Lobbyists will be the big winners under ObamaCare

Here is an article from FoxNews.com suggesting that lobbyists will benefit most under the federal health care law.  This article was written after sixteen democrats sought delay in the "Obamacare" tax increases that puts a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices, which is scheduled to take effect January 1 of this year.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/12/who-benefits-most-from-obamacare-lobbyists/

Wednesday 16 Democrats who voted for ObamaCare suddenly decided that they don't like the new 2.3 percent tax on medical devices that is scheduled to take effect on Jan 1, 2013.
Good! They're hypocrites, but at least they've finally figured out that taxes kill good things. Minnesota Senator Al Franken calls it a "job-killing tax." No kidding.
The 2.3 percent tax is particularly evil because it will take 2.3 percent of sales, not profits. Some companies' profit is less than that, so this tax will kill them off. That's tragic. We need more medical devices, not fewer.
Al Franken was once my neighbor. Our kids went to school together. I tried to educate him about economics. I failed.
I assume what woke Franken up was learning that his state has the most medical device makers per capita of any state in the country. They donate to his campaigns. They pay people to lobby him. So suddenly he opposes this particular new tax.
That's how politics works. Online gambling is banned in the U.S., but online gambling on horse-racing is legal. That's buried in subsection (10)(D)(i) of Section 5,362 of Chapter 53 of Title 31 of the US Legal Code, where it says:
‘Unlawful Internet gambling' shall not include any activity that is allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978.
The horse-racing industry pays lobbyists.
A new bill proposed by another clueless senator, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, would allow online gambling, but only for poker, and only to existing casinos "that have an established track record of complying with a strict regulatory environment."
That's logical, coming from a senator from Nevada. His state has most of the existing casinos! They'd love a government-supported monopoly on online poker.
Reid's bill would also require places that want to take bets on horse-racing to have:
(i) at least 500 gaming devices at one physical location; or
(ii) ...at least $225,000,000 in all-source gross wagering... during any 3 of the last 5 calendar years preceding the date of the enactment of this Act
How sleazy is that? Looks like Harry doesn't want his casino buddies to have competitors. His bill would even increase penalties for all other online gambling.
This is why companies spend billions on lobbying, and why land values in Washington, D.C., are at record highs. Law-making is good for lobbyists and politicians, but usually bad for America.

Read More

Senate GOP failed on disability rights

Here is an article from CNN.com suggesting that the Senate Republicans made the wrong decision in choosing to block ratification of a United Nations treaty intended to promote the rights of disabled people around the world.  The reasoning for many conservatives not supporting the treaty was that the United Nations could potentially impinge on the rights of disabled people and their families in the U.S.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/08/opinion/piccone-senate-rights/index.html?hpt=op_bn6

(CNN) -- As human rights advocates around the world celebrate the 64th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this week, their counterparts in the United States are mourning the Senate's rejection last week of the international convention for disability rights. Appalling in its own right, the Senate Republicans' defeat of the 21st century's first human rights treaty is a sad but sharp reminder that misinformation and fear can still override fundamental principles of human decency and common sense.

More importantly, it is yet another blow to the United States' ability to play a leading role in promoting freedoms and human dignity in the world.

The international bill of rights adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948, still stands as the gold standard in the daily fight for basic human rights today. As our societies democratize, mature and progress, human rights defenders are winning longstanding battles to expand the frontiers of rights to include women, children, indigenous peoples, LGBT communities and migrants. Economic and social rights are ascendant as well, as people make claims for the essentials of human life: water, food, health, jobs and education.

The United States has a long and generally bipartisan tradition of concern for human rights, a pillar of its founding principles. Americans also have been at the forefront of the global human rights movement for generations and consider ourselves a leading example for others of a rights-respecting society, even if we still have much work to do to improve our record. Indeed, it was Congress' passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 that paved the way for the international campaign for disability rights and which served as the standard for the treaty the Senate rejected.

When it comes to international law, however, some Americans get confused. The image of the United Nations as a supranational body with powers to insert itself into our living rooms persists even though there is no evidence to support it.

This myth-making, and its inherent contradictions, are in full display in Rick Santorum's bizarre opinion essay published last week in The Daily Beast. In it, the leader of the conservative movement, to defeat the treaty, claims that unelected U.N. bureaucrats could take away a parent's power to demand special education services for a disabled child. He then asserts that there is no point in ratifying the treaty because it "would do nothing to force any foreign government to change their laws or to spend resources on the disabled. That is for those governments to decide."

Precisely. The hallmark of the U.N. human rights system is its success in elaborating international standards for protecting a comprehensive set of human rights, monitoring states' respect for those rights and making recommendations for improving their records. In exceptional cases involving gross violations, such as war crimes and mass atrocities, governments (though not the United States) have agreed to a more robust set of mechanisms, like the International Criminal Court, to hold individuals accountable.

The emerging doctrine of responsibility to protect civilians has even been applied to prevent the slaughter of civilians in Libya. But these measures are a far cry from any alleged interference of U.N. lawyers in our schools and homes.

At the end of the day, however, national sovereignty trumps these efforts, leaving any state free to follow its own path for governing its people. For better or worse, that's the way it works.

There is a broader and more disheartening message that the world hears from Washington on this year's International Human Rights Day: The United States is losing its moral voice on human rights because it is not leading by example.

As one human rights defender remarked to me recently, his government routinely cites U.S. treatment of detainees at Guantanamo as justification for its own violations of human rights. When the exceptional case, like the "necessary" measures adopted to wage battle against terrorists, becomes the norm, we have lost a major source of credibility to promote basic principles of due process and "innocent until proven guilty."

Unfortunately, the conservative movement's victory in defeating the disability rights treaty is just the latest example of our political leaders' failure to convert high-sounding rhetoric into meaningful action when it comes to human rights. If a war hero Republican like Bob Dole, who uses a wheelchair, cannot persuade his colleagues to do the right thing, then we are all the losers in the battle for human rights.

Read More

MILLER: Obama’s secret middle-class tax hikes

Here is an article from Emily Miller of the Washington Times suggesting that in addition to the wealthy receiving higher taxes, the rest of the American population will see an increase in taxes as well:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/10/obamas-secret-middle-class-tax-hikes/

President Obama continued to gallivant around the country on Monday, pushing to raise taxes on those deemed wealthy. The surprise will come in less than three weeks when the rest of us see our taxes go up as well.
Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform, describes what the president is doing as political sleight-of-hand. “It’s a magician’s misdirection,” the anti-tax activist told The Washington Times in an interview. “Obama is keeping people from noticing that the same day that the Bush tax cuts disappear, the Obama tax hikes show up. His unstated tax hike deliberately raises taxes on all Americans, not just rich people.”
Five major Obamacare taxes take effect on Jan. 1 that will cost taxpayers a whopping $1 trillion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The elderly will find it more difficult to write off medical expenses on their income taxes when the medical deduction minimum goes up from 7.4 to 10 percent of adjusted gross income. Families that take advantage of pre-tax flexible spending accounts to pay for out-of-pocket health care expenses will be newly limited to putting just $2,500 into that account.
There’s also a new 3.8 percent Obamacare surtax on investment income for individuals who make over $200,000 a year. Combined with the hike under debate in the fiscal cliff talks, capital gains taxes would jump from 15 percent to 23.8 percent and dividends from 15 percent to 43.4 percent. The Medicare payroll tax will jump to 3.8 percent for wages and profits exceeding $200,000 — a provision that most affects small-business owners stuck with the bill for the whole payroll tax.
Even disabled war veterans will feel the pain of the Obamacare tax hikes. A sneaky provision imposes a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device sales, which will drive up the cost of everything from artificial joints and prosthetics to lifesaving machines like defibrillators, pacemakers and stents. According to a poll by the Emergo Group, 58 percent of American manufacturers say they will pass along some or all of the new costs to consumers.
Mr. Obama is facing a backlash from his own party on this. A group of 17 Democratic senators and senators-elect, including three elected leaders, wrote a letter on Dec. 4 to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking that the tax be delayed as part of the final negotiations on the fiscal cliff. The letter, obtained by Dow Jones, explains to Mr. Reid that the 400,000 people in the United States who work in the industry could be affected by the confusion and uncertainty on how to comply with the tax hike.
The Obamacare tax hikes will raise the cost of health care for everyone, kill jobs and suck a trillion dollars out of the economy. Since there appears to be a growing bipartisan consensus that letting these taxes take effect would harm the economy, negotiators should do everything in their power to stop them in a final fiscal cliff deal.
Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

Read More

Bob Costas can't shoot straight when it comes to guns

Here is an article from FoxNews.com suggesting that Bob Costas is misinformed about the gun culture in the United States and that he is backing himself into a further hole with his comments after his gun control monologue on "Sunday Night Football":

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/06/bob-costas-cant-shoot-straight-when-it-comes-to-guns/

Bob Costas doubled down on gun control Wednesday night on "The O’Reilly Factor" and Tuesday on MSNBC. Despite all the commotion generated by his rant on guns during halftime on NBC’s "Sunday Night Football,” he just couldn’t leave well enough alone. He called for restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders and reduced gun ownership in cities. Some Democratic lawmakers  followed Costas’ lead and called for more gun control this week.
Unfortunately, Costas’ statements were filled with errors on topics ranging from "body armor" to “automatic weapons” to the gun laws in Colorado to the views of police to the behavior of permit holders.
During appearances on both shows Costas worried about the “Wild West, Dirty Harry mentality” of America’s 8 million concealed handgun permit holders.
Regarding the Aurora, Colorado shooting he attacked: “people who actually believe that if a number of people were armed at the theater in Aurora, they would have been able to take down this nut job in body armor and military style artillery.” But Costas never asked why the killer picked the Cinemark’s Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado on July 20th to commit mass murder.
Despite what some might think, the theater chosen by the killer for the attack was neither the closest one to his apartment nor the one with the largest audience. Instead, out of the seven movie theaters within a 20 minute drive of his apartment showing the new "Batman" movie that night, it was the only one at that time where guns were banned. So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns?
The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to Costas – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks. And I have written elsewhere about many other such cases, such as the Columbine shooting.
It is true that the Holmes’ bullet resistant vest might have protected him from getting killed by a permit holder, but any hits on the vest would have likely knocked him down and stopped the attack. As to the “military style” weapons, Costas confuses how the outside of a weapon looks with how it functions.
None of the attacks that have been in the news involve machine guns. Costas claims that police agree with him about the dangers of permit holders: “In fact, almost every policeman in the country would tell you that would have only increased the [Aurora] tragedy and added to the carnage.”
As to what police believe, the 2010 annual survey by the National Association of Chiefs of Police found 78 percent of their members believed that concealed-handgun permits issued in one state should be honored by other states "in the way that drivers' licenses are recognized through the country"—and that making citizens' permits portable would "facilitate the violent crime-fighting potential of the professional law enforcement community."
Surveys of street officers show even more support. That none of the many multiple victim shootings that have been stopped by a concealed handgun permit holder has ever resulted in a permit holder accidentally shooting a bystander would also be a relevant fact.
Costas told O’Reilly: “it's far more likely than somebody playing Dirty Harry and taking this guy down that, over the course of time, there would be a dispute about somebody stepping on someone's foot on the line for popcorn and that dispute would escalate because somebody has a gun.” But if that is the case, why do murder rates rise around the world whenever guns are banned?
On Monday, Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock, whom Costas has been quoting, asserted “the NRA is the new KKK” because it is trying to arm so many black gangs. Costas also expressed his justifiable concerns about “inner cities where teenage kids are somehow armed to the hilt.” But Costas’ and Whitlock’s response will hurt blacks.
There is a real drug gang problem in inner cities. But it isn’t any easier to stop the gangs from “being armed to the hilt” than it is to stop them getting illegal drugs. Police are probably single most important factor for reducing crime, but they almost always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has occurred. The question is whether law-abiding poor blacks will be allowed guns to defend themselves. As the most likely victims of violent crime, poor blacks living in urban areas benefit more than any other group from owning guns.
Finally, it isn’t just women and those who live in high crime urban areas who benefit from owning guns. Even large, powerful football players face a relative high crime rate because of their wealth. Though Costas downplayed last night, conceding: “All right, they -- they may feel that they need it for protection.” Instead, ascribing their gun ownership again to “Wild West cowboy Dirty Harry” and gangster rap videos.
Costas feels baffled by the response he has received because on Sunday night: “I never used the word ‘Second Amendment.’ Never used the words ‘Gun Control’,” but it was pretty hard to miss what he meant. He really didn’t leave any doubt when he said: “Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.”
Costas’ biggest problem is that he just made too many factually incorrect claims. All the interviews that he has given this week have only made that problem worse.

Read More

News Media Overheard Coordinating Anti-Romney Questions

Here is an article from the Inquisitr discussing a report done by the TheRightScoop stating that several journalists could be overheard coordinating questions intended to stump Romney and put Romney in a favorable position:

http://www.inquisitr.com/329698/news-media-overheard-coordinating-anti-romney-questions-listen/

If you were holding out any hope that the mainstream news media would be fair to both presidential candidates this year, in a word “fuggedaboutit.

GOP nominee Mitt Romney fielded a whole bunch of hostile questions at today’s press conference about the anti-American violence in Egypt and Libya, and interestingly enough, those questions — which really amounted to badgering in an apparent attempt to trip him up about the his statement released last night — were apparently pre-planned by the journalists in attendance.

In a exclusive that was broken by TheRightScoop website, various journalists — including what is said to be a CBS reporter — were overheard on a hot mic joyfully coordinating their questions so that “no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.”  The media seemed far more concerned with Romney’s statement than the loss of life in Libya.
The BigJournalism.com website noticed a trend:

[The media's] goal was to make sure that no question would address the substance of the crisis but instead put Romney on the defensive about made-up mistakes in his criticism of President Obama.
In the event, six out of the seven questions were almost exactly the same, all questioning Romney for his supposed mistake. (Romney handled the questions very well.)
…The nation is in the midst of a profound national security and foreign policy crisis, and the American people deserve to know why their government was asleep at the switch–as well as what the position of the political opposition is. Yet the mainstream media is trying to quash that critical discussion and debate.

Whether you agree with him or not, Mitt Romney, just like any other American, can engage in free speech under the Constitution, including the right to comment on both domestic and international affairs. Unlike the reaction today, moreover, the mainstream media fully celebrated the all-out criticism of the Bush foreign policy record by Sen. John Kerry and then-Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats in 2004 and 2008, respectively.
The president read a prepared statement on the Middle East violence and the terrorist killing of the US ambassador and three others but took no questions today at his Rose Garden appearance.
Perhaps prophetically, New York Post columnist John Podhoretz wrote on Monday about those who used to function as government watchdogs but now in general serve as an adjunct to the Obama re-election campaign:

Obama has two advantages Romney doesn’t: a lapdog media and the presidential megaphone — and he’ll use both to his advantage.

In its debate prep, similarly, Team Romney must also plan for accusatory, gotcha questioning as opposed to the softballs that will be likely tossed at President Obama.
What’s fascinating about pervasive liberal bias is that many media members (like their vocal counterparts in Hollywood) have prospered very nicely in the free enterprise system, but they seem to want the rest of us to be under the control of bureaucratic central planners.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/329698/news-media-overheard-coordinating-anti-romney-questions-listen/#683D06xFDmZWxZ3O.99

Read More

Shoes a start, but homeless need far more

Here is an article from CNN.com suggesting that the United States and all other wealthy nations must take charge to help homeless people.  The author wrote the article in wake of the NYPD officer giving a homeless man a pair of all-weather boots.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/04/opinion/ghitis-homeless/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

(CNN) -- Americans love a hero. Everybody does. So who could resist the touching story of the New York policeman who, seeing a homeless man sitting barefoot in the cold, walked into a shoe store and bought him a new pair of all-weather boots?

The picture of clean-cut Officer Larry DePrimo kneeling before bearded, straggly Jeffrey Hillman became an Internet sensation. More than 1.6 million people saw it in the first 24 hours after the New York Police Department posted the image, which was snapped by a tourist.

Chapter 1 of this story moved millions to shed a tear, and one hopes it inspired countless acts of kindness.

Now, we have Chapter 2. And it should move us even more.

Hillman, who became much less famous than his benefactor, is barefoot once again.

And the story, as it turns out, is much more complicated than we ever thought. New York City officials say Hillman has had an apartment but, for some reason, returns to the streets.

Despite veterans benefits, federal Section 8 assistance and Social Security, he sits on the cold New York pavement and, barefoot, walks its streets.

Clearly, this is a sad situation that will not be resolved with the purchase of a new pair of shoes.

Indeed, while DePrimo deservedly received accolades and media attention, we heard almost nothing about the homeless man; there was never any reason to believe his fortunes had improved. After providing protection for his blistered feet, society simply moved on, happy to pat itself on the back for a job well done -- and just in time for Christmas.

Photos: Haunting portraits of the homeless

New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly gave DePrimo a pair of cuff links. As for Hillman, Kelly flippantly explained, "We're not looking for him. He has shoes now. He's much more difficult to spot."

Hillman, 54, has told reporters that he hid the shoes because "they are worth a lot of money." The explanation is not important. Hillman's family told a reporter that "Jeffrey has his life, and he has chosen that life."

But can the country turn its back on one of its own, a homeless military veteran, and say "it's his choice"?

Remember the homeless man with the velvet voice, Ted Williams? He, too, was rescued by a miracle. But he needed help, substance abuse treatment, before he could keep a job: before he could keep on his all-weather boots.

What matters is that Hillman, like thousands of others, in the street, in a country that, despite all its economic challenges, remains the richest nation the world has seen. What matters is that a heartwarming act of kindness -- a man opening his wallet to buy another man shoes -- is not enough to keep him from going barefoot.

Some problems are too big for individuals to tackle alone. Some problems, such as homelessness, require complex solutions. Some problems remind society that when it came together and organized, it created government.

The reminder is particularly timely now as the country's leaders negotiate over the "fiscal cliff." The talks are a political contest. But they are also about the soul of the nation. America's leaders are discussing the country's guiding philosophy. Sadly for the Jeff Hillmans of America, the weakest of the weak, America seems to have decided it has less money to help its neediest.

Other nations are undergoing similar debates about their own identity and values. America is not the only country with a homelessness problem, and charges that the United States is callous and indifferent to the poor, which I have often heard abroad, are simply false.

The U.K.-based Charities Aid Foundation, says Americans are the most generous people on earth. Last year, 65% gave money, 43% gave time, 73% helped a stranger. Despite the economic slump, three-quarters of the giving, $217 billion, came from individuals. Corporations and foundations gave $56 billion.

Those are amazing numbers. Americans should be proud.

Photos: Down and out in the south

Still, thousands sleep out in the cold. In Atlanta, just down the street from CNN's headquarters, drivers can spot homeless camps under highway overpasses. One caught fire a few weeks ago. Homeless life is stressful and dangerous.

Practically every major city in the world is home to people sleeping in the streets. An estimate of homelessness in Paris about a decade ago put the number there at 12,000. Up-to-date figures are bitterly disputed. The consensus among advocates is that numbers have climbed significantly. In the United States, 2010 census figures show some of the highest percentages of "street homeless" in California. According to those figures, New York has one homeless person for every 2,506 people, compared with one for every 259 in San Francisco.

New York authorities claim to have reduced the number of "unsheltered" individuals to about 3,000, 26% fewer than in 2005. The Coalition for the Homeless says statistics underestimate the problem.

Some studies show much higher, but that is because the term "homeless" includes people living in emergency housing. In this case, we are referring to the worst category of chronic homelessness: people who spend most nights in the streets.

Whatever the figure, more can be done.

In Sweden, a determined government effort brought the number of people living in the streets to just 280, with thousands receiving help in alternative housing. I once saw a city worker in Stockholm help a homeless man off the pavement and walk with him onto a city bus. The government seems to have a handle on the situation of each homeless individual.

Not all places are the same. Cities such as Paris and New York have many more immigrants, more newcomers with fewer connections to the community, with less of a safety net. There is also more poverty, inequality, unemployment.

The Christmas Miracle story of the police officer and the homeless man faded in an Internet minute. And then we moved onto the next social-media sensation. But it continued for the man who should have garnered more attention from the beginning.

The story is not over. Not for Jeffrey Hillman. Not for any of the homeless people in the streets of New York or Paris, Stockholm or Atlanta, whom we glimpse briefly as we move on with our lives.

The shoes help; the cash helps. But the more effective act of generosity, the real miracle, would come if the millions looking at the picture of the generous police officer trying to help a man in need wrote the perfect Chapter 3, pushing for better mental health services, more affordable housing, more job training. For enough attention from the government to those who need it most.

Read More

A gun control halftime show: Should Bob Costas have spoken out on Belcher suicide?

Here is another article from CNN.com addressing Bob Costas' comments on gun control in wake of the Javon Belcher murder-suicide.  The author suggests that Costas' comments were intended to rekindle discussion on gun control.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/us/nfl-chiefs-shooting/index.html?iref=allsearch

(CNN) -- There are a few things you can usually expect out of an NFL halftime show. A debate about gun control isn't one of them.

But Sunday wasn't a normal day in the NFL. It was two days after Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher shot and killed his girlfriend and the mother of his child before killing himself outside the front door of the Chiefs' practice facility.

It was shocking. And it was expected that this tragedy would seep through into Sunday's football coverage.

But many people were not expecting Bob Costas to make a plea for gun control.

During halftime of NBC's "Sunday Night Football," Costas blamed the nation's gun culture for what happened between Belcher and his girlfriend, remarks that set off a heated debate about whether the sportscaster should have launched into what some called a "rant" on gun control.

Here's a transcript of Costas' comments:

"Well, you know that it was coming. In the aftermath of the nearly unfathomable events in Kansas City, that most mindless of sports clichés was heard yet again: Something like this really puts it all in perspective.

Well, if so, that sort of perspective has a very short shelf life since we will inevitably hear about the perspective we have supposedly again regained the next time ugly reality intrudes upon our games. Please, those who need tragedies to continually recalibrate their sense of proportion about sports would seem to have little hope of ever truly achieving perspective.

You want some actual perspective on this? Well, a bit of it comes from a Kansas City based-writer Jason Whitlock with whom I do not always agree but who today said it so well today that we may as well as quote or paraphrase from the end of his article.

'Our current gun culture,' Whitlock wrote, '... ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenaged boys bloody and dead. ...

'Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.'

In the coming days, Jovan Belcher's actions and their possible connections to football will be analyzed. Who knows? But here, wrote Jason Whitlock is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."

Costas' remarks seemed to send the Internet into an immediate feeding frenzy. Was it appropriate for him to talk about a political issue during a sports show? What is the right forum for this kind of discussion? Was he only saying what everyone else was already thinking? The comments kept flying:

"I will gladly debate Jason Whitlock and Bob Costas on gun control, BUT we tuned in for an NFL game! Ridiculous programming decision!" sports talk show host John Kincade wrote on Twitter.

He added: "Do Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock realize if an NFL linebacker wants to kill a woman he does NOT need a gun? ABSURD LOGIC."

Costas declined to comment on his remarks.

Robert Kahne tweeted: "Big ups to Bob Costas for standing up for gun control. Hopefully someday we can actually have a conversation about it as a nation."

But Bill J. Chien used a case many people were familiar with to take a sarcastic jab at Costas' commentary.

"If OJ Simpson did not have a handgun, Nicole and Ron would still be alive today," he tweeted. Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and friend Ronald Goldman were stabbed to death in 1995, a crime for which the NFL legend was tried but acquitted.

Others added that blaming one thing, in this case guns, was not helpful.

"That Costas rant there was umm interesting. Let's focus on mental health and not just gun control. Can't strictly blame one or the other," Audrey Snyder tweeted.

Gun control has always been divisive. If you remember, it had been practically impossible to get the presidential candidates to talk about the issue. "Saturday Night Live" even mocked the candidates' avoidance of it during a skit on the presidential debates.

There was equal outrage online Sunday regarding CBS' football preshow, which took five minutes before mentioning the tragedy and seemed to feature more about a Victoria's Secret fashion show and hard-hitting commentary about the color of the anchors' ties instead of a serious issue.

The main point here may be you can't please everybody. There will always be critics when it comes to an issue that sparks such intense debate. But does that mean you don't even touch it? Or did Costas' comments do exactly what he may have intended -- reigniting the debate over gun control?

Read More

Bob Costas addresses gun violence in ‘Sunday Night Football’ halftime comments

During halftime on "Sunday Night Football" two nights ago, Bob Costas delivered a monologue advocating gun control in wake of Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide the day before.  Belcher, a Kansas City Chiefs linebacker, shot and killed his girlfriend at their home in front of his mother and ten minues later drove to the Kansas City Chiefs practice facility and killed himself with a self-inflicted gun-shot wound to the head in front of Kansas City Chiefs personnel. 

The author of this article from Yahoo! states that during halftime of a football game was not the right place for Costas' monologue on gun control.  Additionally, the author discusses that Costas' monologue came across as "opportunistic and condescending" and damaging the cause he was trying to defend.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/bob-costas-advocates-gun-control-sunday-night-football-164208209--nfl.html

In the wake of Saturday's horrifying tragedies at Kansas City, you knew the pundits would get their laptops rolling. The first wave involved the decision to play the game; some said it was a terrible idea, while others advocated it as a proper method of healing. Once the game was in the books, talk turned to Bigger Issues, as in How Could This Happen? Concussions and head injuries will come under the microscope, as will the NFL's approaches to counseling depression. Sunday night, NBC commentator Bob Costas, echoing a column by Fox Sports' Jason Whitlock, took on another aspect of the tragedy: gun violence.
Costas quoted with approval from Whitlock's column, which states, in part:

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.
In the coming days, Belcher's actions will be analyzed through the lens of concussions and head injuries. Who knows? Maybe brain damage triggered his violent overreaction to a fight with his girlfriend. What I believe is, if he didn't possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.
That is the message I wish Chiefs players, professional athletes and all of us would focus on Sunday and moving forward. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.

Gun control is, of course, a controversial issue, with such rabid belief on both sides that even politicians tend to steer clear of it. And politics are so laden with potential conflict that most sports commentators give anything remotely political a wide berth, as well. So when you've got gun control and politics jammed right in the middle of your football game, well, you can see how that might get a few people a touch upset. Social media and comment sections across the Internet boiled over on Sunday night with vitriol both against Costas for his views, and against NBC for permitting any kind of political commentary on its broadcast.
[Related: Victorious Chiefs make no effort to hide pain one day after tragic events]
Personal view: I don't mind politics occasionally cropping up in my sports. It's my belief that no social or public interaction — sports, politics, entertainment, business — exists in a vacuum, and it's only natural that elements from one seep over into another. But I also recognize that there are plenty who look to sports as an escape from the harsh realities of everyday life, that a Cowboys-Eagles game is a safe and risk-free way to avoid the horrors of the world by focusing instead on the horrors of two mediocre NFC East franchises.
Tracking the prospects of your fantasy team's third receiver rather than the impact of social issues might not be advisable on a long-term basis, but it's perfectly normal and appropriate during a football game. Costas tried to make his viewers feel guilty for not being as outraged as he is, and that's an approach doomed to both failure and deserved scorn. We all perceive tragedy differently; nobody, least of all a sportscaster on a football game, ought to be telling us to "recalibrate our sense of proportion."
As for the validity of Whitlock's comments: He's framed them in such a way that arguing against them effectively puts the arguer in the position of advocating gun violence. The guns-are-the-primary-problem stance deliberately oversimplifies an emotionally and psychologically complex situation. In other words, Whitlock, and by association Costas, is painting this tragedy in primary colors as a means of advancing an agenda, and as we've seen in the most recent election season, people really don't like to be told what to think.
[Also: Faced with tragedy, Chiefs record second win of season]
Pontificating on social issues is Whitlock and Costas' right, of course; both men have earned a public stage to air their beliefs, whether or not we agree with them. But oversimplification never holds up to even the most basic scrutiny. (There's also the troublesome, for Whitlock and Costas, fact that guns have, on occasion, saved lives in situations like these.)
Whitlock and Costas contend that if only Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Perkins would still be alive. Really? It's the object and not the man that caused this tragedy? If that's the case, hey, confiscate every gun everywhere. Shoot, confiscate everything that could potentially be used as a weapon.
And if that tidy little solution is how we're working, then why stop at guns? Why not advocate for stricter regulations on what we see on TV and hear in music? Whitlock's beloved "The Wire" and cop shows broadcast on Costas' employer NBC feature violence as a key plot element. When Whitlock himself criticizes an organization or individual, he refers to it as "filling up the vacants" — a reference from "The Wire" to the way a Baltimore drug lord kills and disposes of the bodies of his enemies. Hmmm.
Might the attitudes that entertainers embody contribute to "more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car [that] will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead"? Ban 'em all!
(Note, just so we're clear: All these arguments are deliberately absurd in the service of making a point.)
There's a place for discussion of the role that gun control could, and should, play in tragedies like this. There's also a way to frame it that doesn't come across as opportunistic and condescending, hurting the very cause you're trying to defend.
UPDATE: According to USA Today, Costas, said an NBC spokesman, "feels an unfortunate leap was taken that he was advocating taking away Second Amendment rights. He was not." NBC spokesman Greg Hughes noted, "In a short (on-air) time period he can cover only one aspect of a complicated issue. So he quoted (Whitlock) about the gun culture and an almost Wild West attitude in parts of this country. He is pro-sensible gun reform and pro-attitude adjustment on guns." Hughes further added that Costas is "in favor of people owning guns to hunt and carrying them in reasonably controlled circumstances."

Read More

Is Objective Journalism Doomed?

Here is a blog post that debates whether or not there is a future for objective journalism in America:

http://timberry.bplans.com/2012/02/is-objective-journalism-doomed.html

Do you ever wonder what happened to objective journalism? I have a thought about that.
Until the web changed everything, we got our news from a very few sources: There was a newspaper or two in every city. There were three major networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS, offering television and radio news. There were a few independent channels in each market, both on radio and television. And there were the national magazines, Time, Life, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report.
What we called journalistic ethics back then were also good business. All of those major news providers had to stay objective in order to reach a commercially viable audience.
If Walter Cronkite or David Brinkley seemed biased, then nobody would have believed them. They had to stay in the middle to appeal to the general audience. Trust, professionalism, and credibility were the only way to make it big in news.
Sure, we also had the tabloids at the grocery store checkout counters, but nobody believed them. They didn’t depend on credibility to succeed, the way the major news sources did.
Today, however, the huge difference is that pulverization and special focus is everywhere. Newspapers are struggling but look at blogs and cable channels and the Huffington Post, and focus, even focus on a small portion of the political or economic spectrum, makes money, Consider Fox News on one hand and Huffington Post or all those absurdly extremist radio talk show hosts, and the handful of liberal ones too … they all make money by gathering an interest group or affinity group together, shutting out the outside world, or the objective real world, and talking only to believers.
As far as I can tell the traditional media, the ones I mentioned above, are still striving for objectivity. To the extent that they still exist. But they are steadily losing power, audience, and importance.

Read More

Fox & MSNBC Became More Extreme As Election Day Neared, Reports Pew

Here is an article from Mediate discussing a study done by Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism that showed became more "extreme" in their bias as the U.S. presidential election neared:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-msnbc-became-more-extreme-as-election-day-neared-reports-pew/

Rival cable news channels Fox News and MSNBC became even more “extreme” in their coverage of President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney during the the last week of the 2012 presidential campaign, says a new Pew study.
The study, released today by Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, found that in the final week before election day, MSNBC’s negative coverage of Romney jumped to 68 percent, compared to the 57 percent negative coverage they gave him for most of October.
Fox News’ negative coverage of Obama increased to 56 percent in that final week from the 47 percent negative Obama coverage during October.
On the other hand, during the final pre-election week, MSNBC’s positive coverage of Obama shot up to 51 percent from 33 percent; and Fox News’ favorable Romney coverage went from 34 percent to 42 percent.
Full survey results here.

Read More

Most Biased News Network Revealed In New Study

Here is an article from The Inquisitr discussing a study done by the Pew Research Centers Project for Excellence in Journalism revealing who is the most biased network on television:

http://www.inquisitr.com/404737/most-biased-news-network-revealed-in-new-study/

The most biased news network may not be who you think it is. Given Fox News’ various snarky comments during the recent Presidential election many viewers may believe its well-known conservative slant has made it the most biased network on television. However, when it comes to slanting the news Fox is not the network that truly delivers only what its viewers want to hear. According to a study conducted by the non-partisan Pew Research Centers Project for Excellence in Journalism, MSNBC (now NBCNews) receives that dubious distinction.
The Pew study analyzed stories surrounding President Obama and Mitt Romney and found that 71% of MSNBC’s stories showed a negative bias towards Romney, while only 46% of Fox’s stories about Obama had a negative bias. Journalism.org backs up the numbers and further adds that in overall coverage the media delivered Obama a biased edge over Romney.
In an effort to help viewers become more engaged and determine the truth for themselves Fair.org had a few suggestions. Their first suggestion is to consider the news’ sources. For instance, during the election the numbers show that MSNBC would now have made a good source for partisan news gathering because of too much of the sources reporters quoted were bias. For example interviewing a Democratic council member would be biased if a Republican council member was not interviewed for the same piece of reporting.
Fair.org suggests asking the following questions about your news network of choice: Does the company lack diversity? Do the on-air reporters reflect the fact that Americans are more than one color? Are any of the producers gay or lesbian? Are any of the writers Christian, Buddist or Jewish?
Experts note that the ultimate goal for a news network should be to share the views of different people. It is also suggested that viewers let news organizations know whenever they have a problem with the networks work.
Liberals will likely claim Fox News is the most biased news network while conservatives will typically point towards MSNBC, CNN and others. While MSNBC wins this distinction a recent study found that people who watch Fox News know less about actual news events then people who don’t watch the news at all. Ultimately determining the validity of a news stations content becomes the responsibility of the viewer.

Read More

Objective Journalism Isn't Dead and Hasn't Been Replaced

Here is a post suggesting that objective journalism still has a viable place in society and that due to the fact it may be unobtainable does not mean that trying to achieve it is "without cause or benefit.":

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Objective-Journalism-Isnt-Dead-and-Hasnt-Been-Repl/2925842

Octavia Nasr, CNN's Senior Middle East Editor, was fired last Wednesday after tweeting that she was sad at the passing of a Hezbollah leader. A CNN memo said that Nasr's credibility was irrepreply damaged. Nasr became the second victim of Israeli angst, following Helen Thomas' departure from Hearst last month.

Both of these exits have rejuvinated questions about journalistic objectivity and its place in the 21st century news ecosystem. With the rise of cable news and the establishment of the blogosphere, some have asked whether objectivity is dead or just drowned out. The deeper question of whether objectivity is a noble goal of journalism, however, remains unanswered.

In the 1920's, public relations yielded to the impossibility of absolute fact in the new social environment, and instead relied on subjectivity to shape this new world. Responding to the rise of the mob mentality, professionals “took public opinion to be irrational and therefore something to… manipulate, and control," Sociologist Michael Schudson argued in his book Discovering the News. Journalists countered the rise of public relations by creating professional schools that instilled in their young journalists notions of objectivity and the scientific method.

“Journalists came to believe in objectivity…, because they wanted to, needed to, were forced by ordinary human aspiration to seek escape from their own deep convictions of doubt," Schudson wrote.

The turmoil of the 1960s created public distrust in the government. Racial injustice, Nixon's Watergate scandal, and the Vietnam War weighed heavily on the public's perception of government. While older reporters stressed objectivity, young reporters advocated interpretative reporting in response to the loss of public confidence in government. The critical culture fundamentally changed journalism and “straight society” news by promoting increased criticism, muckraking, and questioning of the government and official sources.

Yet, journalists--at least traditional journalists--are still guided by and influenced by a pursuit of objectivity and many see objectivity much as the founder of America's journalism schools saw it. Before becoming entirely disillusioned, Walter Lippmann, the namesake of this blog, suggested that liberty itself depended on objectivity.

"There seems to be no way of evading the conclusion that liberty is not so much permission as it is the construction of a system of information increasingly independent of opinion," Lippmann wrote in 1920. "In the long run it looks as if opinion could be made at once free and enlightening only by transferring our interest from 'opinion' to the objective realities from which it springs."

Today, however, opinion is made free by creating your own reality. Indeed, objective reality is somewhat a fool's wish. It is beyond what any one reporter can hope to achieve, but simply because it is unobtainable does not mean that the pursuit of it is without cause or benefit.

"The objectivity norm guides journalists to separate facts from values and to report only the facts," Schudson writes. "Objective reporting is supposed to be cool, rather than emotional, in tone... According to the objectivity norm, the journalist’s job consists of reporting something called ‘news’ without commenting on it, slanting it, or shaping its formulation in any way."

Conversely, critics argue that the objectivity norm simply allows journalists to be hamstrung into reporting each side without examining the truth behind the facts. Many argue that objectivity--along with fairness and balance--makes the journalist subservient to the public relations officer and the press conference. Some even blame the lack of press scrutiny in the run-up to the Iraq war on institutionalized objectivity.

"Our pursuit of objectivity can trip us up on the way to 'truth,'" Brent Cunningham argued in his well-regarded article Re-thinking Objectivity. "Objectivity excuses lazy reporting. If you're on deadline and all you have is "both sides of the story," that's often good enough."

In the past few years objectivity has taken its punches. A recent poll showed that almost 70% of Americans think that objective reporting is dead. More Americans are tuning into hear cable news pundits than their counterparts on the broadcast nightly news. In 2009, press accuracy hit a record low with only 29% of Americans reporting that the press gets the facts straight and 18% reporting that the press deals fairly with all sides.

There is still plenty of reasons to appreciate objective journalism, however. Indeed the traditional press continues to be the source of original information. In a case study of Baltimore, conducted by the Project for Excellence in journalism, research found that 95% of original content came from traditional news outlets--the stalwarts of objective journalism.

I think it is fair to say that democracy needs journalism, and journalism needs objective reporting. If objective reporting dies, the information that it uncovered once upon a time will remain covered. The investigative pieces will remain uninvestigated, and we will be worse off because of it. Opinions are fine, but if everyone is giving their opinion and no one is still in the business of reporting, then democracy is dead.

I would also argue that objective reporting, when done right, does not have to hamstring reporters. Instead, objectivity hand-in-hand with the dedicated journalists digging below the surface, can create a journalism that is both ruthless, dependable, and defensible. And while it isn't perfect, at least it's attempting to be.

Read More

‘Objective’ journalism is over. Let’s move on.

Here is an article that suggests that objective journalism is over and that journalists should just state their own personal beliefs before writing articles so the public can "evaluate the quality of the information it is getting":

http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2010/12/objective-journalism-is-over-lets-move.html

It’s time to retire the difficult-to-achieve and impossible-to-defend conceit that journalists are now, or ever were, objective.

Let’s replace this threadbare notion with a realistic and credible standard of transparency that requires journalists to forthrightly declare their personal predilections, financial entanglements and political allegiances so the public can evaluate the quality of the information it is getting.

This not only will make life easier for scribes and the public. It also could do wonders for the sagging credibility of the press. I’ll provide a specific suggestion for doing so in a moment. But first, let’s see how we got here:

It is preposterous to think anyone ever believed that journalists – who, for the most part, are restlessly intelligent and relentlessly skeptical individuals – actually were able to intellectually neuter themselves when they sat down at a keyboard or stepped in front of a camera.

So, the first step in being more transparent with readers, listeners and viewers is to be honest about the fact that the idea of objectivity is really more of an exception than the prevailing standard in the two centuries that journalism has been practiced in the United States

For most of the history of the republic, political partisans typically funded newspapers for the express purpose of promoting their friends and pummeling their enemies. Objectivity was not their objective.

As the newspaper industry began consolidating in the 20th Century, the sole surviving publishers in most markets realized they could sell more papers (and therefore, more ads) if they purged partisanship from their columns. Some publishers were more assiduous than others, but most of them played it relatively straight in the era after World War II.

Broadcasters embraced the concept of neutrality in the interests of building the largest possible audiences for their shows (so they, too, could sell more ads). As a welcome side benefit, this avoided potential unpleasantness with the federal officials who doled out broadcasting licenses.

This all worked fine until the Internet came along and provided self-appointed critics of every stripe with unlimited opportunities to vent their misgivings about the news – and the messengers delivering it.

Confidence in the media eroded accordingly.

A recent Gallup poll found that a record 57% of Americans said they had little or no trust in the mass media vs. 44% who were skeptical in 1999. While I don’t believe the traditional news media are materially less trustworthy today than they were 10 years ago, faith in the press has faltered, in part, because so many people are picking at it.

However, I would submit that the biggest reason distrust in the press has increased is that a growing number of journalists – particularly those on Fox News, MSNBC, talk radio and other popular venues – are expected to inject personality, passion and even partisan spin into their work.

This trend is unlikely to abate, as long as Fox News – which is about as fair and balanced as Roger Ailes is fit and trim – can pull a larger audience at 10 p.m. on election night than each of ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NBC. If anything, the passion for passion is likely to grow.

With on-air histrionics at a fever pitch, distrust has spilled over to the print media, too, contributing to a pernicious decline in newspaper readership that has dropped circulation by 37% in the last 20 years. Today, only one in three households actually takes a newspaper.

Unsettling as the punditization of the news may be to old-school journalists, there is a powerful cultural reason why Fox, Jon Stewart and other news-with-a-view productions have caught on: Consumers are so overloaded with information that they want someone to tell them what it means.

No fewer than 92% of Americans today “use multiple platforms to get their daily news,” according to a survey conducted earlier this year by the Pew Research Center. However, 70% of respondents felt the volume of news was overwhelming and 50% said they looked to others to help them divine its significance.

This represents a golden opportunity, if you believe, as I do, that journalists not only possess valuable insights into the matters they cover but also have an absolute obligation to share their perspectives with the public after diligently gleaning all sides of a story in an ethical and open-minded manner.

For journalists to be able to report effectively on the news and its significance, we have to replace the intellectually indefensible pretense of objectivity with a more authentic standard that journalists actually can live up to.

The way to do that is to treat the public like adults by providing the clearest possible understanding of who is delivering news and commentary – and where they are coming from. Hence, the following proposal:

Let’s take advantage of the openness and inexhaustible space of the Internet to have every journalist publish a detailed statement of political, personal and financial interests at her home website and perhaps even in a well publicized national registry. Full disclosure would enable consumers to make their own informed judgments about the potential biases and believability of any journalist.

This standard will work as well for journalists and media outlets committed to down-the-middle reporting as those desiring to express a point of view.
A superb example of how detailed disclosure could work can be found at AllThingsD.Com, where co-editors Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg unsparingly bare their personal interests.

Swisher’s ethics statement covers everything from how she buys computers to how she manages her finances to her marriage to Megan Smith, a top Google executive. Mossberg readily admits that his disclosure “is more than most of you want to know” but adds, incisively:

“In the age of suspicion of the media, I am laying it all out.”

It’s time for everyone else to do likewise.

Read More

Is There Really Any Objective Journalism?

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." Ronald Reagan

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 <http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=874195433918198663#editor/target=post;postID=3508728666123779463> 

Is There Really Any Objective Journalism? I saw a story <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/19/study-state-governments-at-high-risk-for-corruption/> on the Fox News website yesterday about a recent study done on corruption in state governments. 

The study was done by "The Center for Public Integrity" <http://www.iwatchnews.org/about> and the results are reported to show a great deal of corruption and unethical behavior in all 50 states. Each state was graded, with no state receiving an A, and 8 states being given F's. After seeing that all of the states with F's, were red states with Republican governors, I decided to take a closer look. The rest of the states were pretty evenly split between Republican and Democrat governors, with Chris Christie's New Jersey receiving the highest grade. So, other than the bottom 8 all being red, the study doesn't appear to be biased toward either party, but something still didn't seem right. The Center for Public Integrity claims to be "one of the oldest non-partisan, non-profit investigative news organizations in the country". Their website says they are funded by charitable foundations and individual donations, and that it "does not accept funding from labor unions or governments". However, after taking a look at the archived articles, they appear to be anything but non-partisan, unbiased, objective, or investigative. The vast majority of stories in the political section were anti-Republican, with a lot of focus on the potential GOP nominees. The major agenda issue for the organization is environmentalism/climate change and they are decidedly on the side of man caused climate change. They are also very supportive of government controlled health care with, again, no dissenting views. There are slight hints of anti-militarism, anti-business, and pro-globalization; they have a sister organization called "The Center for Global Integrity". While there is no campaigning or open endorsement of the Democratic party, the vast majority of content is decidedly liberal/progressive. In an article mocking Rick Santorum for calling global warming a hoax, which says it was written "By FactCheck.Org", the writer say "Santorum isn't the only skeptic, but skeptics are rare among scientists who actually study the climate." Yeah, not so much. It appears that facts can be rare among some organizations that have the words "Fact Check" in their name.While the authors brag about their data set of 1,372 climate researchers, they fail to mention the more than 31,000 scientists that have signed the petition denouncing the theory of man made global warming, at http://petitionproject.org/. Evidently, their investigative journalists failed to uncover that The Heartland Institute has held multiple international meetings for skeptics, that have been attended by over 1,000 climate scientists. This type of one sided editorializing is nothing new, but, it's increasingly becoming the only type of news we ever see; and far too many people just accept it as fact. As for the Center's claims of non-partisan funding, the list of supporting foundations <http://www.iwatchnews.org/about/our-work/supporters> are decisively progressive and share similar ideologies including environmental justice, social justice, global economic justice, and sustainability. The following are just a few examples:

• Adessium Foundation <http://www.adessium.org/>
• California Endowment <http://www.calendow.org/>
• The Ford Foundation <http://www.fordfoundation.org/>
• The Joyce Foundation <http://www.joycefdn.org/>
• Oak Foundation <http://www.oakfnd.org/>
• Soros.org/Open Society Foundations <http://www.soros.org/>

The Executive Director of The Center is Bill Buzenberg, former vice president of the left leaning National Public Radio (NPR). I have no problem with writers or pundits voicing their opinions, that's their job and we have our share on the right. The difference is; we know which side Rush Limbaugh or James Carville is on. When organizations that portray themselves as non-partisan watchdogs are secretly promoting an agenda it becomes dangerous. Theories are presented as fact, and accepted as such by much of the general public. The sad fact is, we can no longer trust anything we see, hear, or read in the news. We must take the time to investigate it ourselves. Fortunately, that's not hard to do. There is so little questioning of what's reported, that the authors of the lies don't even bother trying to cover their tracks. Our country and our freedoms are being taken, but not by force or coercion. We're surrendering them voluntarily because we're too lazy or ignorant to see the truth.

Read More

Objectivity in Journalism

One important start to this conversation will be finding others asking similar questions. Objectivity in Journalism means we should present arguments made on all sides of issues, whether the person posting leans more conservative, moderate, or liberal. Good Journalism moderates the debate but takes no side. This post asks if Objective Journalism still exists:
http://oneconservativedad.blogspot.com/2012/03/is-there-really-any-objective.html

Read More

Should Journalism be Amoral?

George Orwell the Journalist
<http://objectivejournalismcenter.blogspot.com/2012/05/this-post-kicks-off-what-is-intended-to.html>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=874195433918198663&amp;postID=7667671752662165201&amp;from=pencil> 

Should Journalism be Amoral?Published May 9, 2011 | By Matt Baum http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/author/matt-baum/
"George Orwell was not a peace journalist; he was a proper journalist!"

Jean Seaton, professor of media history at the university of Westminster and official historian for the BBC, hurled the comment from her seat in the audience onto the stage, interrupting the current speaker, Richard Keeble, professor at the University of Lincoln’s school of journalism. Keeble’s passing claim on George Orwell in last Saturday’s OxPeace <http://cis.politics.ox.ac.uk/research/Projects/oxfpeace.asp> conference on “Media in Conflict and Peace building” (recordings of the talks will shortly be available on OUCS iTunes <http://itunes.ox.ac.uk/> ) visibly (and audibly) upset Seaton, who was present also as a speaker.

Why did Seaton treat the title of “peace journalist” as an insult?
In the brief Q & A that followed, Seaton explained that Orwell was a proper journalist because he constantly tried to undermine his own assumptions when investigating a story, to be as objective as possible, to pursue and depict the truth, no matter what that truth; what he was not doing was journalism pre-devoted to a particular ideology like peace. To Seaton, this was the role of proper journalism, to report objectively for (as she articulated in her talk earlier that day) journalism should be an “amoral” process.

By “amoral,” I do not think that Seaton meant that journalism should have no moral code – indeed as another panelists responded later in the conference, she clearly supported a morality in which journalism should care about the objective truth – but that moral considerations should not apply to the practice of journalism. Journalism viewed as a tool for promoting peace (a preconceived moral goal), therefore, would be improper journalism. If the objective truth happens to promote peace building, great, but if it promotes further violence, so be it as long it is the objective truth.

This debate about what journalism should and should not be – a moral debate – ran beneath the conference like the plumbing beneath New York: not given enough attention but vitally important. So perhaps we can continue the discussion here: Can journalism be amoral?

The ideal of the impartial, objective journalist in search of the Truth with a capital T, particularly an analogy of journalism as a “clear lens” surfaced and resurfaced. The emerging research in linguistics, psychology and neuroscience on the impact of framing, priming, and unconscious bias on how we perceive the world and how we communicate seriously calls into question whether a “clear lens” can ever be attained. But for the sake of argument, let us grant that this same research could allow journalists to notice and account for these effects to act as lenses without distortion; then can journalism be amoral?

Any photographer will tell you that even with a clear lens what is important is where you point that lens. Time, attention, and money are limited resources, and decisions on how to expend those resources are often moral ones. In medical ethics, this is well known: which procedures to fund in socialized healthcare programs like the NHS. In journalism too, not all stories, for practical reasons, can be covered. Which to cover and how many resources to spend on them (source verifying, plane tickets, journal space etc) are moral decisions from which the profession cannot and should not escape. Examples of stories that should be told but are not told are numerous. Arijit Sen of the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford drew light to the conflict in Nagaland in northeastern India in which 1000 people die yearly and have been doing so for the past 60 years, but reporting on this conflict is nonexistent compared to Kashmir.

The issue of money exerting control over the stories told came up briefly in the context of the financial hit that some news stations in the USA took when trying to report more critically on the (at that time) new war in Iraq. What the people wanted to hear was not a critique of their government’s decision and the horrors of war, but a one-sided story that justified it and made them feel secure. Interestingly however, some journalists at the conference argued that the responsibility lies with the readers to demand the critical stories, to demand the ethically important news. If this were to happen, then it sure would make it practically easier for the media to cover ethically important stories in a critical and balance way, but I cannot see how the existence or non-existence of a market for these stories makes one wit of difference about whether the media should cover them. analogously, coffee growers and shoe-factory workers should be paid a living wage and work in safe conditions regardless about whether there is a market for fair trade coffee or sweat-shop-free shoes. The existence of a market sure makes it easier for coffee and shoe companies to act morally, but its absence does not mean that the moral duty ceases to exist.

It is certainly true, however, that journalism is a business and without making money, NO news will be covered. So in order to maximize the number of stories told that should be told, a company can’t tell only stories that will not make money. The question, then, is how strong is this responsibility when weighed against money? Does the press have the responsibility to make only enough money to stay afloat?
So in light of the normative choices of resource allocation and the difficulties of creating a “clear lens,” it seems unlikely that journalism can objectively claim to be “amoral.” And if this is the case, isn’t an emphasis on the impartial objectivity of journalism as anything other than and ideal misleading and, potentially, damaging? A young man I shared coffee with at the conference made the reasonable suggestion that it would be a great step if journalism would cast off the false guise of the ideal be clearer about where it is coming from; then people could interpret the stories with the proper weight.
But if the ideal remains an ideal, and the media is necessarily biased in some way, wouldn’t a bias towards peace building and conflict resolution be a decent bias to choose?

 

Read More

Round Table Discussion

The first Objective Journalism Initiative Round Table Discussion will be held October 22nd in Studio 122 of the Preforming Arts Center of Texas A&M Commerce. All students, faculty, and staff are invited to attend this live recording experience. 

During the discussion viewers will be exposed to different opinions on objectivity and bias in news media coverage.  Additionally, students from Texas A&M Commerce will discuss how certain media outlets from around the globe cover the United States presidential election.  

To learn more about Objective Journalism Click Here

Read More