Local reporters should delve deeper into issues
As the 2008 election starts to really kick into gear, there will be a lot of folks discussing the role of the media in covering the election. In fact, many of the discussions have already started. Here is one, sponsored by the Suburban Newspapers of America, which mentions that reporters and editors should delve deeper into the issues around the campaign: ["Covering the 2008 Elections"]. One of the difficult things about being involved in community journalism and covering national elections is that most don't have anything to do with the purpose of your journalism. Unless you live in a state that has an early primary or caucus, there is not going to be much coverage about the election. Community journalists will focus on the community, which often doesn't involve the national campaigns. In many ways, it is very difficult to localize national issues. But, it doesn't mean reporters and editors should not try.
2008 Senate race
A few quick notes on the 2008 Senate race here in New Hampshire:
First, Steve Marchand had a fund-raising effort on Daily Kos the other day. According to the ActBlue link, 34 people ponyed up $1,205. Another challenger to Sen. John Sununu, Jay Buckey, the former astronaut, has decided to refuse PAC donations and all other special interest donations, according to an email sent out by his campaign manager, Karen Liott Hill. Buckey has raised $5,505 via ActBlue. Katrina Swett has raised $50 via the online posting board.
The Concord Monitor's "Capital Beat" column this morning posted some numbers, forwarded by campaign reps. involved in the race. Swett is reporting passing the $1M mark for the first two quarters of the year. Marchand's rep. says he is on track to bring in about $100k for the second quarter. Hill, Buckey's rep., says he has raised $10k and loaned or given his campaign $27k. Granted, his campaign really only just started. The column also talks about Sununu's polling problems and a little bit about the Draft Shaheen "movement": ["Winners, losers and an MVP"].
Shea-Porter votes against Fairness Doctrine
Renegade liberal Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, NH CD 1, voted against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine earlier this week: ["Final Vote Results 599"]. The amendment stated that the FCC would be barred from requiring broadcasters to air balanced opinions. An Aye vote was supporting the amendment. I'm shocked by this. Either she doesn't know about or understand the issue, didn't understand that an Aye vote meant she was voting against reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, or she needs to be educated on the issue. I've requested space in the New Hampshire Union Leader to write a comprehensive column about the Fairness Doctrine, why it is important, and why unbalanced talk radio is harming our state. Rep. Paul Hodes, of NH CD 2, voted No, meaning he thought it should be reinstated.
Monitor editor Ari Richter weighs in on the Fairness Doctrine here, reporting a dare Sean Hannity has reportedly made to Sen. Hillary Clinton: ["A dare worth taking"]. Clearly, not unlike Shea-Porter, Richter needs a bit of education on the issue.
NH Poll
I forgot to mention this earlier this week: Channel 7 in Boston and Suffolk University released a New Hampshire primary pool on Wednesday afternoon showing, not surprisingly, that Hillary and former Gov. Mitt Romney lead the state. But slip Al Gore into the mix, and Hillary plummets [calling Al Gore?]. Without Gore: Clinton 37 percent, Obama 19, Edwards and Richardson 9, 16 were Undecided. With Gore in, 29 percent of Clinton's support vanishes to Gore.
Over on the Republican side, it is a bit tighter: Romney has 26 percent, with Giuliani 22, and McCain and Thompson at 13, 17 were undecided. The poll revealed that Romney surge is "fueled by younger voters, ages 18 to 45."
Throw in an indie campaign by Mike Bloomberg, and the Democrats easily win New Hampshire in the general election, according to the poll. Bloomberg recorded 6 to 8 percent of likely voters.
Huckabee blogger conference call
I was invited to participate in this blogger conference call by Gov. Mike Huckbee: ["Huckabee Blogger Conference Call"]. Unfortunately, it happened at 9:30 last Tuesday morning ... which is a pretty bad time for me. So, I didn't call in. But, maybe next time. I was a bit surprised that I would even get invited to participate, considering the content of my blog. I would have asked him some pretty tough questions - like I do everyone. I hope to participate in the next one.
As the 2008 election starts to really kick into gear, there will be a lot of folks discussing the role of the media in covering the election. In fact, many of the discussions have already started. Here is one, sponsored by the Suburban Newspapers of America, which mentions that reporters and editors should delve deeper into the issues around the campaign: ["Covering the 2008 Elections"]. One of the difficult things about being involved in community journalism and covering national elections is that most don't have anything to do with the purpose of your journalism. Unless you live in a state that has an early primary or caucus, there is not going to be much coverage about the election. Community journalists will focus on the community, which often doesn't involve the national campaigns. In many ways, it is very difficult to localize national issues. But, it doesn't mean reporters and editors should not try.
2008 Senate race
A few quick notes on the 2008 Senate race here in New Hampshire:
First, Steve Marchand had a fund-raising effort on Daily Kos the other day. According to the ActBlue link, 34 people ponyed up $1,205. Another challenger to Sen. John Sununu, Jay Buckey, the former astronaut, has decided to refuse PAC donations and all other special interest donations, according to an email sent out by his campaign manager, Karen Liott Hill. Buckey has raised $5,505 via ActBlue. Katrina Swett has raised $50 via the online posting board.
The Concord Monitor's "Capital Beat" column this morning posted some numbers, forwarded by campaign reps. involved in the race. Swett is reporting passing the $1M mark for the first two quarters of the year. Marchand's rep. says he is on track to bring in about $100k for the second quarter. Hill, Buckey's rep., says he has raised $10k and loaned or given his campaign $27k. Granted, his campaign really only just started. The column also talks about Sununu's polling problems and a little bit about the Draft Shaheen "movement": ["Winners, losers and an MVP"].
Shea-Porter votes against Fairness Doctrine
Renegade liberal Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, NH CD 1, voted against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine earlier this week: ["Final Vote Results 599"]. The amendment stated that the FCC would be barred from requiring broadcasters to air balanced opinions. An Aye vote was supporting the amendment. I'm shocked by this. Either she doesn't know about or understand the issue, didn't understand that an Aye vote meant she was voting against reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, or she needs to be educated on the issue. I've requested space in the New Hampshire Union Leader to write a comprehensive column about the Fairness Doctrine, why it is important, and why unbalanced talk radio is harming our state. Rep. Paul Hodes, of NH CD 2, voted No, meaning he thought it should be reinstated.
Monitor editor Ari Richter weighs in on the Fairness Doctrine here, reporting a dare Sean Hannity has reportedly made to Sen. Hillary Clinton: ["A dare worth taking"]. Clearly, not unlike Shea-Porter, Richter needs a bit of education on the issue.
NH Poll
I forgot to mention this earlier this week: Channel 7 in Boston and Suffolk University released a New Hampshire primary pool on Wednesday afternoon showing, not surprisingly, that Hillary and former Gov. Mitt Romney lead the state. But slip Al Gore into the mix, and Hillary plummets [calling Al Gore?]. Without Gore: Clinton 37 percent, Obama 19, Edwards and Richardson 9, 16 were Undecided. With Gore in, 29 percent of Clinton's support vanishes to Gore.
Over on the Republican side, it is a bit tighter: Romney has 26 percent, with Giuliani 22, and McCain and Thompson at 13, 17 were undecided. The poll revealed that Romney surge is "fueled by younger voters, ages 18 to 45."
Throw in an indie campaign by Mike Bloomberg, and the Democrats easily win New Hampshire in the general election, according to the poll. Bloomberg recorded 6 to 8 percent of likely voters.
Huckabee blogger conference call
I was invited to participate in this blogger conference call by Gov. Mike Huckbee: ["Huckabee Blogger Conference Call"]. Unfortunately, it happened at 9:30 last Tuesday morning ... which is a pretty bad time for me. So, I didn't call in. But, maybe next time. I was a bit surprised that I would even get invited to participate, considering the content of my blog. I would have asked him some pretty tough questions - like I do everyone. I hope to participate in the next one.
2 comments:
Shea-Porter, would have no reason to support this ammendment, so therefore I would suggest that this vote was based on her ignorance of what is going on. I am glad that she voted YES!
The fairness doctrine is not 'fair' by any means and in actuality, it stifles free speech.
Looking at this truthfully we can assume several things:
NPR is Left leaning and will not be affected by this unfair regulation. They will find a loophole to protect paid political speech on both NPR and PBS.
NBC,ABC,CBS,CNBC,MSNBC,CNN and others are all left leaning and will not be affected.
FSTV and LINK, which are, the most heinous radical outlets (with no opposing media on the right), will not be affected nor will XM radio stations.
So, in reality, only talk radio will be affected and that happens to be the only outlet to hear any news from the right.
If all other media are not going to be affected, then where is the "fairness".
Other questions would be:
Who is going to monitor and decide this? A political appointee? A bureaucrat?
What will the criteria for "fairness" be? What about ratings and the ability of stations to sell advertising?
As far as Sean Hannity and Hillary Clinton sharing a show together for a whole week....that would illustrate the differences between the two sides.
I have listened to Hillary Clinton and we all know that she is not honest in her portrayal of her true intentions and actions. Sean Hannity is very opinionated and is often over the top. What we need is reporting that is honest and factual without the Keith Olbermans and Chris Matthews talking over the guests and setting the agenda.
FOX News does lean a bit right but you get "facts" and hear news that you do not hear anywhere else. You should read the Washington Times and read about things like China's buildup and other world events that the mainstream press does not cover.
If we apply the "fairness doctrine" to talk radio, then, we should do it to the Monitor, Union Leader, Washington Post and other newspapers.
I often write letters to the Monitor, because it is so Left leaning. They have publiched many of my letters and I am surprised by how often they do print them. Albeit, they edit them, shorten them and often they lose their message, allowing rebuttals to one point but not the whole theme.
I would imagine that you would support my right to have equal response to any of their columns and equal word count. I think that would be foolish, dangerous and it flies in the face of free speech. After all, they do allow dissenting opinions and that is sufficient. Would I like to get more of my opinion in their newspaper? Hell, yes! But, they have the right to choose the slant of their publication and that sells newspapers. By the way that is called "Capitalism".
The same goes for talk radio. I will say that it would be a breath of fresh air for NPR to present both sides and have conservative voices. We all contribute to PBS and NPR, where is your battle cry for "fairness"?
I would probably not agree with Ari Richter on 5% of political issues but I do like his idea encouraging Clinton to sit in with Hannity. It is doubtful that she would have the guts to do that nor could she answer the dozens of pointed questions about her past and true motivations.
Fairness is not hurting our state, those who want to control the agenda to meet their idealist world view, like yourself are the ones hurting everyone in our state and country.
Hi Bill,
Thank you so much for reading and posting a comment here. I see you reached my site by Googling “Ari Richter” twice. I don’t know why you were doing that, but whatever. Here are some counter points against your arguments [***]
You say:
Shea-Porter, would have no reason to support this ammendment, so therefore I would suggest that this vote was based on her ignorance of what is going on. I am glad that she voted YES!
The fairness doctrine is not 'fair' by any means and in actuality, it stifles free speech.
***First, the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t “stifle free speech.” In actuality, if re-implemented, it would GUARANTEE MORE speech and bring about more programming options to people and, in the end, more listeners to radio.
The radio and television licenses are OURS - we own them. We lend them out to broadcasters to make billions and billions of dollars from them with little requested in return.
All the Fairness Doctrine ever did was require that when covering or discussing political issues, the broadcaster made sure that there was equal coverage of the issue for both sides. Most of the time, that is just two sides, either Republican or Democrat, pro and con. At the worst, it might be four sides, if you gave the Libertarians and Greens the chance to chime in, if they have a role in something. Is that really so hard to do? No, of course it isn't. And, why shouldn't the people have access to more than one view? Right now, they have practically only one view and the deception within that one view often goes unanswered.
So, the Fairness Doctrine does the exact opposite of what you claim.***
You say:
Looking at this truthfully we can assume several things:
NPR is Left leaning and will not be affected by this unfair regulation. They will find a loophole to protect paid political speech on both NPR and PBS.
***I have to contend with this comment. If anything, NPR and PBS are NOT left-leaning or liberal, it is pretty balanced or tilted to the moderate side of things.
I admit that I don’t listen to a lot of NPR because it seemed as though every issue that was ever important to me was covered with a pro-business, Washington beltway insiderism slant. But, I do listen sometimes.
Over the past nine months, I’ve spent a lot of time listening to NHPR, mostly because I had applied for a number of different openings at the network [to no avail]. Now, most specifically, I listen to “The Exchange” and “The Diane Rehm Show,” because those air during my commute hours. Personally, I think Laura Knoy throws a lot of softballs out there. Her recent interview with Mike Huckabee, for example, was pretty much a love fest. But whenever Knoy talks politics, she always has a pretty balanced roundtable. For every Mike Pride from the Concord Monitor, there is a Charlie Perkins from the Union Leader. That’s pretty balanced. On the other hand, I heard her program about cable access media back in 2006 which was not only one-sided, it was completely inaccurate and forwarded a lot of falsehoods about things going on at Concord’s community access stations, without allowing anyone to respond to it.
If you listen to Diane Rehm’s show, not only will you find her boring, tired sounding and unlistenable, but you will also find that she always has a balanced list of guests. For every Arianna Huffington appearance, there is a Tucker Carlson or Tony Blankley appearance. That seems pretty balanced. What I fail to understand is why NHPR pays $15,000 a year for her program [That’s what I’m told affiliates have to pay to broadcast the program]. It is awful, awful, awful.
As far as PBS goes, again, there is hardly a slant. On news and information, the programming is quite balanced. “Frontline” is a spectacular program, delving into many of the issues the mainstream, corporate press refuses to look at. Some say they’ve been harsh on President Bush. But you should have seen them during the Clinton years. They were just as harsh.
“The Newshour” is actually quite balanced on their news coverage but when they have a roundtable, there is barely a liberal or progressive in sight. Their idea of balance is having John Fund, rightwing commentator for the WSJ, and David Gergen, moderate to conservative aide to Bill Clinton and countless Republican presidents, as balanced. That’s hardly balanced. FAIR, the liberal media watchdog group, has constantly been critical of the lack of balance on the program. If you search its site, you will see more than 1,200 entries about “The Newshour.” I would point you to this site from last year, noting the lack of balance, diversity, and public on the program: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2971.
I will give you this: “Now” is a liberal program … one 30 minute program a week. So, that offsets one unbalanced roundtable on “The Newshour.” That still leaves four other roundtables per week.
Here is a question for you: If PBS is so “left leaning,” then how come they don’t have any programs discussing labor issues but have a slew of programs discussing Wall Street and business issues, and always have? There is a “Nightly Business Report” but not a “Nightly Labor Report.” In fact, the business coverage hardly touches any labor issues at all. You might get that every few years from “Frontline,” but not many other places.
I would also contend that most of PBS’s non-news programming is quite “highbrow,” for lack of a better term, with all its British programming, classical music concerts, opera, and other fare. This programming appeals to both the liberal and conservative elite who enjoy such programming. That is where the bulk of your taxpayer money goes to. That, and the kid’s programming. Not the news or the radio network, which gets little of the money.***
You say:
NBC,ABC,CBS,CNBC,MSNBC,CNN and others are all left leaning and will not be affected.
***First, CNBC, MSNBC, and CNN, are cable channels and would not be affected by the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine doesn’t cover cable-only programming. It only relates to radio and television broadcast licenses which are regulated by the federal government.
Since you have mentioned them though, I would challenge the notion that these cable channels are “left leaning.” CNBC is a pro-business cheerleading channel. Again, not much about labor on it. And rightwing free trader Lawrence Kudlow of the National Review gets his own show but I don’t see some liberal labor activist with her own show. Do you? You could say that “Countdown” pounces on Republicans but they also pounce on Democrats. Same with “Hardball” host Chris Matthews. And yet, rightwing Tucker Carlson and rightwing Joe Scarborough have their own shows. And yet, liberal Phil Donohue was taken off the air because he was deemed too against the war by the higher ups, despite having the highest ratings on the network, higher than most of the other MSNBC shows currently on the air.
In my mind, CNN is pretty balanced. They went after Clinton when he was in office and they go after Bush now. Although, after 9-11 and until it seemed OK to actually do some serious reporting, CNN was all gung ho for Bush’s war. There was very little coverage of the anti-war movement and the balance was so far to the right you would think they were FoxNews!
As far as ABC, CBS, and NBC, I fail to see where they are “liberal” news outlets. They all seem middle of the road to me. And while some on the right complain that they are too liberal, there are others on the left, mainly Media Matters and FAIR, who complain that they are too conservative. In other words, no one is happy. That seems pretty balanced. In addition, all three networks are owned by major corporations. Do you really think GE, the owner of NBC, is going to allow “liberal” news on the air? Come on. They control the new as bad as Murdoch does. On ABC’s “The View,” they have a liberal and a conservative on the panel. That’s balanced. In addition, don’t forget, it was NBC’s Lisa Myers who went after Clinton ferociously.***
You say:
FSTV and LINK, which are, the most heinous radical outlets (with no opposing media on the right), will not be affected nor will XM radio stations.
*** I don’t know these channels but since they are on XM, they wouldn’t be affected by the Fairness Doctrine. I’m sure XM has all kinds of different listening options.***
You say:
So, in reality, only talk radio will be affected and that happens to be the only outlet to hear any news from the right.
***I think I did a pretty good job of debunking this above. But re-implementing the Fairness Doctrine won't be the end of talk radio. There will still be rightwing hosts on the air but there will also be access to other opinions on the air, which opens talk radio up to more markets. Take WRKO, for instance. No one is saying they can't keep Rush on the air. Keep Rush on. But either before or after three hours of Limboob, they need to give another host who has a different perspective three hours of time to balance things out. It is simple as that. Is that so hard? There are PLENTY of options out there to program. And, it works and is profitable. When Tom Leykis was on WRKO and Rush was on WHDH [now WEEI, broadcasting sports], Leykis beat Rush in his first book. So, there were listeners interested in something other than rightwing nut jobs and there were profits to be made from a different voice on the air. It brought no harm to the station at all. Talk radio works even better when the station hires TWO hosts, ones with opposing views. There won't be any problems with that and it makes for good radio. Syndicators, in a post-reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine world, will probably offer new and dynamic programming featuring dual hosts, allowing listeners to get all kinds of different viewpoints, again, instead of just one. They'll make money, there will be more radio people employed, peace will break out all over the world, and things will be just rosy.
You say:
If all other media are not going to be affected, then where is the "fairness".
***Again, the only media outlets which will be affected are radio and television stations which are licensed by the federal government. I would add that the Fairness Doctrine was a broadcaster compliance issue and the law of the land for more than 40 years until it was rescinded in 1987 by the FCC. I've been a radio junkie since I was a kid, including listening to talk radio all over the region, and no one ever had a problem with it before. I've talked to TONS of broadcasters over the years and those who were in the business before it was rescinded, to a dime, they say the business was better before it was rescinded.***
You say:
Other questions would be:
Who is going to monitor and decide this? A political appointee? A bureaucrat?
***I would guess that if re-implemented, the criteria would be this: All radio and television stations licensed by the federal government must allow for all viewpoints to be aired on an issue. So, if a local host went on and on about one viewpoint, the station would have to allow equal time for an opposing view. If the station hired a conservative broadcaster for three hours, they would have to hire a liberal host for three hours [or, they could have dual hosts, which would be the ideal situation]. From there, programmers would be responsible for making sure that every political issue which aired on the station would have all sides of the issue covered. It is as simple as that. I don’t know how old you are, but if you think back, was radio and television news really that unbalanced before 1987? I’ve been a media watcher now since the mid-1970s, when I was about 10 years old and started listening to the news and reading the newspaper, and I don’t recall any problems with the news or radio back then. If anything, it was a lot better back then!***
You say:
What will the criteria for "fairness" be? What about ratings and the ability of stations to sell advertising?
***See above. On the radio side of things, ratings would probably go up because listeners would be given more choices than they are right now. Talk radio and news listeners tend not to switch the channel when they are listening. That’s why people like Rush have so many liberal listeners. They hate him and want to know what he will say next. The same would go for a liberal host. Balance would create move revenue and more markets for the broadcast stations. For television, I don’t see many changes since television does very little by way of political talk. Again, not cable stations, but actually television stations.***
You say:
As far as Sean Hannity and Hillary Clinton sharing a show together for a whole week....that would illustrate the differences between the two sides.
***I agree, although I don’t think Hillary Clinton is that liberal. She voted for the war; she voted for the Patriot Act; she votes for corporate welfare, subsidies, and giveaways; she is a free trader at heart; she doesn’t support a single-payer health care system; she continues to vote for bloated defense appropriations, etc. … so she’s pro-choice. Big deal. Being pro-choice doesn’t make you liberal. Sean Hannity and Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich would be a better balance … and a better show, too.***
You say:
I have listened to Hillary Clinton and we all know that she is not honest in her portrayal of her true intentions and actions. Sean Hannity is very opinionated and is often over the top. What we need is reporting that is honest and factual without the Keith Olbermans and Chris Matthews talking over the guests and setting the agenda.
***I would agree. I don’t think Hillary is honest at all. I think Hannity is opinionated and over the top, but I don’t have a problem with that. I agree that we need reporting which is honest and factual. But I don’t think Olberman or Matthews are the problem. They aren’t journalists; they are anchors. They have a whole team of people writing their scripts and doing stories for them, like David Schuster. Do you think he is biased?
What I don’t understand, and never will, is how little conservatives know about the news business. They keep bringing up the fact that when anchoring the CBS News, Dan Rather was a liberal and wrote his own text, which was liberal. But, he didn’t write his own text. There was a news director, a news writer, a reporter, a TelePrompTer entry person, etc. Rather, Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, Bob Scheiffer, etc., don’t write their own text. Someone does it for them. Just because they read something someone else doesn’t like, doesn’t make them liberal.***
You say:
FOX News does lean a bit right but you get "facts" and hear news that you do not hear anywhere else. You should read the Washington Times and read about things like China's buildup and other world events that the mainstream press does not cover.
***I think a lot of FoxNews is pretty good, although I don’t watch it much anymore. I have a problem with the roundtable programs, which are completely imbalanced. I got sick of hearing the same meme all the time from their hosts. I’ve also read some good stuff in the Washington Times, even though it’s a Moonie newspaper.***
You say:
If we apply the "fairness doctrine" to talk radio, then, we should do it to the Monitor, Union Leader, Washington Post and other newspapers.
***Well, not really. You don’t need to apply it to newspapers or Web sites. You can start a newspaper to compete with the Monitor any time you want. In fact, most Concord residents would welcome a competing newspaper. If you don’t like DailyKos, you can start a competing Web site.
But if you don’t like WGIR or WTPL or whatever radio station, you can’t just start your own. Well, you can, but you’ll end up in jail, since television and radio stations are regulated licenses. That is why the Fairness Doctrine is needed: Because you can’t just start a radio or television station.***
You say:
I often write letters to the Monitor, because it is so Left leaning. They have publiched many of my letters and I am surprised by how often they do print them. Albeit, they edit them, shorten them and often they lose their message, allowing rebuttals to one point but not the whole theme.
I would imagine that you would support my right to have equal response to any of their columns and equal word count. I think that would be foolish, dangerous and it flies in the face of free speech. After all, they do allow dissenting opinions and that is sufficient. Would I like to get more of my opinion in their newspaper? Hell, yes! But, they have the right to choose the slant of their publication and that sells newspapers. By the way that is called "Capitalism".
***Yeah, I would like you to get an equal response and I don’t know why the Monitor has decided to edit things the way they do. It isn’t my newspaper.***
You say:
The same goes for talk radio. I will say that it would be a breath of fresh air for NPR to present both sides and have conservative voices. We all contribute to PBS and NPR, where is your battle cry for "fairness"?
***Again, what NPR are you listening to? It is incredibly balanced and slanted towards the pro-business, beltway mentality more than not.***
You say:
I would probably not agree with Ari Richter on 5% of political issues but I do like his idea encouraging Clinton to sit in with Hannity. It is doubtful that she would have the guts to do that nor could she answer the dozens of pointed questions about her past and true motivations.
Fairness is not hurting our state, those who want to control the agenda to meet their idealist world view, like yourself are the ones hurting everyone in our state and country.
***Unfairness does hurt our state. It allows for a slanted, sometimes inaccurate view of the state and world to be projected on the listening and viewing public. It is unacceptable for this to occur with the licenses for radio and television stations which are owned by the public. The Fairness Doctrine, however, won’t hurt our state. It won’t hurt media companies. And it won’t hurt the public. What it will do is allow everyone a level playing field to compete. If that is an “idealist world view,” so be it. Thanks again for your post.***
Post a Comment