to Obama events to get souvenirs, it strains credulity to think they do not have some investment in the history that an Obama win would create in their minds, and damn the consequences both to the country of his policies later and to the newspapers' own reputations.

I have received several emails and phone calls over the last week furious with coverage of the local newspaper. There has been a steady drumbeat of negative front-page articles regarding Rep. Bachmann -- this one on her withdrawing a pardon request for someone subsequently pleading guilty in the Petters scandal ran as their Sunday headline; if you can explain that choice as anything other than an attack to smear Bachmann by implication, the comments box is open -- and a preference for higher taxes for public works that borders on fetishism. It is almost an article of faith that this is true among local Republican leaders.  

But at the same time, I know many of the reporters and most of the editorial board, and I do not want to believe this of them.  I do not believe them to be intentional in that bias.  They may have it despite their attempts to work around them.  I don't think perception should be allowed to decide this without some supporting evidence.

So I have a proposal. I wish to replicate the Project for Excellence in Journalism study for our local newspaper.  I need a few hours of volunteer time and access to the Times' archives for the last two months.  I propose using the public library for the archive.  Send an email to the comment box if you wish to participate.  I am particularly hoping one or two liberal readers to join this project.  We would replicate this for Obama/McCain, Coleman/Franken/Barkley and Bachmann/Tinklenberg.  I would hope to finish the project quickly, though finishing it in time for the elections is not important.  This is not a partisan event.  It's an attempt to give evidence on the quality of our own area paper's news coverage.

Labels: Media, politics, St. Cloud

I will be on Joshua Sharf's BlogTalkRadio program at 1pm CT with Bill Polley, to discuss the financial situation.

Labels: Media

This unsolicited note was received by Glenn Reynolds, author of the Instapundit site.

"A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: "Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in Arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into Obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted. (Glenn)

It will be the mainstream media (MSM) who are the cause of our loss of freedoms. When they, along with their buddies in the classrooms, choose favorites (think teacher's pet) and "report" only one side of an issue we all lose. When the MSM condones name calling and unsubstantiated attacks of people of one side of the political spectrum, while refusing to address real issues, we all lose. When the MSM ignores facts that are counter to their bubble beliefs, we all lose,

The saddest irony is that if this bias continues unchecked, the "truth" squad will run DC and there will be no stopping this "truth" squad from turning on the very MSM they used to gain power, that is, after the "truth" squad has eliminated any voice that does not buy into their agenda.

Americans are smart enough IF given the necessary information. When Americans get only one viewpoint, it becomes very difficult to make a wise decision. One cannot choose well without facts.

Labels: Media

I am doing the second half of Hot Talk on KNSI tomorrow morning, from 9:30 to 11am. Ox and Mike will have the first half, I believe, from the new Derrick House at Quarry Park.

Labels: KNSI, Media

Media alert:  I'll be hosting the Morning Show on 1450 KNSI for through Friday from 6 to 8am.  Streaming available on the link; the call in number is 320-251-1990.  It gets a little lonely in that first hour sometimes so if you're up and interested, give us a call please.

Labels: KNSI, Media

Today I found a report about a young Pakistani girl who was forced into marriage with a 45 year old man at the age of 9. By age 17, she had had enough of the "relationship" and decided to go to court for an annulment. After fighting for her case, mostly by herself, she was finally granted an annulment.

Freedom? No. Family members murdered her outside the courtroom on the street, in front of police.

A second story in the article tells of three other teenage school girls who wanted to marry men of their choice, not some middle-aged guy who decided he needed a young girl. (We have terms for this in the west.) The three young women and two older women were rounded up by (guess what?) male relatives, taken to a desert area, lined up, shot, and thrown in a ditch. It's not clear they were yet dead. They were buried alive. When the two older women decided to protest, they, too were murdered and thrown in the ditch.

Even more disgusting is this comment by a Pakistan national parliament senator, "these are centuries-old traditions and I will continue to defend them" Excuse me - most cultures have realized that 7th century practices are barbaric and have no place in today's societies. While these cultures have adapted over centuries, there is a subset of one that refuses to treat women with decency.

I invite our readers, the traditional mainstream media, the National Organization for Women and other "feminists" to join me in devoting time and attention to publicizing and condemning these atrocities towards women.

Labels: Feminists, Media

The latest in your Sarah-Palin-is-a-wacko attack: She's a Pentecostal. Hide the children! Final Word producer Matt (a/k/a Antoine) explains:

While some "Bible-believers" may disagree on Theology, but they don't deride them. This is what these AP Reporters don't get. When you don't have a evangelical or even a Judeo-Christian worldview, it's extremely hard to understand the theological differences and the different style of worship that happens in a Pentecostal church. They express their worship outwardly. Maybe I can help them understand. That furrow that Chris Matthews feels for Barack Obama, that's close to how Pentecostals feel about their triune God, the Father, Son (that's Jesus) and Holy Spirit. When they feel the Holy Spirit move, it is expressed through verbal worship.

In the group I have breakfast with many mornings, this "she's a Pentecostal" thing had already reached one of our group who supports the Democratic candidate. "They do that speaking in tongues thing" he said. And another guy at the table, whom everyone knew goes to a fundamentalist church and has some different views on religion, said "so do I. What would you like to know about it?" A little education happened after that.

A third guy usually there but not that time is a pastor friend. He says, in short, while we have theological differences people who profess Christianity are spreading the Word, and we do not argue with them. There's always an opportunity to get a little education, one that I try to take.

But the vilification of Governor Palin will continue, since nobody will countenance her being more popular than the would-be Community-Organizer-in-Chief; and who think the only sisterhood that should matter should be lead by women in pantsuits. Maybe it works, but maybe the pantsuits this time will be the ones getting a little education.

Labels: Media, religion, Sarah Palin

At the end of our broadcast last night, I said to Ed and Duane Patterson of the Hugh Hewitt Show that the most important thing this morning would be to see what was the rating for the Palin speech. Here's the answer: Palin Nabs Highest '08 Broadcast TV Convention Ratings:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s speech during Wednesday night’s Republican National Convention bested Democratic speeches from Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and, in some cases, Barack Obama in preliminary ratings.

Speaking last night, along with former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Gov. Palin took in a 5.4 rating/8 share on NBC, according to preliminary overnight household data from Nielsen Media Research, measuring 55 markets across the United States.

In terms of this year’s conventions, the preliminary rating for NBC’s coverage last night is higher than any other night of the convention on the broadcast networks, including Sen. Obama’s nomination acceptance speech on Aug. 28.

However, the ratings are preliminary and are subject to change.

The Economist reports that final figures for Barack Obama's convention speech was for 38 million viewers, "twice the audience that viewed John Kerry’s address to his party in 2004, but not as many that watched big football games earlier in the year." Note that preliminary numbers will have to be updated, so we don't know that she beat Obama in all markets or on all networks. But no doubt she is the topic at every water cooler and across every fence and in every coffee shop in America today.

UPDATE: Via Drudge, total viewership 37.2 million on four fewer networks than Obama's 38.4 million. Within the margin of error, to say the least.

Labels: Media, Republican Convention

I will be subbing for Don Lyons on the Morning Show today at 6-8am on 1450 KNSI here in St. Cloud (streaming available through the link). Then at 5-7pm, the Final Word begins its State Fair duties. If you are at the Fair this afternoon, come by the Patriot booth, newly placed on Dan Patch Blvd, and visit with Michael and me. NARN will be at the Fair weekdays 5-7 along with our normal Saturday gig (11-5; the Final Word begins at 3.)

Labels: AM1280, Feminists, KNSI, Media, NARN, Northern Alliance Radio Network

I will be on Hot Air with Ed Morrissey at 2pm today, discussing both economics and Georgia. Please join in the conversation! In re the Obama tax plans, see this from the campaign (as published in this morning's WSJ); my summary of the Boskin editorials to which Furman and Goolsbee are responding; and contrast to Brill and Viard,

Labels: Feminists, Media

We've all been saturated with coverage of Senator Obama and will have to contend with this for a few more days. This saturation represents what many conservatives indicates the unfairness of political coverage by the mainstream media (MSM). Just reference one time in television's history when the anchors on the (used to be) Big Three networks were part of a non-president's overseas entourage? I don't think ever. Yet those on the left complain that the coverage is controlled by the right. Excuse me while I choke on that last statement.

Now from Investor's Business Daily comes a totally shocking report: Media donations favor Democrats. While the overview looks like 10:1 or 20:1, when Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani are taken out of the equation and only Obama and McCain are used, the ratio is 100:1. I'm shocked, just totally shocked! I had NO idea. Take a look at this table.



The MSM uses as its excuse that Obama is more newsworthy but the donations say otherwise - the MSM wants to flex its declining muscle and put Obama in as POTUS. They may do it since they ignore his gaffes, his flip-flopping (Obama makes John Kerry look like an amateur), his flat out misstatements (to be charitable) like the one today about his heading up the Senate banking committee when he's not even on a subcommittee. What's a little lie when the press is foreign - Obama and his staff probably figure those foreigners won't know the difference. Perhaps in fawning Europe that might be the case but not in Israel or the rest of the Middle East where Senator Obama has gotten a luke warm reception at best.

Enough - money talks and this table says it all. Media bias is alive and well. Please remember this when you read news reports.

What's really bad about this is that people only get one side of the "news" and this simply is wrong. I have a saying I use, "Like promotes like" and it sure looks like MSM, located in mostly strong blue cities, promotes blue/left leaning people to the detriment of us all.

Labels: Media

Excuse me while I clean the Coke off my keyboard after reading this.

Rep. Bachmann used a word picture to describe the offlimits energy supplies in this way:

Picture the pantry being full of food and your children wanting to eat. Then picture that the pantry is locked. America has lots of energy but Congress has locked the pantry.

Mr. [Pioneer Press reporter Jim] Ragsdale started by saying that he liked the picture, then asked this question:

“What if the pantry was full and the children were already overweight. Shouldn’t we keep that pantry locked?

Leo suggests Mr. Ragsdale "pines for the return to the malaise of yesteryear that everyone so enjoyed during the Carter administration."

Labels: Media, Michele Bachmann

My friend Ed Morrissey just wrote to ask me to be on The Ed Morrissey Show around 2:30. We will discuss the economy and maybe the series of posts on the bulletin boards. The series is in progress and will continue for another two weeks or so -- as I mentioned to Gary while he was here on campus this AM, SCSU is a target-rich environment for such posts. I've only explored one building thus far. Here are the first six photo-posts:

• Intro
• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6

Labels: hot air, Media, NARN

It seems weird that a man who wrote two books about his father would die on Father's Day weekend. I remember sitting in hotel rooms overseas stuck with CNBC and BBC World waiting for Tim Russert to come on. One show had him in Cooperstown with four Hall of Fame catchers. You could feel his excitement, and why not? if you were there, you'd've felt the same. And he behaved just as you would have wanted to, asked the questions you would have wanted to ask.

Whatever one thought of Russert's politics, you thought he was like you, would like you, and you would like him if you had a cup of coffee with him. And so you watched.

Labels: Media

I'll be on KNSI's Morning Show tomorrow, 6-8 AM. Streaming audio available at that link.

I was going to post things today but had too much fun updating a syllabus instead. We academics are funny like that. Back tomorrow.

Labels: Media

I am going to be on the Ed Morrissey Show at 2pm CT.

Labels: Media

Hunger Stalks Millions of Poor Americans blares the headline in the Financial Times of London. The article itself, however, turns out to be a combination of rank speculation and advocacy journalism for more welfare spending, triggered by pending congressional consideration of the farm bill.

The real story behind the farm bill, of course, is this astonishing observation by Ronald Bailey:

The amount of food being burned because of government mandates and subsidies for biofuels would feed nearly 450 million people. [My paraphrase]

That’s right, folks. We could feed every person on the entire North American continent with the food we burn because of well-intentioned but foolish government intervention in agricultural markets.

Over at National Review Online, Deroy Murdock notes the resulting Global Food Riots: Made in Washington, DC occurring in such places as Haiti, Mexico, Egypt, Pakistan and the Ivory Coast. His excellent article pulls together a wide range of relevant factual information on the biofuels mess, linked to the sources.

Contrast the opening sentences of the FT story:

An escalating global food crisis could bring the problem of hunger home to the US and other developed countries. Millions of poor Americans risk going hungry if food prices continue to rise and food agencies struggle to cope with rising costs, dwindling resources and a huge increase in demand. Already more and more poor people in the US are turning to charity and government assistance as they struggle with rising food costs and soaring fuel bills.

The only factual information here is that the US has a social safety net, consisting of a variety of government programs and private charities that help poor people with food, fuel bills and similar problems. Food prices are up, and the social safety net appears to be doing what it is supposed to do. The rest is speculation.

All of the remainder of the FT article consists of quotes from “campaigners” who seek “to broaden eligibility for food stamps and increase emergency food provision”: the California Women Infants and Children Program Association, the Food Research and Action Center, the Cleveland Food Bank, the Greater Chicago Food Depository, America’s Second Harvest, and Martha’s Table.

It is neither news nor interesting analyis that such organizations want more of our tax dollars devoted to their government rent-seeking activities.

We used to subscribe to the Financial Times, the Economist, Scientific American and National Geographic, all of which once consistently published excellent material with analysis based on well-sourced facts. We watched with dismay as each began to devote more and more of their limited resources to shallow advocacy pieces like this. We canceled our subscriptions, one by one, with regret.

Labels: economics, Energy, food, Media

I will be speaking to a group of students at St. Olaf College tonight at 8pm in Buntrock Commons. The topic is health care and Medicare. "King, you don't know anything about that do you?" That's why I take these tasks on, to force myself to learn. I went through the positions on Medicare of the three different candidates. Short of it: None impressed me.

Labels: Media

You haven't seen much of this in the main stream press but Italy is the 5th European nation to elect a prime minister who is friendly to the US in the past three years. Did we change leaders? No but the Europeans realize what is at stake. Berlusconi was elected Prime Minister of Italy last weekend - overwhelmingly. The Greens and Communists are out, as in gone, as in no influence, the first time since the end of WWII. Italy is on its way to a two-party system.

Five of the six biggest nations in Europe now have elected leaders who are supporters of the US: (Germany, 82,000,000, Angela Merkel); France, (62,000,000,000, Nicholas Sarkozy); the UK (59,000,000, Gordon Brown); Italy (57,000,000, Silvio Berlusconi); and Poland (39,000,000, Lech Kaczynski). The only outlier is Spain, (40,000,000, Jose Luis Zapatero), in which the mishandling of the Madrid bombings three days before the 2004 election led to a swing to the Spanish Socialist Workers Party.

Why won't we hear much about these successes? Oh, the mainstream media doesn't want us to know - they might have to admit that the USA is not the big, bad ogre they would like to make us out to be.

Labels: elections, Media

I will be filling in tomorrow morning for Dan "The Ox" Ochsner on Newstalk 1450 KNSI, 8-11am. Live streaming (but no podcast) available from the link. I will be with Dan's usual co-host Mike Landy; we anticipate a discussion starting at 9 about government waste.

Labels: KNSI, Media

It will be my pleasure to join James Joyner on Outside the Beltway Radio to talk about the three presidential candidates economic plans tonight at 6pm CT. I'm also n Hot Air tomorrow at 2:30 with Ed Morrissey but I don't know that that will be the topic. Separately link for that tomorrow.

Labels: Media

I think we should try this ourselves for FW: The David Strom Show's better half, Margaret Martin, has a show page for each broadcast in which they excerpt clips. She has two of me in last week's show.

Labels: Final Word, Media, MnFMI

St. Cloud Times managing editor John Bodette defends his paper's use of the term "anti-abortion" in its coverage of a local appearance by Alan Keyes:

The Times follows The Associated Press Stylebook in matter of style and usage.

The entry in the AP stylebook on "abortion" reads: "Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice. Avoid abortionist, which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions."

So, when writing our news stories we use the terms anti-abortion instead of pro-life unless it appears in a quote or the title of a group or organization.

...The reason the AP Stylebook makes its decision probably involves clarity of terms.

Here is a key quote from the foreword to the 2006 edition of the AP Stylebook: "But just as the AP remains dedicated to its fundamental journalistic principles, the AP Stylebook remains committed to its original concept: to provide a uniform presentation of the printed word, to make a story written anywhere understandable everywhere."

The original article is not online that I can find (the Times still uses a one-week pay wall for its free archives), so I cannot give you the context, but I think that pretty well says it. I'm not arguing with the AP stylebook's representation of abortion positions, but interested that Bodette would consider anti-abortion part of its "clarity of terms".

This morning the Times runs on page 1 an unsigned AP article that contains the same paragraph as this one signed by Tom Raum of the AP in the Washington Post:

The two Democrats are calling for a more activist role for the U.S. government to protect individuals. McCain is echoing standard GOP dogma of protecting markets and opposing bailouts.

What "clarity of terms" is incorporated in the use of the word "dogma"? Is Mr. Raum engaged in making "a story written anywhere understandable everywhere," or is he making a political point that makes the free market position somehow less considered, a knee-jerk reaction rather than something thought out as being better for individuals. "Activist" is a word that has connotations for economists different than for the public -- to the latter, it's meant to say Democrats want to do something, while the Republicans want to do nothing, and want to do nothing because they aren't thinking, they're just acting on an -ism.

That's clear enough to me ... clearly, the AP is impugning McCain's policies. Is "impugn" in the AP Stylebook?

Labels: economics, Media

I'm on two internet radio programs today. At noon CT I will be on Midstream Radio with Jazz Shaw and the Lady Logician. They write to ask me to explain Paul Krugman's column from yesterday. Consider me sympathetic to it; more below. (Note: Those wanting graphs with their Krugman go here.)

At 2:30pm CT I will be joining Ed Morrissey with his new Ed Morrissey Show (part of his new duties at Hot Air). He wants to talk about Brad Schiller's article in the WSJ yesterday on the reporting of inequality. That deserves a separate post which will appear above this one.

Back to Krugman. A speech by New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner has him worried. What got him worried? Here's a paragraph:

The current episode has a basic dynamic in common with all past crises. As market participants have moved to reduce exposure to further losses, to step on the brake, the brake became the accelerator, amplifying the shock. Measured risk has increased more quickly than many institutions have been able reduce it, and attempts to reduce it have added to volatility and downward pressure on prices, further increasing measured exposure to risk. Uncertainty about the market value of securities and about counterparty credit risk has increased, and many hedges have not performed as intended. The rational actions taken by even the strongest financial institutions to reduce exposure to future losses have caused significant collateral damage to market functioning. This, in turn, has intensified the liquidity problems for a wide range of bank and nonbank financial institutions.

In English, then: Everyone tried to get out of their positions at once, and put downward pressure on prices of the assets they were holding. I had two people quote a statistic today to me while I was off-campus (and an international visitor on-campus) that 10% of mortgages today are worth more than the houses that are their collateral. The damage has spread even to hedge funds backed by Treasuries, which almost never happens: Treasuries are supposed to be safest of the safe. Now that's collateral damage.

The Federal Reserve facing these liquidity issues -- and still faced with inflation higher than they would like -- has engaged in what James Hamilton calls monetary policy on the asset side of the balance sheet. In it Hamilton says the Fed's policy has rotated from its usual actions on monetary base -- the liability side of the Federal Reserve balance sheet -- to its asset side. I've updated his table to show what's happened since mid-December:


There hasn't been still much of a change in the monetary base -- there has been about a doubling of bank reserves, indicating that banks are laying away some money to protect themselves. When I wrote in August, the Fed was trying to use the discount window itself. The Fed has moved towards buying more and more assets through its term auction facility. It is permitting a variety of assets to be purchased through this, leading one writer to refer to the Fed as a pawnbroker as Krugman mentions. But those collateral are no different in type than they bought before -- it's just that they're more risky, and everyone knows it.

(UPDATE: I failed to mention yesterday's action expanding a second "Term Securities Lending Facility." This strikes me just as more of the same; Douglas Elmendorf shows that it's two transactions combined to one, both on the asset side. Remember what Bagehot said? Lending on "any good paper". Or Jeffrey Lacker in August said, one needs to make credit available without interfering with market assessment of risk. It's the destruction of credit that is to be avoided. Does the TSLF interfere with market assessment of risk? I don't yet see it.)

Where I "mostly agree" with Krugman -- the effect of these effects diminishes each time we try to add more reserves this way while we sterilize the the inflow of money. The Fed is selling off its Treasury holdings to absorb back the excess credit they are creating. In theory, we should not be generating additional inflationary pressures this way, and nothing in the money supply data would indicate to me a sharp increase in inflationary expectations. But they are nonetheless there, even if Bernanke doesn't seem too concerned.

As to Krugman's conclusion, that something must be done about the risks in mortgage markets, I wonder what he thought of George McGovern? I've looked at the change in risks by looking at the change in the spread between Baa and Aaa corporate bonds; it's risen, but only to levels that existed in 2003. That is not part of the anatomy of a crisis. I also wrote last August that asking banks to take an ownership position in houses -- an idea that seems not only to be not going away but being encouraged by people who should know better -- is a major risk to us getting out of the current jam. The market seems to be compelling banks to take their haircuts (in part by selling a piece of themselves to sovereign wealth funds, something Ed wants to talk about.) The political system is what is stopping homeowners from being told to do the same thing.

Labels: economics, Federal Reserve, Media

Program notes for the week:

• Today, at 12:15, I am speaking at the U of M Law School, Room 25, on what makes nations rich and poor. Some ideas from the book, but mostly a walk through some random thoughts on how people look at development. Courtesy the Tocqueville Center.
• Tomorrow through Friday, the KNSI Morning Show, filling in for Don Lyons, 6-8am. 1450 AM on your dial if you're in St. Cloud or nearby, otherwise the show does stream (sometimes.)

As usual, busy and probably light blogging. But the book would be shipped if not for one page of references somebody didn't turn in yet. So light is at the end of the tunnel...

Labels: blogging, Media

President and Mrs. Bush went on a tour of Africa from February 17-21 - by the few accounts I heard of, it was incredibly successful. Where's our mainstream media coverage? Not too many places.

And you think there is no bias? If Bush were a Democrat on a goodwill tour of Africa being received well, do you think our mainstream media would ignore it? No.

What is the basic problem here? Americans are not being informed of the really good things our president is doing. Whether we like it or not, we are the world leader and when our president makes a point of carrying representative democracy to nations craving for something besides a tribal mentality and our media ignores it, that is plain wrong.

President Bush has done more to alleviate the scourge of AIDs in the African continent than any one else, including all the do-gooders in Europe. A total of $15,000,000,000 has been allocated to help Africans with this disease. Coverage? None.

The U.S. is the largest donor to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), with more than 40 percent of that funding going to Africa in 2007. Coverage, none. (from White House memo)

Here are a few of the notices I found about this trip, nothing major.

NPR mini report - Note the snide, nasty remark in the second paragraph. Of course, this is NPR, funded by our tax dollars.

Rwanda: We cannot be everywhere but also must recognize that tribal conflicts too often are alive and well in many African nations. The US never colonized any nation in Africa. The Arabs and Europeans did, big time. Both groups, Arabs 700 years before the Europeans, engaged in pitting tribes against each other, originally for a source of slaves, later for other reasons. The Europeans left conflicting boundaries but based on my students, they also left decent school systems for boys and girls. The Arabs wiped out cultures, languages, etc. Schools appear to be for boys only. The US has provide far more hope, support, and direction than any other nation on the planet. Are our students taught this? No.

This unclear article in an unknown paper, includes this comment: "But as far as the international activist community is concerned, Bush's remarks fall on deaf ears." Part of the reason Bush's comments "fall on deaf ears" is because too much of the world's media likes to ignore Bush and any good done by the US while blaming us for any and all problems. They refuse to help, really help.

The list goes on - you get the picture. We need our media to we tout what we do right - which is a lot. When we and others on the planet only hear bad, incorrect, or politically negative news about the US, we all lose. Our children have nothing to believe in when they are shown and taught only the negative. Just ask yourself - what could or would you do if your parents and grandparents only told you what you did wrong? You would have no faith in yourself. A nation can only do good as long as it believes in itself - once that is gone, basic tribal (in the general definition of tribal) instincts take over - it's not pretty.

Labels: education, Media

I had no idea Ed was also a big fan of All That Jazz. My parents were always the last on the block to get stuff, like a microwave, a color TV, or HBO. So when we finally got the last of those in about 1978 -- I was already in college but living at home -- we were addicted to it. After I went to graduate school, I came back for Christmas and this movie was on constantly that break (1979-80), and like Ed, I was fascinated with Roy Scheider's portrayal of Bob Fosse (who I still keep trying to type as Ray Fosse, baseball addict that I am.) I don't know how many times I've said "It's show time, folks" before walking into a classroom. Too many, I'm sure.

I liked no other movie Scheider did as much as this (though his role in "The Russia House" was good, it's just not a good LeCarre movie). This was the start of the second half of his career as a supporting actor showing up in every political thriller you could imagine. Since I'm a sucker for those movies, I saw him often. I had no idea he was 75 now, and he was still working. He was an actor we took for granted, but someone who added something to the movies I liked.

Labels: Media

It appears that, for a while at least, I'm the substitute for KNSI's Morning Show. I'll be on 6-8 tomorrow and Friday this week, and Wednesday through Friday next week. AM 1450 on your dial, and I believe their streaming works (from the link above) when they're on local programming. We might do a little politics tomorrow, just maybe.

UPDATE: Whoops! Missed communication had both me and Don Lyons there this morning. "The Senator" will be trying his hand at the host chair tomorrow. I'll be on next week.

Labels: KNSI, Media

Sticky for the day: I will be hosting an election returns show on AM 1280 the Patriot tonight beginning at 8pm. At some point Michael will arrive; we anticipate many local political figures calling in with their observations. Ed Morrissey is anticipated to stop by after his caucus (which I believe is his first experience ever with the MN system). THere's streaming audio available from the Patriot site if you are not in our broadcast range (which in the evening is quite possible.) We will have updates from other states as well on a night that could be decisive for John McCain but likely to be just another step in the danse macabre that has become the Democratic primary.

Labels: AM1280, Final Word, Media, NARN

It was thought by most individuals on campus that quick, forceful action on the appearance of vandals on the campus would lead to eventually good press. What we get for our efforts instead is an AP reporter running a story that reaches as far as the L.A. Times titled "Racist Displays Persist at Minn. College." (The PioneerPress at least gives us a little more credit: "Swastikas, other displays undermine St. Cloud State's efforts.") The writer dredges up our past bout with an anti-Semitism lawsuit and wonders how a court-ordered settlement that includes a state-funded Jewish Studies program could not solve the perceived problems of the campus.

The writer, Patrick Condon, is an AP writer who usually covers the Minnesota Legislature and state politics, and his writing indicates a great unfamiliarity with the personalities of SCSU. He uncritically quotes our Buster Cooper as "retired faculty", who is once again peddling his letters discouraging minority students from attending here. All to assist Condon to perpetrate a stereotype of St. Cloud and this university:

That was before a frightening six-week stretch in November and December when vandals carved or scrawled more than a dozen swastikas and other racist images on campus walls, elevators and bathroom stalls.

The spate came as a setback to this central Minnesota university, which has spent more than $1 million, thousands of hours and untold energy in recent years trying to undo its reputation as hostile toward racial and ethnic minorities, an image so entrenched that some refer to the surrounding town as "White Cloud."

Frightened, mind you, by graffiti. So what did this "Voices of Resistance" (required!) get you, President Potter? And toward what end does Condon work when he first uses the "White Cloud" smear and then reminds us of the influx of Somali immigrants?

Nor does advertising help. We noted in 2002 that all our efforts to remedy the anti-Semitism case of the time only bought us bad press. I wonder if President Potter, or any other administrator, had read those posts or former President Saigo's letters and the lack of good press we received. Perhaps then this administration would know that appeasement never buys you any peace with the drive-by media.

Yesterday's St. Cloud Times included a column by local lawyer John Reep, which noted the folly of our campus' efforts and suggests a different course of action:

We should stop reporting minor vandalism as hate crime and reserve that designation for more serious events. If we don't report, we should be able to stay off the evening news in Minneapolis.

Too late for that.

We can't control other news outlets, but our local media should be more selective in covering these stories. The continued coverage of every minor event lends credibility to that event, and actually contributes to an atmosphere of fear and intimidation that nobody wants.

Really, nobody wants this? Once again I ask, cui bono?

Labels: higher education, Media, SCSU

I'll be on Captain Ed's Heading Right Radio in about 25 minutes.

And for those of you who missed me on KNSI's Morning Show this morning, you can try again tomorrow and Wednesday.

Labels: KNSI, Media

A few weeks ago, we went to to see the Pompeii Exhibit and the current film at the Omni Theater, Greece: Secrets of the Past at the Science Museum of Minnesota. The Pompeii Exhibit was excellent. The artifacts and display of living quarters were informative and interesting. The formed casts showing people caught as the mountain exploded were eerie, very eerie. The film, however, left much to be desired.

The movie's photography was breathtaking. It recreated the Parthenon in all its glory, a tribute to the wonders of modern technology. However, the film also made too many statements in support of the current politically correct philosophy. The female narrator, one of the stars of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, made sure she covered her agenda. While it is true that the Greeks had slaves, as did all cultures at one time or another, the Greeks also laid the foundations for western ideas about man ruling himself, republican government and democracy.

The narrator had to make sure we knew Greek women were not allowed to vote. She pushed the "everyone is equal" agenda. First, the Greeks never thought everyone was equal. Second, it was the west that gave women the right to vote. You can argue it took the west too long but the concept and implementation of women's rights occurred in the west; not Africa, not Asia, not the Middle East, not Latin America, only in the northern hemisphere western cultures. Third, one of the main reasons the arts were able to flourish in the Greek world was because they had a strong military that protected them from outside invasions. Yes, they had wars but they also provided a stable enough environment that allowed arts to thrive.

It would be nice if the west's entertainment industry recognized this fact: They could not produce the quantity and quality of film, books, theater, music, etc. without a safe nation state. By having a strong military to protect all of us, these artistic endeavors can flourish. It would be especially heartwarming if the members of these communities recognized this.

Labels: entertainment, Media

I am venturing onto Blog Talk Radio again, but not with Ed. Jazz Shaw of Middle Earth Journal and a denizen of Ed's chat room on Heading Right has invited me to Mid Stream Radio at noon CT today. I was supposed to be there Monday but life intervenes while you're waiting for the next thing to do. Your usual economics and politics mix is on tap and now that we have New Hampshire to digest it should be a good half-hour or so.

Labels: blogging, Media

xen·o·phobe (n.) A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

From a blog post today at London-based Free Exchange, "in which journalists from The Economist Newspaper, Economist.com and the Economist Intelligence Unit post their thoughts and observations":

I am often accused of "elitism" for supporting free immigration, which is completely baffling on its face, since the reason for my support is the welfare of very poor foreigners.

...Poorer Americans, in addition to having less money, are on the whole also more racist, xenophobic, and sexist than wealthier Americans. "The elite", like it or not, is generally a liberalising influence in politics, and populism can and does take savage right-wing forms.

The writer is clearly xenophobic (both contemptuous and fearful) about those strange and foreign "poorer Americans."

Labels: economics, humor, immigration, Media

Attention to my friends at Fraters Libertas, whose feature on NARN: The Opening Act "This Week in Gatekeeping" is always a hit: I think I have a winner. A conversation between a blogger writing about baseball in Philadelphia (and Phillies fan) and longtime sportswriter Bill Conlin devolved into this quote from Mr. Conlin:

The only positive thing I can think of about Hitler’s time on earth–I’m sure he would have eliminated all bloggers. In Colonial times, bloggers were called “Pamphleteers.” They hung on street corners handing them out to passersby. Now, they hang out on electronic street corners, hoping somebody mouses on to their pretentious sites. Different medium, same MO. Shakespeare accidentally summed up the genre best with these words from a MacBeth soliloquy: “...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...”

The blogger points out several errors in Mr. Conlin's defense of the blogger's disagreement with Conlin over the National League MVP (Conlin supported the winner, Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins, while the blogger was persuaded by some statistics that Rollins was not the most deserving.) Conlin went on to suggest that his one mistake in his column was his editor's fault.

My columns are read by a minimum of three editors for fact, style, fairness and balance. Despite that scrutiny,errors still filter by the goalies. In my Rollins column that has upset so many of you, the only thing I would remotely take back was having Holliday performing his Game 163 heroics against the Diamondbacks when, of course, it was the Padres. D’Backs were on my mind as the soon-to-be-vanquished division champions when I wrote the line. Any editor worth his salt should have caught the error. However, most of them are so intent at catching the bad stuff they let the obvious error slip by. Who checks your facts and deletes a line that is over the edge of good taste or might demean or defame an athlete or subject? Did you take a course in the libel and slander laws? Or do you merely throw it against the wall and see what sticks? That’s what most of you do. I can’t pin that on you specifically because I have never read your blog.

So there you have it. His opinion is read by three gatekeepers, and even if they missed his factual error, it is still better than the opinion of a blogger who he never read.

Labels: Media, NARN, sports

If you recall the 2004 election, there were many complaints by Democrats of how the Republicans cheated. That's because the Dems lost. In 2006, the Dems won big time. Prior to the election, there were cries of voter fraud, etc. Well, the Dems won - never heard another word, did we.

ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, members completed and filed more than 1,800 fictitious voter-registration cards during a 2006 registration drive in King and Pierce counties in the state of Washington. Seven were accused of voter fraud, three admitted guilt, one has been sentenced.

Did you see this on the evening news? No, I didn't think so.

Labels: elections, Freedom, Media

This article from National Review Online discusses the latest round of congressional ethics laws. While many of us would like to see more sunshine on the behavior of our politicians, we'd also like to believe that our news was free from bias.

This quote about the Washington Post from the above article says much:

The [ethical] waters are much murkier for the Washington Post, whose parent company shelled out $91,000 for an in-house lobbyist through the first six months of the year, according to the Senate Office of Public Records. (Not only did the Post lobbyist cover the Free Flow of Information Act, but he also lobbied on such varied issues as immigration reform, No Child Left Behind, and the District of Columbia Appropriations bill.)

Hmmmmm.

We know much of the MSM coverage is biased but for the nation's paper to hire a lobbyist on some of the biggest issues of our day, well....

Wouldn't it be of interest to you to have the Washington Post disclose, when they publish an article about, for example, immigration reform, what position they lobbied for and how much they spent?

Labels: Media

Twenty-five years ago ("oh God, he's not doing one of those Mitch posts, is he?" -- ed.) I was a grad student-cum-radio DJ at KSPC in Claremont, CA, and morning drive was my beat that term, my last on radio before NARN began. The grad student wakes up usually earlier than your average Pomona College undergrad, so it fell to me to do this (the kids liked doing the after-midnight stints.)

Tomorrow morning I sit in for Andy Barnett on KNSI from 6-9AM, 1450 on your AM dial, here in the Cloud. (Hmmm, now that I look at your site, Andy, I notice a link missing from your blogroll?) Topics will be all over the place, I suppose, as I haven't been able to rustle up my usual collection of guests. Three hours of my voice? Maybe we'll invite Mrs. Scholar to her first radio experience!

Pray for me; I get up early enough, but talking to a corner of the world at that time will be quite the experience.

Labels: KNSI, Media, Northern Alliance Radio Network

I have thought of running the series "Spot the Non Sequitur", but the double entendre would be too cruel. And besides, I think this one is an example of a red herring rather than a non sequitur. My readers can decide.

Pat Kessler runs a series of "Reality Checks" for WCCO television in the Twin Cities. The media seems to love this sort of thing -- look at the wonders it did for Eric Black's career. So occasionally I read these looking for, well, reality. Instead I find this.

"They attacked us and they will again. They won't stop in Iraq," the ad says.

This is a DISTORTION of the facts.

There is no link between the 9/11 in American [sic] and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The statement quoted in the ad by Freedom Watch is not a fact; it's a prediction that "they" -- who are terrorists and extremists, not identified as Iraqis, at least not in that ad -- will attack "us", and that this is more likely if we pull out of Iraq. That's not a distortion of fact; it's a hypothesis with which you may reasonably agree or disagree.

But even if you disagree with that hypothesis, support of your proof is not begun and ended with a statement that there's no link between the 9/11 attack and Saddam Hussein. The proposal to stay or go in Iraq has nothing to do with Saddam at this point given that he has achieved room temperature. It has to do with whether who we are fighting includes those who would attack here if we chose not to fight. Again, that's a debatable point; there are no settled facts, and Kessler's conflation of Saddam with that debatable point is an example of using the editorial voice of "Reality Checker" to assert one side of a debate as a settled fact.

Perhaps WCCO could run a segment called "Logic Check". And start with its own reporting.

Labels: Iraq, Media

Embedded Daily Princetonian reporter Wesley Morgan (see my earlier post here) reports (hat tip to Glenn Reynolds) that one story he had written up turns out to have been largely made up by the soldier:

An update on the story of the specialist at FOB Rusty: she took me for a ride. I'm pretty sure now she fabricated much of what she told me, which I'm pretty pissed about; when a soldier invents a story, no matter why, they denigrate the real sacrifices of their comrades, and through my gullibility I was complicit in that. Several soldiers of 2nd BCT, 2nd ID have raised very serious doubts about her story; apparently she has a tendency to do this. I'm on my way home right now and will not be able to visit the FOB to look into this further. Suffice it to say that the specialist, like many other soldiers, went through a lot, but not all that she said. I apologize for relaying the story -- I was so dumbfounded by it that I tried to convey the experience even though it was a passing conversation and not part of an embed, which I should not have done.

There are two lessons here.

First, no reporter is totally free from the normal human desire to believe stories that reinforce our view of the world. This sometimes reduces our skepticism about what people tell us they have experienced or observed in person.

Second, we readers want to be able to rely upon the reporters and news organizations that serve as our sources of information. We know that people and organizations make mistakes. No one is perfect. What is critical is how those mistakes are handled. Morgan understands that such mistakes must be promptly acknowledged and corrected. Unfortunately, all too many of those who claim to be professional journalists have resorted to sham defenses like "fake, but accurate."

I wrote earlier that

The openness and detail in reporting provided by Morgan stands in vivid contrast to the discredited Scott Beauchamp stories published by The New Republic.

Morgan's candid acknowledgment of his mistake makes that contrast even more vivid. I continue to commend Morgan's blog reports, such as those here and here. There is no better source of information about our soldiers than first-hand reports from Iraq.

Labels: Iraq, Media, US Soldiers

Glenn Reynolds noted last night two posts from Iraq here and here by embedded Daily Princetonian Reporter Wesley Morgan. In the comments to the second post, about an incredible female soldier identified as "Allison K.", Morgan has just said(8/27 at 5:45 am) that 'i confirmed the story with her sergeant." Morgan also says that he has " her full name but am not going to give it out without checking with her."

The openness and detail in reporting provided by Morgan stands in vivid contrast to the discredited Scott Beauchamp stories published by The New Republic.

The brief bio on Morgan's blog says that he

is a sophomore at Princeton University, where he writes for The Daily Princetonian. He is blogging from Iraq, where he will spend the month on the invitation of the commander of U.S. forces there, Gen. David Petraeus. Wesley is a member of Princeton's Army ROTC and lives in Watertown, Massachusetts.

Morgan has several excellent earlier posts from Iraq, including a long post about his day accompanying General Petraeus. Read as many of Morgan's posts as you can -- it is outstanding reporting.

Labels: Iraq, Media, US Soldiers

This article printed in the New York Times (NYT) on August 19th was written by seven US soldiers who will be coming back to the USA shortly. The article is not optimistic about Iraq's future - not because the US military has failed but because the Iraqi people are simply too divided. Of course this NYT article plays right into the defeatist mentality of the main stream press and particularly that of the NYT.

But there is another point of view, from a group who really knows what is happening in Iraq. Problem is, they cannot get their op-ed in the New York Times because the NYT refuses to publish anything that even suggests the NYT just might be wrong. To read their thoughtful analysis, go here.

We hear from numerous sources, including other soldiers on the ground that the surge is working. Why? We are doing what we should have done years ago - when you send in a military, let the military do its job and clamp down on all aspects of an enemy. Only when you have the control do you move on to other options like setting up governing units, etc. We forget - Germany and Japan, after being defeated, were not able to hold elections for 10 years and we still have troops stationed in both countries today. Yet to hear the mantra of the New York Times and the left, we are to get out of Iraq now and let the cards fall where they may. Too many on the left ignore the millions of southeast Asians who were murdered, reeducated, or harmed in many ways when our Congress after listening to the defeatist attitude of the western press bailed out on the Vietnamese government in 1973. Our enemies know us well - get our press to do their dirty work, add the Democrats to the equation and they win.

This time, we have other ways of getting out the word. Our press owes it to the free world to do their job. Unfortunately, too many of the defeatists leftist organizations like the NYT, simply want to lose and leave.

Labels: American Heroes, Media

CORRECTION (8/27/2007): As noted in the comments, the Star Tribune did run the Opus strip yesterday.

***

The Opus cartoon is a favorite of many Americans (present company excluded). Berkeley Breathed, the author is known for his ability to skewer most any group. He took a light-hearted approach to Islam for Sunday newspaper editions running today, 8/26 and next Sunday, 9/2. Salon has published the strips on line - you can view the 8/26 one here.

Our esteemed mainstream media (MSM), including Breathed's home paper, the Washington Post, along with the New York Times refused to run the cartoon. The St. Paul Pioneer Press ran the cartoon today (thank you) but not the Mpls. (Red) Star Tribune.

Why is it that so many papers on the left are determined to run anything that slams Christianity but play ostrich when it comes to anything other than kowtowing to Islam?

This cartoon cowardice triggered a conversation I had with one of my Muslim students. He informed me that in his home country, Muslim women did not laugh or smile. When he came to the US, it took quite an adjustment on his part to get used to women laughing. A sense of humor on the part of this particular group would help tremendously.

Labels: censorship, Media

There's a new ranking, based on Technorati, for economics blogs. I'm not surprised that Freakonomics is #1 -- that's why it gets bought out -- and a little surprised that The Big Picture is #4, as I thought it was a hidden gem. I guess not so hidden.

We still are, but thanks to you dear reader we have managed to finish 16th out of the 125 economics blogs examined, just behind the excellent Profs. James Hamilton and Menzie Chinn at Econbrowser. That's very esteemed company, and I thank you. There are several excellent writers just behind either with newer blogs or blogging in sub-fields, so if this blog should stay in the top twenty it will be very fortunate.

Labels: economics, Media

I will be appearing on Ed Morrissey's CQ Radio around 2:30 CT to talk about the economics of the Minneapolis bridge. You are invited to call in at 646-652-4889 to join the conversation!

Labels: Media, NARN, Northern Alliance Radio Network

IMPORTANT UPDATE: See this post correcting an error in the information from the Counterterrorism Blog.

***

Last Wednesday and Thursday, I wrote about the use of libel lawsuits to prevent criticism of the funding of terrorism. The latest incident involves a capitulation by Cambridge University Press, without even trying to mount a defense, in which it agreed to shred the unsold copies of Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, by Burr and Collins, and to recall copies from Amazon.com, other bookstores, and even libraries that bought it.

Also on Thursday, Jeffrey Breinholt posted a great piece of research at the Counterterrorism Blog:

History is also full of cases by Islamic organizations and individual Muslims who try to use Western litigation to stop the fountain of knowledge. When it comes to the legal merits, they almost never win. When the dismissal happens, they try to claim it was all a silly misunderstanding.

Breinholt gives citations and sources for more than 20 libel lawsuits by Muslim individuals and organizations, observing that:

These cases may be the tip of the iceberg. Although truth is a defense to libel lawsuits, it generally takes thousands of dollars to establish the truth sufficiently to achieve a dismissal. Settlement is sometimes the best option, no matter how unmeritorious the allegations. When that happens, there will be no court opinion. Thus, we do not know how many more cases are out there in which someone facing steep legal bills chose to quietly settle. For those defendants, they will probably never mention the word Islam again in public. Who loses then? In the long run, fear of discussion has costs to society’s search for the truth. Some of us like the fact that information flows so efficiently, and we want to keep it that way.

Moreover, the truth is not always obvious when the lawsuit is being pursued. It often takes many years and much more lively American dialogue to get there. That means the use of litigation to control the flow of information should matter to those all who appreciate the gradual pace at which knowledge develops. There is now no question that [Global Relief Foundation] was under investigation - it has since been designated as a terrorist financier by President Bush. Cat Stevens’ conversion to Islam and his relocation to Iran is now common knowledge... Historically, with some libel actions, we sometimes look back years later and wonder how anyone could have questioned the information then at issue, either because it is so obviously true or because our mores have changed. Then we feel dirty.

The MSM(mainstream media, ABC, NBC, etc.), of course, remains largely silent on this book burning (well, shredding) free speech issue, but the rest of the blogosphere is starting to catch up. Glenn Reynolds posted at Instapundit late Thursday afternoon. PowerLine noted the issue on Saturday, and there are links here and here to Mark Steyn's op-ed in today's Orange County Register.

In additon to the sources linked in my previous posts, Stanley Kurtz has a thoughtful roundup, including links to other earlier material.

The foundation of western civilization requires an open and frank discussion of ideas. When one aggressively "aggrieved" group succeeds in limiting almost all commentary they perceive to be against "them," everyone loses. We must be able to ask the fundamental questions of "Why? Why not? How? What?" These basic, basic words have driven the success the world experiences today. Sympathy (or feelings of guilt) should not lead us to allow any "minority" to undercut the free market of ideas with baseless litigation.

Labels: education, Media

I will join Captain Ed Morrissey at 2pm CT on Blog Talk Radio to discuss his post on the Rasmussen poll about media bias. Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation!

Labels: Media

I will be appearing (perhaps as a weekly gig now) on Hot Talk with Andy Barnett on 1450 KNSI around 8:10am. The topic is the proposal to expand the Civic Center in St. Cloud into the space currently occupied by the library (we passed a referendum to drop about $30 million into the library and sundry other public works awhile ago.) Since the proponents intend to have the state bond for us, I would hope those living outside St. Cloud will take notice of this proposal for another $15 million.

Labels: Media, politics, St. Cloud

Apparently, all of it.

I am signing the petition today to tell the Democrats hands off talk radio. Obviously that's a bit self-interested in my case. But we continue to applaud Senator Norm Coleman for leading the fight to keep talkers talking. Captain Ed has the dialog between he and Sen. Dick Durbin. Coleman later offered a press release, in which he said,

Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine talk radio has flourished, thanks to free speech and free market ideals. Americans have not only been witness to, but have directly benefited from, the information revolution that has changed our daily lives. Cable television, radio and the Internet are all in their own ways bringing forward a multiplicity of information and view points. Despite today’s efforts by my opponents, I will continue working to ensure our free speech and free market principles are protected by fighting against reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine.

Look for more news at Fairness Doctrine Watch.

Labels: Media, NARN, politics

I'll be having a little gas (talk) with Andy Barnett on 1450 KNSI tomorrow morning beginning after 8am. We'll talk both about the short- and long-run, and how we can put things in perspective.

We can update this article by Mark Perry from a couple years ago. We'll also look at these numbers.

Labels: Media, St. Cloud

I think Dan Drezner is correct: Journalists seem to run articles like this every summer. "Those free market boys in economics are getting taken to the woodshed by their own kind, and they try to marginalize them in return." Alex Tabarrok points out correctly that the average economist is no Milton Friedman. Greg Mankiw points out that many such "heretics" end up with Nobels. Though I'd argue the taste of the Nobel committee deviates from a free-market view. Better to look at the Clark Medal winners ... where we find Krugman and Card. No matter what, you tend to end up with a bunch of moderate Democrats, as Bryan Caplan points out.

OK, so the world misperceives us. I don't really care too much, but I am bothered by the question Drezner asks:

What's of interest to me is that this kind of scattershot critique of standard economic theory -- in which a whole bunch of disparate, even contradictory critiques are lumped together -- seems to be a common trope among journalists. My question is, why?

There's a Freakonomics-style question to be asked here -- are journalists who wash out of Ph.D. programs more or less likely to do this? What about journalists with overt ideological biases? And why the hell hasn't The New Republic written its standard, contrarian, "the neoclassical model does better than you think" kind of piece?

If you think I have an answer for this, guess again. Though for part of it the answer has to be how one writes articles. 'Balance' -- the bitch-goddess of journalism -- requires you to find two economists on, say, foreign trade sanctions who disagree on whether sanctions are good or bad, and report them. Now there's a whole lot of economists who are moderate Democrats who are against sanctions. But to get that person against the economist who might favor sanctions doesn't give you enough balance or contrast. So you pose them against a conservative economist.

Over time, as you learn that most economists are against sanctions on foreign trade, you associate that with the Republican stand and conclude that "all economists who oppose sanctions on foreign trade are Republicans." This is simply not true, but you can see how one gets that perception as the journalist tries to gain labels to demonstrate balance.

Get enough of these lumps, and it's not too hard to find enough economists with one issue that don't agree with the orthodoxy, and you get articles like this.

UPDATE: I really like the point Don Boudreaux makes,

I would say that I have no "faith" in free trade; rather, the evidence and the theory of free trade are powerful enough to convince me that it is practically superior to any form of protectionism if the goal is widespread prosperity. Faith is required when neither evidence nor theory support whatever proposition you choose to (or happen to) believe.

I think, for instance, the data on trade openness and its connection to real GDP is fairly clear-cut, but what makes trade open is still a matter of some debate.

Labels: economics, Media

It takes almost no time to find a faculty member here who has had an experience with Internet plagiarism. A study from Rutgers University four years ago (that I find cited frequently) found that 38% of students survey said they had cut-and-pasted from the internet into their research papers. 44% of students thought this was trivial and not cheating. By comparison, only five percent of the students surveyed had turned in papers out of paper mill or otherwise downloaded from an online source.

One of the reasons I find students having this issue is the misunderstanding of the academic voice in writing. When one writes as a student or faculty member of such-and-such university, one conveys a seriousness to the exercise. It says, I am a person who thought about a subject in a sincere intellectual pursuit of truth, and here is what I found in that pursuit. Students tend to write like the examples they read -- alas, these are most often email and instant messages (thus the papers that refer to "ur" rather than "your" or only use the middle letter of "are".) Some more serious students nevertheless try to imitate styles of journalists or, more often, columnists. The imitations are often wincingly bad, but I simply tell them instead "your voice should be that of a serious student, not Dave Barry." Let Mr. Barry write his own academic tomes.

We have software we use to get at this, which can be otherwise a daunting, time-consuming task. The stuff is expensive, as you'd expect for something that can replace that much labor. And reading this article on newspaper plagiarism indicates that the best way to combat it -- not defeat, that's too lofty a goal -- is to make sure students know what it is and how severe it is. I read the first item of "Prohibited Conduct" from the student handbook:

Academic dishonesty, including but not limited to, cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of student status, and resume falsification. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, the use by paraphrase or direct quotation, the published or unpublished work of another person without full and clear acknowledgment; unacknowledged use of materials prepared by another person or agency engaged in selling or otherwise providing term papers or other academic materials; and commercialization sale or distribution of class notes without the instructors' permission. (Emphasis added.)

While Mitch and Michael were discussing the issue of plagiarism at Minnesota Monitor, Michael called to ask whether the use of a quote from a published source met my definition of plagiarism. Pointing to the above definition, what I could say was that if a student here did what Mr. Fecke at MinMon did on a paper turned in to me, I would call it plagiarism. Use of the adverb "reportedly" would not suffice -- I would have written in red in the margin, "reported where? Give source."

Now certainly a newspaper article is not an academic work. And certainly as well, a newspaper gets press releases that can be used as quotes without attribution (it's considered something in lieu of an interview.) But by its own standards, MinMon says its 'new journalist fellows' should "[i]dentify sources when possible." I think it is fair to hold a website that puts such statements on its pages up to those standards.

The Society of Professional Journalists, in 1984, added this sentence to its code of ethics: "Plagiarism is dishonest and unacceptable." (Source.) Indeed, as Fred Fedler points out in that piece,

Typically, SPJ's code does not define plagiarism. The Associated Press Stylebook does not include an entry on "Plagiarism" but devotes slightly more than a page to "Copyright Guidelines."13 Similarly, Roy Peter Clark of the Poynter Institute found that most newspapers had no clear rules about plagiarism and that editors seemed loath to define it. Clark found no guidelines, no warnings, not even the word "plagiarism" in the indices of newspaper stylebooks and journalism textbooks on his shelves.14

Journalism's trade and professional publications devote more attention to the topic, and Editor & Publisher has blamed journalism schools "for sending out interns and graduates who pilfer other people's work."15

(Click the source article to follow the footnotes.)

This is what strikes me as the takeaway from this story: In Mr. Fecke we have a young man, reared on the blogosphere, who has been encouraged by an agenda-driven news site to wear the mantle of "journalist". He identifies himself as a freelance writer, and he writes like, well, a freelance writer. In trying to effect the voice of a journalist he has failed to grasp the seriousness of the enterprise. This does not make him a journalist, and to do so would require more care over his articles than the editors of MinMon have provided, at least in this case. Perhaps new fellow Eric Black can provide the seasoned wisdom that the current leadership has failed to provide to its new journalist fellows.

Labels: Media, Minnesota, NARN

Normally, I don't post on the Iraq situation unless I have something related to our soldiers. However, the latest report by Michael Yon, an independent journalist documenting the incredible work of our guys and atrocities of our enemy must get as wide a distribution as possible.

It is unfortunate that our mainstream media (MSM) and too many politicians choose to ignore the barbaric, inhuman behavior of our enemy. Al-Qaeda's cruelty is not limited to Iraq. It is carried out in Afghanistan, The Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. They do not want to negotiate, they want the entire planet to submit to their view of the world. They will stop at nothing to attain this goal, nothing.

For us to continue to play ostrich with an enemy this fiercely barbaric is at our own peril. Please read Michael's report but be warned - graphic photos.

Labels: Media

I will make my first foray into the Internet radio life this afternoon at 2pm CT, visiting with old friend and fellow NARNian Captain Ed Morrissey on Blog Talk Radio. One of the greatest things that has happened to me in blogging is meeting Ed, and this will be the first time we're on the air together in quite some time (since Final Word began; before that we were a weekly habit.) We'll talk about immigration and the report on the mobility of low-income families with children. The call-in number for listeners is 646-652-4889.

Labels: Media, NARN, Northern Alliance Radio Network

Mitch writes about record stores.

I used to love the feeling you’d get when you’d talk the totally-wasted stoner behind the counter into playing some sample on the house stereo; sliding the record out, dropping the needle, the anticipation as the record rolled toward the start…

I don't even remember the name of the place in Manchester, NH, where I did this, but the manager of the place, who also became the first lead guitarist I played with in a band (first song on stage: "Just What I Needed" by The Cars; God his solo rift was perfect!), probably was the single most responsible person for broadening my horizons of music. Just in the C's besides the Cars I got to listen to the first Elvis Costello album and Chick Corea (why he wasn't sorted into jazz is beyond me), and the Clash.

And it avoided the one-hit wonders; we didn't even make it through the third song of "Get the Knack." Am I better off now for being able to buy My Sharona and nothing else? Well, that's a bad analogy because that song had a half-life about as long as the Vikings' Super Bowl hopes, but I think some bands need time to grow from one song to an album, and if they can sell a song or two on iTunes or promote band dates on MySpace, it may give them the time and finances to see if there's really a band there.

Not that I dislike record stores or albums. The concept album has died, but some albums just seem to flow from song to song, perhaps why I still prefer prog-rock later in my evenings. In economics dissertations the preference is now that everybody writes a set of essays, which become three separate journal articles sometimes even before the dissertation is completed. I think something is lost when a scholar does not connect the chapters of a dissertation into a single thesis, and I think disjointed songs on an album suffer the same fate.

And that is very hard to do. Thus the democratization of recording music -- which is the upshot of the digitization Mitch discusses -- means more and more people producing single songs that work but do not create a line of thought from song to song.

I'm quite devoted still to the Fetus, not least of which for the guy who's worked there forever who seems to talk any genre I'm interested that day. Is it as good as the cut-out and used bins at the Rhino Records in Claremont back in my grad school (and KSPC) days? No, not quite, but close, and that's still very good. And yes, they play samples.

Labels: Media, music

My friend, Pete Hegseth, new Executive Director of Vets for Freedom, has posted an excellent article about Iraq in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

The main point is that Iraq is not Viet Nam and we have a major exposure to loss of freedom across the planet if we bow to the hard-left pressure to cut and run. Pete has Iraq connections and concrete facts regarding the changes made in the last few months and the successes achieved.

For the record, I have a new Iraqi friend who was a translator for the US Army in Baghdad - his summary is (OK, I'm paraphrasing but we've talked about this), "We Iraqis want the same freedoms the rest of the free world has. We had a taste of it in the 1960's and 1970's, then Saddam and his thugs moved in. America needs to stay because we want you to stay. The press is not portraying an accurate picture."

Please click on the article from the Strib to read Pete's account. Thank you.

Labels: Media

Jim Boyd's open interview with Minnesota Monitor (http://minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1752) is a perfect description of the arrogant and intolerant thinking and behavior of our leftist media.

Responsible adults understand that there is a broad spectrum of respectable opinoins on politics, economics and social matters. Even when we have firm opinions of our own, responsible adults acknowledge that others who come to different conclusions are still reasonable people. Jim Boyd's contemptuous remarks and juvenile humor (calling conservative columns "codpieces") show that he did not act like a responsible adult, muchless a responsible journalist.

It is a travesty that he has held a decision making position on the Star Tribune (Strib) editorial board for 27 years. Even sadder is the fact that Boyd gloats over his expectation that things will not change even after he's gone. He refuses to take any responsibility for the demise of the Strib, never considering that his one-sided approach to news and editorials drove away readers. He continues his one-track thinking when he blames Wall Street for the Strib's problems but ignores the basic fact that one of those Wall Street companies gave him a forum to push his agenda for 27 years with minimal, if any, pushback.

The only good news coming from this change is that no one can continue to deny the bias at the Strib. Subscribers and advertisers now have full knowledge of what they will get for their money: an intolerant left wing product and increasingly a limited left wing demographic.

Labels: Media

As a retired marketing manager and CPA, I have the following observations about the cutbacks at the Minneapolis Star Tribume (Strib) via Powerline.

Years ago, I attended a meeting with a very high ranking IBM executive who made the following comment (paraphrased), "Lea Iacoca supposedly said, 'Don't let accountants control a company in trouble.'" We need accountants for their skill and oversight talents but by definition many tend to be risk averse. Their solution to a problem often is to decrease costs instead of examining and adjusting product.

When a company is in trouble, cutting costs may need to be done but when the company eliminates or reassigns major assets, the problem is rarely solved. Employees left will wonder, "Who's next? When will the other shoe fall?" If there are not major contributions (i.e. pay cuts) at the top and product is not seriously reevaluated, morale, revenues, and results will continue to tumble.

To recover, an enterprise must talk to people who no longer buy their product and ask them what it would take to regain them as a customer.

As I said yesterday, I still prefer a paper over a screen with my tea/coffee.

Labels: Media

Relaxing with a cup of tea or coffee and reading a paper used to be a pleasant pastime. That idyllic scene disappeared many years ago. Why? The unbelievable bias apparent in so many papers forced me and millions of others to the Internet for a balance of news. Frankly, I prefer the paper and coffee.
Today, after buyouts and requests for changes, another example of the incredible short-sightedness of the paper media displayed itself. The Mpls. Star Tribune (Strib) has a gifted writer in James Lileks. Witty, sharp, clever, etc. , he has his own website and had a regular column and written a few books. So what does the Strib do? They switch him to a local beat.

I called the Strib circulation department (612.673.4343) to voice my concern about the sheer stupidity of this move and reached a real person! I told her I'd be cancelling our subscription except that we'd cancelled it about three years ago. She begged me to contact the reader's rep page and give the same message.

Hello Strib owners: If you want any chance of getting your paper regaining respect, provide some balance. Then again, maybe you need to sell it for a tax loss just as the most recent, previous owner did.

KING ADDS: Of course it's ridiculous. Mitch links to the analysis of Tim Worstall, which I suspect is right. It's a way to say goodbye without saying goodbye (though I doubt the severance package for columnists is that lush.) Hugh and James had a discussion a week ago (wraps around these two hours) on how to fix the newspaper and James' biggest point was "go local on page one." So why not put your best writer on the local beat? Because that's not what he does best. What they need is more input like this.

Labels: Media, StarTribune

As many of you know, I follow the women's basketball program at the University of Minnesota. I was a pre-Title IX athlete so I understand what it takes to get to an elite level (note, I was very good but not elite). Up front, I want to say I totally disagree with what Imus said about the Rutgers women's basketball team.

One of the key benefits of participating in sports is the development of justifiable self confidence based on measurable objectives. By any standard, the women of Rutgers basketball team achieved much. Reaching the final game of the NCAA tournament is a remarkable feat. They have every right to be proud of what they accomplished.

They are justifiably angry in rejecting the false labels Imus put on them. At the core of their response to Imus was this message: "I am who and what I am, not what you say I am."

The Al Sharptons of the world are also trying to pin a false label on them: helpless victim. His actions are every bit as detrimental as those by Imus. Their response to Sharpton should be the same as their response to Imus: "I am who and what I am, not what you say I am."

The talent, dignity and class the Rutgers women showed in their NCAA run are the same characteristics they need to draw on during the current media circus.

Ladies, you are superb athletes. What you are learning bodes well for you for your entire life. Relish in your achievements! Ignore all those who will try to put a label on you. You are first class. Congratulations on your successes! Now, move forward and play even better and harder next year!

Labels: Media