The Associated Press - not particularly Fair or Balanced

It doesn't take a sociologist to see what has been obvious for years:  THE ASSOCIATED PRESS is only as fair and balanced as the owners of the cooperative “news” organization, and for years it has been neither, especially in the political arena.

It's time we start to call them on it, and a headline I read regarding yesterday's Wisconsin Recall Election results against six sitting Republican state senators was the last straw!

Wisconsin GOP's stand could reverberate elsewhere, the headline blared from my list of AP news stories, a list I look through every day.

Before you click on the link, take a moment and think:  what IS the focus of the story?  

If I knew nothing about it and/or didn't really care and only saw the headline, I'd think, hmmm, sounds like the Republicans did well at something in Wisconsin.  But would that really be true?

One study last year reported that 44% of people reading headlines through their Google Newsreader only scan the headlines and don't click through to the underlying news.  

Time’s up.  Here it is again.  Click:   Wisconsin GOP's stand could reverberate elsewhere
(August 14 update:  The headline and body were changed sometime after my original post.  See bottom).

Now, because I knew what the story was about and knew that the headline didn't jibe with what I knew, I went on and read the story.  My blood began to boil.

As a former newspaper editor, I was taught that not only should the lead of the story, usually the first paragraph, be factual, it should also encourage readers to be drawn in and read more.  My anger intensified as I read the lead.

"A stand by Wisconsin Republicans against a massive effort to oust them from power could reverberate across the country as the battle over union rights and the conservative revolution heads toward the 2012 presidential race."

Wow.  Sounds like the Alamo.  Outnumbered and outgunned, the brave members of the GOP faced down those Democratic savages.

But the reality is this:  angry VOTERS, not all Democrats, had had enough of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s anti-union AND anti-democratic behavior.  It wasn’t just the fact that the Republican majority in the statehouse voted to strip bargaining rights for state employee union members but also it was how it was done. 

In action receiving national attention, Wisconsinites not only protested, they made a decision to initiate a number of recall elections against a number of sitting Republican state senators who supported the governor’s agenda.  The just-elected governor had not campaigned on the issue. In retaliation, voters in three other districts fought back and signed on to recall Democratic state senators, ostensibly for leaving the state with the rest of the state’s 14 Democratic senators rather than vote to dismantle union bargaining rights.  One Democrat has already retained his seat and the other two face an election next week.  In all, efforts to collect recall petition signatures succeeded against 6 of 8 Republicans, and against 3 of 8 Democrats.

It is a much longer story and includes Republicans fielding faux-Democratic candidates to run in primary elections to force Democrats to spend money and buy time to delay the actual recall election.  Estimates are that between $30 and $40 million was spent by both sides, thanks to the unlimited spending granted by the US Supreme Court in its Citizens United ruling.  That’s 10 times what was spent in 2010 on the entire slate of Wisconsin state elections and is a precursor to 2012.

And those are just some of the highlights – now back to the Associated Press.

For those of you who aren't aware, the AP is an American news agency.  It is a cooperative owned by its contributing newspapers, such as the Denver Post, and radio and television stations in the United States.  Those businesses contribute to shared content which also supplements those of staff AP "journalists."  The organization claims 3,700 editorial, communications and administrative employees worldwide and says 2/3rds of those are "newsgatherers."

Funny.  When I read the term "newsgatherer" on the AP web site, I had a vision of squirrels darting about, picking up nuts, stashing them, and then telling other squirrels they are farmers and the stash is a grocery store.

The AP goes to considerable length on their web site to explain its' Statement of News Values and Principles.  And it includes in those principles that "we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions."

Well.  The AP may abhor bias and distortion, but it continues to practice both in very subtle ways - particularly in political news, where the issue is especially true in headline writing.  I do not know the contractual obligation between the AP and its newspaper-members, but given that I usually see the same headline in many newspapers, the papers may be obligated to run the same headline, I don't know.

The Wisconsin election story is just totally lacking in integrity.

“Democrats and union leaders tried to make the best of the historic GOP wins,” the article says, painting the Dems as losers after winning in heavily Republican areas.  The fact is that since 1913, there had been only 13 successful recalls of state level office holders nationwide.  So the Dems lost?  The fact that the GOP members retained their seats isn’t as much the news as the two Dems who moved the 13 to 15 in almost a century and bring the balance of power in the state senate to a single Republican senator margin (18-17).

The AP author pitted “union rights” against the “conservative revolution.”

Really?  There is a conservative revolution?  I don’t think so.  It pitted working people against big money and yes, it’s class warfare.  But correlating this to the “conservative revolution” is seemingly wishful thinking on the part of the author.

“Should two Democrats manage to win their own recall elections next week,” he writes.  Boy, I hope they can hang on, should they manage to.

"Still, it was far less than what Democrats set out to achieve.  And while they still plan to move ahead with recalling Walker, maintaining momentum for that effort, which can't start until November, will be difficult," he writes.

Really?  And who made you a pundit?  It's just bad, subtly biased journalism.

This isn't an indictment of all reporters, just a small set of examples from a single news story that is part of an AP pattern I observed starting years ago.  I have college friends that today are reporters, quality reporters, who have integrity and display quality writing.  But they are the exception these days, not the rule.  And none work for the AP.

When reflecting, consider this question:  "Who owns the media?"  Then ask yourself:  "Who benefits from the exponential political expenditures thanks to the Citizens United ruling?"  You might just decide they're one in the same.

***August 14 -- I notice that the headline was changed sometime after my original post, to a less GOP-centric one, but the lead and other portions of the story were worse, the new lead starting, "Wisconsin Democrats brushed aside their failure to seize control of the state Senate through recall elections...."   Any way it's sliced or re-sliced, it's still baloney.

Can Progressives save the Democratic Party from Itself?

An Op-Ed piece in the August 6 New York Times, What Happened to Obama? lays out the challenge facing my Democratic Party.   Author Drew Western discusses the lack of narrative which ultimately leads him down a path that I can't disagree with.  "Like most Americans," he says, "at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue."

I forwarded the important article to a number of associates not afraid to call themselves Progressive Democrats and suggested it may be up to us to help rescue the party from itself.  What can we, as Progressives and the core of the belief system of the Democratic Party, do to help the party regain a focus, re-discover a sense of being, and couple it with a sense of urgency?

As the article began to get passed around, strong and blinder-eye'd Obama supporters began to chime in and, as frequently happens, take a defensive posture.  The "you're either with us or against us" approach reared up -- a common thread among many members of the DNC and leadership within the party.

I say this:  "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

The Obama camp seems incapable of separating criticism from opposition or disappointment.  They seem to be unable to appreciate a point in the NYT column discussing confusion over what the center wants and questioning what we, as Democrats, really believe in or stand for.

One avid supporter shot back how she worked hard to get the President elected (as if others of us didn't).  She cited a list of accomplishments by the President, which took up the bulk of her reply, but failed to mention that the list,  100 Accomplishments of President Barack Obama, had been posted on Facebook more than a year earlier.   An original list would've been more meaningful than a cut-and-paste job.  Also less than helpful was being told that "citizens that watch carefully will notice that President Obama has amassed an amazing list of accomplishments."   Yes, the list is amazing, but not all for the right reasons.  I do watch carefully, and I won't be talked down to.

At the heart is a disconnect that still surrounds the Presidents camp, namely the campaign arm for 2008, Obama for America, which was allowed to morph into a DNC-supported "Organizing for America" post election and has now morphed back into Obama for America.  If you were a Democrat involved in Colorado politics pre-OFA, it was clear to you how the campaign strategy SHUT OUT the base of the Democratic Party.  

We saw it when livid county chairs would talk on conference calls about how frustrated they were with OFA who refused to engage outside of the Presidential campaign.  It later became clear to me, and many others, (and was pointed out in Ari Bermans' fine book, "Herding Donkeys,") how post-election OFA wanted to create a legion who would  blindly support whatever the President did.  We saw its destructive behavior in our own 2010 US Senate race, which left the State House in ruins and cost many good elected Democrats their positions.   And we all knew, we KNEW, when Rahm Emanuel was made Chief of Staff that brides walking down the aisle were having second thoughts before the marriage was consummated.   Through Emanuel, OFA turned into a top-down directive-driven organization and people who thought they were making a difference were finding out that they weren't.

Missing from the Obama proponents' argument was a simple truth:  Empathy.  “I understand how you might feel; what can we do to better earn your support?”

The DNC still doesn’t get  how the Tim Kaine email I frequently cited last year stating “we decided to change the Democratic Party,” said more about the President and the people of the party leadership than any other single signal sent to the rank and file:  We know more than you.  We are the leaders and your job is to follow.  We don’t have to listen.

Anyone who listened to the Obama press conference the Friday before the debt deal would find little relief when hearing the President say “we need to ignore the activists” on both sides.  I wanted to vomit.  Did he really say that? (Yes)

Anyone can just glance at the list of 100 and see disappointments:

Iraq.  Responsibly end the war?  That’s a matter of opinion.  We’re still there.

Making Home Affordable.  Personal Experience.  Ill-conceived and poorly implemented.

Ordered closure of Guantanamo.  Yes, that’s worked well.

Changed failing Afghanistan strategy.  Yes.  For another failing Afghanistan strategy.

Signed the CARD Act.  Yes, which gave credit card companies plenty of lead time and an excuse to raise and sustain usury interest rates.  Michael Bennet told me he agreed with me that the legislation didn’t do what it was intended to.  (See CDP Platform on Interest Rates).

Shall we add:  Illegally went into Libya?

Shall we add:  Cowered to the GOP and never really took true interest in appointing Elizabeth Warren the head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?  It took a YEAR to appoint anyone. 

Shall we add:  Stayed surprisingly silent while Wisconsin workers were thrown to the wolves?  (And now some labor unions have said they will withhold money from the DCCC and DNC)?

I know, those three items are small potatoes.  War, protecting consumers and supporting workers?  Meaningless.  (Yes, my tongue is in my cheek). 

And then there is that ridiculous “birther” stuff that inappropriately captured the attention of a large percentage of the Right.  It begs a different question:  Remember when they finally released the official “official, long form” birth certificate?  While I never doubted his US birth, it made me wonder:  why didn’t they put that out in the first place instead of letting the issue fester?  I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking the administration seemed foolish, indecisive, and indifferent.   On something as simple as where the President was born, it took more than a year (or two?) to put a nail into it.  Why?

Do I want Obama to succeed?  HELL YES!

But he has to act like a Democrat first, and that’s something he’s been missing.  If he doesn’t figure it out soon, we might just have to say goodbye to the middle class.  A primary challenger might get his attention as little else seems to have.

The clock is winding down.

The Progressives are sitting on the bench and they need to get into the game.  If the coach won’t ask us to play, than we need to bring it on ourselves. 

Doug Lamborn: A subliminal message comes home to CD-5

Newspaper ad from Singer’s Corner Drug 

Store in Canon City, circa 1920s. Owner 

Claud Singer (1888-1981) was listed as 

pro-Klan in a biographical sketch.  

(From Canon City Public Library)

As a native of Kansas, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Doug Lamborn is out of touch with Colorado History. He hasn’t represented his CD-5 constituency well and this is just another episode of him being off the beaten path.

In speaking about the debt ceiling depate, and saying that being associated with President Obama was like being stuck to a "tar baby," Lamborn shows how little -- or how much --he actually knows.   The brain is funny that way.

As has been typical of conservatives to unnecessarily inject racial terms into the political discussion, as usual, Lamborn pretends to honestly believe he didn't realize what he said may have been interpreted in any way as a racial slur.  But let's see how that stacks up against history.

As a native of Colorado and one who used to think it was a big deal to go to dinner with my high school journalism teacher for steaks at the Belvedere in Cañon City (I'm familiar with the area, in other words),  I want to share with you a couple of important links that the Congressman SHOULD be aware of, but obviously isn't.   It’s a brief educational piece from the Cañon City Public Library – and, coincidentally from the heart of Lamborn’s 5th Congressional District.

Written by a University of Colorado Graduate Student many years ago, the essay, linked here, is titled The Protestant Kluxing of Cañon City, Colorado

As will come as a surprise to many, that, during the 1920s, “Colorado had the largest and most influential Knights of the Ku Klux Klan following of any other state west of the Mississippi River,” the essay discusses, “and in the 1924 elections, the Klan gained control not only of state government with the election of Governor Morley, but also of many local governments.”

“Fremont County was one of those local governments with a dominating Klan presence, having a particularly large following of Klansmen and Klanswomen in Cañon City and Florence. These two local Klaverns claimed that they organized to improve the schools, end the liquor problem, stop crime, and promote the state and national Klan agenda.”

Especially prior to the 2008 election, while working in Park County at different public events in support of then candidate Obama, it was clear from conversations I had with several older residents that racism is something that hasn’t just magically disappeared. It was disappointing.

Another link here adds a little additional flavor to the history:
Local History Center of the Cañon City Public Library

Having listened to Lamborns comments on this site: Lamborn Radio Clip, I’m going to be slightly contrarian, but only slightly. Having occasionally said things I wish I could take back, I know what it’s like to “hear” something I say after the words are already out of my mouth. And to me, I detect a brief pause, where Lamborn seems to have heard what he said and thought, “ah oh. I don’t think I should’ve said that on the radio.”

Unfortunately for the Congressman, it was too late. And that same pause shows to me that he also KNEW it was something he should’ve have said, but it naturally rolled off his tongue.

He’s essentially the same age as I am, and it’s not a term I even remembered until this came up.

So while I find myself on the one hand listening and wanting to “defend” that it sounded to me like it wasn’t his intent to be overtly racist, he was clearly familiar enough with the term know he shouldn’t have used it and it suggests it is more deeply rooted than he would perhaps like to believe himself.