Thursday, March 31, 2011
Dan Maffei on the Campbell Conversations -- A Look Forward, and a Look Back
If you're a political junkie or someone who followed the 25th district congressional race with any interest, you won't want to miss this week's Campbell Conversation with Dan Maffei (available on-demand and as a podcast from WRVO). In his first broadcast interview since conceding to Ann Marie Buerkle, he sorts out the factors that he’s considering in deciding whether or not to run again. In that process he reflects back on the past campaign and how hard the loss was for him, and assesses his own strengths and weaknesses as a candidate. He also responds to the recent criticisms surrounding the bonuses his congressional staff received on their way out. The topic then shifts to potential Republican presidential contenders, and the many ways—according to Maffei—that moderates and moderate political conversations are disadvantaged in the current political system. Finally, there’s a discussion of our current involvement in Libya. Much more revealing than most politician interviews, this conversation provides a better insight into the person who was our congressman.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Getting What You Pay For? Reflections on the Budget, Part 2
Here's the second post on Governor Andrew Cuomo's budget speech that I promised the other day.
One of Cuomo's main arguments was that we do not get good value for our tax dollars. To illustrate, he juxtaposed where we rank in terms of spending in various areas with where we rank in terms of performance in those areas. One of the canards about New York he was keen to rebut was the notion that yes, our taxes are high, but we get great services and great public resources in exchange. The numbers he cited were dramatic and disturbing, and can be found here in this video of a similar speech.
It actually turns out that things may be even worse than he says. I've written about this in past posts and newspaper columns, but the figures are so surprising (at least to me) that they bear repeating.
First the context: Although across the Western World, our economies are different versions of the same thing—a system that relies on regulated markets, mixes private and public ownership, and provides social insurance through tax revenues—here in the U.S. we stand at a noticeable distance from the European pack, particularly in terms of our weaker public sector appetite. Relative to our economy (and therefore our collective income) our government (taking into account all levels) is leaner, and overall, our taxes are lower. This may be hard for some readers to believe, but it's true. We look a lot different from countries like Italy, Norway, and France, and in these terms we keep company with Japan, Turkey, and South Korea.
But here's the rub for New Yorkers: Those statistics are for the U.S. as a whole--in other words, they average across all the states. But the state-to-state variation is significant. When you break things down by state, and you look at how much resources, relative to the size of a particular state's economy (and therefore its collective income), government at the state and local level takes up, in 2009 New York surpassed all other states except Maine, and its government was considerably hungrier than other large states like Pennsylvania and California. (I got these figures by request from Ian Pulsipher of the National Conference of State Legislatures, a distinctly non-partisan and well-respected group.)
Accounting for the state-to-state variations, New York begins to appear more like Britain than it does, say, Texas. In fact, according to Forbes.com's 2008 international "Tax Misery" Index, a top-earning worker in New York City had the same overall tax burden as a similar worker in Berlin. However, a top-earner in Texas sat comfortably alongside workers in Uzbekistan and Ireland--8 spots below Illinois, 15 spots below Britain, 20 spots below New York City, and 37 spots below Sweden.
And now here's the final and real rub for comparing New York to those other countries: Where's the universal health insurance? Where's the public transportation infrastructure? The public day care? The list goes on.
The governor has a point.
One of Cuomo's main arguments was that we do not get good value for our tax dollars. To illustrate, he juxtaposed where we rank in terms of spending in various areas with where we rank in terms of performance in those areas. One of the canards about New York he was keen to rebut was the notion that yes, our taxes are high, but we get great services and great public resources in exchange. The numbers he cited were dramatic and disturbing, and can be found here in this video of a similar speech.
It actually turns out that things may be even worse than he says. I've written about this in past posts and newspaper columns, but the figures are so surprising (at least to me) that they bear repeating.
First the context: Although across the Western World, our economies are different versions of the same thing—a system that relies on regulated markets, mixes private and public ownership, and provides social insurance through tax revenues—here in the U.S. we stand at a noticeable distance from the European pack, particularly in terms of our weaker public sector appetite. Relative to our economy (and therefore our collective income) our government (taking into account all levels) is leaner, and overall, our taxes are lower. This may be hard for some readers to believe, but it's true. We look a lot different from countries like Italy, Norway, and France, and in these terms we keep company with Japan, Turkey, and South Korea.
But here's the rub for New Yorkers: Those statistics are for the U.S. as a whole--in other words, they average across all the states. But the state-to-state variation is significant. When you break things down by state, and you look at how much resources, relative to the size of a particular state's economy (and therefore its collective income), government at the state and local level takes up, in 2009 New York surpassed all other states except Maine, and its government was considerably hungrier than other large states like Pennsylvania and California. (I got these figures by request from Ian Pulsipher of the National Conference of State Legislatures, a distinctly non-partisan and well-respected group.)
Accounting for the state-to-state variations, New York begins to appear more like Britain than it does, say, Texas. In fact, according to Forbes.com's 2008 international "Tax Misery" Index, a top-earning worker in New York City had the same overall tax burden as a similar worker in Berlin. However, a top-earner in Texas sat comfortably alongside workers in Uzbekistan and Ireland--8 spots below Illinois, 15 spots below Britain, 20 spots below New York City, and 37 spots below Sweden.
And now here's the final and real rub for comparing New York to those other countries: Where's the universal health insurance? Where's the public transportation infrastructure? The public day care? The list goes on.
The governor has a point.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Four Thoughts on Andrew Cuomo's Budget Speech
I've just attended Governor Cuomo's road-show budget speech at Syracuse University, and I have four quick reactions, in no particular order.
First Reaction: 2016. I've seen a lot of pols speak in person, from Bill and Hillary Clinton to Bill Bradley to Mario Cuomo to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to Newt Gingrich to Elizabeth Dole. This guy is really good, and every time I see him in person he gets better. Complete command of substance, style, context, and audience. Better extemporaneously than Obama, I think. And he's one of the few speakers I've seen--of any kind--who understands how to effectively use PowerPoint. Ross Perot meets Bill Clinton?
If he maintains a solid record in New York and avoids any scandals--and ultimately gets married--his timing would be perfect in 2016. He can appeal to the Democratic core as well as craft a more moderate overall message for a general election. A Democrat making his early reputation as governor as a budget cutter could go far. Of course, for the resume he'll also need to accomplish something beyond getting the state's finances in order--a set of significant and lasting political reforms could be part of that--but this task is obviously job number one.
Second Reaction: Although he ran a reform-focused campaign, some of his harsh rhetoric about the Legislature currently in place could come back to bite him. It makes for some good one-liners, but an advisor might suggest he tone it down a tad. It's one thing to make a strong argument for budget cutting and reforming the overall approach to state spending (and some of the biggest state programs), and to hold up the long-standing political structure in Albany as a source of the problem; it's another to go after the sitting legislative leaders in the way that he did. Comparing their approach toward spending to that of his three teenage girls is likely to rankle. Some might say for heaven's sake, rankle away, but governance must in the end be cooperative in order to be functional--an observation which was in fact another theme of his speech.
Third Reaction: There's an apparent contradiction in his case that needs to be explained better. On the one hand, Cuomo repeatedly located much of the blame for our high taxes and spending in the over-influence of "corporations and special interests" over the years, and at one point cited a "permanent government," not of Democrats or Republicans, but of those same corporations and special interests. Yet on the other hand he sketched out a cycle of state government policies in which taxes are too high, businesses and individual citizens (presumably of higher incomes) leave, prompting the need to further raise taxes, and in turn causing more businesses and citizens to leave, and so on. We need to make New York more business friendly, the governor tells us. Both arguments are plausible, but if corporate interests have been driving state government, then have they also been committing slow suicide? Or is it just some "special interests" that have been the real problem?
Fourth Reaction: Related in some way to Reaction #3, there was no mention whatsoever of the "millionaire tax," despite the fact that he directly took on the arguments about cutting Medicaid and education. I was surprised that since he didn't soft-pedal the latter issue he wouldn't also address the former. Returning to Reaction #1, he might have been gauging the audience.
In a later post I will return to a point I've made in the past about the level of government spending in New York, which fits with the governor's argument about spending levels versus performance.
First Reaction: 2016. I've seen a lot of pols speak in person, from Bill and Hillary Clinton to Bill Bradley to Mario Cuomo to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to Newt Gingrich to Elizabeth Dole. This guy is really good, and every time I see him in person he gets better. Complete command of substance, style, context, and audience. Better extemporaneously than Obama, I think. And he's one of the few speakers I've seen--of any kind--who understands how to effectively use PowerPoint. Ross Perot meets Bill Clinton?
If he maintains a solid record in New York and avoids any scandals--and ultimately gets married--his timing would be perfect in 2016. He can appeal to the Democratic core as well as craft a more moderate overall message for a general election. A Democrat making his early reputation as governor as a budget cutter could go far. Of course, for the resume he'll also need to accomplish something beyond getting the state's finances in order--a set of significant and lasting political reforms could be part of that--but this task is obviously job number one.
Second Reaction: Although he ran a reform-focused campaign, some of his harsh rhetoric about the Legislature currently in place could come back to bite him. It makes for some good one-liners, but an advisor might suggest he tone it down a tad. It's one thing to make a strong argument for budget cutting and reforming the overall approach to state spending (and some of the biggest state programs), and to hold up the long-standing political structure in Albany as a source of the problem; it's another to go after the sitting legislative leaders in the way that he did. Comparing their approach toward spending to that of his three teenage girls is likely to rankle. Some might say for heaven's sake, rankle away, but governance must in the end be cooperative in order to be functional--an observation which was in fact another theme of his speech.
Third Reaction: There's an apparent contradiction in his case that needs to be explained better. On the one hand, Cuomo repeatedly located much of the blame for our high taxes and spending in the over-influence of "corporations and special interests" over the years, and at one point cited a "permanent government," not of Democrats or Republicans, but of those same corporations and special interests. Yet on the other hand he sketched out a cycle of state government policies in which taxes are too high, businesses and individual citizens (presumably of higher incomes) leave, prompting the need to further raise taxes, and in turn causing more businesses and citizens to leave, and so on. We need to make New York more business friendly, the governor tells us. Both arguments are plausible, but if corporate interests have been driving state government, then have they also been committing slow suicide? Or is it just some "special interests" that have been the real problem?
Fourth Reaction: Related in some way to Reaction #3, there was no mention whatsoever of the "millionaire tax," despite the fact that he directly took on the arguments about cutting Medicaid and education. I was surprised that since he didn't soft-pedal the latter issue he wouldn't also address the former. Returning to Reaction #1, he might have been gauging the audience.
In a later post I will return to a point I've made in the past about the level of government spending in New York, which fits with the governor's argument about spending levels versus performance.
Monday, March 21, 2011
More on the PBS/NPR/CPB Funding Question -- A Missing Comment
Note: What follows is a comment from "TW," for which I received an email notice, but which does not appear--at least it does not appear for me--in the post it is supposed to be attached to. I am looking into this problem. But it's a thoughtful comment and I am reproducing it here as a guest post. I'm not personally convinced by TW's argument against funding PBS and NPR, but I also think TW makes many good points.
Disclosures first…I am a registered voter, but not registered with any political party. I trend fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
1. Is the programming on PBS / NPR worthwhile and valuable? Absolutely.
2. Does story selection and commentary lean to the Left? Probably a bit.
3. Does the public ‘trust’ the content coming from PBS / NPR more so than other sources? Maybe.
Yet none of the above elicits my support for continued government / public funding for PBS / NPR.
1. Worthwhile and valuable programming is available from a multitude of commercially successful media outlets (The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, The Food Network, The Learning Channel, etc), and via the Internet. All of these venues have proven that the American public will support quality programming – as evidenced by their continued operation in spite of the fact that part of their ‘competition’ (PBS) is federally subsidized. Given the quality of the content produced by PBS / NPR, why wouldn’t they continue to be successful with a model that uses commercial (i.e. advertising) support alone?
2. It seems to me that the percentage of programming on PBS that is ‘political’ is relatively small, with the majority being educational, arts, culture, etc. NPR, by its nature spends more of its broadcasting day discussing political issues and news topics of the day. Of course this breakdown is purely my perception, and my exposure to any ‘radio’ is limited to time spent driving. Still, PBS and NPR have existed for several decades, through both Republican and Democrat administrations. All media probably leans in one direction or the other, some of course more obviously then others. That is why it is important to watch / listen to multiple sources to best gain an understanding of the ‘real’ picture.
3. A poll on the PBS website under the ‘About Us’ link lists PBS as “#1 in public trust”. I had gone to this section to look for the Mission and Vision statements. Quite frankly, the fact that someone stands up and points outs how trustworthy they are usually sends up a huge red flag and immediately invites suspicion. How ‘trust’ is measured can be a subject for another debate entirely. Again, for me the best bet is to get information from multiple sources - the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
I believe that when lawmakers created the CPB / PBS / NPR, their intent was to ensure that quality programming was available to the people in a time when television was only in its infancy (or perhaps toddlerhood). Perhaps the fear was that commercial television of the day would neglect the areas of art and education because they wouldn’t be profitable. We know now, that is not the case. Should all government entities remain in perpetuity because their original premise was good, or shouldn’t we revisit things from time to time and ask questions such as; is the mission still valid, has it been achieved, is it still necessary?
TW
Disclosures first…I am a registered voter, but not registered with any political party. I trend fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
1. Is the programming on PBS / NPR worthwhile and valuable? Absolutely.
2. Does story selection and commentary lean to the Left? Probably a bit.
3. Does the public ‘trust’ the content coming from PBS / NPR more so than other sources? Maybe.
Yet none of the above elicits my support for continued government / public funding for PBS / NPR.
1. Worthwhile and valuable programming is available from a multitude of commercially successful media outlets (The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, The Food Network, The Learning Channel, etc), and via the Internet. All of these venues have proven that the American public will support quality programming – as evidenced by their continued operation in spite of the fact that part of their ‘competition’ (PBS) is federally subsidized. Given the quality of the content produced by PBS / NPR, why wouldn’t they continue to be successful with a model that uses commercial (i.e. advertising) support alone?
2. It seems to me that the percentage of programming on PBS that is ‘political’ is relatively small, with the majority being educational, arts, culture, etc. NPR, by its nature spends more of its broadcasting day discussing political issues and news topics of the day. Of course this breakdown is purely my perception, and my exposure to any ‘radio’ is limited to time spent driving. Still, PBS and NPR have existed for several decades, through both Republican and Democrat administrations. All media probably leans in one direction or the other, some of course more obviously then others. That is why it is important to watch / listen to multiple sources to best gain an understanding of the ‘real’ picture.
3. A poll on the PBS website under the ‘About Us’ link lists PBS as “#1 in public trust”. I had gone to this section to look for the Mission and Vision statements. Quite frankly, the fact that someone stands up and points outs how trustworthy they are usually sends up a huge red flag and immediately invites suspicion. How ‘trust’ is measured can be a subject for another debate entirely. Again, for me the best bet is to get information from multiple sources - the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
I believe that when lawmakers created the CPB / PBS / NPR, their intent was to ensure that quality programming was available to the people in a time when television was only in its infancy (or perhaps toddlerhood). Perhaps the fear was that commercial television of the day would neglect the areas of art and education because they wouldn’t be profitable. We know now, that is not the case. Should all government entities remain in perpetuity because their original premise was good, or shouldn’t we revisit things from time to time and ask questions such as; is the mission still valid, has it been achieved, is it still necessary?
TW
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Feature Guest Post -- Faked Calls on the Rush Limbaugh Show?
The following is a guest post from Tim Ambler. He's the founder of MightyPromos, a marketing firm that offers promotional footballs that can be be printed with a custom logo or message. The views expressed here are solely the author's, and not those of Syracuse University, the Campbell Institute, or the WRVO stations. One quick thought: If the accusations are true, it all makes perfect sense and seems non-controversial--IF the show's value is seen purely as entertainment. It gets murkier for a show that purports to provide publicly useful political information.
Recently, reports have circulated through the Internet and other media sources that say popular talk show host Rush Limbaugh, among others, has been using paid actors on his radio show. According to the reports, which claim an "inside executive" as their source, an actor or actress would be hired by the show to call in during regular show hours, and to work from a script. The production agency behind Limbaugh's show, Premiere Radio Networks, has denied the allegations. Premiere Radio Networks also produces the shows of well-known television and radio personality Glenn Beck, who has also been alleged to have used the "fake caller" service provided by Premiere known as "Premiere on Call."
The Premiere On Call service is a talent agency for actors and actresses. Jobs range from movies, to television as well as the occasional voice over, or voice recorded spot. These spots are usually recorded working with a script. The accusation states that Premiere Radio Networks hired talent from On Call and had them call in to the various radio shows while they were playing on the air.
The agency's website stated that Premiere On Call Service provides voice talent to take or make on-air calls, improvise on a scene or conversation that was going on, as well as read from prepared scripts when asked to do so. The site guaranteed to have the voice you needed only a quick online form away. The site also guaranteed that no repeat actors or actresses would be used, so callers aren't hearing the same voices over and over again for a six month period. Then the actor or actress would pretend to be a caller, reading from a prepared script. While this may seem dishonest or illegal, actually it is neither. This is a practice that has been going on in radio and television since the earliest days of broadcast media.
The radio network claims that the On Call Service was basically used to connect voice talent with prospective employers in the business. Since then someone has removed virtually all reference to the On Call service from the Premiere Radio Network's website.
Limbaugh steadfastly denies any involvement in the matter, and for what it is worth it almost sounds believable. It is easy to picture station management going over Limbaugh's head to make a decision like this. In times past the sometimes volatile Limbaugh has been less than receptive to new ideas. Though it is interesting to point out that later in the same show Limbaugh claimed the restrictive rules and regulations of the FCC made it necessary for companies such as Premiere to hire voice talent.
Premiere continues to deny that any voice overs were used on any shows. There was no comment from Glenn Beck regarding the accusations.
A spokesperson for Premiere Radio states that while the hiring of On Call was done by executives, how the talent is utilized is up to the managers, staff and hosts of the individual shows. The company went on to say that this service is basically used for managers, staff and companies who are looking for on-air talent to supplement their programming. Some of the usage examples put forth were radio commercials and public service announcements.
That's all very well and good, but to me there doesn't seem to be much difference in what the accusations say they are doing, and what the company says they are doing. It's not a big step from commercial to call in, and amongst the various reports that have begun to trickle in on this subject was one from one such actor. This actor states that for his audition, he was given the scene of being a caller on a popular radio show. And when he was hired he was told that he would be part of a rotating available staff, and that his job would be to call into popular radio shows. And he is not the only one.
There have been actors and actresses doing voice overs since the invention of sound in picture. Do you really think that person always sounds that great? Just like movie and television actors have stunt doubles and stand-ins, the same thing goes for radio and voice talent. Some days your voice isn't with you. Radio stations typically hire talented voice actors for commercial spots. These people don't work for the radio station either. So why doesn't someone care about that? If a company hires people to call into a radio show, that should not be a problem. If this practice is used however, it should be done in a clear and equitable manner, so as to not falsify ratings or audience opinions.
This practice is not illegal. It's not even clear which radio shows may or may not have used paid actors. Rush Limbaugh is probably right in this case--he was probably singled out because of his notoriety. But while Limbaugh may try to badger and bully around to his point of view, he doesn't really seem like the type to stoop to cheating to gain a leg up.
If anything at all was done, it was probably done at the behest of the radio station executives. The actual people working on the actual shows probably had little to do with it. While Hannity may seem a likely culprit based on his actions in the past, there is no proof of this whatsoever. This story gained most of its momentum thanks to the ability of the Internet to spread news faster and farther. Not because it was true or even newsworthy, but because people just like to spread bad news.
Recently, reports have circulated through the Internet and other media sources that say popular talk show host Rush Limbaugh, among others, has been using paid actors on his radio show. According to the reports, which claim an "inside executive" as their source, an actor or actress would be hired by the show to call in during regular show hours, and to work from a script. The production agency behind Limbaugh's show, Premiere Radio Networks, has denied the allegations. Premiere Radio Networks also produces the shows of well-known television and radio personality Glenn Beck, who has also been alleged to have used the "fake caller" service provided by Premiere known as "Premiere on Call."
The Premiere On Call service is a talent agency for actors and actresses. Jobs range from movies, to television as well as the occasional voice over, or voice recorded spot. These spots are usually recorded working with a script. The accusation states that Premiere Radio Networks hired talent from On Call and had them call in to the various radio shows while they were playing on the air.
The agency's website stated that Premiere On Call Service provides voice talent to take or make on-air calls, improvise on a scene or conversation that was going on, as well as read from prepared scripts when asked to do so. The site guaranteed to have the voice you needed only a quick online form away. The site also guaranteed that no repeat actors or actresses would be used, so callers aren't hearing the same voices over and over again for a six month period. Then the actor or actress would pretend to be a caller, reading from a prepared script. While this may seem dishonest or illegal, actually it is neither. This is a practice that has been going on in radio and television since the earliest days of broadcast media.
The radio network claims that the On Call Service was basically used to connect voice talent with prospective employers in the business. Since then someone has removed virtually all reference to the On Call service from the Premiere Radio Network's website.
Limbaugh steadfastly denies any involvement in the matter, and for what it is worth it almost sounds believable. It is easy to picture station management going over Limbaugh's head to make a decision like this. In times past the sometimes volatile Limbaugh has been less than receptive to new ideas. Though it is interesting to point out that later in the same show Limbaugh claimed the restrictive rules and regulations of the FCC made it necessary for companies such as Premiere to hire voice talent.
Premiere continues to deny that any voice overs were used on any shows. There was no comment from Glenn Beck regarding the accusations.
A spokesperson for Premiere Radio states that while the hiring of On Call was done by executives, how the talent is utilized is up to the managers, staff and hosts of the individual shows. The company went on to say that this service is basically used for managers, staff and companies who are looking for on-air talent to supplement their programming. Some of the usage examples put forth were radio commercials and public service announcements.
That's all very well and good, but to me there doesn't seem to be much difference in what the accusations say they are doing, and what the company says they are doing. It's not a big step from commercial to call in, and amongst the various reports that have begun to trickle in on this subject was one from one such actor. This actor states that for his audition, he was given the scene of being a caller on a popular radio show. And when he was hired he was told that he would be part of a rotating available staff, and that his job would be to call into popular radio shows. And he is not the only one.
There have been actors and actresses doing voice overs since the invention of sound in picture. Do you really think that person always sounds that great? Just like movie and television actors have stunt doubles and stand-ins, the same thing goes for radio and voice talent. Some days your voice isn't with you. Radio stations typically hire talented voice actors for commercial spots. These people don't work for the radio station either. So why doesn't someone care about that? If a company hires people to call into a radio show, that should not be a problem. If this practice is used however, it should be done in a clear and equitable manner, so as to not falsify ratings or audience opinions.
This practice is not illegal. It's not even clear which radio shows may or may not have used paid actors. Rush Limbaugh is probably right in this case--he was probably singled out because of his notoriety. But while Limbaugh may try to badger and bully around to his point of view, he doesn't really seem like the type to stoop to cheating to gain a leg up.
If anything at all was done, it was probably done at the behest of the radio station executives. The actual people working on the actual shows probably had little to do with it. While Hannity may seem a likely culprit based on his actions in the past, there is no proof of this whatsoever. This story gained most of its momentum thanks to the ability of the Internet to spread news faster and farther. Not because it was true or even newsworthy, but because people just like to spread bad news.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
More on the "Is PBS Liberal?" Question
A short, anonymous comment to an earlier post--"CPB versus BBC, and What It May Mean for Politics"--raises two important issues I wanted to reflect on, in two separate posts.
Here's the comment: IMO [in my opinion] government media is going to be suspect and antithetical to conservatives whether in the US or UK.
More later on whether government-funded media is the same as "government media," but first, is this claim about the treatment of conservatives valid?
I think this is more an article of faith than fact.
Certainly in the UK, Labour Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would disagree with the assertion. See for instance Tony Blair's farewell attack on the media, in which he said, "today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no one dares miss out." Clearly the BBC was square in his sights--and David Kelly in his memory--when he made this speech.
Gordon Brown got an even rougher ride. He--as well as his Government--was often put in the box of "worthy of ridicule" once his honeymoon ended and he was perceived to dither away the calling of a "snap election." During the same period, the Conservative David Cameron, increasingly portrayed as the Prime Minister-in-waiting, was given much lighter scrutiny, at least prior to the final campaign month (yes, it's just a month long there, and no TV ads allowed).
What about over here? I haven't seen an analysis that breaks down recent media coverage by cable versus networks versus PBS, but media analysis does suggest that at least in Bush's first term, foreign policies received fairly little critical treatment from the mainstream media. It was only in the second term that the critical lenses got focused.
And though it's just an impression, it seems more recently like there are weeks when NPR can't seem to get enough of Sarah Palin.
What the view may boil down to is this--and I have some very limited first-hand experience of the following hunch from hosting "The Campbell Conversations"--the overall audience for PBS and NPR is, relatively speaking, more liberal and less friendly toward conservatives. People are aware of this fact and many take their bearings about the stations' content from it. I can say, for example, that I tend to get more critical comments about my program when I have conservative people on the show.
So some of the motivation for cutting off the CPB's funding is probably being driven by a perception of what the "constituency" for the programming is. And that takes us back to Christopher Cook's observation about the BBC in my earlier post, that part of its funding security rests on its deep--and broad--appeal.
Here's the comment: IMO [in my opinion] government media is going to be suspect and antithetical to conservatives whether in the US or UK.
More later on whether government-funded media is the same as "government media," but first, is this claim about the treatment of conservatives valid?
I think this is more an article of faith than fact.
Certainly in the UK, Labour Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would disagree with the assertion. See for instance Tony Blair's farewell attack on the media, in which he said, "today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no one dares miss out." Clearly the BBC was square in his sights--and David Kelly in his memory--when he made this speech.
Gordon Brown got an even rougher ride. He--as well as his Government--was often put in the box of "worthy of ridicule" once his honeymoon ended and he was perceived to dither away the calling of a "snap election." During the same period, the Conservative David Cameron, increasingly portrayed as the Prime Minister-in-waiting, was given much lighter scrutiny, at least prior to the final campaign month (yes, it's just a month long there, and no TV ads allowed).
What about over here? I haven't seen an analysis that breaks down recent media coverage by cable versus networks versus PBS, but media analysis does suggest that at least in Bush's first term, foreign policies received fairly little critical treatment from the mainstream media. It was only in the second term that the critical lenses got focused.
And though it's just an impression, it seems more recently like there are weeks when NPR can't seem to get enough of Sarah Palin.
What the view may boil down to is this--and I have some very limited first-hand experience of the following hunch from hosting "The Campbell Conversations"--the overall audience for PBS and NPR is, relatively speaking, more liberal and less friendly toward conservatives. People are aware of this fact and many take their bearings about the stations' content from it. I can say, for example, that I tend to get more critical comments about my program when I have conservative people on the show.
So some of the motivation for cutting off the CPB's funding is probably being driven by a perception of what the "constituency" for the programming is. And that takes us back to Christopher Cook's observation about the BBC in my earlier post, that part of its funding security rests on its deep--and broad--appeal.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Feature Guest Post -- Abby Gardner on The Vise of Political Information
(And yes, I could have titled it vice too.) The following is a guest post by Abigail Gardner. Abby served as then-Congressman Dan Maffei’s press secretary from 2008 to 2010. Two quick comments on her post. First, as with all posts, the views expressed here are solely the author's, and not those of Syracuse University, the Campbell Institute, or the WRVO stations. Second, I think her observation about useful political information getting squeezed between political ads on the one hand and less substantive coverage by the local networks on the other is critically important, and as she notes, food for thought in light of the debate regarding PBS funding. You can read her blog at http://abigailgardner.tumblr.com/
Record Breaking Profits
This recent story, Cash Clowns, from a Seattle alt-weekly paper describes a disappointing trend of record breaking political ad revenue for local television and the simultaneous decline of local news coverage of political campaigns- a trend I think we’re experiencing in Upstate New York as well.
Cash Clowns uncovered that the four Seattle local network affiliate stations made more money from political ads in the 2010 cycle, $47 million, than any previous election season. Considering this was a midterm election and not a presidential election year, it was an impressive but not shocking haul. The Supreme Court’s Citizen United vs. Federal Election Committee ruling allows for corporations to spend an infinite amount on advertising for or against an issue or candidate. Conservatives said this was a victory for free speech, but it seems it is actually a victory for local television sales departments.
While I don’t know the numbers for Upstate New York stations, I have to imagine they, like Seattle, had a very profitable 2010. U.S. Senators and Representatives, the New York Governor, Attorney General, State Senators and Assemblymen were all on the ballot. Additionally, outside groups with names you can’t argue with, like “Americans for Hope, Growth and Opportunity” formed overnight. They exist for the sole purpose of raising money to spend on political ads. Hundreds of thousands of those dollars flooded the Syracuse and Rochester markets to attack just one candidate- my former boss, Congressman Dan Maffei.
Less Coverage
The story also focused on the hypocrisy of record breaking political ad sales while local coverage of political races is declining. I don’t begrudge media outlets for making money. They are a business that sells a lucrative product to clients trying to reach an audience of likely voters. While they’re raking in the ad revenue, however, stations are simultaneously doing less reporting on the actual campaigns. My first-hand experience varied greatly with Rochester and Syracuse stations. Some were very dedicated to political coverage, some did the best they could with limited resources and some chose to almost entirely ignore the campaigns in the area.
During the campaign for New York’s 25th Congressional seat between Dan Maffei and Ann Marie Buerkle, most stations hosted or aired a debate. At a minimum, every one covered President Clinton’s visit to Syracuse. However, depending on your station of choice for local news, you might not have seen a single other story about the race for Congress. Not that there wasn’t news to cover. The candidates disagreed on nearly every issue: the economy, health care, choice, education, energy, the environment, and on and on. Any station that wanted to produce a story focused on the issues had a myriad to choose from. Instead, some made the editorial decision to focus on Dancing With The Stars, crime, sports, and not on difference between two Congressional candidates on Afghanistan or climate change. Perhaps the lack of attention on the issues is why many people in Syracuse are surprised by the views of their new Representative in Congress.
Ads Cannot Supplant Stories
After the election, I asked a manager at one local TV station why I didn’t see them more often on the campaign trail. The answer was: "Well, our viewers saw so many political campaign ads, we don't want to inundate them with political stories too." I was shocked that a news organization thinks ads supplant stories. Ads are to persuade viewers, news is to present the facts. Ads obviously aren’t going to supply all the information voters need to make an educated decision. With newspapers shrinking in size and staff and the new Republican congress threatening to cut off funds to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, it is more critical now that other media outlets step up, not back, their coverage. If local television news is going to accept record breaking amounts in ad revenue, they also need to accept their responsibility to inform viewers.
Feature Guest Post -- Mike Sutton's Interview with Howie Hawkins
The following is a guest post by Mike Sutton. Mike has been a candidate for the Onondaga County Legislature's 9th district seat, and also recently contested for the City of Syracuse Republican Party Chair. He's very active in civic affairs in his Eastwood community, and also finds time to write on a wide variety of topics. This is a piece based on an interview he conducted with Howie Hawkins.
I recently was granted a interview with the one and only Central New York "Green Warrior", Howie Hawkins. I asked the L.A. native about everything from his 6 years of service in the U.S.M.C., to his run for Governor, to his future campaign plans,and just about everything in between.
Though most of family are Republicans (especially his Grandmother who is staunchly so), Howie leans to the Left on most issues. He also tries to bring a common sense and practical approach with him, where ever he goes. What impresses me about Howie is not only that he genuinely cares about his fellow citizens, but that he always modifies his message to match the position he is running for. Though many local third party candidates like David Gay seem to struggle with pounding federal issues when they run for city, county, or state office, Howie does not. He easily made the transition from running for U.S. Congress, to City Common Council, to New York State Governor in consecutive years. Each time, his message match the level of government he was running for.
Another thing that attracts people to Mr. Hawkins is the fact that he will not compromise his values or message or "sell out" to get votes. He always seems to stay true to himself as he addresses the issues and presents his solutions. Though Howie does not seem to be a vote thief or a politician, he is very involved in the local political process and pounds his message, while standing up for the rights of the less fortunate.
Being that he is a rank and file member of the Teamsters Labor Union and works the third shift, Hawkins has plenty of time to campaign during the day and has turned politics into his social life, as well as his life's mission. He genuine enjoys meeting people and addressing their concerns.
Before I reveal his opinion on a few celebrities that Howie met along the campaign trail, I will summarize my views on his political past and future.
It is clear to see that he is an anti war protester and activist, even though he was a faithful U.S. Marine for six years. Howie favors a non-military approach to social justice around the world. He believes that protesting, demonstrating and changing legislation is the more effective approach. I do feel that he has had an impact on New York State as a whole and will continue to do so for many years to come!
Here are his answers to a few of my questions.
Me: What is your opinion of the following people and what comes to mind when you hear their names?
Jimmy"The Rent is too Damn High"McMillan - Howie: " Jimmy was quiet,and polite when I met him. I think his passion is real and he feels for the poor in our state. However; he doesn't seem to understand the political process and did not have a viable solution to the problems that face New York. His speech was a distraction from the real issues that Warren Redlich and I actually addressed and proposed solutions for." Al "Grandpa Munster" Lewis. - Howie: "I knew Al well and spent a lot of time with him when he ran for Governor on theGreen Party Line. He was a great man and cared more about his politics and social justice than he did his acting career. His only drawbacks were that he was very loud and scared the media at times, and went a little overboard once in a while. One time when he was talking about a toxic plant in New York State, he said" I want to take the chemicals in that plant, pour them into a glass and make George Pataki drink them". Our party didn't need that. But overall Al was great! He was a terrific "street speaker" and drew big crowds at his appearances.He was more of a character in real life than he was as Grandpa on The Munsters. Al was passionate and genuine" Carl Paladino - Howie: "Carl was friendly, but didn't remember people. Even though I was running for the same position, Carl introduced himself to me twice at the same event. I do think his anger was real and though he told Fred Dicker what many politicians want to say to Fred, Carl went too far. He didn't have the right temperament to be Governor. I think the loss of his son has had a lasting effect on Carl"
Me: What did you want to accomplish in your campaign for Governor of New York?
Howie: I had three goals: 1. Get the line back for the Green Party in our state, so it will be easier for other "Greens" to run for local offices. 2. Strengthen the Green Party by raising enrollment and awareness. 3. "Expose Andrew Cuomo's real position or lack there of, on important issues like tax reform, hydro-fracking, and the unethical practices on Wall Street." Howie expressed a common sentiment that "Andrew would gloss over many issues, was very vague and would not tell us his true intentions with regards to hydro-fracking in our state."
Howie had stated that Andrew said that he was against unsafe measures to extract natural gas. The problem is, you can make something sound safe before you do it without seeing to it that it does not harm out water and the valuable resources that we have to offer new businesses in New York State. Howie told me that he believes that hydro-fracking should not be allowed in our state because it will provide a temporary "boom" to our economy and leave us with long term problems. "The companies that come here to drill will bring their own crew of workers, rather than hire locals. Therefore when they leave the area again to drill in another state, the benefits will leave too. The problem is that we have great natural resources here that will draw lasting corporations to our area. Why would we jeopardize out resources for a short term fix?" Mr. Hawkins also told me that he believes that within a year, Andrew Cuomo will be pushing to legalize and will welcome hydro-fracking in New York State.
I also asked Howie what the 2 most frustrating things about running for our Governor were. He told me that the worst part was the fact that the media ignored him and followed Jimmy McMillan everywhere, and often would not take statements from Howie at all. In fact, when most media outlets quoted him they would say "the Green Party Candidate" said... without mentioning his name. He stated that in a forum in harlem the media followed Jimmy everywhere and even a German news outlet would not talk to Howie. "I asked the reporter if he wanted a statement from me since Germany has a Green Party too. The answer was no." He also said that is was frustrating trying to generate support when the Green party only has a strong core of members in 5 cities in N.Y. "There are too many area's that we are weak in. Now that we have our line back, that should change."
Howie also stated that though he is not a native to Syracuse, he enjoys our University's sports programs especially basketball. "Our kids are fun to watch because now, they play together as a team.
Please read the entire interview with Howie Hawkins by going to-http://hubpages.com/hub/My-interview-with-Howie-Hawkinshttp://hubpages.com/hub/HasHowieHawkinsTimeCome
Friday, February 18, 2011
Follow Up on The Egypt and Tunisia Interview
In this interview, I tried to pose a question to my guests about a possible, unintended relationship between the recent protests and the Bush Administration's prior actions in the region. I did not frame the question clearly, and Bob K. correctly called me out on it. He added his comment under the "Reminder on Comments" posting. See his comment there, and my response to it.
Reminder on Comments
I warmly invite comments, especially those that disagree with me or the guest posts from others. But they need to be civil and not contain personal attacks. I removed one such comment today--from someone called "anonymous" of course--which was uncivil and personally-oriented, and which also contained some false claims about me. Such comments will not be posted. Thanks, Grant Reeher
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Feature Guest Post -- Abortion in the American Health Care Debate
The following is a guest post by J. Lindsay. Lindsay is a graduate student in public health at the University of Washington. She is also a guest blogger for My Dog Ate My Blog, and a writer for the Guide to Online Schools. As is the case with all posts, the views expressed here are solely those of the author, and do not represent Syracuse University, the Campbell Institute, or the WRVO stations.
Advocates for reproductive justice were basically slapped in the face with the introduction of H.R. 3 or the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." This bill, introduced by anti-choice Congressman Chris Smith on January 20, 2011, would make the restrictions of the Hyde amendment permanent. Specifically, these restrictions deny taxpayer subsidies for abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life. In addition to finalizing these restrictions, H.R. 3 would prevent self-insured and employer-based consumers from receiving tax breaks if they buy insurance plans that include coverage for abortion.
Advocates for reproductive justice were basically slapped in the face with the introduction of H.R. 3 or the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." This bill, introduced by anti-choice Congressman Chris Smith on January 20, 2011, would make the restrictions of the Hyde amendment permanent. Specifically, these restrictions deny taxpayer subsidies for abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life. In addition to finalizing these restrictions, H.R. 3 would prevent self-insured and employer-based consumers from receiving tax breaks if they buy insurance plans that include coverage for abortion.
H.R. 3 has received countless criticisms, not only for its restrictions but for its language, which specifies that "rape" must be of a forcible nature in order to be covered by public funding. This language, not to mention the entire bill, is absolutely preposterous in the opinions of many. In only covering "forcible rape," this bill has undermined the violation that occurs to a woman's dignity and mental stability with all forms of rape (including date rape, incest, and work-based harassment). Rape is rape, and each occurrence is bound by a lack of consent. It should not be redefined in an attempt to advance partisan efforts.
Having received numerous attacks from women's groups, House Republicans have recently decided to remove the incredibly offensive language from the bill. Representative Chris Smith has commented that the word "forcible" will be dropped from the bill and replaced with the original language from the Hyde amendment, leaving the bill to cover all forms of rape. The removal of this language is only a minuscule victory for reproductive justice advocates compared with the whirlwind of current events during the abortion debate, but at least it ensures that more women are covered.
H.R. 3 is definitely not alone in its restrictive nature. On the same day that H.R. 3 was introduced, Representative Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania introduced the erroneously named, "Protect Life Act," or H.R. 358. On February 3, 2011, Representative Pitts introduced a new provision to the bill that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services even if a woman is at risk of dying if she does not receive them. Unfortunately, it seems like there is no limit to the kinds of restrictions that will be introduced during this controversial time.
Right now, states are in the process of drafting their insurance exchanges that, according to the health care reform package, are to be implemented in 2014, and abortion-restricting bills are popping up in many of them. In particular, Pennsylvania has seen many abortion-restricting bills after the controversy surrounding Dr. Gosnell, who was arrested for performing late-term abortions in a horrendous manner. This case has been riling up anti-choice legislators to introduce more bans, but what Gosnell did only strengthens the argument that women need greater access to abortion services. It is tragic that women in their sixth, seventh, and eight months of pregnancy received abortions by Dr. Gosnell, but do you think they would have waited so long if they could have received an abortion shortly after conceiving? The answer is most likely no.
Regardless of where we stand on the moral issue of abortion, we need to realize that American women need access. Let individuals make the decision themselves of whether or not they will receive an abortion. The government--federal or state--does not have the authority to intervene during this decision making process. But by making abortion unavailable to countless women, lawmakers seem to be trying to convince women that abortion should be out of the question. Without insurance coverage, a woman may unable to afford an abortion, and she may result to drastic measures if she isn't free to make the decision about what's right for her and her family.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
CPB versus BBC, and What It May Mean for Politics
Republicans in Congress have renewed their attack on public broadcasting, proposing that federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), currently at about $445 million annually, be entirely eliminated. CPB funnels money to National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). I've been reading through the commentary advocating the zeroing out, and I've been struck, once again, by the anger and disdain that NPR and PBS generate in some quarters. Stripping that away, the case for not funding them seems to focus on two specific claims: That the programming of the broadcast organizations is politically slanted--to the Left--and therefore shouldn't be funded by the government (the firing of Juan Williams is sometimes held up as proof of this bias); and that neither PBS nor NPR supply a distinct public service which is not already available through the market. In addition, there's the more general objection that no media programming should be funded by taxpayers; NPR and PBS should instead be supported entirely by voluntary individual and corporate contributions (currently it's a mix of private and public support).
Transparency before going further: I host a program on a regional NPR station, and while I have an interest in seeing that program continue, I am not paid by NPR or the local station.
On the supposed Left bias, I guess I can see a slight liberal tinge, in two respects, neither of which is surprising or unique. First, it's probably the case, as it is with a lot of media organizations (absent FOX), that the employees and the talent tend to be more liberal than the average citizen. It's not clear that this means the content of the news broadcasts is decidedly more liberal, however. Such a bent might come through, at the edges, at the moments when it's especially hard for the personal views of the broadcasters not to become intertwined with what they're doing on the air--for example perhaps Steve Inskeep's recent interview with Donald Rumsfeld, which was clearly more aggressive than his usual chat with a guest. Rumsfeld stirred up some emotions for Inskeep--at least it seemed that way to me.
Where it's easier to see a liberal slant is in feature story selection, as NPR and to a lesser extent PBS search for the less reported, more quirky, and more diversity-oriented topics, and those are almost by definition less conservative (see NPR's mission statement below).
But the renewed attack on CPB funding got me thinking about the BBC, which I consume as my primary news source in the weeks during the summer when I teach a program in London.
Granted, the BBC and the CPB have entirely different histories, reflecting the two nations' different views toward regulating the market and the kinds of things rightly considered to be within the public trust. They're also structured differently, with the BBC being more centralized, and NPR more federated (again reflecting the nations' political systems).
And relative to the CPB, the BBC is "massively" funded, as the Brits would say, to the tune of approximately $5.8 billion annually.
But there are similarities.
The BBC is funded by the government, but it is not a state media outlet--like NPR and PBS it is independently operated.
They have similarly worded missions. For the BBC: To inform, educate, and entertain. For PBS: To educate, inform, and inspire. For NPR: To create a more informed public challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas and cultures.
The BBC attracts criticisms similar to those of the CPB, and the mandatory license fee on televisions that funds it is a constant source of political debate.
Christopher Cook, a media observer and critic (and also my colleague in London), notes that the political criticism the BBC receives comes from both the Left and the Right, but like the CPB, its most virulent criticism is found within conservative camps. And like the CPB, a lot of that criticism is rooted in the perception that the personnel at the BBC are to the Left of the average citizen, even if the news coverage is not directly slanted.
Yet the argument to entirely eliminate the funding for the BBC remains a fringe position. For example, David Cameron's Conservative/Lib-Dem government recently cut the BBC's budget by 16 percent over a four year period, while the average cut to government departments was 19 percent.
So how does the BBC maintain its safe position as a government-funded, public news organization, while the CPB is regularly tied to the railroad tracks? According to Cook, the three most important reasons for the BBC's strength are: First, a broad band of viewers and listeners--the electorate--like it and trust it; second, over the years it has become one of Britain's national institutions and therefore a sacred cow, so attacks on it are politically dangerous (think Social Security perhaps); and third, politicians recognize that their best bet for having politics taken seriously and covered in depth as a broadcast topic is the continued existence of the BBC.
Clearly NPR, PBS, and by extension the CPB never reached the threshold of viewership and support in our network and cable dominated landscape to become a similarly defining national institution, and their appeal has always been more limited. But perhaps our politicians are a bit different as well--it may be that beyond the Left-Right debate, having politics taken seriously and covered in depth is not seen by them as something in their collective self-interest, or our collective self-interest, and this may tell us something important about our political culture.
Transparency before going further: I host a program on a regional NPR station, and while I have an interest in seeing that program continue, I am not paid by NPR or the local station.
On the supposed Left bias, I guess I can see a slight liberal tinge, in two respects, neither of which is surprising or unique. First, it's probably the case, as it is with a lot of media organizations (absent FOX), that the employees and the talent tend to be more liberal than the average citizen. It's not clear that this means the content of the news broadcasts is decidedly more liberal, however. Such a bent might come through, at the edges, at the moments when it's especially hard for the personal views of the broadcasters not to become intertwined with what they're doing on the air--for example perhaps Steve Inskeep's recent interview with Donald Rumsfeld, which was clearly more aggressive than his usual chat with a guest. Rumsfeld stirred up some emotions for Inskeep--at least it seemed that way to me.
Where it's easier to see a liberal slant is in feature story selection, as NPR and to a lesser extent PBS search for the less reported, more quirky, and more diversity-oriented topics, and those are almost by definition less conservative (see NPR's mission statement below).
But the renewed attack on CPB funding got me thinking about the BBC, which I consume as my primary news source in the weeks during the summer when I teach a program in London.
Granted, the BBC and the CPB have entirely different histories, reflecting the two nations' different views toward regulating the market and the kinds of things rightly considered to be within the public trust. They're also structured differently, with the BBC being more centralized, and NPR more federated (again reflecting the nations' political systems).
And relative to the CPB, the BBC is "massively" funded, as the Brits would say, to the tune of approximately $5.8 billion annually.
But there are similarities.
The BBC is funded by the government, but it is not a state media outlet--like NPR and PBS it is independently operated.
They have similarly worded missions. For the BBC: To inform, educate, and entertain. For PBS: To educate, inform, and inspire. For NPR: To create a more informed public challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas and cultures.
The BBC attracts criticisms similar to those of the CPB, and the mandatory license fee on televisions that funds it is a constant source of political debate.
Christopher Cook, a media observer and critic (and also my colleague in London), notes that the political criticism the BBC receives comes from both the Left and the Right, but like the CPB, its most virulent criticism is found within conservative camps. And like the CPB, a lot of that criticism is rooted in the perception that the personnel at the BBC are to the Left of the average citizen, even if the news coverage is not directly slanted.
Yet the argument to entirely eliminate the funding for the BBC remains a fringe position. For example, David Cameron's Conservative/Lib-Dem government recently cut the BBC's budget by 16 percent over a four year period, while the average cut to government departments was 19 percent.
So how does the BBC maintain its safe position as a government-funded, public news organization, while the CPB is regularly tied to the railroad tracks? According to Cook, the three most important reasons for the BBC's strength are: First, a broad band of viewers and listeners--the electorate--like it and trust it; second, over the years it has become one of Britain's national institutions and therefore a sacred cow, so attacks on it are politically dangerous (think Social Security perhaps); and third, politicians recognize that their best bet for having politics taken seriously and covered in depth as a broadcast topic is the continued existence of the BBC.
Clearly NPR, PBS, and by extension the CPB never reached the threshold of viewership and support in our network and cable dominated landscape to become a similarly defining national institution, and their appeal has always been more limited. But perhaps our politicians are a bit different as well--it may be that beyond the Left-Right debate, having politics taken seriously and covered in depth is not seen by them as something in their collective self-interest, or our collective self-interest, and this may tell us something important about our political culture.
Monday, February 14, 2011
More Insights on Egypt and Tunisia
Check out this Friday's Campbell Conversation interview, when I will be speaking with two faculty members from Tunisia and Egypt, respectively (see "What's Up on the Campbell Conversations" box to the right). One of the guests has a specific interest in media and civic engagement. I'll try to get behind and beyond the daily news reports of the situation to some deeper insights of why, when, and what next.
Friday, February 4, 2011
About the Jordan-Elbridge Interview
As I expected, there is some criticism of the interview I did with Mary Alley, President of the Jordan-Elbridge School Board. You can find the interview podcast here.
Let me write a few words about the purpose of the interview and the show--not just this particular segment, but also the program more generally.
I am not trying to sort out the tangled trail of what has happened in J-E over the past few months, and I did not approach the guest as a source to do that. That is the job for a news reporter. I did not try to get into the specific grounds for what the board has done, though I did want Ms. Alley to explain or confirm why she thought she couldn't discuss those actions--and she did that. The hypothetical question I asked her about possible futures--should the board's specific grounds for the actions they've taken ultimately be shown to make sense--was to elicit her sense of the level of damage to the community that has been done to this point. I did not suggest--and did not intend to suggest--a position on whether the principal or treasurer or anyone else should have been fired.
I invited her on the program because she is an elected official at the center of this controversy, who could speak directly about the effects on the community, about what she thought the board could and should have done differently in dealing with the controversy, and about the experience she's had in all this as an elected, volunteer official. The point of the interview extended beyond the specific facts of the J-E board actions to the nature of our political life. The overall approach toward the interview was to create a civil, rational conversation.
I do not bring guests on the program to badger them or to argue with them, but rather to draw them out and elicit their views. This opens the program up to criticisms of being too sympathetic to the guests when the guests are controversial, and this criticism cuts across the ideological spectrum. Thus, I have heard similar comments after interviewing Eliot Spitzer and a Left-wing member of the British Parliament on the one hand, and Ann Marie Buerkle and local leaders of the Tea Party on the other. The emotions are higher in the J-E case, and so the comments are more sharply edged--I understand that.
Here is an alternative standard I'd suggest to evaluate this interview--was there new information and some additional understanding provided? Since no one from the board has yet spoken to the media in this way, I'd say the answer to this question would have to be yes. Bringing this guest in to ask the kinds of "tough questions" that some have suggested to me would have resulted in no interview at all. And note that I did ask her why she's waited until now to speak, what the board should have done differently, why they haven't communicated the grounds of their actions, and why they've apparently moved toward less public comments since the fall.
Here's a final consideration: Members of the community have had numerous opportunities to voice their anger to each other directly, and through the media to the broader community and the greater Syracuse area. And they've been taking advantage of these opportunities. I heard two hours of them at the meeting in October. They have been in the Post-Standard every week. This was the first time that anyone has heard from someone on the board in any kind of extended format. I think on balance the dial was moved in a positive direction by the interview, however slightly.
--Grant Reeher
Let me write a few words about the purpose of the interview and the show--not just this particular segment, but also the program more generally.
I am not trying to sort out the tangled trail of what has happened in J-E over the past few months, and I did not approach the guest as a source to do that. That is the job for a news reporter. I did not try to get into the specific grounds for what the board has done, though I did want Ms. Alley to explain or confirm why she thought she couldn't discuss those actions--and she did that. The hypothetical question I asked her about possible futures--should the board's specific grounds for the actions they've taken ultimately be shown to make sense--was to elicit her sense of the level of damage to the community that has been done to this point. I did not suggest--and did not intend to suggest--a position on whether the principal or treasurer or anyone else should have been fired.
I invited her on the program because she is an elected official at the center of this controversy, who could speak directly about the effects on the community, about what she thought the board could and should have done differently in dealing with the controversy, and about the experience she's had in all this as an elected, volunteer official. The point of the interview extended beyond the specific facts of the J-E board actions to the nature of our political life. The overall approach toward the interview was to create a civil, rational conversation.
I do not bring guests on the program to badger them or to argue with them, but rather to draw them out and elicit their views. This opens the program up to criticisms of being too sympathetic to the guests when the guests are controversial, and this criticism cuts across the ideological spectrum. Thus, I have heard similar comments after interviewing Eliot Spitzer and a Left-wing member of the British Parliament on the one hand, and Ann Marie Buerkle and local leaders of the Tea Party on the other. The emotions are higher in the J-E case, and so the comments are more sharply edged--I understand that.
Here is an alternative standard I'd suggest to evaluate this interview--was there new information and some additional understanding provided? Since no one from the board has yet spoken to the media in this way, I'd say the answer to this question would have to be yes. Bringing this guest in to ask the kinds of "tough questions" that some have suggested to me would have resulted in no interview at all. And note that I did ask her why she's waited until now to speak, what the board should have done differently, why they haven't communicated the grounds of their actions, and why they've apparently moved toward less public comments since the fall.
Here's a final consideration: Members of the community have had numerous opportunities to voice their anger to each other directly, and through the media to the broader community and the greater Syracuse area. And they've been taking advantage of these opportunities. I heard two hours of them at the meeting in October. They have been in the Post-Standard every week. This was the first time that anyone has heard from someone on the board in any kind of extended format. I think on balance the dial was moved in a positive direction by the interview, however slightly.
--Grant Reeher
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tiger Mothra
I was just settling in to write a post about the Tiger Mother hoopla, when I discovered that Cynthia Tucker had already said most of what I wanted to say, and it's here.
What I'd underscore from her piece is that one of the reasons for the ridiculous amount of attention this woman and book have received is that among certain classes, a version of the Tiger Parent is fast multiplying. "Tiger Mother Lite" is probably the best term. There are tons of them here at the university, for example, and it's fun sport to watch them talk about their kids at a social event--a polite exchange of information that is in reality a battle for supremacy by proxy, the verbal equivalent of a West Side Story rumble.
Ultimately, if the fallout from the book gives a few more kids their summers back, I guess I'm for it.
I'll end with a Zen koan in honor of the book: What is the sound of one hand carrying money to the bank?
What I'd underscore from her piece is that one of the reasons for the ridiculous amount of attention this woman and book have received is that among certain classes, a version of the Tiger Parent is fast multiplying. "Tiger Mother Lite" is probably the best term. There are tons of them here at the university, for example, and it's fun sport to watch them talk about their kids at a social event--a polite exchange of information that is in reality a battle for supremacy by proxy, the verbal equivalent of a West Side Story rumble.
Ultimately, if the fallout from the book gives a few more kids their summers back, I guess I'm for it.
I'll end with a Zen koan in honor of the book: What is the sound of one hand carrying money to the bank?
Friday, January 21, 2011
I've Seen the Microphone and the Damage Done
Apologies to Neil Young on the title, but if you haven't already guessed, this post concerns the saga of the Jordan-Elbridge School Board and its community. They're back on the front page again, and are the subject of the lead editorial in today's Syracuse Post-Standard.
I've written on the community's conflict before--here and elsewhere--based in part on my experiences as public comment moderator for one of the early, large (800 plus) public meetings in which some tempers flared, to put it mildly.
Based on that experience and what I have continued to read, here are some additional thoughts--musings in no particular order:
--The news story today by Paul Riede and his colleagues seemed to me to be fair, accurate, and non-inflammatory, but some of the paper's earlier coverage of the controversy--the framing of the narratives and implied conclusions--served to stir up, at least in part, the damaging conflict the paper is decrying on its editorial page. I've written on this general topic before in this space, but early on I think the paper fanned the flames through its coverage. To really demonstrate this, I'd need to present a thorough content analysis of all the coverage. I won't do that--I'll just state that this is my impression based on close reading. Others may disagree.
--It was my impression at the earlier meeting--and it's my impression based on reading the new story--that the principal in question is enlisting and encouraging some of the protests on the part of others. Not that many members of the community aren't genuinely angry, all on their own, but I've been to a lot of these kinds of meetings, and that particular antenna in my head was activated that evening. He went excessively beyond his allotted comment time in the meeting I moderated, with others from the audience yelling that they'd cede their time to him (which is an obviously problematic way to make a decision on that in a group of 800), and he claimed he was entitled to do so because of his position and what was at stake for him personally. That logic runs out at some point--four months from the October meeting may be that point. And as I've written before, given the outside investigators that have visited the district, I'm betting there's another shoe to drop here. We'll see.
--Today's story and editorial point to the tragedy that students are having to witness the emotional excess and the bad blood in the conflict. I agree, but a deeper level of that tragedy, I think, is the possibility that many of these students are getting drawn into the conflict through mechanisms that would concern me, including parents, teachers, and administrators. Several students testified at the meeting I moderated, and my sense was that some of the them had been recruited, if not drafted.
--The paper and a host of other critics are right, however, to point to the direction that the board has taken--toward more restriction and less interaction--as the wrong lesson to draw from the earlier conflict. It was obvious that this issue would generate public anger and frustration (changes in local education always do)--especially if the grounds for some of the actions cannot be publicly discussed. In those instances, you need to provide venues for people to express that frustration, and try to make them as constructive as possible. For all its sharp edges, I left the meeting back in October thinking that some positive things had come from it, and that there was a path forward, if the openness continued and if people could take a breath. Wishful thinking, apparently.
I've written on the community's conflict before--here and elsewhere--based in part on my experiences as public comment moderator for one of the early, large (800 plus) public meetings in which some tempers flared, to put it mildly.
Based on that experience and what I have continued to read, here are some additional thoughts--musings in no particular order:
--The news story today by Paul Riede and his colleagues seemed to me to be fair, accurate, and non-inflammatory, but some of the paper's earlier coverage of the controversy--the framing of the narratives and implied conclusions--served to stir up, at least in part, the damaging conflict the paper is decrying on its editorial page. I've written on this general topic before in this space, but early on I think the paper fanned the flames through its coverage. To really demonstrate this, I'd need to present a thorough content analysis of all the coverage. I won't do that--I'll just state that this is my impression based on close reading. Others may disagree.
--It was my impression at the earlier meeting--and it's my impression based on reading the new story--that the principal in question is enlisting and encouraging some of the protests on the part of others. Not that many members of the community aren't genuinely angry, all on their own, but I've been to a lot of these kinds of meetings, and that particular antenna in my head was activated that evening. He went excessively beyond his allotted comment time in the meeting I moderated, with others from the audience yelling that they'd cede their time to him (which is an obviously problematic way to make a decision on that in a group of 800), and he claimed he was entitled to do so because of his position and what was at stake for him personally. That logic runs out at some point--four months from the October meeting may be that point. And as I've written before, given the outside investigators that have visited the district, I'm betting there's another shoe to drop here. We'll see.
--Today's story and editorial point to the tragedy that students are having to witness the emotional excess and the bad blood in the conflict. I agree, but a deeper level of that tragedy, I think, is the possibility that many of these students are getting drawn into the conflict through mechanisms that would concern me, including parents, teachers, and administrators. Several students testified at the meeting I moderated, and my sense was that some of the them had been recruited, if not drafted.
--The paper and a host of other critics are right, however, to point to the direction that the board has taken--toward more restriction and less interaction--as the wrong lesson to draw from the earlier conflict. It was obvious that this issue would generate public anger and frustration (changes in local education always do)--especially if the grounds for some of the actions cannot be publicly discussed. In those instances, you need to provide venues for people to express that frustration, and try to make them as constructive as possible. For all its sharp edges, I left the meeting back in October thinking that some positive things had come from it, and that there was a path forward, if the openness continued and if people could take a breath. Wishful thinking, apparently.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Buying Local and Local Engagement
Coming up next on the Campbell Conversations is a discussion with Chris Fowler, founder and executive director of SyracuseFirst, a non-profit dedicated to pushing out the "buy local" message. "Buy local" can mean different things, and Chris parses that out in the interview, but in making the argument for buying local he introduced an idea that really got me thinking, and that I now wish I had pursued more thoroughly.
It's the notion that a community engaged in buying local could become more locally engaged, in civic terms. This thought sat in between the lines of some of what he said, and at the margins of some of his other comments (about strengthening the local commercial base, for example), but the more I pondered it, the more sense it made to me. The very process of making the effort to buy local could prompt us to learn about our own area and engage with each other in a way that could lead to further interactions in other spheres, and to a stronger sense of connection with and commitment to our local community. In other words, we could become better citizens. Sounds pie-in-the-sky, I know, but it's worth a thought and perhaps a try.
It's the notion that a community engaged in buying local could become more locally engaged, in civic terms. This thought sat in between the lines of some of what he said, and at the margins of some of his other comments (about strengthening the local commercial base, for example), but the more I pondered it, the more sense it made to me. The very process of making the effort to buy local could prompt us to learn about our own area and engage with each other in a way that could lead to further interactions in other spheres, and to a stronger sense of connection with and commitment to our local community. In other words, we could become better citizens. Sounds pie-in-the-sky, I know, but it's worth a thought and perhaps a try.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Climate Change, The Movie II
No, it's not Al Gore. This YouTube video is a nice companion piece to my Campbell Conversation interview with Dave Eichorn. Here you can see Dave present visually some of the things he discusses in our conversation. Truth in advertising: There's a short pitch for a couple SUNY-ESF courses at the very end.
On 10 Rounds or More
Ruth Marcus has an interesting editorial on the now-expired federal Assault Weapons Ban, in which she focuses on its prohibition of magazines in excess of 10 rounds. The Tucson shooter used a 31-shot magazine, and the thought is that the ban might have made it more difficult for him to have armed himself so heavily.
What her column could have emphasized more heavily is that the ban had a grandfather clause--it prohibited the manufacture of such magazines beginning in 1994, and the sale and possession of those magazines; however, the possession and sale of larger magazines made before the ban went into effect remained legal. New York state law essentially continues the same ban, and so new magazines with capacities larger than 10 and made post-1994 are not legal here. The ultimate effect of the federal ban between 1994 and 2004, and the continuing ban within New York, is that the prices of these pre-ban magazines have risen, because the supply is limited. But the magazines are still available.
This illustrates a central quandary for Americans contemplating tighter gun regulations. The horse has definitely left the barn, a while ago. To take an overall-supply approach in order to really limit the ability of criminals to get these kinds of guns, particularly in the short-term, restrictions would need to go far beyond the Assault Weapons Ban--focusing on possession as well as manufacture, and leaving out grandfather clauses. That's very difficult terrain in American politics.
Evidence suggests that the ban was beginning to have a limiting effect on access to the defined weapons by 2004, and their use in crime (see for example Robert J. Spitzer's book, The Politics of Gun Control), but there remains much controversy over whether it had any demonstrable effect on overall rates of gun crime.
It's also worth noting that threats of bans are boons to manufacturers and dealers, and increase short-term supply. There is clear evidence that in the past production and demand have gone up as the perceived "risk" of a possible ban rises, and I'll bet that the purchase of large-capacity magazines will go up if the current discussion of a new ban continues, if it hasn't already (update: apparently it has). That will put more of these magazines into circulation as "pre-ban" approved stock, should any future ban result.
What her column could have emphasized more heavily is that the ban had a grandfather clause--it prohibited the manufacture of such magazines beginning in 1994, and the sale and possession of those magazines; however, the possession and sale of larger magazines made before the ban went into effect remained legal. New York state law essentially continues the same ban, and so new magazines with capacities larger than 10 and made post-1994 are not legal here. The ultimate effect of the federal ban between 1994 and 2004, and the continuing ban within New York, is that the prices of these pre-ban magazines have risen, because the supply is limited. But the magazines are still available.
This illustrates a central quandary for Americans contemplating tighter gun regulations. The horse has definitely left the barn, a while ago. To take an overall-supply approach in order to really limit the ability of criminals to get these kinds of guns, particularly in the short-term, restrictions would need to go far beyond the Assault Weapons Ban--focusing on possession as well as manufacture, and leaving out grandfather clauses. That's very difficult terrain in American politics.
Evidence suggests that the ban was beginning to have a limiting effect on access to the defined weapons by 2004, and their use in crime (see for example Robert J. Spitzer's book, The Politics of Gun Control), but there remains much controversy over whether it had any demonstrable effect on overall rates of gun crime.
It's also worth noting that threats of bans are boons to manufacturers and dealers, and increase short-term supply. There is clear evidence that in the past production and demand have gone up as the perceived "risk" of a possible ban rises, and I'll bet that the purchase of large-capacity magazines will go up if the current discussion of a new ban continues, if it hasn't already (update: apparently it has). That will put more of these magazines into circulation as "pre-ban" approved stock, should any future ban result.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Do You Have Ideas About Civilizing Political Talk? Here's How to Share Them
This is in some respects a follow up to my previous post, "Missing Culpa?"
The plans for the event described below have been in the works for months prior to the Arizona shootings, but if you have ideas for making public conversations about politics more civil and productive--or are just interested in participating in a civil conversation about this topic--please consider joining us on February 18 at the City Hall Commons for this public deliberation event co-sponsored by CNYSpeaks and Focus Syracuse (full disclosure: I am a co-director of the CNYSpeaks project). It should be a fruitful and affirming discussion.
Below is the full press release for the event.
The plans for the event described below have been in the works for months prior to the Arizona shootings, but if you have ideas for making public conversations about politics more civil and productive--or are just interested in participating in a civil conversation about this topic--please consider joining us on February 18 at the City Hall Commons for this public deliberation event co-sponsored by CNYSpeaks and Focus Syracuse (full disclosure: I am a co-director of the CNYSpeaks project). It should be a fruitful and affirming discussion.
Below is the full press release for the event.
Contacts: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Chuckie Holstein, (315) 448-8732 Jan. 12, 2011
Tina Nabatchi, (315) 443-8994
Making Public Meetings Work for the Public: A Forum on Civil Civic Discourse
Work with fellow citizens on February 18 to identify the elements of constructive public forums
Syracuse, NY – Please join us at 7:30 a.m. on Friday, February 18, at City Hall Commons for a forum on how to ensure civil, constructive public meetings.
Combative school board sessions and angry town hall meetings on health care have obscured the fact that public officials and citizens must work together to solve the complex problems we face here in Central New York and across the country.
Yet public officials are given little guidance on just how to structure public meetings to ensure that citizens are heard, and citizens have little guidance about how they should behave at those meetings to ensure that their interests are understood and that the meetings are safe and productive.
On Feb. 18, FOCUS Greater Syracuse will devote its monthly Core Group meeting to exploring this topic, with the goal of hearing from citizens about how they believe public meetings can be better designed to be productive, civil and effective.
The forum, which is free and open to all, will run from 7:30 to 9 a.m. at City Hall Commons, 201 E. Washington St., Syracuse.
Participants will work in small groups with trained facilitators from the CNYSpeaks Initiative and the Maxwell School’s Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration to discuss questions such as:
· Why do people go, or stay away from, public meetings?
· What do public meetings that “work” look like? What do such meetings accomplish? What processes are used?
· How should public meetings be designed to be more inclusive, productive and constructive?
· What are the minimum standards of behavior required of citizens — and officials — to have successful public meetings?
Please join FOCUS and CNYSpeaks as we tackle this important issue, and thank you in advance for helping us spread the word about this event. Again, it’s free and open to all. There is no registration required. The event will start promptly at 7:30 a.m. on Friday, Feb. 18, and be over by 9. Coffee will be served. More information on the sponsoring organizations can be found at http://cnyspeaks.com and http://www.focussyracuse.org/.
The public is welcome to contact FOCUS at focus@ci.syracuse.ny.us or (315) 448-8732, or CNYSpeaks at cnyspeaks@maxwell.syr.edu or 315-730-4621, for more information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)