Wednesday, December 14, 2005
One poll a trend makes?
As of today, all polling firms listed at PollingReport.com show President Bush's job approval rating has improved since early November. Nevertheless, KMBZ on December 14 cited a single Zogby International poll as evidence that Bush's approval rating was dropping again. By the way, Zogby's polling numbers prior to the 2004 presidential election were so bad that National Review concluded that pollsters such as Zogby "deserve to be mocked at every public appearance." See http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200411031159.asp.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Bush Republicans as axe-wielding apes
The Lawrence Journal-World on May 10 published a Pat Oliphant editorial cartoon in which "Bush Republicans" were portrayed as axe-wielding apes outside Bill Moyers' office at PBS. It also published an accompanying column by Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at The New Republic, that attacked "Republican hacks" for "strangling" PBS and NPR.
Chait notes that Kenneth Tomlinson, the head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which controls NPR and PBS, " has appointed a pair of ombudsmen who can report on the networks' political bias."
" One of them is William Schulz, a full-blooded movement conservative," Chait writes. The other is Ken Bode, whom Chait claims "tries to be painstakingly evenhanded." Chait did not mention that Bode was a strategist in liberal Democrat Morris Udall's 1976 presidential campaign.
Chait's column was definitely argued from the left, so, if a political cartoon was to accompany it, it would not be unreasonable to expect a cartoon that balanced that arugment. Instead, the Journal-World opted to publish a cartoon that not only attacked those who see a liberal bias at PBS (even Current, a newspaper founded in 1980 by the National Association of Educational Broadcasters, a forerunner and parent of both PBS and NPR, recognizes the lack of balance on PBS), but suggested those who make those claims are irrational beings. We all know that liberals would never be portrayed this way in the pages of Lawrence's daily newspaper.
Here's something the Journal-World should keep in mind the next time it is tempted to portray Bush Republicans as axe-wielding apes:
According to the latest Audit Bureau Circulations data, the Lawrence Journal-World had an average daily circulation of 19,449—(6*daily + Sunday)/7—during the six months that ended on March 31, 2005.
The 2005 Editor & Publisher Market Guide placed the total number of households in this market at 52,712 in 2000. E&P also estimated the number of households in Douglas County would grow from 35,591 in 2000 to 41,620 in 2005. This estimate would bring the total number of households in the market to at least 58,741. Using this figure, the Journal-World’s household penetration rate is, at most, 33 percent, down from over 60 percent just 25 years ago.
John Kerry won Douglas County in 2004 with 57 percent of the vote, and it would be reasonable to expect the Journal-World’s editorial page to reflect the slight liberal advantage in its home county.
However, it should also be noted that the number of Bush voters (20,544) in Douglas County was greater than the Journal-World’s daily circulation.
If your household penetration rate is dropping at a rapid pace, it might not be a good idea to publish cartoons that insult a large percentage of your readers.
Chait notes that Kenneth Tomlinson, the head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which controls NPR and PBS, " has appointed a pair of ombudsmen who can report on the networks' political bias."
" One of them is William Schulz, a full-blooded movement conservative," Chait writes. The other is Ken Bode, whom Chait claims "tries to be painstakingly evenhanded." Chait did not mention that Bode was a strategist in liberal Democrat Morris Udall's 1976 presidential campaign.
Chait's column was definitely argued from the left, so, if a political cartoon was to accompany it, it would not be unreasonable to expect a cartoon that balanced that arugment. Instead, the Journal-World opted to publish a cartoon that not only attacked those who see a liberal bias at PBS (even Current, a newspaper founded in 1980 by the National Association of Educational Broadcasters, a forerunner and parent of both PBS and NPR, recognizes the lack of balance on PBS), but suggested those who make those claims are irrational beings. We all know that liberals would never be portrayed this way in the pages of Lawrence's daily newspaper.
Here's something the Journal-World should keep in mind the next time it is tempted to portray Bush Republicans as axe-wielding apes:
According to the latest Audit Bureau Circulations data, the Lawrence Journal-World had an average daily circulation of 19,449—(6*daily + Sunday)/7—during the six months that ended on March 31, 2005.
The 2005 Editor & Publisher Market Guide placed the total number of households in this market at 52,712 in 2000. E&P also estimated the number of households in Douglas County would grow from 35,591 in 2000 to 41,620 in 2005. This estimate would bring the total number of households in the market to at least 58,741. Using this figure, the Journal-World’s household penetration rate is, at most, 33 percent, down from over 60 percent just 25 years ago.
John Kerry won Douglas County in 2004 with 57 percent of the vote, and it would be reasonable to expect the Journal-World’s editorial page to reflect the slight liberal advantage in its home county.
However, it should also be noted that the number of Bush voters (20,544) in Douglas County was greater than the Journal-World’s daily circulation.
If your household penetration rate is dropping at a rapid pace, it might not be a good idea to publish cartoons that insult a large percentage of your readers.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Talk radio promotes liberal angst
In his April 27 Journal-World column entitled “Talk radio promotes anger,” KU Law School professor Mike Hoeflich writes about his recent encounter with talk radio.
Hoeflich concludes that the talk radio he has heard is “dangerous,” and that talk show hosts are “very angry people who seem to use their shows as a form of public therapy.” (Translation: “These hosts are conservatives—they must be crazy.”)
Hoeflich goes on to write that the hosts frequently make false or misleading statements. “I have just been shocked by the number of times I have heard talk show hosts make incorrect statements of fact,” Hoeflich writes. “Sometimes I think that they simply make things up as they go along. I suppose that the explanation for this may well be that no one can know everything and since people often telephone with obscure questions, one cannot expect the host's show to know all the answers. But must they give incorrect answers?”
Oddly, nowhere in his 600-word column does Hoeflich cite an example of a false or misleading statement. One would expect an attorney to provide evidence to back up a charge.
Hoeflich then takes a stab at determining the make up of the talk radio audience. “My sense is that the listeners tend to be people in cars and trucks, elderly folks sitting at home, and those who, for one reason or another, have little better to do,” he writes.
This may come as a surprise to Hoeflich, but there are many people who are capable of listening to talk radio at the same time they are doing other things. In fact, many of those people in cars and trucks are actually driving while listening. As far as being elderly (ageism, anyone?), a Talkers Magazine survey in 2004 found that just 7 percent of the talk radio audience is 65 or older. Eighty-four percent of the audience is between 25 and 64, i.e., the years during which most people are in the workforce. Seventy-two percent voted in the 2000 election, 70 percent have at least some college, and 68 percent have annual household incomes over $50,000. It appears as if the talk radio audience includes many in the productive middle class, not folks with nothing better to do.
Hoeflich concludes his column as such: “Isn't it time to get rid of the ‘shock jocks,’ the angry, bitter, outrageous talk show hosts, and the ignorant masters of nothing and begin to offer radio programs that entertain and educate rather than reinforce prejudice, intolerance, and hatred? I hope so.”
If it is “dangerous,” liberals naturally want to get rid of it. Handguns kill people, get rid of them. Alar poisons children, get rid of it. Abortion kills babies, get … well, there are exceptions.
After reading Hoeflich’s columns for several years, I believe his 600-word column could have been reduced to three sentences: “I recently discovered talk radio. It is overwhelmingly conservative. Therefore, we need to get rid of it.”
I suppose I should cut Hoeflich a little slack. The day after his column appeared in the Journal-World, the New York Post reported that the Secret Service was investigating the all liberal Air America for “shooting” President Bush on-air. Of course, I don’t believe you can pick up Air America on an AM radio in Lawrence, Kansas. In any case, I doubt Hoeflich heard anything as “dangerous” as that from conservative talk show hosts. And if we’re going to get rid of “outrageous” talk radio hosts, perhaps those who advocate the assassination of a president should be gotten rid of first. However, it’s my sense that Hoeflich will give Air America a pass.
Hoeflich concludes that the talk radio he has heard is “dangerous,” and that talk show hosts are “very angry people who seem to use their shows as a form of public therapy.” (Translation: “These hosts are conservatives—they must be crazy.”)
Hoeflich goes on to write that the hosts frequently make false or misleading statements. “I have just been shocked by the number of times I have heard talk show hosts make incorrect statements of fact,” Hoeflich writes. “Sometimes I think that they simply make things up as they go along. I suppose that the explanation for this may well be that no one can know everything and since people often telephone with obscure questions, one cannot expect the host's show to know all the answers. But must they give incorrect answers?”
Oddly, nowhere in his 600-word column does Hoeflich cite an example of a false or misleading statement. One would expect an attorney to provide evidence to back up a charge.
Hoeflich then takes a stab at determining the make up of the talk radio audience. “My sense is that the listeners tend to be people in cars and trucks, elderly folks sitting at home, and those who, for one reason or another, have little better to do,” he writes.
This may come as a surprise to Hoeflich, but there are many people who are capable of listening to talk radio at the same time they are doing other things. In fact, many of those people in cars and trucks are actually driving while listening. As far as being elderly (ageism, anyone?), a Talkers Magazine survey in 2004 found that just 7 percent of the talk radio audience is 65 or older. Eighty-four percent of the audience is between 25 and 64, i.e., the years during which most people are in the workforce. Seventy-two percent voted in the 2000 election, 70 percent have at least some college, and 68 percent have annual household incomes over $50,000. It appears as if the talk radio audience includes many in the productive middle class, not folks with nothing better to do.
Hoeflich concludes his column as such: “Isn't it time to get rid of the ‘shock jocks,’ the angry, bitter, outrageous talk show hosts, and the ignorant masters of nothing and begin to offer radio programs that entertain and educate rather than reinforce prejudice, intolerance, and hatred? I hope so.”
If it is “dangerous,” liberals naturally want to get rid of it. Handguns kill people, get rid of them. Alar poisons children, get rid of it. Abortion kills babies, get … well, there are exceptions.
After reading Hoeflich’s columns for several years, I believe his 600-word column could have been reduced to three sentences: “I recently discovered talk radio. It is overwhelmingly conservative. Therefore, we need to get rid of it.”
I suppose I should cut Hoeflich a little slack. The day after his column appeared in the Journal-World, the New York Post reported that the Secret Service was investigating the all liberal Air America for “shooting” President Bush on-air. Of course, I don’t believe you can pick up Air America on an AM radio in Lawrence, Kansas. In any case, I doubt Hoeflich heard anything as “dangerous” as that from conservative talk show hosts. And if we’re going to get rid of “outrageous” talk radio hosts, perhaps those who advocate the assassination of a president should be gotten rid of first. However, it’s my sense that Hoeflich will give Air America a pass.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Schenk's Fonda Jane
A day after a disabled veteran spit tobacco juice in Jane Fonda's face in Kansas City, KMBZ morning host Ellen Schenk told listeners that Fonda "recently said she regretted visiting Vietnam" during the war.
First, there were two Vietnams at the time Fonda went overseas. Numerous celebrities visited SOUTH Vietnam during the war with USO tours. Fonda visited NORTH Vietnam. That's a major difference.
Second, Fonda has never said she regretted going to North Vietnam. When she spoke before the National Press Club last Thursday, she stated that she had no regrets about participating in the anti-war or going to Hanoi. However, she reiterated her statement, first made in 1988, that she regretted having her picture taken while she was on the anti-aircraft gun. This was the only thing Fonda apologized for when she appeared on 60 Minutes in April to promote her new book.
First, there were two Vietnams at the time Fonda went overseas. Numerous celebrities visited SOUTH Vietnam during the war with USO tours. Fonda visited NORTH Vietnam. That's a major difference.
Second, Fonda has never said she regretted going to North Vietnam. When she spoke before the National Press Club last Thursday, she stated that she had no regrets about participating in the anti-war or going to Hanoi. However, she reiterated her statement, first made in 1988, that she regretted having her picture taken while she was on the anti-aircraft gun. This was the only thing Fonda apologized for when she appeared on 60 Minutes in April to promote her new book.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Scheer dishonesty
During the week leading up to the Pope John Paul II's funeral, you couldn't tune into CBS, ABC, CNN, or any other media outlet and hear that the Pope opposed to the war in Iraq. Of course, that didn't stop The Los Angeles Times' Robert Scheer from making the following claim in a column: "OK, I get it, the pope was a really important guy. So why, during weeks of fawning coverage of his humanity and the elaborate Vatican funeral rituals, did American journalists and politicians ignore the pontiff's passionate opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq?"
If you're not familiar with Scheer, he is largely responsible for the lie that the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43 million prior to 9/11. Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix dealt with Scheer's lie shortly after 9/11, after talking heads on the left and right started repeating the lie. The $43 million did not go to the Taliban, as Scheer claims. In fact, Secretary of State Colin Powell explicitly noted that the humanitarian aid would bypass the Taliban. Scheer also failed to note that the humanitarian aid to Afghanistan was a continuation of a Clinton administration policy. That administration sent $114 million to Afghanistan during 2000.
Scheer's column appeared in the Lawrence Journal-World on April 15. Newspapers should publish views from those on the far left. However, there are enough honest liberals in the world that the Journal-World shouldn't allow a dishonest one like Scheer a platform for his lies.
If you're not familiar with Scheer, he is largely responsible for the lie that the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43 million prior to 9/11. Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix dealt with Scheer's lie shortly after 9/11, after talking heads on the left and right started repeating the lie. The $43 million did not go to the Taliban, as Scheer claims. In fact, Secretary of State Colin Powell explicitly noted that the humanitarian aid would bypass the Taliban. Scheer also failed to note that the humanitarian aid to Afghanistan was a continuation of a Clinton administration policy. That administration sent $114 million to Afghanistan during 2000.
Scheer's column appeared in the Lawrence Journal-World on April 15. Newspapers should publish views from those on the far left. However, there are enough honest liberals in the world that the Journal-World shouldn't allow a dishonest one like Scheer a platform for his lies.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Precious privilege becomes a right
In her March 18 column entitled "Narrow-minded Majority," the Kansas City Star's Barbara Shelly writes, "Conservatives were outmaneuvered in Topeka last session and missed the chance to send Kansans to the polls to defend the sanctity of marriage, preserve the Judeo-Christian tradition and spare the state from the homosexual agenda and activist judges."
"Whose day-to-day lives are actually worse off if committed gays and lesbians enter into formal lifelong partnerships?," Shelly asks. " I haven't yet heard a good answer to that one. Who gets hurt by these public votes to deny a precious privilege to a minority group?"
Speaking for myself, my day-to-day life wouldn't be worse off. However, I also don't believe my day-to-day life would suffer if some guy in Olathe were married to five women. The point is we as a society have placed limits on the "precious privilege" known as marriage. Shelly and other liberals would unlikely expand the privilege to one man and one tree or to one man and five women, so the difference between the "narrow-minded majority" and the "enlightened" liberals is at what point do we place the limits. A majority believes the point should be where it has always been in Kansas and this country, i.e., marriage is between one man and one woman.
Further into her column, Shelly changes the "precious privilege" of marriage into a "right" t0 marry: "You can't affirm a person as an equal and then deny him or her access to the same legal and human rights that you take for granted."
Given that all rights are individual rights, the belief that there is a right to marry is where those activist judges come in. The late Balint Vazonyi explained the misinterpretation of rights in America's 30 Years War (1998): "What do we make of the assertion by a highly placed member of the judiciary that 'rights not listed in the Constitution are cherished, if anything, more than the ones that are'? What is the source of such rights? Who guarantees them? Judge Reinhardt's first example is the right to marry. But since marriage will occur only with the consent of two people, no individual can assert a right to it. Government cannot require the consent of either party, thus government cannot deliver a guarantee for it."
"Whose day-to-day lives are actually worse off if committed gays and lesbians enter into formal lifelong partnerships?," Shelly asks. " I haven't yet heard a good answer to that one. Who gets hurt by these public votes to deny a precious privilege to a minority group?"
Speaking for myself, my day-to-day life wouldn't be worse off. However, I also don't believe my day-to-day life would suffer if some guy in Olathe were married to five women. The point is we as a society have placed limits on the "precious privilege" known as marriage. Shelly and other liberals would unlikely expand the privilege to one man and one tree or to one man and five women, so the difference between the "narrow-minded majority" and the "enlightened" liberals is at what point do we place the limits. A majority believes the point should be where it has always been in Kansas and this country, i.e., marriage is between one man and one woman.
Further into her column, Shelly changes the "precious privilege" of marriage into a "right" t0 marry: "You can't affirm a person as an equal and then deny him or her access to the same legal and human rights that you take for granted."
Given that all rights are individual rights, the belief that there is a right to marry is where those activist judges come in. The late Balint Vazonyi explained the misinterpretation of rights in America's 30 Years War (1998): "What do we make of the assertion by a highly placed member of the judiciary that 'rights not listed in the Constitution are cherished, if anything, more than the ones that are'? What is the source of such rights? Who guarantees them? Judge Reinhardt's first example is the right to marry. But since marriage will occur only with the consent of two people, no individual can assert a right to it. Government cannot require the consent of either party, thus government cannot deliver a guarantee for it."
Friday, April 08, 2005
Now outside money is bad
In his March 30 column in the Lawrence Journal-World, KU law professor Mike Hoeflich laments the fact that money from outside of Kansas was being used in the campaigns for the "gay marriage amendment" (sic) and the proposed taxpayers' bill of rights.
"In the past, outside money has flooded into Kansas for election campaigns," Hoeflich writes. "Given the very close contests for control of the U.S. House and Senate in recent years, the national political parties have had very good reasons for wanting to support their candidates' campaigns."
Hoeflich continues: "But recently, money has been coming into Kansas campaigns that have no direct bearing on national politics." Further, "Whatever is decided on April 5 or in future votes on policy issues should reflect the considered votes of Kansans, free from outside influence. I would hope that our Legislature would consider the very real dangers of outside campaign funding and find ways, if not to stop it, to at least regulate it better."
Of course, this isn't the first time that money from out of state has funded campaigns that have no bearing on national politics. In fact, out-of-state money was used to fund the living-wage campaign right here in Lawrence.
In the spring of 2000, the Lawrence Coalition for Peace and Justice (LCPJ) applied for and received a $5,500 New Initiatives Fund (NIF) grant from the Central Regional office of the American Friends Service Committee (LCPJ was founded by members of the Oread Meeting of the Society of Friends in the late 1970s). The grant was used to launch the Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance (KVLWA) and to hire a part-time coordinator. AFSC's Central Regional office, which is based in Des Moines, Iowa, has also given grants to the Flinthills Living Wage Campaign in Manhattan, Kan., and The Kansas Action Network "for support of a statewide Living Wage Conference designed to strengthen KAN's member organizations and build their capacity to act locally and statewide to achieve fair wage victories."
KVLWA in 2002 received $3,000 from the Unitarian Universalist Association's Fund For A Just Society. The UUA, which is based in Boston, Mass., gave KVLWA another $3,200 in 2004 for "a campaign to ensure implementation of the new living wage law and to build a social justice coalition."
Incidentally, UUA operates "Freedom to Marry" campaigns in support of same-sex marriage in several states. It does not appear that any UUA money was sent to Kansas to oppose the anti-same-sex-marriage amendment (Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Manhattan, contributed $157.60 to the Flint Hills Human Rights Project), but the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign (HRC) contributed $5,000 to Kansans for Fairness, which opposed the same-sex marriage ban. (Interestingly, Kansans for Fairness' list of founding organizations includes ProKanDo, the political action committee founded by Wichita abortionist George Tiller. ProKanDo's receipts and expenditures reports show numerous out-of-state contributions, money that was funneled to pro-abortion candidates in Kansas. Would Hoeflich have Kansas ban such contributions and outside influence?)
Hoeflich was writing his column for the Journal-World during the entire living-wage campaign, yet never complained about the "outside influence" then. He also failed to take HRC to task for the "very real dangers" of its "outside campaign funding."
Could it be that Hoeflich is only against out-of-state contributions when those contributions are given to campaigns with which he disagrees?
"In the past, outside money has flooded into Kansas for election campaigns," Hoeflich writes. "Given the very close contests for control of the U.S. House and Senate in recent years, the national political parties have had very good reasons for wanting to support their candidates' campaigns."
Hoeflich continues: "But recently, money has been coming into Kansas campaigns that have no direct bearing on national politics." Further, "Whatever is decided on April 5 or in future votes on policy issues should reflect the considered votes of Kansans, free from outside influence. I would hope that our Legislature would consider the very real dangers of outside campaign funding and find ways, if not to stop it, to at least regulate it better."
Of course, this isn't the first time that money from out of state has funded campaigns that have no bearing on national politics. In fact, out-of-state money was used to fund the living-wage campaign right here in Lawrence.
In the spring of 2000, the Lawrence Coalition for Peace and Justice (LCPJ) applied for and received a $5,500 New Initiatives Fund (NIF) grant from the Central Regional office of the American Friends Service Committee (LCPJ was founded by members of the Oread Meeting of the Society of Friends in the late 1970s). The grant was used to launch the Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance (KVLWA) and to hire a part-time coordinator. AFSC's Central Regional office, which is based in Des Moines, Iowa, has also given grants to the Flinthills Living Wage Campaign in Manhattan, Kan., and The Kansas Action Network "for support of a statewide Living Wage Conference designed to strengthen KAN's member organizations and build their capacity to act locally and statewide to achieve fair wage victories."
KVLWA in 2002 received $3,000 from the Unitarian Universalist Association's Fund For A Just Society. The UUA, which is based in Boston, Mass., gave KVLWA another $3,200 in 2004 for "a campaign to ensure implementation of the new living wage law and to build a social justice coalition."
Incidentally, UUA operates "Freedom to Marry" campaigns in support of same-sex marriage in several states. It does not appear that any UUA money was sent to Kansas to oppose the anti-same-sex-marriage amendment (Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Manhattan, contributed $157.60 to the Flint Hills Human Rights Project), but the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign (HRC) contributed $5,000 to Kansans for Fairness, which opposed the same-sex marriage ban. (Interestingly, Kansans for Fairness' list of founding organizations includes ProKanDo, the political action committee founded by Wichita abortionist George Tiller. ProKanDo's receipts and expenditures reports show numerous out-of-state contributions, money that was funneled to pro-abortion candidates in Kansas. Would Hoeflich have Kansas ban such contributions and outside influence?)
Hoeflich was writing his column for the Journal-World during the entire living-wage campaign, yet never complained about the "outside influence" then. He also failed to take HRC to task for the "very real dangers" of its "outside campaign funding."
Could it be that Hoeflich is only against out-of-state contributions when those contributions are given to campaigns with which he disagrees?
DeLay chastised, Reid ignored
Taking its lead from Democrat Party talking points, the Kansas City Star today attacked House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for allegedly funneling half a million dollars to his wife and daughter. The money came from DeLay's political action and campaign committees, not from taxpayers.
The Star also noted that members of the House need "to review similar though smaller payments to relatives of other lawmakers in both parties."
If The Star is truly concerned about the relatives of politicians benefiting finacially from such relationships, why stop with a Republican and why stop with the House?
It has been known for some time that the four sons and son-in-law of Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, have benefited financially from their relationship with the senator. A chart produced by The Los Angeles Times in 2003 shows that the boys' firms received far more than one million dollars.
Kansas Media Watch has invited The Star to write an editorial on Sen. Reid's ethical lapses. We received this mesage from Mirriam Pepper, The Star's editorial page editor:
"Thanks for the tip to the LAT piece. I'm sure you noticed that we mentioned Democratic ethical breaches and specifically used Jim Wright in the editorial. But you should also recall that we've got a long history of vigorously criticizing powerful Democrats in Washington -- Wright, Dan Rostenkowski and many others. We criticized Reid's predecessor, Tom Daschle. The page blasted the Clinton administration for its ethics problems, and printed loads of editorial cartoons against Clinton as well. So please be assured that there is a willingness to go after top Democrats when they deserve it, and we always appreciate good tips. It's important to remember that Democrats aren't in power right now, so they inevitably get less attention -- just as the Republicans did, back when Democrats ran Washington."
Of course, Jim Wright left Congress in 1989 and Dan Rostenkowski's scandal occurred more than a decade ago. A search of the words "editorial, Tom, Daschle, ethics" in The Star's archive's results in just one entry, and that 1994 editorial claims that "the Democrats have made wise choices in their top leadership races."
Many people would consider Sen. Reid's actions vis-a-vis his sons and son-in-law far less ethical than Rep. DeLay paying his wife and daughter from his own committee funds. If Reid's sins "inevitably get less attention" because his party is currently in the minority, will we have to wait for The Star to finally give them attention if and when Reid's party becomes the majority?
The Star also noted that members of the House need "to review similar though smaller payments to relatives of other lawmakers in both parties."
If The Star is truly concerned about the relatives of politicians benefiting finacially from such relationships, why stop with a Republican and why stop with the House?
It has been known for some time that the four sons and son-in-law of Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, have benefited financially from their relationship with the senator. A chart produced by The Los Angeles Times in 2003 shows that the boys' firms received far more than one million dollars.
Kansas Media Watch has invited The Star to write an editorial on Sen. Reid's ethical lapses. We received this mesage from Mirriam Pepper, The Star's editorial page editor:
"Thanks for the tip to the LAT piece. I'm sure you noticed that we mentioned Democratic ethical breaches and specifically used Jim Wright in the editorial. But you should also recall that we've got a long history of vigorously criticizing powerful Democrats in Washington -- Wright, Dan Rostenkowski and many others. We criticized Reid's predecessor, Tom Daschle. The page blasted the Clinton administration for its ethics problems, and printed loads of editorial cartoons against Clinton as well. So please be assured that there is a willingness to go after top Democrats when they deserve it, and we always appreciate good tips. It's important to remember that Democrats aren't in power right now, so they inevitably get less attention -- just as the Republicans did, back when Democrats ran Washington."
Of course, Jim Wright left Congress in 1989 and Dan Rostenkowski's scandal occurred more than a decade ago. A search of the words "editorial, Tom, Daschle, ethics" in The Star's archive's results in just one entry, and that 1994 editorial claims that "the Democrats have made wise choices in their top leadership races."
Many people would consider Sen. Reid's actions vis-a-vis his sons and son-in-law far less ethical than Rep. DeLay paying his wife and daughter from his own committee funds. If Reid's sins "inevitably get less attention" because his party is currently in the minority, will we have to wait for The Star to finally give them attention if and when Reid's party becomes the majority?
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Wichita Eagle supports starvation of innocent Americans
More than a week after Terri Schiavo was starved to death, The Wichita Eagle weighed in with its opinion on the case: "Apparently tone-deaf to public unease with Congress' clumsy intervention in the Schiavo case -- polls showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapproved -- these conservatives are playing to their political base by pushing ahead with efforts to intimidate the judiciary for not handing down the 'right' decisions."
The Eagle is apparently referring to a misleading ABC News poll that had implied that Schiavo was on life support. A Zogby International poll with fair and accurate questions found that 79% of those polled answered "should not" to the following question: ""If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?
Zogby also noted that its poll "lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts."
The headline for The Eagle's editorial is "Schiavo judges just doing their jobs." Didn't we hear that same excuse many times during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials?
The Eagle is apparently referring to a misleading ABC News poll that had implied that Schiavo was on life support. A Zogby International poll with fair and accurate questions found that 79% of those polled answered "should not" to the following question: ""If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?
Zogby also noted that its poll "lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts."
The headline for The Eagle's editorial is "Schiavo judges just doing their jobs." Didn't we hear that same excuse many times during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials?
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Kansas newspapers mischaracterize same-sex vote
The Kansas City Star, the Lawrence Journal-World, The Wichita Eagle, and the Topeka Capital-Journal today all inaccurately referred to the constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage as a "gay-marriage ban."
As noted last week, Wikipedia says, "Same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as gay marriage, but the legal implications extend beyond the lesbian and gay population. In a few U.S. states, bans on same-sex marriage have voided marriages of otherwise-heterosexual couples because genetically they were of the same gender either as the result of intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery of one of the spouses."
It should also be noted that a heterosexual man would also be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual man.
One of the reporters who used the term "gay marriage" in his article today admitted to me last week that "same-sex marriage" was the more accurate term. Use of the less accurate term suggests the newspapers have a political agenda.
As noted last week, Wikipedia says, "Same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as gay marriage, but the legal implications extend beyond the lesbian and gay population. In a few U.S. states, bans on same-sex marriage have voided marriages of otherwise-heterosexual couples because genetically they were of the same gender either as the result of intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery of one of the spouses."
It should also be noted that a heterosexual man would also be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual man.
One of the reporters who used the term "gay marriage" in his article today admitted to me last week that "same-sex marriage" was the more accurate term. Use of the less accurate term suggests the newspapers have a political agenda.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Kansas media largely ignore hate crime
(Kansas Media Watch note: The message below was sent out as an E-Flash by Senator Tim Huelskamp on April 3. Kansas Media Watch was unable to find a mention of the fire in the Kansas City Star, Topeka Capital-Journal-Journal, or Lawrence Journal-World.)
Church Nearly Torched by Anti-Marriage Activists
In an attempt to intimidate supporters of traditional marriage, a church in Wichita, Kansas was nearly torched last weekend by opponents to the proposed Kansas Marriage Amendment.
In a story reported only by KAKE News, someone viciously torched a pro-amendment yard sign and the lawn of the Trinity Baptist Church. The flames from the fire clearly came within feet of the church itself. A shaken pastor Craig Atherton reported the burning incident to the police. This the second act of intimidation against this church in the last five days – last week someone also destroyed two other signs on the property.
Violent and desperate acts like these have absolutely no place in our election system. These charred grounds are clearly an attempt to intimidate supporters of the Marriage Amendment. These actions not only violate our state laws against voter intimidation, but most assuredly they are violations of federal civil rights protections. No one should have to be fearful for taking a stand for marriage.
Outside of KAKE News, the week-old story apparently has been completely ignored by every major media outlet. While the mainstream media has issued multiple editorials attacking the Amendment and our motives, no other mention of the torching can be found anywhere on the Internet. Can anyone say MEDIA BIAS?!?
Imagine how loudly the calls for a HATE CRIME investigation would have been if the violence had not been done to a conservative, Christian church?
Let us not be intimidated. Please call or E-mail at least 10 friends between now and Tuesday morning. Kindly remind them of Tuesday’s vote and encourage them to vote YES on the Marriage Amendment!!
One may access the intimidation story at this site: Sign Burned at Church
Church Nearly Torched by Anti-Marriage Activists
In an attempt to intimidate supporters of traditional marriage, a church in Wichita, Kansas was nearly torched last weekend by opponents to the proposed Kansas Marriage Amendment.
In a story reported only by KAKE News, someone viciously torched a pro-amendment yard sign and the lawn of the Trinity Baptist Church. The flames from the fire clearly came within feet of the church itself. A shaken pastor Craig Atherton reported the burning incident to the police. This the second act of intimidation against this church in the last five days – last week someone also destroyed two other signs on the property.
Violent and desperate acts like these have absolutely no place in our election system. These charred grounds are clearly an attempt to intimidate supporters of the Marriage Amendment. These actions not only violate our state laws against voter intimidation, but most assuredly they are violations of federal civil rights protections. No one should have to be fearful for taking a stand for marriage.
Outside of KAKE News, the week-old story apparently has been completely ignored by every major media outlet. While the mainstream media has issued multiple editorials attacking the Amendment and our motives, no other mention of the torching can be found anywhere on the Internet. Can anyone say MEDIA BIAS?!?
Imagine how loudly the calls for a HATE CRIME investigation would have been if the violence had not been done to a conservative, Christian church?
Let us not be intimidated. Please call or E-mail at least 10 friends between now and Tuesday morning. Kindly remind them of Tuesday’s vote and encourage them to vote YES on the Marriage Amendment!!
One may access the intimidation story at this site: Sign Burned at Church
Friday, April 01, 2005
Beaver Island doesn't give a dam about Bush (oldie)
David Broder's August 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post had the headline "Politics on Beaver Island" and was about Mary Stewart Scholl, a Democrat on the Lake Michigan island. In 2000, Bush won Beaver Island over Al Gore, 186 to 173.
"If this election is as close as it now appears, Karl Rove may have to figure out how to land Air Force One on Beaver Island," Broder wrote. " Just to offset Mary Scholl."
A day later, the closeness of the election had shifted decidedly in Kerry's favor, at least according to this Lawrence Journal-World headline for Broder's column: "Kerry has island of support."
"If this election is as close as it now appears, Karl Rove may have to figure out how to land Air Force One on Beaver Island," Broder wrote. " Just to offset Mary Scholl."
A day later, the closeness of the election had shifted decidedly in Kerry's favor, at least according to this Lawrence Journal-World headline for Broder's column: "Kerry has island of support."
Headline switches focus from "hefty-lefty" to Bush (oldie)
Here are the opening paragraphs of a February 6, 2004 column written by the Orlando Sentinel's Peter A. Brown:
"The presidential campaign is already so nasty that the Democratic establishment is taking its cues from filmmaker Michael Moore.
"It shows, sadly, that the Democrats believe their core supporters hate Bush so much they don't care about the truth of accusations that impugn his character."
The headline for this column in the Sentinel was "Dems' military guru a lefty filmmaker?"
When the Lawrence Journal-World published Brown's column on February 10, 2004, the headline was "AWOL report still dogging Bush."
"The presidential campaign is already so nasty that the Democratic establishment is taking its cues from filmmaker Michael Moore.
"It shows, sadly, that the Democrats believe their core supporters hate Bush so much they don't care about the truth of accusations that impugn his character."
The headline for this column in the Sentinel was "Dems' military guru a lefty filmmaker?"
When the Lawrence Journal-World published Brown's column on February 10, 2004, the headline was "AWOL report still dogging Bush."
One Golden Fraud? (oldie)
In a February 21, 2004 Lawrence Journal-World editorial entitled "Deception" (which, incidentally, borrowed liberally from a Tim Rutten column entitled "Now smear this: a Web of deceit" in the February 18, 2004 issue of The Los Angeles Times), the following claim was made:
"Then there was a doctored photo showing Kerry, a decorated and thrice-wounded Vietnam Navy veteran, sitting with Jane Fonda, the controversial actress reviled by many for her wartime sentiments." Further, "the picture was circulated widely over the Internet and even made some newspapers, false as it was."
There was a doctored photo that showed Kerry seated while Fonda stood behind a podium. However, the photo of Kerry and Fonda sitting together was not doctored. It was taken by photojournalist Leif Skoogfors at a September 7, 1970 Vietnam Veterans Against the War rally in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and can be found and licensed at Corbis. The Kerry campaign has confirmed that Kerry was a speaker at the rally. The New York Times covered the rally and reported that Jane Fonda was also a speaker.
The same Journal-World editorial suggested that "the various media think they have a credibility problem." Gee, I can't imagine why that would be.
The Journal-World never published a correction concerning this editorial.
"Then there was a doctored photo showing Kerry, a decorated and thrice-wounded Vietnam Navy veteran, sitting with Jane Fonda, the controversial actress reviled by many for her wartime sentiments." Further, "the picture was circulated widely over the Internet and even made some newspapers, false as it was."
There was a doctored photo that showed Kerry seated while Fonda stood behind a podium. However, the photo of Kerry and Fonda sitting together was not doctored. It was taken by photojournalist Leif Skoogfors at a September 7, 1970 Vietnam Veterans Against the War rally in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and can be found and licensed at Corbis. The Kerry campaign has confirmed that Kerry was a speaker at the rally. The New York Times covered the rally and reported that Jane Fonda was also a speaker.
The same Journal-World editorial suggested that "the various media think they have a credibility problem." Gee, I can't imagine why that would be.
The Journal-World never published a correction concerning this editorial.
Bush works things out after pullout (oldie)
The Kansas City Star's Rhonda Chriss Lokeman on February 15, 2004 wrote, "while untold numbers of young men and women were losing their limbs and lives in Southeast Asia, Bush somehow 'worked things out.'"
By "worked things out," Lokeman was referring to George W. Bush leaving the National Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School.
Bush was last paid for Guard duty on July 30, 1973. The last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam on March 29, 1973. The official halt of combat activity in Southeast Asia occurred on August 15, 1973, when the U.S. bombing of Cambodia ended. In other words, official combat activity in Southeast Asia ended before Bush began business school.
If Lokeman were truly concerned about a future president who "worked things out," she could have written a column about Bill Clinton, who missed his draft induction date of July 28, 1969. How did he work that out, especially in a year in which nearly 10,000 U.S. servicemen were killed in action?
By "worked things out," Lokeman was referring to George W. Bush leaving the National Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School.
Bush was last paid for Guard duty on July 30, 1973. The last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam on March 29, 1973. The official halt of combat activity in Southeast Asia occurred on August 15, 1973, when the U.S. bombing of Cambodia ended. In other words, official combat activity in Southeast Asia ended before Bush began business school.
If Lokeman were truly concerned about a future president who "worked things out," she could have written a column about Bill Clinton, who missed his draft induction date of July 28, 1969. How did he work that out, especially in a year in which nearly 10,000 U.S. servicemen were killed in action?
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Diuguid's shifting lies
In his March 23 column, Lewis W. Diuguid, angered by e-mails "gloating" over the successful election in Iraq, shoots back and claims that the rationales for the war shifted during the past two years:
"Tens of thousands of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers have suffered injuries in a war that Bush first sold as a way to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. "
"The reason for the war and casualties later shifted to the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."
"The pro-war push shifted to giving the Iraqis the gift of democracy."
All three of those reasons were mentioned in the very first sentence of President Bush's March 19, 2003 address to the nation: "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."
Diuguid has apparently forgotten that President Bush on March 17, 2003 gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq, so the ouster of Saddam was an objective from the very beginning.
"Tens of thousands of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers have suffered injuries in a war that Bush first sold as a way to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. "
"The reason for the war and casualties later shifted to the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."
"The pro-war push shifted to giving the Iraqis the gift of democracy."
All three of those reasons were mentioned in the very first sentence of President Bush's March 19, 2003 address to the nation: "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."
Diuguid has apparently forgotten that President Bush on March 17, 2003 gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq, so the ouster of Saddam was an objective from the very beginning.
Jesus, amendment both silent on homosexuality
In his February 2 column, Dave Seaton of The Winfield Courier, writes, "As the Kansas Legislature capitulates to demand for a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage — and civil unions — we might consider what Jesus had to say about homosexuality.
"... Absolutely nothing."
What a coincidence. The proposed amendment also says absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
Seaton also writes, "The idea that marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of our society is a contemporary idea. It is a good idea, worth fighting for." If it is a good idea, an amendment that states marriage should be between one man and one woman should be part of that fight. Instead, Seaton calls the amendment a "step backward" and claims the amendment "would leave Kansas a less open-minded, less diverse place."
"... Absolutely nothing."
What a coincidence. The proposed amendment also says absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
Seaton also writes, "The idea that marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of our society is a contemporary idea. It is a good idea, worth fighting for." If it is a good idea, an amendment that states marriage should be between one man and one woman should be part of that fight. Instead, Seaton calls the amendment a "step backward" and claims the amendment "would leave Kansas a less open-minded, less diverse place."
Diuguid decries media's "slacking off"
In his March 30 column, Lewis W. Diuguid complains that the media have "slacked off" during the past few years. "During the buildup to the war in Iraq, the press mostly parroted President Bush and officials in his administration, claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction," Diuguid writes.
What Diuguid will not acknowledge is that claims concerning Iraq's WMD did not begin in 2001. The U.S. has operated under the belief that Iraq had WMD since 1991, and the Clinton administration continued to believe that Iraq had WMD and posed a threat to the U.S. until its very last days.
Few journalists questioned the claims concerning Iraq's WMD between 1993 and January 2001. In fact, CNN's Judy Woodruff and Bernard Shaw in February 1998 even moderated a town hall meeting in which Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger described the dire threat that Iraq and its WMD posed to the world. Neither Woodruff nor Shaw questioned any of the many claims made by the trio of national security principals.
If Diuguid sincerely believes that Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat to the U.S. (even though it was on the State Department's short list of state sponsors of terrorism during the entire Clinton administration), why is his criticism of his fellow journalists' "slacking off" limited to their reporting during the current administration?
What Diuguid will not acknowledge is that claims concerning Iraq's WMD did not begin in 2001. The U.S. has operated under the belief that Iraq had WMD since 1991, and the Clinton administration continued to believe that Iraq had WMD and posed a threat to the U.S. until its very last days.
Few journalists questioned the claims concerning Iraq's WMD between 1993 and January 2001. In fact, CNN's Judy Woodruff and Bernard Shaw in February 1998 even moderated a town hall meeting in which Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger described the dire threat that Iraq and its WMD posed to the world. Neither Woodruff nor Shaw questioned any of the many claims made by the trio of national security principals.
If Diuguid sincerely believes that Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat to the U.S. (even though it was on the State Department's short list of state sponsors of terrorism during the entire Clinton administration), why is his criticism of his fellow journalists' "slacking off" limited to their reporting during the current administration?
"Anti-choice" in headline (oldie)
The Journal-World on January 29, 2004 included this editor's note following a letter from a woman who wrote that the Journal-World should use "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion" in its articles: "Like virtually all U.S. newspapers, the Journal-World follows the Associated Press Stylebook, which offers this guidance: 'Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion-rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.'"
The editor's note is exactly right about the AP Stylebook. However, when it comes to the abortion issue, the Journal-World doesn't always follow the stylebook. Here's an example from the January 19, 2004 issue: "Disclaimer upsets anti-choice group."
After The Chicago Tribune published two separate headlines in 2003 that included the term "anti-choice," public editor Don Wycliff in a November 6, 2003 column apologized to readers.
"In either case," wrote Wycliff, "the flaw was the same: The perpective of those who define the issues involved in terms of 'choice' was taken as normative, and the position of those whom disagree with them and define the issues differently was characterized in 'choice' terms. The result was two headlines that couldn't have been more slanted if they had come directly from the public relations office of NARAL Pro-Choice America."
When I talked to a representative of the Journal-World about the headline, I was told that since the article came from the AP, that headline probably came with the article. However, I was unable to find another media outlet in Kansas that used "anti-choice" in the headline. For example, the Topeka Capital-Journal's headline was "GOP flier upsets group."
As far as I know, the only other time a Journal-World staff member used "anti-choice" was in a November 1995 article, so it is not a common practice ("anti-choice" appears frequently in the newspaper's archives, but it is usually found between quotation marks). However, the Journal-World should have followed Wycliff's example and apologized to readers for publishing the slanted headline.
The editor's note is exactly right about the AP Stylebook. However, when it comes to the abortion issue, the Journal-World doesn't always follow the stylebook. Here's an example from the January 19, 2004 issue: "Disclaimer upsets anti-choice group."
After The Chicago Tribune published two separate headlines in 2003 that included the term "anti-choice," public editor Don Wycliff in a November 6, 2003 column apologized to readers.
"In either case," wrote Wycliff, "the flaw was the same: The perpective of those who define the issues involved in terms of 'choice' was taken as normative, and the position of those whom disagree with them and define the issues differently was characterized in 'choice' terms. The result was two headlines that couldn't have been more slanted if they had come directly from the public relations office of NARAL Pro-Choice America."
When I talked to a representative of the Journal-World about the headline, I was told that since the article came from the AP, that headline probably came with the article. However, I was unable to find another media outlet in Kansas that used "anti-choice" in the headline. For example, the Topeka Capital-Journal's headline was "GOP flier upsets group."
As far as I know, the only other time a Journal-World staff member used "anti-choice" was in a November 1995 article, so it is not a common practice ("anti-choice" appears frequently in the newspaper's archives, but it is usually found between quotation marks). However, the Journal-World should have followed Wycliff's example and apologized to readers for publishing the slanted headline.
Heckling, standing ovations interrupt right-wing commentator
The Journal-World's March 30 follow-up article and accompanying cutline on Ann Coulter's lecture at the Lied Center included three mentions of the "right-wing" label, including one reference to Coulter being a "right-wing conservative" (as opposed to a right-wing liberal?).
The article also mentioned that Coulter promised "to answer questions from left-wing members in the audience."
The article also mentioned that Coulter promised "to answer questions from left-wing members in the audience."
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Alex P. Keaton strikes again
Yesterday I noted that KMBZ morning news host Ellen Schenk compared high school students who are not opposed to government interference in the media to Alex P. Keaton, the young Republican in the 1980s sitcom Family Ties.
Today we have news that 21 members of Congress have sent a letter to ABC News president David Westin, asking ABC to remove Wal-Mart as the sponsor of the "Only in America" series on Good Morning America. All 21 members are Democrats--young and old.
Today we have news that 21 members of Congress have sent a letter to ABC News president David Westin, asking ABC to remove Wal-Mart as the sponsor of the "Only in America" series on Good Morning America. All 21 members are Democrats--young and old.
Keep it clean, you draft-dodging miserable failure (oldie)
During the early months of 2004, Rep. Dick Gephardt called President Bush a "miserable failure," Wesley Clark stood by and smiled while hefty-lefty filmmaker Michael Moore call the president a "deserter," Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe echoed Moore and said Bush had been AWOL from his National Guard unit, Al Gore said Bush "betrayed" the American people, and Sen. John Forbes Kerry called Bush an "extremist." In addition, according to a blog on the official Kerry for President web site, Kerry's wife at a MoveOn.org house party in December 2003 handed out buttons that read "Asses of Evil" and featured the names of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft.
Given the harsh rhetoric Democrats have directed towards President Bush, it was nice to see a Kansas City Star editorial on March 4, 2004 with the headline "Kerry vs. Bush: Keep it clean." However, the content of the editorial was not quite what I had excepted. (Okay, it was what I have come to expect from The Star.)"Personal attacks and dubious charges will inevitably appear," The Star noted. "Republicans have relied on these attacks in recent presidential elections, and Democratic voters have made it clear this year they want their champion to fight fire with fire."
Further, "If [Bush] quickly turns to harsh personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric, Kerry likely will respond in kind."
Kerry likely will respond in kind?
Given the harsh rhetoric Democrats have directed towards President Bush, it was nice to see a Kansas City Star editorial on March 4, 2004 with the headline "Kerry vs. Bush: Keep it clean." However, the content of the editorial was not quite what I had excepted. (Okay, it was what I have come to expect from The Star.)"Personal attacks and dubious charges will inevitably appear," The Star noted. "Republicans have relied on these attacks in recent presidential elections, and Democratic voters have made it clear this year they want their champion to fight fire with fire."
Further, "If [Bush] quickly turns to harsh personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric, Kerry likely will respond in kind."
Kerry likely will respond in kind?
Ann Coulter is right-wing, right-wing, right-wing...
According to the headline in the March 29 issue of the Lawrence Journal-World, "Lecture to feature right-wing commentator." "Right-wing commentator Ann Coulter has made a career bashing liberals and otherwise pushing political hot buttons," the article noted. The term "right-wing" was used again in a cutline and in a second headline on page 4A. Even the "continued on" line on page 1A invited readers to "Please see RIGHT-WING on page 4A." Coulter merited a total of five mentions of the "right-wing" label.
I wondered if the Journal-World used the "left-wing" label with liberal visitors to Kansas University, so I did a little searching through the archives. When Molly Ivins visited Lawrence in 2001 to accept the William Allen White Foundation's national citation, the headline on Feb. 10, 2001 merely read "Texas columnist Ivins receives White award." The word "left" did appear in the article twice, but not as an adjective.
When Ellen Goodman visited KU in 1995 to receive the William Allen White Foundation's national citation, the Journal-World's headline read "Columnist to receive award." Goodman joked that she would probably fall into Rush Limbaugh's "femi-nazi" category, but the Journal-World offered no label to characterize Goodman's left-wing viewpoints.
I wondered if the Journal-World used the "left-wing" label with liberal visitors to Kansas University, so I did a little searching through the archives. When Molly Ivins visited Lawrence in 2001 to accept the William Allen White Foundation's national citation, the headline on Feb. 10, 2001 merely read "Texas columnist Ivins receives White award." The word "left" did appear in the article twice, but not as an adjective.
When Ellen Goodman visited KU in 1995 to receive the William Allen White Foundation's national citation, the Journal-World's headline read "Columnist to receive award." Goodman joked that she would probably fall into Rush Limbaugh's "femi-nazi" category, but the Journal-World offered no label to characterize Goodman's left-wing viewpoints.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Gay marriage vs. same-sex marriage
The Lawrence Journal-World on March 28 included two front-page articles concerning the amendment on same-sex marriage that voters will consider on April 5. The first article includes the headline "Gay marriage ban poses unintended consequences ," while the second article begins, "When Bruce Ney of Lawrence was told that the Knights of Columbus dropped $100,000 into the Kansas campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage...."
These articles use the term "gay marriage," while the language of the proposed amendment makes no mention at all concerning sexual orientation. According to the proposed amendment, "The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage."
According to this language a gay man could not marry a gay man. However, a straight man would also be prohibited from marrying another straight man. In addition, as Wikipedia notes, "In a few U.S. states, bans on same-sex marriage have voided marriages of otherwise-heterosexual couples because genetically they were of the same gender either as the result of intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery of one of the spouses."
While many journalists and readers might consider gay marriage and same-sex marriage to be the same thing, they are different. If newspapers want to be as accurate as possible, they should use the latter term when referring to the proposed amendment.
These articles use the term "gay marriage," while the language of the proposed amendment makes no mention at all concerning sexual orientation. According to the proposed amendment, "The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage."
According to this language a gay man could not marry a gay man. However, a straight man would also be prohibited from marrying another straight man. In addition, as Wikipedia notes, "In a few U.S. states, bans on same-sex marriage have voided marriages of otherwise-heterosexual couples because genetically they were of the same gender either as the result of intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery of one of the spouses."
While many journalists and readers might consider gay marriage and same-sex marriage to be the same thing, they are different. If newspapers want to be as accurate as possible, they should use the latter term when referring to the proposed amendment.
Not all medical records are equal
In his March 2 Lawrence Journal-World column, Mike Hoeflich, a professor in the Kansas University School of Law, wrote that Attorney General Phill Kline’s “attempt to subpoena the medical records of patients who underwent late-term abortions are [sic] troubling to me on other grounds.” Hoeflich criticized Kline’s action because it puts “doctor-patient confidentiality” at great risk.
An item in the March 4 issue of the Journal-World noted that DNA helped lead police to BTK suspect Dennis Rader. According to the article, “…investigators had obtained DNA before Rader’s arrest from a tissue sample that came from his 26-year-old daughter’s medical records. They took it without her knowledge.”
Thus far, Hoeflich has not used his column to criticize the violation of doctor-patient confidentiality regarding the medical records of Rader’s daughter.
An item in the March 4 issue of the Journal-World noted that DNA helped lead police to BTK suspect Dennis Rader. According to the article, “…investigators had obtained DNA before Rader’s arrest from a tissue sample that came from his 26-year-old daughter’s medical records. They took it without her knowledge.”
Thus far, Hoeflich has not used his column to criticize the violation of doctor-patient confidentiality regarding the medical records of Rader’s daughter.
Schenk's left flank
KMBZ’s morning news host, Ellen Schenk, on February 2 told listeners that a John S. and James L. Knight Foundation poll suggested that high school students “are more conservative today than you might think.” The poll found that only about half of the 100,000 students questioned believe that newspapers should be given free exercise of the press without government interference. Schenk then compared those who are not opposed to government interference to Alex P. Keaton, the young Republican on the sitcom Family Ties.
I e-mailed Schenk and asked her if she really meant to equate government interference in the media with conservatism. "You might be taking me a little too seriously," she replied. " It was just an offhand comment that kids are more conservative today than you might think. That's it, nothing more. "
I guess she did mean it. I'll remember that the next time Ted Kennedy and his fellow Democrats push the Fairness Doctrine again. Bill Ruder, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s assistant secretary of commerce, declared the following in 1987: “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”
I e-mailed Schenk and asked her if she really meant to equate government interference in the media with conservatism. "You might be taking me a little too seriously," she replied. " It was just an offhand comment that kids are more conservative today than you might think. That's it, nothing more. "
I guess she did mean it. I'll remember that the next time Ted Kennedy and his fellow Democrats push the Fairness Doctrine again. Bill Ruder, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s assistant secretary of commerce, declared the following in 1987: “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)