PBS NewsHour’s Disgraceful Practice — NOT honoring (some) of our fallen troops

Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:03:48 +0000

Several years ago I emailed a question to the PBS NewsHour nightly news program, perhaps to their ombudsman but not sure. I got no reply. My question pertained to the segment they had at the end of each nightly program when names had been released for deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, during which they showed (in silence) photos of troops who had been killed and their names, rank, age and home town. They called it their “Honor Roll”, as they still do.

I wasn’t sure about something, and I wanted to find out. I asked them when they started this “Honor Roll” segment. I asked because I wanted to know if they began the segment only after there were deaths in the Iraq war, as opposed to starting it before the Iraq War, when there were only deaths in Afghanistan. I cynically wondered if it were the former, thinking perhaps they felt a need/desire to show the cost in lives of the Iraq War to a greater extent than for the war in Afghanistan, because they felt “the public” considered the Iraq War more controversial (and therefore should have more information on the costs so as to decide whether or not it was a bad idea and if we should end it) and/or because they themselves were ambivalent or opposed to the Iraq War (or wanted Bush to look bad or less good).

Last night for some reason I Googled again, and found my answer in this January, 2006 piece by the (then new) NewsHour ombudsman http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2006/01/here_in_silence_are_eight_more.html, discussing a recent change to the “Honor Roll” segment.

It turns out that not only did they indeed only begin the “Honor Roll” segment with deaths from the Iraq War, they actually EXCLUDED troop deaths from Afghanistan initially and focused it only on deaths in Iraq! An “Honor Roll” for troops who gave their lives in battle was limited to those troops who died in one war, excluding other troops who died at the same time in another war! And it was not until almost 3 years of the “Honor Roll” that they started to include the fatalities in Afghanistan. 3 years to realize it was wrong and make a simple change to correct such an indecency, not to mention an outrageously biased journalistic practice repeated several times every week as a regular, well-defined part of the program!

And although ombudsman himself ends up in the right place, concluding that it was wrong to exclude the fatalities in Afghanistan, he himself seems to think there’s some reasonable case to the contrary, based on the more controversial nature of the Iraq War (polls showing a more divided public), and even based on his concern that including the troops who died in Afghanistan would aid Bush in getting the public to see the Iraq War as another “battlefront in the same war on terror”, whereas in his view “The war in Afghanistan is, indeed, a war on terror. The one in Iraq has become one but was much more a war of choice at the outset in the view of many people.”

And the ombudsman really lets the producer off the hook by not asking an obvious follow-up question when the producer apparently told him, ”The NewsHour’s Honor Roll began airing on March 31, 2003, 11 days after the war with Iraq began. Our intention then, as it has been all along, was to honor the men and women who died fighting a war on behalf of the United States. Period. There was no political statement behind that decision.” Well, then why, for almost 3 years, night after night, in this “Honor Roll” for troops who gave their lives for our nation, were deaths of our troops in Afghanistan excluded??!!

All the producer apparently said was “the idea of an Honor Roll did not occur to us until the Iraq War began, and we did not connect the two campaigns. In retrospect, perhaps we should have, but the fact is, we did not.” File that under “You Gotta Be Kiddin’ Me (A–hole)”. Yes, Ms. Producer, you did “connect the two campaigns”, in the sense of contrasting them — one good, one bad — in your own mind and/or in a substantial portion of public opinion, and in your honoring the fallen from one war (whatever your motivations) while excluding, as a matter of policy and daily practice, the fallen from the other war.

I want to end by saying, first of all, that I am NOT among hyperpartisans on either side who constantly scream about some sweeping, consistent bias in the mainstream media against one’s side. I think such complaints are more reflective of the beholder’s biases and selective knowledge (and some misconceptions) than of the mainstream media in general. And by the way, I very strongly recommend to everyone in the world this book, http://www.amazon.com/True-Enough-Learning-Post-Fact-Society/dp/0470050101 (and if you find yourself thinking “This author is clearly right half the time and clearly wrong half the time”, it’s you — and that’s exactly what he’s talking about).

Second, I think NewsHour is the best nightly news program on television and has been for decades. I was a bit reluctant to post this diary, particularly in an environment that I assume is generally hostile to PBS, because I think NewsHour is an outstanding and a very important program, particularly in this age of growth of hyperpartisan media and sensational food-fight, talking point fests masquerading as substantive debate programs. I think the case I write about above is a terrible exception to what I think is generally an exceptionally good program that generally makes a good-faith effort to present different points of view in a substantive way. (As an aside, I also think the much newer Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN on Sunday mornings is also outstanding.)

But I nevertheless do think this case warrants attention as an egregious policy and practice in terms of a lack of basic decency as well as (probably) a lack of neutrality for a news program that is supposed to be neutral, not least because of taxpayer funding.

Perry needs a “total package” message

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 03:34:12 +0000

Here’s the message I think Rick Perry should deliver — Immediately, and at every opportunity, in one form or another. It would take around 3 minutes to deliver, but he should have shorter versions memorized (and I mean memorized with complete reliability — so no long pauses, let alone “oopses”) and well-practiced for effective delivery. Different venues/formats and occasions would fit different length versions — debates, interviews, speeches, YouTube, email/press releases/website, etc.

I should note that I’ve seen at least one excellent “total package” argument diary here on RS — at least one was more thorough than mine, although a shorter message is necessary for verbal communication — but I don’t recall who wrote it/them so I was unable to reference them and possibly refine the below.

So here it is, my stab at The Optimal Message from Rick Perry:

What do we need in a nominee and in a president?

[Use your fingers to tick them off to reinforce the perception that you can remember a list of points]

- Effective executive experience, particularly at creating jobs

- Consistent social conservatism

- Consistent economic and fiscal conservatism

- Strength on national security

- [and a] Track record of winning elections.

I have an effective record as governor. An executive – a governor or a president — needs different skills than a legislator like Senator Santorum or Congressman Paul or even Speaker Gingrich. An executive makes executive decisions. An executive chooses good people and manages them and ensures that government does what it should, does it efficiently, and doesn’t do what it shouldn’t do. The people of Texas have rewarded me for governing well by re-electing me twice, and as governor I’ve enabled the creation of jobs – 48% of all the jobs created in the nation in the last couple of years have been created in Texas [or whatever the figure is that Perry has been using*].

I have a strong record as an economic and fiscal conservative. [Fill in details of own record, and make points knocking Santorum (e.g., earmarks; advocacy of steel tariffs) and Gingrich (e.g., Freddie Mac).]

I am a long-time, consistent social conservative, not someone who claimed with conviction to hold liberal positions on social issues when it was politically convenient, then flipped when conservatism was politically convenient, as Mitt Romney has done with abortion, gun control, gays serving openly in the military, and other social issues. On these important issues of core values, life, and freedom, we can’t afford to elect someone who will take whatever position serves him politically at the moment. And we also need a nominee and a president has lived our values and sets a good example, and that, frankly, includes being faithful to one’s spouse as vowed before God.

You can count on me to ensure that America is strong and our national security safeguarded. We have one candidate, Ron Paul, with a completely naive view of the world. I know, as Ronald Reagan showed, that peace comes through strength. I was proud to serve in our military, and I’ll make sure our military is capable and as Commander in Chief I’ll make sure our enemies don’t underestimate our ability and our will to protect ourselves, our friends, and our national interests.

And our nominee should have a track record of winning elections. The last time Rick Santorum ran he lost his state by 18 points! And it was a tough year, but that was an exceptionally huge margin. Mitt Romney has a track record of mostly losing. I’ve won every single election. Sometimes I’ve started from behind, as I am now, but I’ve managed to win every time. And I know I stumbled a couple of times in debates when I first jumped in, but as you’ve seen since, I’m prepared now and ready to debate Obama and make it clear to the American people that I’ll lead the nation in a much better direction. And I assure you: I will beat Barack Obama.

With every other candidate, frankly, something we need is missing. I’m the only “total package”, if you will. I will deliver ALL of what we need in a nominee and a president, and I ask for your vote.

* Note: That % of the nation’s jobs created is an analytically unsound number, but probably very few people would realize or learn that it is invalid. I oppose misleading votes on an ethical basis, but I’m including that talking point above just to show what would be effective, and apparently he has no problem using that talking point, although it’s possible he’s not sufficiently analytically-inclined to get that it’s a bogus metric, since it includes states that lost net jobs (meaning if we applied that metric to all states that grew net jobs, it would sum to much more than 100%).

My Occupy Thanksgiving (Yes, Still Relevant)

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:41:17 +0000

[The following is obviously dated. I wrote it a month ago while waiting to get a diary. The sentiment is still current, though, and I hope you enjoy.]

The following is my report, “How I spent my Occupy Thanksgiving.”

Lacking a turkey myself, I crashed the Thanksgiving celebration of another family. I let myself in the home and took the liberty of taking a seat at the table and banging a spoon on the plate before me as loudly as possible, demanding I be served an equal portion of all the food that those greedy one-percenters intended to consume without me. (As a minor note, they had first worked to earn money, then used money to buy food ingredients, then spent hours preparing that food, then serving it in that house that I’m just guessing they had to do that “work” thingee to pay for so they could live in it but without inviting me to live in it too, not that they know me because they don’t, but the point is we all deserve access to everything…but I digress).

Some obviously fascist members of the family wanted to physically evict me from their home. But the more progressive thinkers of the family realized how right it is to share, and they seemed to win out over the Nazis, who in any case I think had started to question their evil ways after considering the compelling case I made via spoon clanking.

I was served a lot of very tasty food. To return the favor, I offered them enlightenment. I held a mirror up to them to help them understand the evil nature of their bourgeoisie ways. I loudly and passionately lectured them between gulps of my food (but while chewing, of course) on the need to change the system, or abandon all systems, or something (not sure if I can’t remember or if I just never really had an actual point) such that everyone can have everything without sacrificing anything (well, except for pre-enlightenment one percenters like them who would have to sacrifice a small bit that they don’t deserve and wouldn’t notice anyway).

A few times during the brief moments when I was swallowing, one of them would try to address something I had told them, but I knew it was just one percenter BS so I put my iPod earphones in (blasting CSNY) to avoid being manipulated by their manipulative manipulations. (At one point someone at the table asked to borrow my iPod to listen to some music. I told her not to be so materialistic.)

I think I ended up eating more than anyone, which I explained to them was actually more fair than my taking an equal portion, because Marx long ago established the principle for food portions: “To each, according to his capacity.” The Nazis looked puzzled and disapproving, but the progressives got it.

I then occupied the bathroom for about an hour, the duration being the system’s fault, because regulations should have prevented them from serving cheesecake to someone like me who is lactose-intolerant. I thought the best way to draw society’s attention to this problem was to defy the conventional receptacle, as well as the conventional hygiene.

I wish I could report that my Occupy Thanksgiving was a success, but unfortunately no one thanked me as I left. I guess some people are either just too evil or just to stupid to get it.