More inaccuracies at 'This American Life'

For those of you who listen to "This American Life" and have heard about the inaccuracies at the program which is heard locally on NHPR, don't be surprised if you hear more - or not really telling the entire story.
The latest problems with the program come from the "Nothing in Moderation" segment that aired this weekend, put together by the former reporter for the Concord Monitor, Sarah Koenig.
This episode, which covers some of the problems at the Statehouse, including the banning of Annmarie Timmins from a press conference at Speaker William O'Brien's office, something I covered extensively, is a pretty good one. But it's those nagging problems that just drive me nuts.
First, there is the line that the first thing the Republicans did when they took over the New Hampshire House in 2010 was to vote to allow handguns at the Statehouse.
Well, technically, no. This act was a repeal of a previous law approved by Democrats when they controlled the Legislature for four years. "This American Life" makes it sound as if handguns were never allowed in the NH House until the Republicans took over and voted, first thing, to allow them to be brought into the chamber. Nope, sorry, incorrect and bad use of language. For centuries, guns have always been allowed in the Statehouse until the Democrats took over and banned them. The act was a rescinding of a bill.
Then there is the line that Republicans cut the University of New Hampshire budget by 50 percent. Democrats have used this line too. Not only is it not accurate but it is a manipulation of the numbers and bad use of language.
State appropriations for higher education were not cut in half. The budget was cut by 6.1 percent. The system has a budget of $535.3 million; the state put in $35.7 million instead of $68.2 million. While is it less than half the amount that was put in the previous year, it's only a 6.1 percent cut of the university budget.
When the Democrats and "This American Life" continue to state that the Republicans in the Legislature cut the university budget in half, they are making it seem as if it is a much larger cut than it is.
New Hampshire, however, isn't alone when it comes to higher education cuts. All but four states cut their contributions to college budgets in FY12, some as high as 25 percent.
Instead of raising tuition and fees, maybe the university system should have considered cutting some of the pay scales of its employees, something that happens in the private sector all the time to keep a business afloat. More than $320 million goes to personnel costs. And 10 percent cut in personnel costs - not unheard of in the business world when times are really bad - would add back in almost all the money cut by state government. Why is it always the students who are made to suffer?
Personally, I don't believe in cutting higher education. It's important. It can bring people out of poverty. But let's not make things up. It's bad enough without having to make things up.
I'm told they spent weeks working on this segment. So there isn't any excuse for manipulating the language and being inaccurate with that kind of time to work on one segment. A five minute Google search revealed the inaccuracies.

See what I mean?

Editor's Note: It was suggested in a subtle way that I depersonalize the original version of this post. So, for the record, this is an edited version. I'm not one for editing stuff this way. I say what I mean and mean what I say. But, after reading it over a few times, I agree that it needed to be edited. The point is made without sharing horror stories.

A few months back, I wrote about the local weekly arts newspaper, The Hippo, advertising a job for a new features reporter. I posted the ad and then made a crack about how I was really sick and tired of media outlets in New Hampshire essentially selling the jobs in our state to people outside of our state. It seems to say, "Granite Staters need not apply." The Hippo didn't do this and I thanked them for it, not that it probably mattered to them.
But, lo and behold, look what I found on the New Hampshire Association of Broadcasters' Web site ... a New Hampshire Public Radio ad for a talk show producer.
Here is a segment of the ad:

NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFERS BUCOLIC NEW ENGLAND SCENERY AND IS A HAVEN FOR OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES LIKE HIKING, SKIING AND FISHING. NEW HAMPSHIRE IS ALSO A VERY AFFORDABLE PLACE TO LIVE WITH NO STATE INCOME TAX AND NO STATE SALES TAX. CONCORD, WHERE NHPR IS BASED, IS AN HOUR FROM BOSTON, FROM THE SEACOAST AND FROM WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST.

Why would they post this listing on a New Hampshire job board? We know how great it is to live here ... we already do. You don't need to tell us that. The polite thing to do, which would probably net more potential job applicants, would be to post a local notice without going on and on about how great it is to live here, and post a national notice like this one. Unless, of course, Granite Staters need not apply, and then, we get the point, thank you very much.
People may ask, what is the point? Well, the point is this: This is how the people covering your state get hired to cover your state. It is sickening when you think about the fact that media employers in our state, who may not know as much as others about New Hampshire, are telling you who is qualified and who is not qualified to tell the stories of our state.
I have been hearing that donations at NHPR are down right at a time when they need more money because they are expanding into a bigger location, at the old Blue Cross Blue Shield building in the South End of Concord [It is an exciting change for the network and it looks like a great space]. And this new show, not unlike another show proposed in 2005 called "The Current," which never went anywhere, seems like a new opportunity for them. But one has to wonder where the money will come from.
Earlier this year, they didn't limit the amount of donations for the Prius raffle whereas last year, the odds were better because there was only X-amount of donations taken. Why limit the popular contest, especially when you need more $100 donations?
Back in April, a few weeks after the interview, I was asked to make another donation to NHPR. The phone conversation went something like this:

Pablo: Hi, I'm Pablo from NHPR. How are you tonight?Me: Fine.Pablo: We know you are a regular listener to NHPR so you know all the wonderful things we do, correct [or something like that]?Me: Actually, I just stopped listening to NHPR recently [Go ahead, ask me why, Pablo, ask me why! I really want you to tell you ...]Pablo: Oh, I'm sorry to hear that ... Can we sign you up for your annual contribution of $100?Me: No.Silence for a moment.Pablo: Well, can we renew your $35 annual membership.
Me: No, sorry.Silence again [Come on Pablo, ask me why ...].
Pablo: OK, thank you for your continued support and we will talk to you again soon.Me: OK, bye.

Come on people, you don't want to know why? Over the years, I have had to talk to people who weren't happy with the product I was employed to deliver. I ALWAYS ask why someone is canceling their subscription or canceling their ads. Always. Why didn't Pablo want to know? Shocking, isn't it?
Lastly, I wonder why any radio network with as many stations as NHPR, with a ton of employees gathering news and interviewing people, would ever need to hold listening sessions around the state to find out what the pulse of the state is or what listeners think? Doesn't that say a lot?