Faux News GOPhers

Interesting brouhaha in the media. The White House—in response to another attack, this time against Anita Dunn—has come out and said quite plainly that Fox News is not news. They have said that Fox airs a point of view, not news.

Anyone who has been paying attention, and by that, I mean paying attention to more than one or two media sources, knows that the people that Fox puts on the air tend to manipulate the “news.” Quotes truncated. Video clips edited. Speeches cherry-picked. Backgrounds mined for missteps. Those appearing on air are masters of the raised eyebrow, the shrug, the wink, and the earnest gaze into the camera, all designed to imply a meaning to the stated message that we are then to use to infer some nefarious intent, some sliminess of character belonging to the subject of the “news” we have just received.

You will note that I say “the people that Fox puts on the air.” I hesitate to call them reporters, or journalists. I suppose I could call them hosts, although only a few of them actually “host” a show. A commentator, to me, is someone who provides commentary on the issues of the day, and, again in my opinion, should base that commentary on some knowledge of the issues. Knowledge of the historical context of that issue should be a requirement for providing commentary, as well as the significance of the issue to our current and future situation. I hesitate as well to call these on-air individuals personalities, as that calls to mind the Hollywood genre of celebrity—people who are simply famous for being famous. Villagers as a title is already in use as a name to include all the mainstream media sheep following their corporate masters’ direction, usually seen on ABC, NBC, and CBS and read at the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. Monikers that come to mind for those on Fox News, however, include Foxes, Faux (Foes?), Foxers, or GOPhers.

Names aside, the outrage, much of it from the “mainstream” non-cable media appears directed toward the White House. Apparently, by choosing to engage, the White House has somehow weakened itself and appears petty, unable to “take the heat” according to Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post. Comparing Fox to MSNBC, cable show to cable show, is apparently sufficient, or as Keith Olbermann likes to say, a false equivalency.

I know many people who receive all their “news” from Fox. They say that they prefer Fox because every other source is “too liberal.” They don’t like the positive stories about Obama, or the negative stories about Bush. They prefer watching a media source that tells them the news they want to hear in the way that they want to hear it. If asked to question something—anything—they get angry. I asked someone the other day if MSNBC is so liberal, why they had Morning Joe and Pat Buchanan? Why their straight news had negative stories about Democrats as well as Republicans? I asked them who on Fox News represented progressives? When they had seen a news story on Fox that said positive things about Obama? Or Democrats? Or negative things about the GOP? I asked if they had every actually watched Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann? Or read a progressive blog? Or read about the same news story in more than one newspaper? Or watched the same news story on more than one station (not Fox)? Not only could they not answer, they got angry.

When did everything from the left become a personal attack? When did everything from the right become righteous? I used to be tolerant and believe that we were all entitled to our opinions, but when allowing everyone their opinion meant tolerating racism, classism, sexism, and every other kind of ism that I abhor, I find I’ve lost my tolerance.

It’s okay to have an opinion. In fact, we should have an opinion. In a representative democracy, it’s necessary. If you’re unhappy about something, it is incumbent upon you to inform yourself about the issue, weigh the information, form an opinion—based on facts—and make your voice heard to those who will make the decisions about that issue. It is absolutely okay for the GOPhers on Fox News to have an opinion and to voice that opinion. It is absolutely okay for Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News to pay those people to voice his opinion. When that opinion refuses to acknowledge fact, and science, and history, and humanity, then I don’t have to tolerate it and I do have to do everything in my power to work against it and work to ensure that that opinion does not become a part of the social fabric.

What is NOT okay, is to call that opinion news. What is not okay is to provide the GOP 24/7 access to free TV advertising. What is not okay is to have a “news” outlet have a show to “debate” an issue before Congress and have the “opposing” opinion be simply someone slightly less conservative than the first opinion. I’m glad the White House has stepped up and called Fox News on its behavior. I hope that they stand firm on this and hope other media realize that we are not idiots and that we do understand the difference between news and opinion and not only that, we understand the difference between opinion based on fact, and opinion based on crap.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sarah Palin Attacks 1st Amendment

There are a number of Alaskan bloggers writing about Sarah Palin and a number of non-Alaskans who write about her as well, but she's the topic of the moment and one I've followed since she burst on the national scene.

Many people have questioned my continuing interest in her, particularly after the election, saying "She lost, get over her." Unfortunately, she remains extremely popular, has a large and growing base, a PAC that is well-organized and raises a lot of money and is well-placed to monitor the blogs to attack anyone who works against her, and her Alaska Fund Trust, set up to fund her legal bills, has money pouring in - even after the announcement of her resignation. No one knows what her plans are, although everyone agrees that her stated reasons for resigning come nowhere near the real reasons for leaving office.

The word-salad of her resignation speech, given at her home in the presence - oddly enough - of husband Todd and daughter Piper, but not daughters Willow or Bristol, or son Trigg or grandson Tripp - verged on the incoherent and was clearly written by Sarah herself. Despite her statement that this had "been in the works for months," Todd had reportedly had to leave his fishing boat unexpectedly to attend this press conference and Sarah's father stated that he had no idea this was going to happen. Definitely odd not to mention something so major to your immediate family if it's been "in the works" for months.

The transcript of the speech, posted on the official website, contains weird capitalizations, disconnected and rambling streams of consciousness, and obvious notes to self, as well as numerous exclamation points as if to remind herself of what was important.

Oddest and most remarkable to me? The point that has kept me following Sarah Palin throughout? Her incredible ignorance of the concept of truth. And, her complete ignorance of the Constitution. She loves to wave the flag, to be photographed wrapped in it or waving it, and she loves to cite the Constitution, but has no conception of what it actually is or what it means.

Every speech references it, every speech references the troops, Alaska, her family, and whatever else she thinks is necessary to score political points and make herself look good. She poses for photographs in Runners World not realizing how inappropriate they are for a woman in her position, not realizing how offended people will be at the use she puts the flag to in those photographs, but instead is concerned only with how well she appears physically and how many votes she might gain - never mind how many she might lose.

After her speech, rumors that have been swirling for months got louder. Bloggers that have been discussing many issues, including some that Sarah discussed in her speech, got calls from mainstream media and requests for interviews and Shannyn Moore, a radio talk show host, blogger, and regular Huffington Post contributor, appeared (as she does on a regular basis) on MSNBC to discuss the whole situation with David Schuster. In a post Shannyn described threats of legal action for reporting on some of these rumors in her blog and discussing them on MSNBC.

In her resignation speech, Sarah Palin reference the Constitution twice. She said, "We’re protectors of our Constitution – federalists protect states’ rights as mandated in 10th amendment." And later, "We need those who will respect our Constitution ..." referring to bottom-up government rather than top-down government but combing it with some mixed metaphor of calling an audible and passing the ball. Weird.

But the true irony? Let's take a couple of sections of Sarah's speech and look at them.

"...the State has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money not going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” …"

In a press release dated May 21, 2009, the Governor's Office announced signing the operating budget for fiscal year 2010 at $8.7 billion. Two million is barely a ripple in that, not to mention that there is an ethics committee whose sole function is to deal with ethics complaints. And, if Sarah had a better understanding of the truth, ethics law, and Freedom of Information Act rules, there would be likely little need for citizens to file ethics complaints to find out information she should be providing to them as a matter of routine.

"I've never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this - to make a difference... to help people. So I choose, for my State and my family, more "freedom" to progress, all the way around... so that Alaska may progress... I will not seek re-election as Governor."

No, probably not, but people seek higher office because it has been demonstrated, over and over again, that the higher the office you hold, the more you are able to accomplish.

"And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade – as so many politicians do. And then I thought – that’s what’s wrong – many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that – I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! That’s not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old “politics as usual.” I promised that four years ago – and I meant it."

And because I'm a maverick, and go my own way, the only way to prevent Alaska from having a "lame duck" governor who "milks it" is to quit. How stupid can she be? Can you say circular thinking? I'm governor. I'm only going to have one term, therefore the moment I decide that - even if it's the day after I'm sworn in - I have to quit. Dumb. What if she decides to run for re-election? And loses? Does she quit the day after the election? Or what if she wins? Does she still quit the next day? After all, she won and immediately becomes a lame duck, because after all, she can't run again.

This woman does not know how to think beyond the end of her nose. How on earth did she get a college degree from an actual college? Her family isn't rich so they couldn't buy her one. They didn't have on-line degrees to buy back then. Really puzzling.

"My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who sacrifice themselves in war for our freedom and security… we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up, they take a stand and know that life is short so they choose to not waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than self... and to build up their families, their states, our country. These Troops and their important missions – those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and not this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport.

May we all learn from them!" [emphasis added]

This is a kicker. Her decision was fortified by visiting the troops because they don't give up so she comes home and quits! Yeah. That makes sense.

Then, after Shannon appears on MSNBC Sarah tweets on her Twitter account the next day a link to a letter written by her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, which, by the way, states on page 3 that "this is to provide notice to Ms. Moore..." and also references the New York Times, MSNBC, the Washington Post, and the Huffington Post as they reported on the story, that they have defamed Sarah Palin and this is actionable. Pretty big, fancy words, don't you think?

What is even more interesting, is that this letter was not sent to Shannyn Moore. It was forwarded to her. It was actually emailed by Meghan Stapleton, head of SarahPac, to her entire email media list. hmmmm. I guess Sarah really did need a way to knock Jacko off the front page after all.

But as a true fan of the Constitution and especially the 1st Amendment, I love the fact that some attorneys will do anything for money. Including writing letters for clients that include threatening lawsuits that they know will never be filed, or if filed, laughed out of court. What's in it for Mr. Van Flein? National media attention of course. I'm sure Mr. Van Flein has GOP stars in his eyes. Or maybe FOX News legal analyst stars in his eyes - after all, how did Greta Van Susteran get started? Remember OJ?

Of course, good attorneys will actually give you good advise. They'll tell you when something you want to do is a really bad idea. But, Sarah Palin has probably had reasonably good luck in Wasilla sending out threatening letters to people who probably don't make very much money and depend on someone in her circle of friends for their job, so her threats have probably worked very well in the past. Maybe as governor, with all her high school buddies as department heads and cabinet members, they've worked pretty well, too. The only problem for Sarah Palin, is that it just won't work anymore and it certainly won't work in the rest of the country.

Sarah is a government official, still. It is totally inappropriate as a government official, especially as a governor (heaven forbid she ever made it to VP or President) to attack your constituents. Their complaints are part of the job. People aren't going to like you. They aren't going to like everything you do. They're going to disagree. They're going to write letters to the editor, and blog. The other party is going to campaign against you and opinion writers are going to write editorials opposing you and your policies.

Tabloids are going to be out looking for dirt, and sleazy journalists are going to make stuff up - sort of like, oh, "hanging out with terrorists" kind of stuff, or, "not really an American" or "secretly a Muslim or a Fascist" kind of thing that is kind of inflammatory. Or, like your buddy Joe the Plumber said 2 weeks ago referring to Senator Dodd, "How come nobody has strung him up yet?" He actually said that 3 times in one speech, and funnily enough, nobody said a word against him. I sort of thought it sounded like inciting violence - or even assassination - against a government official - but then, that's just me. Sometimes speech is a crime - inciting violence, shouting "Fire" in a movie theater - but frequently, it's only enforced against certain people.

Sarah Palin wants her free speech rights enforced and people like Shannyn Moore sued to protect her rights, not understanding that freedom of speech is designed to protect journalists (Shannon, the New York Times, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, et al), from government (Sarah Palin), not the other way around. You can't defame (or libel) a public figure unless you what you are saying is false (Shannyon was reporting rumors). By the way, has anyone watched Glenn Beck? Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity? Any of Sarah Palin's campaign speeches? Want to try that libel part again?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

GOP's Torture Tricks Backfire

I love Matthew Yglesias. He was talking to Nora O'Donnell on MSNBC about his article on the Daily Beast. Nora tried to keep the subject on Pelosi rather than what it should be by asking about Newt Gingrich's demand that Speaker Pelosi resign, to which he replied:

"YGLESIAS:You know, Newt Gingrich knows a lot about saying stupid things and being forced out of the job as Speaker."

You can catch his article GOP's Torture Tricks Backfire here

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

What You Should Know About Polling

MSNBC is running a Live Vote asking "Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?" If you want to participate, the poll is here.

As of a few minutes ago, 13% say that Yes, it is a violation of the principle of the separation of church and state, and 87% say that No, the motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.

These results, and others like them, will of course provide fodder for the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and others who will wave the flag and the Constitution when it supports their cause, and wave poll numbers such as these when they do not.

Polls are tricky things and even the "pollsters" hired by news organizations to explain them to us do so in such a way as to present the picture that they are hired to present. There are several kinds of polls, and several ways to gather and present data.

Probably the most important thing to know about polling, is that web polls (Live Votes) like the one currently on MSNBC or the ones frequently offered on local news stations (mine frequently asks me to call or go online and vote yes or no to an open-ended or specious question) are never accurate and may be fun or interesting, but offer no valid or reliable information.

Statistically, results to be at all useful, must be reliable and valid. A scientifically designed experiment - including a poll - is repeatable. Repeatable means that if done over and over again under the same conditions, the same results with minimal changes will occur.

If a test is valid, it means that the answers reached, are correct. You might design a test (poll) that achieves the same results over and over again, but with the wrong answer, over and over again. For example, during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, MSNBC had another Live Vote with 200,000 participating. That poll found that 73% felt that Clinton should resign, however, an NBC News/WSJ poll discovered that only 34% of 2,000 felt the same way. (information available through the same link as above).

If you knew nothing about polling, you would have no way of knowing which poll to believe. The Wall Street Journal is considered a fairly conservative publication while MSNBC is considered more liberal, or at least more neutral, so perhaps your politics might guide you. You might decide based on past history of polling results as the best indicator of future performance is past history, or, you might decide which you believed based on the reporter you were listening to or whether or not you liked Clinton or which party you belonged to.

What is interesting about this particular Clinton poll, is that news organizations and political pundits talked to each other more than people outside the beltway. They payed attention to polls like MSNBC's Live Vote because it validated their own opinion. Much of what happened during that time was driven by those in Washington believing that the scandal was a big deal while most of the rest of the country did not.

Anyway, back to polling. If a test is reliable, it means that the results will be the same each time the instrument is used. In the case of a poll, if opinions have changed, the results will change, but if used correctly with a properly drawn sample, the results will be valid. In the case of a political poll, a reliable poll will accurately reflect the opinions of the people being polled.

A poll can be reliable but invalid, but it can never be unreliable and valid. Or in other words, a poll can have well-written questions that elicit good answers, but poorly written questions can never reliably elicit accurate answers.

There are several kinds of polls, and if anyone is interested in more information about the specifics, just write me a comment and I'd be happy to write another post (or write me a comment about anything you'd like me to go into more depth about). What is most important to understand though, are 3 things.

1) A poll that you participate in on your own is virtually meaningless. People who respond to requests to participate whether it's an internet poll or a request to call and vote usually have strong feelings about the issue. If you don't care, you are unlikely to bother to vote.

2) Polls that are valid are conducted using a carefully drawn sample. There is a very scientific method governing how people are selected to participate so that the sample is representative of the population being studied - gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic location, etc. A poll is more valid if it contains at least 500 people, but is usually no more valid if it contains more than 1,500. There are several ways to design the sample and it depends on the kind of poll and the purpose of the poll. People get degrees on this.

3) Most polling is done by telephone for fairly obvious reasons. In the past, there were flaws in this as whole segments of the population were left out as not everyone had a telephone, or people were on party-lines (not too long ago, rural areas had fewer telephone lines and people had to share them). Then, who was home to answer the phone? During the day, it was typically the woman until more and more two-income families. Calls shifted to the dinner hour, which created more people unwilling to participate. The advent of answering machines and caller ID became a factor, and most recently, more and more people use their cell phones as their primary or only telephone - and cell phone numbers are unlisted. So, designing an accurate poll becomes very difficult.

The results - at least for political pollsters - is that they poll the people they can reach. The registered party members. They use online polling which attracts people who already have a strong opinion.

Unethical pollsters use push-polling, leading questions, poorly drawn samples, small samples (40% of the people polled said .... is meaningless if they polled 10 people). Remember, how many people did they poll, who were they, what questions did they ask, and how did they ask them?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k