"Send it to us for fact checking" is a ploy by subjects to get prior approval of a news story before publication.
Ignoring a reporter does not stop the story from going to press.
Responsible journalists do not submit material in advance of publication for "fact checking" by the subject. Too often, subjects ask for a review under the guise of "fact checking," but what they really want is prior approval and the opportunity to reslant the story to be favorable to them.
Some university officials protested that a CNN reporter didn't check her data about athletes who could not read college textbooks, and accused the reporter of not using good data. Reporter's response: She tried repeatedly to get comments from university officials, but none came.
The story ran anyway, despite the school's attempt to ignore it, in the hope that refusing to comment meant the story would not appear.
Similarly, Roger Ailes, the head of Fox Broadcasting, accused a biographer of not submitting his manuscript in advance for "fact checking." The exec had ignored repeated requests for interviews, so the biographer did his own research and hired his own independent "fact checkers."
The book was indeed published, and included parts that were not flattering to the subject.
Moral: To paraphrase the immortal words of Barry Fitzgerald in the movie The Quiet Man, "They had their chance, and they muffed it."
Friday, January 17, 2014
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Wolf Pack Journalism
City vacationer to farmer: "This mule won't move when I tell him to."
Farmer picks up a large stick, raps the mule hard on the head, and says "Giddyup."
At that, the mule starts to move as the farmer reminds the vacationer:
"You wanna tell him something, you gotta get his attention first."
Far too often, public figures in America go on their merry way, doing whatever they choose to do, and there are few consequences.
Until.
Until they do something that's so juicy, so egregious, and/or so easy to write about or comment on that many in the media pile on, just as wolves in a pack focus on the one creature in the herd that shows a weakness.
Reporters may win prizes for what's called "enterprise journalism," but the reality is that many if not most reporters are lazy, and follow the herd until they see a weakness.
Part of that is practicality. Readers accept what they already believe. People act on what they believe, regardless of fact or reality. They accept as true that which they already believe.
Or, as the fictional Chester A. Reilly said in the early radio comedy, "My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts."
So it is with American political figures and others in the public eye. The kind of political back-stabbing evidenced in the New Jersey bridge shutdown just happened to be more egregious than most Garden State political dirty tricks. And it wasn't until a determined reporter for a local newspaper broke the story that other media picked it up, finding other politicians who were willing to be quoted in the attack pack, and the story got legs, so to speak. It now has been dominating the national news for weeks, even though the bridge access lane shutdown happened last September.
Why didn't the news media catch the story earlier? One could say it wasn't ripe. One could say reporters were focusing on bigger stories. After all, there's only room on Page One for seven to nine stories on any one day, and reporters strive for Page One stories. One could cite many possible reasons why the story didn't break until months later. But the story did, eventually, break, and it only took one reporter to start what became a media frenzy.
Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post worked on the Watergate story for months before it was finally picked up by Walter Cronkite for the CBS Evening News. It was then that the journalistic wolves saw the weakness and closed in, abetted by opportunistic politicians, and President Richard M. Nixon fell from office.
The Watergate break-in was a relatively minor operation perpetrated by what was called the Department of Dirty Tricks in the re-election campaign. It, too, was unnecessary, since there was little doubt of Nixon's return to office.
Moreover, political dirty tricks are not limited to one party or one level of government. National escapades get more ink and air time, and state level shenanigans rise to that level of exposure only if the central figure -- a governor, for example -- has national aspirations.
Morality, like the parrot's plumage made famous by Monty Python, don't enter into it.
Farmer picks up a large stick, raps the mule hard on the head, and says "Giddyup."
At that, the mule starts to move as the farmer reminds the vacationer:
"You wanna tell him something, you gotta get his attention first."
Far too often, public figures in America go on their merry way, doing whatever they choose to do, and there are few consequences.
Until.
Until they do something that's so juicy, so egregious, and/or so easy to write about or comment on that many in the media pile on, just as wolves in a pack focus on the one creature in the herd that shows a weakness.
Reporters may win prizes for what's called "enterprise journalism," but the reality is that many if not most reporters are lazy, and follow the herd until they see a weakness.
Part of that is practicality. Readers accept what they already believe. People act on what they believe, regardless of fact or reality. They accept as true that which they already believe.
Or, as the fictional Chester A. Reilly said in the early radio comedy, "My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts."
So it is with American political figures and others in the public eye. The kind of political back-stabbing evidenced in the New Jersey bridge shutdown just happened to be more egregious than most Garden State political dirty tricks. And it wasn't until a determined reporter for a local newspaper broke the story that other media picked it up, finding other politicians who were willing to be quoted in the attack pack, and the story got legs, so to speak. It now has been dominating the national news for weeks, even though the bridge access lane shutdown happened last September.
Why didn't the news media catch the story earlier? One could say it wasn't ripe. One could say reporters were focusing on bigger stories. After all, there's only room on Page One for seven to nine stories on any one day, and reporters strive for Page One stories. One could cite many possible reasons why the story didn't break until months later. But the story did, eventually, break, and it only took one reporter to start what became a media frenzy.
Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post worked on the Watergate story for months before it was finally picked up by Walter Cronkite for the CBS Evening News. It was then that the journalistic wolves saw the weakness and closed in, abetted by opportunistic politicians, and President Richard M. Nixon fell from office.
The Watergate break-in was a relatively minor operation perpetrated by what was called the Department of Dirty Tricks in the re-election campaign. It, too, was unnecessary, since there was little doubt of Nixon's return to office.
Moreover, political dirty tricks are not limited to one party or one level of government. National escapades get more ink and air time, and state level shenanigans rise to that level of exposure only if the central figure -- a governor, for example -- has national aspirations.
Morality, like the parrot's plumage made famous by Monty Python, don't enter into it.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Famous Last Words
"I am not a bully," -- Chris Christie
"I am not a crook." -- Richard M. Nixon
"The buck stops here." -- Harry S. Truman
In his defense of his administration's behavior in closing access lanes for four days from the New Jersey city of Fort Lee to the George Washington Bridge over the Hudson River, NJ Gov. Chris Christie said, "Mistakes were made."
This is not the same as saying, "We made mistakes." Using the passive form implies that somehow, somewhere, mistakes took on a life of their own and overwhelmed a few otherwise well-meaning individuals. Moreover, these independent, malicious "mistake" entities screwed up the work of these innocent, devoted public servants.
Hah!
As for not being a bully, CNN went into its video archive and broadcast numerous examples of Gov. Christie -- in public -- insulting, berating, abusing and otherwise yelling at people who dared to disagree with him or criticizing news reporters who had the temerity to ask a question he didn't want to deal with.
Granted, there are times when being forceful is appropriate and necessary, such as leaning on government agencies to come through with help in cleaning up storm damage, as Christie did when Hurricane Sandy devastated the Jersey Shore. But publicly berating people while cameras are running will come back to bite.
As for the Christie aides who shut down access to the bridge from Fort Lee to Manhattan, there is clear evidence that this was done as punishment for the mayor, a Democrat, who declined to endorse Christie, a Republican, during the re-election campaign.
And this is doubly sad because it was not necessary, since anyone with the smallest knowledge of New Jersey politics knew that Christie would win re-election in a walk. But it's part of a pattern of bullying tactics that the Christie team has used to punish any who refused to get with the program and be part of the team.
"I am not a crook." -- Richard M. Nixon
"The buck stops here." -- Harry S. Truman
In his defense of his administration's behavior in closing access lanes for four days from the New Jersey city of Fort Lee to the George Washington Bridge over the Hudson River, NJ Gov. Chris Christie said, "Mistakes were made."
This is not the same as saying, "We made mistakes." Using the passive form implies that somehow, somewhere, mistakes took on a life of their own and overwhelmed a few otherwise well-meaning individuals. Moreover, these independent, malicious "mistake" entities screwed up the work of these innocent, devoted public servants.
Hah!
As for not being a bully, CNN went into its video archive and broadcast numerous examples of Gov. Christie -- in public -- insulting, berating, abusing and otherwise yelling at people who dared to disagree with him or criticizing news reporters who had the temerity to ask a question he didn't want to deal with.
Granted, there are times when being forceful is appropriate and necessary, such as leaning on government agencies to come through with help in cleaning up storm damage, as Christie did when Hurricane Sandy devastated the Jersey Shore. But publicly berating people while cameras are running will come back to bite.
As for the Christie aides who shut down access to the bridge from Fort Lee to Manhattan, there is clear evidence that this was done as punishment for the mayor, a Democrat, who declined to endorse Christie, a Republican, during the re-election campaign.
And this is doubly sad because it was not necessary, since anyone with the smallest knowledge of New Jersey politics knew that Christie would win re-election in a walk. But it's part of a pattern of bullying tactics that the Christie team has used to punish any who refused to get with the program and be part of the team.
Verbosity
A reporter's job is to tell a story, not to win a court case.
When in doubt, rephrase.
Writing manuals all tout the advantage of active verbs over the passive, and stress the advantages of brevity. Here's an example that took verbosity to an extreme:
Township officials "have authorized entering into agreement of sale for the purchase" of approximately 62.8 acres. That's ten words to say what three would have done better: "plan to buy." And if you insist on getting into lawyerly CYA phrasing, just in case the agreement doesn't happen, you can put that into another sentence or paragraph.
On the issue of lawyer-talk, surveyors may cover their legal butts by saying "approximately" but for the rest of us, 62.8 is a fairly exact number. For news writers, it's enough to say "nearly 63 acres" or "more than 62 acres."
In all, the errant phrase was part of a 32-word suitcase sentence that packed everything into a single opening. A better way to communicate would be to use two short sentences.
News writers are not always bound by legalistic precision. Sometimes, approximations make for faster and better communication.
When in doubt, rephrase.
Writing manuals all tout the advantage of active verbs over the passive, and stress the advantages of brevity. Here's an example that took verbosity to an extreme:
Township officials "have authorized entering into agreement of sale for the purchase" of approximately 62.8 acres. That's ten words to say what three would have done better: "plan to buy." And if you insist on getting into lawyerly CYA phrasing, just in case the agreement doesn't happen, you can put that into another sentence or paragraph.
On the issue of lawyer-talk, surveyors may cover their legal butts by saying "approximately" but for the rest of us, 62.8 is a fairly exact number. For news writers, it's enough to say "nearly 63 acres" or "more than 62 acres."
In all, the errant phrase was part of a 32-word suitcase sentence that packed everything into a single opening. A better way to communicate would be to use two short sentences.
News writers are not always bound by legalistic precision. Sometimes, approximations make for faster and better communication.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Jobs Mismatch
"I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door." -- Emma Lazarus poem, inscribed on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, welcoming newcomers to the land of opportunity.
"Go West, young man, and grow up with the country." -- Horace Greeley, urging Easterners to seek opportunity on the American frontier.
One of the biggest problems facing America is a lack of jobs. In Europe, there are thousands of high-tech jobs unfilled because of a lack of skills. In Washington, the White House is increasing its campaign to urge Congress to extend unemployment benefits, warning that nearly 5 million workers will lose that help, together with another 9 million family members they support. Moreover, if Congress fails to act, "it could cost our economy 240,000 jobs this year," the White House posted on its Twitter feed.
Among the angry responses: "Maybe when some of them lose unemployment insurance they will quit sitting at home and GET A JOB!"
Another: "Come to Texas. Plenty of high paying jobs here."
As indicated above, however, there are also plenty of high paying technology jobs going unfilled in Europe. All this illustrates a basic problem in labor economics: The mismatch of workers and jobs, and this can happen for several reasons.
1/ Too many workers and not enough jobs, as in a recession.
2/ Too many jobs and not enough workers, as in boom times.
3/ A geographical mismatch, when available jobs are far away, and workers may not be willing to relocate.
4/ A skills mismatch, when people seek work, but don't have the skills needed. Or conversely, jobs are available but workers are overqualified for low-skill jobs and employers are reluctant to hire such workers.
A major reason people came to America has long been the availability of jobs, skilled or unskilled. Today, however, college graduates take jobs in fast-food restaurant outlets because there is little demand for their skills. Engineers are needed in new oil field operations in the Far West, and offer high pay as an incentive to persuade workers to relocate.
But if high-tech computer programmers are in demand in Europe, perhaps the migration flow will reverse itself, and young workers will go eastward, and grow up with new industries.
Even so, that won't satisfy those who worry about an "immigration problem," since many newcomers take the low-skill, low-pay jobs that well educated Americans don't want and won't take. And if highly skilled Americans go where the jobs are, in other countries, that will only worsen an already fragile economy as the population becomes largely one of low skilled, poorly educated workers struggling for low pay jobs.
It has already happened to major cities in America's industrial heartland as skilled workers moved to the suburbs and companies followed them. And as manufacturing and technology industries grow in other countries, perhaps skilled American workers will go where the jobs are.
For many decades, people came to America because this is where the jobs have been. If the jobs are no longer here, people will go elsewhere.
"Go West, young man, and grow up with the country." -- Horace Greeley, urging Easterners to seek opportunity on the American frontier.
One of the biggest problems facing America is a lack of jobs. In Europe, there are thousands of high-tech jobs unfilled because of a lack of skills. In Washington, the White House is increasing its campaign to urge Congress to extend unemployment benefits, warning that nearly 5 million workers will lose that help, together with another 9 million family members they support. Moreover, if Congress fails to act, "it could cost our economy 240,000 jobs this year," the White House posted on its Twitter feed.
Among the angry responses: "Maybe when some of them lose unemployment insurance they will quit sitting at home and GET A JOB!"
Another: "Come to Texas. Plenty of high paying jobs here."
As indicated above, however, there are also plenty of high paying technology jobs going unfilled in Europe. All this illustrates a basic problem in labor economics: The mismatch of workers and jobs, and this can happen for several reasons.
1/ Too many workers and not enough jobs, as in a recession.
2/ Too many jobs and not enough workers, as in boom times.
3/ A geographical mismatch, when available jobs are far away, and workers may not be willing to relocate.
4/ A skills mismatch, when people seek work, but don't have the skills needed. Or conversely, jobs are available but workers are overqualified for low-skill jobs and employers are reluctant to hire such workers.
A major reason people came to America has long been the availability of jobs, skilled or unskilled. Today, however, college graduates take jobs in fast-food restaurant outlets because there is little demand for their skills. Engineers are needed in new oil field operations in the Far West, and offer high pay as an incentive to persuade workers to relocate.
But if high-tech computer programmers are in demand in Europe, perhaps the migration flow will reverse itself, and young workers will go eastward, and grow up with new industries.
Even so, that won't satisfy those who worry about an "immigration problem," since many newcomers take the low-skill, low-pay jobs that well educated Americans don't want and won't take. And if highly skilled Americans go where the jobs are, in other countries, that will only worsen an already fragile economy as the population becomes largely one of low skilled, poorly educated workers struggling for low pay jobs.
It has already happened to major cities in America's industrial heartland as skilled workers moved to the suburbs and companies followed them. And as manufacturing and technology industries grow in other countries, perhaps skilled American workers will go where the jobs are.
For many decades, people came to America because this is where the jobs have been. If the jobs are no longer here, people will go elsewhere.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
5 W's of Economic Policy
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." -- Mark Twain
"Failure is not an option." -- Gene Kranz , Mission Control flight director for Apollo 13
The difference between weather talk and economic talk is that something can be done about the economy. The real issue is not whether something can be done, but how, when and by whom.
In journalism, the 5 W's are Who, What, Where, When, and Why, plus How. This same formula can be applied to economics, and how to help an economy recover from a downturn.
To start with, the What and the Where are clear: The What is the economy and the Where is the nation. The others then become Who should intervene, When, Why (or Whether) and How.
Adherents to conservative, free-market economic theory insist that the main point is Whether, or Why, and their answer is No. This theory maintains that, left alone, an economy will recover on its own, so there is no reason why government should interfere with free-market forces. This makes the entire discussion moot. No one should intervene, since the economy eventually will recover and bring itself back to health.
But the question of When remains. How long can a nation and its people wait for free-market forces to act?
Reality check: We can't wait. Something must be done, and soon. And that answers the question of When. So that takes care of three of the 5 W's -- What, Where and When. That is, the economy, in the nation, now.
Let's deal with Why and Whether, because they are closely related, and both get a similar answer. Some intervention is essential, especially for an economy in severely ill health. Doing nothing is not an option. Failure to act only leads to a further, faster downward spiral, and more people suffer needlessly. We are left, then, with only the Who and the How.
Clearly, consumers and the business sector are victims in an economic downturn, so that leaves government as an entity that can influence economic conditions.
However, this introduces another W: Which branch of government, and How it will induce economic recovery.
There are two ways government can do this: through fiscal policy and through monetary policy. In the U.S., each is controlled by a separate entity in government. Fiscal policy is set by Congress and the Executive branches of government, and equates with how money is spent. Monetary policy influences how much money is available to be spent, and that is set by the Federal Reserve, an independent entity in government. Control of the money supply, which is one of the Fed's main activities, affects inflation and interest rates.
When money is plentiful, government can borrow at low interest rates, and invest that money in projects that put people to work, so they have wages to spend on food, clothing, shelter and other stuff, and as they increase their spending, production rises and the economy recovers.
Similarly, businesses also can borrow at low rates to invest in expansion or increased capacity so they will have a supply of goods to meet demand from consumers who have returned to work and increased their spending.
The kicker, however, is inflation. When the money supply is too high, prices rise and people cannot afford to buy. When it's too low, interest rates rise, and home buyers and firms cannot afford to borrow for purchases.
Some inflation may be helpful, since it persuades people to act soon before prices and interest rates rise further.
All in all, however, monetary policy -- controlling the money supply and thus controlling inflation and interest rates -- is a very tricky business. It can't be too much or too little; it must be just right.
Either way, failure to act is not an option.
"Failure is not an option." -- Gene Kranz , Mission Control flight director for Apollo 13
The difference between weather talk and economic talk is that something can be done about the economy. The real issue is not whether something can be done, but how, when and by whom.
In journalism, the 5 W's are Who, What, Where, When, and Why, plus How. This same formula can be applied to economics, and how to help an economy recover from a downturn.
To start with, the What and the Where are clear: The What is the economy and the Where is the nation. The others then become Who should intervene, When, Why (or Whether) and How.
Adherents to conservative, free-market economic theory insist that the main point is Whether, or Why, and their answer is No. This theory maintains that, left alone, an economy will recover on its own, so there is no reason why government should interfere with free-market forces. This makes the entire discussion moot. No one should intervene, since the economy eventually will recover and bring itself back to health.
But the question of When remains. How long can a nation and its people wait for free-market forces to act?
Reality check: We can't wait. Something must be done, and soon. And that answers the question of When. So that takes care of three of the 5 W's -- What, Where and When. That is, the economy, in the nation, now.
Let's deal with Why and Whether, because they are closely related, and both get a similar answer. Some intervention is essential, especially for an economy in severely ill health. Doing nothing is not an option. Failure to act only leads to a further, faster downward spiral, and more people suffer needlessly. We are left, then, with only the Who and the How.
Clearly, consumers and the business sector are victims in an economic downturn, so that leaves government as an entity that can influence economic conditions.
However, this introduces another W: Which branch of government, and How it will induce economic recovery.
There are two ways government can do this: through fiscal policy and through monetary policy. In the U.S., each is controlled by a separate entity in government. Fiscal policy is set by Congress and the Executive branches of government, and equates with how money is spent. Monetary policy influences how much money is available to be spent, and that is set by the Federal Reserve, an independent entity in government. Control of the money supply, which is one of the Fed's main activities, affects inflation and interest rates.
When money is plentiful, government can borrow at low interest rates, and invest that money in projects that put people to work, so they have wages to spend on food, clothing, shelter and other stuff, and as they increase their spending, production rises and the economy recovers.
Similarly, businesses also can borrow at low rates to invest in expansion or increased capacity so they will have a supply of goods to meet demand from consumers who have returned to work and increased their spending.
The kicker, however, is inflation. When the money supply is too high, prices rise and people cannot afford to buy. When it's too low, interest rates rise, and home buyers and firms cannot afford to borrow for purchases.
Some inflation may be helpful, since it persuades people to act soon before prices and interest rates rise further.
All in all, however, monetary policy -- controlling the money supply and thus controlling inflation and interest rates -- is a very tricky business. It can't be too much or too little; it must be just right.
Either way, failure to act is not an option.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Population Growth
The U.S. population is stabilizing even as the rest of the world is adding people faster, according to U.S. Census estimates.
The nation's population grew by less than 1 percent last year -- about 0.7 percent, the bureau said -- while the rest of the world grew faster -- about 1.1 percent.
And here's a thought to ponder: In January, babies will be born at a faster rate than older folks pass on. One birth is expected every 8 seconds, the bureau said, and one death every 12 seconds. That compares with a worldwide rate of 4.3 births every second and 1.8 deaths, according to Census estimates.
So as America starts the New Year, its population will total 317.3 million, an increase of 2.2 million from a year ago -- or 0.7 percent. And the projected world population is 7.14 billion, an increase of 77.6 million, or 1.1 percent. India leads in the growth spurt, adding 15.6 million people over the year, followed by China, Nigeria, Pakistan and Ethiopia.
In U.S. regions, the South has double the number of people than the Northeast, reflecting a pattern of faster growth. There are nearly 120 million people living in Southern states, the Census Bureau said, compared to 74 million in the West, 68 million in the Midwest and 56 million in the Northeast.
Political watchers take note.
The most populous states, the Census said, are California (38.3 million), Texas (26.5 million), New York (19.7 million), and Florida (19.6 million). Wyoming ranked last in population, with just 582,658 people.
The nation's population grew by less than 1 percent last year -- about 0.7 percent, the bureau said -- while the rest of the world grew faster -- about 1.1 percent.
And here's a thought to ponder: In January, babies will be born at a faster rate than older folks pass on. One birth is expected every 8 seconds, the bureau said, and one death every 12 seconds. That compares with a worldwide rate of 4.3 births every second and 1.8 deaths, according to Census estimates.
So as America starts the New Year, its population will total 317.3 million, an increase of 2.2 million from a year ago -- or 0.7 percent. And the projected world population is 7.14 billion, an increase of 77.6 million, or 1.1 percent. India leads in the growth spurt, adding 15.6 million people over the year, followed by China, Nigeria, Pakistan and Ethiopia.
In U.S. regions, the South has double the number of people than the Northeast, reflecting a pattern of faster growth. There are nearly 120 million people living in Southern states, the Census Bureau said, compared to 74 million in the West, 68 million in the Midwest and 56 million in the Northeast.
Political watchers take note.
The most populous states, the Census said, are California (38.3 million), Texas (26.5 million), New York (19.7 million), and Florida (19.6 million). Wyoming ranked last in population, with just 582,658 people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)