M. Charles Bakst To Take the Buyout

... effective September 12, Turn to Ten reports. [H/T Ian Donnis at Not For Nothing.]

The longtime political columnist for The Providence Journal is retiring.

M. Charles Bakst is taking a buyout that was recently offered to a number of Journal employees.

For the past 40 years, Bakst has written weekly and Sunday columns for the newspaper. He also served as State House bureau chief.

Facts: What Progressive Activists Say They Are, or Something More?

In Saturday's Projo, Bill Moyers attempted to take the Projo's David Mittell to task for not getting his facts correct in a recent set of columns by Mittell about Moyers (I promise, after the block quote, there will be no more references in this post to the timeline of how and when Bill Moyers became "Bill" instead of "Billy Don", an issue raised by Mittell in his original column)...

A course in Journalism 101 might have prepared [Mittell] to check his facts before making his judgments…

I do indeed have many critics among Mr. Mittell’s right-wing friends, but, as he does here, they are always getting their facts wrong. I became “Bill” not in 1954 but four years earlier, when on my 16th birthday I went to work as a cub reporter for my hometown newspaper, whose managing editor decided that “Billy Don” didn’t fit neatly into the space for a by-line....That little bit of snide sleight-of-hand by Mr. Mittell should be a warning flag to your readers to take his other assertions about me with a slight dose of skepticism.

But if you think that a writer accusing another of playing fast-and-loose with the facts is concerned with presenting accurate facts to the public in his own writing, at least in this case, you'd be wrong -- as wrong as Paul Bovenzi of Rhode Island's Future in his celebration of Moyers...

Reading Moyers gives you a glimmer into what is real journalism. It's a small difference, but something vital - Moyers only goes with facts, not assertions.

Moving to an issue of greater general interest later on in his op-ed, Bill Moyers objects to David Mittell's assertion that public broadcasting is "taxpayer supported" and he presents a "fact" to back it up…

Speaking of PBS: Mr. Mittell refers to the fact that I work for “taxpayer-supported public broadcasting.” I would like to point out that PBS is indeed supported by “viewers like you” but that only around 17 percent of the system’s total budget comes via congressional appropriations.

But Congress is not the only government body in the United States that authorizes taxes (a fact I'm sure I don't need to remind most Anchor Rising readers of). State and local governments also collect taxes and, like Congress, they also use a portion of their take to fund public broadcasting. According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's 2005 financial report, the CPB received 19% of its funding from the Federal government AND another 24.6% from state and local taxes. To quote the character of John Winger from Stripes, "That's a fact, Jack", but in Moyers' opinion, one-quarter of the CPB budget drawn from taxpayer sources is somehow not relevant to a discussion of taxpayer support.

Tell me, exactly what journalistic purpose was served by Moyers presentation of incomplete data and his not informing the reader that Public Broadcasting, by its own accounting, receives over 40% of its funding from taxpayers? To paraphrase none other than Bill Moyers: this kind of rhetorical sleight-of-hand by should be a warning flag to readers to take Mr. Moyers' other assertions -- and his presentations of what he claims are facts -- with a heavy does of skepticism.

Facts: What Progressive Activists Say They Are, or Something More?

In Saturday's Projo, Bill Moyers attempted to take the Projo's David Mittell to task for not getting his facts correct in a recent set of columns by Mittell about Moyers (I promise, after the block quote, there will be no more references in this post to the timeline of how and when Bill Moyers became "Bill" instead of "Billy Don", an issue raised by Mittell in his original column)...

A course in Journalism 101 might have prepared [Mittell] to check his facts before making his judgments…

I do indeed have many critics among Mr. Mittell’s right-wing friends, but, as he does here, they are always getting their facts wrong. I became “Bill” not in 1954 but four years earlier, when on my 16th birthday I went to work as a cub reporter for my hometown newspaper, whose managing editor decided that “Billy Don” didn’t fit neatly into the space for a by-line....That little bit of snide sleight-of-hand by Mr. Mittell should be a warning flag to your readers to take his other assertions about me with a slight dose of skepticism.

But if you think that a writer accusing another of playing fast-and-loose with the facts is concerned with presenting accurate facts to the public in his own writing, at least in this case, you'd be wrong -- as wrong as Paul Bovenzi of Rhode Island's Future in his celebration of Moyers...

Reading Moyers gives you a glimmer into what is real journalism. It's a small difference, but something vital - Moyers only goes with facts, not assertions.

Moving to an issue of greater general interest later on in his op-ed, Bill Moyers objects to David Mittell's assertion that public broadcasting is "taxpayer supported" and he presents a "fact" to back it up…

Speaking of PBS: Mr. Mittell refers to the fact that I work for “taxpayer-supported public broadcasting.” I would like to point out that PBS is indeed supported by “viewers like you” but that only around 17 percent of the system’s total budget comes via congressional appropriations.

But Congress is not the only government body in the United States that authorizes taxes (a fact I'm sure I don't need to remind most Anchor Rising readers of). State and local governments also collect taxes and, like Congress, they also use a portion of their take to fund public broadcasting. According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's 2005 financial report, the CPB received 19% of its funding from the Federal government AND another 24.6% from state and local taxes. To quote the character of John Winger from Stripes, "That's a fact, Jack", but in Moyers' opinion, one-quarter of the CPB budget drawn from taxpayer sources is somehow not relevant to a discussion of taxpayer support.

Tell me, exactly what journalistic purpose was served by Moyers presentation of incomplete data and his not informing the reader that Public Broadcasting, by its own accounting, receives over 40% of its funding from taxpayers? To paraphrase none other than Bill Moyers: this kind of rhetorical sleight-of-hand by should be a warning flag to readers to take Mr. Moyers' other assertions -- and his presentations of what he claims are facts -- with a heavy does of skepticism.

Re: ProJo Watch

The news of buyouts at the Projo reminds me of this item, from Glenn Reynolds, on a major reason why he believes newspapers have fallen on hard times…

I've said for years that hard-news reporting is the killer app for Big Media, but they just don't want to do it. They want to tell people what to think, instead of telling them what's happening.

In most industries, when you're losing business, you assume that people don't like the quality of your product (or at least don't like the quality compared to what they have to pay for it) and adjust accordingly. So I don't understand how cutting reporting staff, making news reporting even more sparse, is going to lead to a turnaround in the long-term health of the Projo.

At least on the surface, the attitude on the business side reminds me of one those old Dilbert cartoons, where the pointy-haired boss wonders if he can cut costs enough to to make a profit without selling any products.

Another Instapundit item has more detailed thoughts on the general decline of newspapers, here.

ProJo Watch

As always, Ian Donnis has his finger on the pulse of what's going on at the Journal. Working off of his initial story about ProJo parent Belo Corp cutting around 500 jobs throughout the company, Ian also found out that ProJo will cut around 50 jobs or seek buyouts. He's talked to some veterans over on Fountain Street to get their thoughts:

A source indicates that Kathy Gregg, the Journal's longtime State House bureau chief, will not consider the buyout.

Metro columnist Bob Kerr, 63, says that he'd like to work indefinitely, but that he will feel compelled to consider the buyout. "I don't want to have to be told, 'If you stay, then some promising young reporter has to go,' " Kerr says. "I hope it doesn't come to that yet."

Political reporter Scott MacKay says, "You've got to think about it given the state of the industry. It's something a lot of veteran reporters are going to have to think seriously about."

Medical reporter Felice Freyer says she can't possibly even consider it, because she's can't afford it, and that a lot of people who might otherwise be logical choices to take the buyout won't do so, because "people don't feel like there are other opportunities out there for them."

Political columnist M. Charles Bakst, who had previously been thinking about retiring next year, says of the buyout, "I am definitely considering it."

Those are some substantial names.

Dear Ink-Stained Wretches: People Think You're in the Bag

Ian Donnis has been keeping tabs on the fall of the newspaper business, particularly the ProJo, for a while, most recently noting that "[t]he bottom line...is that the erosion of newspapers hurts us all." That's certainly true. And a couple recent Rasmussen polls point to some of the problems newspapers (as part of the larger Mainstream Media) face. In one poll (h/t):

49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

In another:

Only 34% of Americans believe the United States has the world’s best economy, but 50% believe the media makes economic conditions appear worse than they really are, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey....

A plurality of Americans (41%) similarly believe that the media has tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is, while 26% say reporters have made it look better than reality and 25% think they’ve portrayed it accurately.

RE: Tony Snow, R.I.P.

As Don has noted, Tony Snow has passed away after a battle with cancer. Snow recently served as Press Secretary for the current Bush Administration, but he was perhaps best known as a conservative commentator and newsman (FOX). Undoubtedly partisan, he was also a class act. Snow's tone and tenor is something sorely lacking in these politically charged times. God bless he and his family. He'll be missed.

Waiting for that Hard-Hitting, Old-Time-Journalism Scott MacKay Column on Barack Obama's Misplaced Priorities

Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama had this to say yesterday, in an address to the League of United Latin American Citizens in Washington D.C…

I fought with you in the Senate for comprehensive immigration reform. And I will make it a top priority in my first year as President -- not only because we have an obligation to secure our borders and get control of who comes in and out of our country. And not only because we have to crack down on employers who are abusing undocumented immigrants instead of hiring citizens. But because we have to finally bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.

Projo news columnist Scott MacKay criticized Obama for making the immigration issue a top priority…

You might think our political leaders would have something more important to do than wrangle over the illegal-immigration issue.

Wait?!?! You’re telling me I’ve made an error? You mean the above statement wasn’t directed at Senator Obama, but at Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri and Providence Mayor David Cicilline?

But if the idea that immigration reform is a distraction from real issues applies to Governor Carcieri and Mayor Cicilline, then columnist MacKay must believe that it applies to Senator Obama too, and that (as well as John McCain, for that matter) is wrong for making immigration reform a top issue in his platform, right?

ProJo Spins 75% Approval of E-Verify

Hey, you. The one who was part of the 75% percent of Rhode Islanders who said they approve of Governor Carcieri's E-verify Executive Order (and presumably the E-verify bill that just got killed by Senator Theresa Paiva-Weed). Guess what? The Journal's Steve Peoples and/or Cynthia Needham think you were just confused...or something...by the question (the only one they commented on, btw):

Seventy-five percent agree with the governor’s executive order cracking down on illegal immigrants. The order, according to a vague and rather long survey question, “requires that the Federal E-Verify system be used to screen state workers and employees of companies doing business with the state and directs certain state agencies to work cooperatively with Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel in enforcing federal immigration laws.”

You poor, ADD-ridden rubes, you must have gotten distracted by a shiny object while listening to the question and just answered "Yes."

Bob Kerr, Grim Reaper

Bob Kerr tries to make it seem as if he wants more news coverage of the various war efforts in which the United States is currently engaged:

... this week, we learn there is even less effort than before to keep the wars, especially the war in Iraq, in front of the people who pay the bills.

A New York Times story, which ran in The Journal Monday, points out that the three major networks have substantially reduced their coverage in Iraq.

Think about how seldom war intrudes into that string of commercials for erectile dysfunction and enlarged prostate treatments that make up so much of a nightly 30-minute newscast. Think about how often Brian or Charlie or Katie signs off at 7 p.m. after giving more time to panda cubs than to Americans fighting wars.

But as one reads his column, the sense emerges that he's mainly interested in a particular storyline's being offered:

War just doesn't draw. We've got two going on right now and both might last longer than the Vietnam War and mess us up in ways we never imagined. And yet we know so little of the daily grind. People who decide such things have apparently decided there's just no return in letting us know the grim details.

It's the "grim details" that Kerr would reap. Such details as those pushed out in the journalistically romantic time of a war in a country with a name, as I recall, beginning with a "V." (We've heard so little about that war, as I've grown up, that it's easy to forget the nation.) Details such as "a Marine setting fire to a thatched roof with his Zippo." Kerr starts by mentioning the mothers of the fallen, but the first thought that comes to his mind — when he considers what images we might not be receiving from the media — is those sons' potential for atrocities.

One can hardly be surprised, by his final words, that Kerr believes we must learn from our wars so that we don't "do the same crazy stuff all over again," without suggesting that we might also be accomplishing things that we should replicate in certain circumstances in the future. It must hardly pierce his worldview that the American people would also benefit from reportage of the mundane, but uplifting, details of foundation building.

Tim Russert

Via Dan Yorke, the New York Post (and MSNBC confirms) that "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert died of a heart attack today.

MORE: Needless to say, this is simply a shock, especially to those of us tuned into the world of politics and punditry. No one can dispute that Russert was one of, if not THE, top political/talk journalists of our day (and he could write, too). He'll be missed.

Jim Baron's Biggish Thoughts on Smallish Legislation

I tried to excerpt down Jim Baron's weekly column in today's Woonsocket Call, but couldn't find much to cut out. It's worth fighting through the lack of proper spacing between paragraphs to read the whole thing.

Raising Concerns

Methinks there's a missing "my" in Karen Lee Ziner's "Remarks raise concern" piece on the front page of yesterday's Local News section:

A nonprofit group whose board members include First Lady Sue Carcieri asserts that nearly 45 percent of all immigrants in Rhode Island — legal and illegal — lack high school diplomas and "this low-skilled cohort of immigrants to Rhode Island costs state taxpayers about $212 million per year."

"It is because such a high percentage of immigrants, legal or not, lack a quality formal education that they represent a relatively high cost to the taxpayer," said the statement by the Ocean State Policy Research Institute. Its executive director, William Felkner, said he wrote the statement.

Felkner called people who sponsor immigrants to this country "the new deadbeat dad." He said he means that the government has assumed the financial role for immigrants that "family, faith and friends" formerly played.

The only person whom the remarks seem to have concerned is Ziner. It was then Ziner who proceeded to drum up concerns among others — specifically OSPRI's board members (emphasis added):

Carcieri spokesman Jeff Neal said Felkner's statements "are at odds" with Governor and Mrs. Carcieri's views on the subject of immigration. He said they were unaware of Felkner's news release until Neal brought it to their attention after The Journal sought comment. ...

Board member Edward M. Mazze said he also was unaware of the statement until a reporter asked him about it. Mazze is a regular contributor to the opinion and financial pages of The Journal.

In other words, if the Projo were to follow the editorial rule of avoiding the passive voice, the headline should have been: "Reporter raises concerns about remark." Perhaps the follow-up could have been: "Report raises profile of nonprofit group."

The Front-Page Fifteen Minutes

I'm not in the least disputing the Martins' relevancy as a representative human interest topic (and my family would certainly not be so comfortable broadcasting personal financial information). Still, the Providence Journal's front-page profile of the family makes me curious about the genesis of the report. Did Journal Staff Writer Lynn Arditi advertise online for potential subjects? Does she know the family?

What stands out is the lack of general statistics or broad reportage, using the specific family as a point of reference. The story is constructed as if the family itself is of interest for some reason.

WelcomeToAllPawtucketAllTheTime,InPawtucketTimesStyle

No one can be sure if Pawtucket's new weekly newspaper, All Pawtucket All The Time, will make it (h/t Phillipe and Jorge), but APATT will be starting out with one advantage that its daily competitor, the Pawtucket Times has never been able to achieve -- they've figured out how to insert space between paragraphs in their online edition!

A bellwether? Or an overly-snarky blogger picking an annoying nit? I report. You decide.

NY Times Digs and Finds a Hole

Over the weekend, the ProJo ran a NY Times piece that divulged that (gasp) the Pentagon squired around ex-military types--some even with ties to military contractors--in an attempt to get favorable press about the Iraq War. Stunning, no? Both Max Boot and John Podhoretz have a say, with Podhoretz offering up an inside-baseball reason as to why 7800 words were necessary to explain this "gee, whoda thunk" story...

In the end, however, The story reads like a work of investigative journalism that came up entirely dry. Perhaps Barstow was tipped off to something seriously rotten and saw a Pulitzer dangling before him if he could only get chapter and verse. Perhaps someone else at the Times was, and threw the assignment to Barstow. Whatever is the case, there proved to be no there there, and Barstow was left with a huge amount of information with no clear act of wrongdoing.

So he did what is called a “notebook dump,” with the approval and even encouragement of his editors, revealing every single bit of information he uncovered. What began as a possible major scoop ended up as a “thumbsucker,” one of those “this is a cautionary tale about the way the Bush administration tried to spin the public.” Barstow’s endless tale reveals nothing more than that the Pentagon treated former military personnel like VIPs, courted them and served them extremely well, in hopes of getting the kind of coverage that would counteract the nastier stuff written about the Defense Department in the media.

Another Pentagon strategy that's worked so well, right?

An Absence of Story

This is odd. My morning blogging session was disrupted by the discovery that the story at the very top of the Providence Journal's front page, today, "Study finds gaps growing in R.I. between haves and have-nots," doesn't appear to be available online.

Well, I've got to go to work, but if experience is any guide, I'll soon be able to explain why reporter Edward Fitzpatrick's advocacy press release (disguised as reportage) actually supports the opposite policy suggestions from those that the Poverty Institute fed him.

ADDENDUM:

Here's the story, more on which later.

Once Again Offering AR's Services to Steve Peoples

The Providence Journal's Steve Peoples provides another scrapbook entry for the file illustrating how average folk around her develop such a skewed understanding of the state's operation:

Governor Carcieri has asked the state's highest court to strike down a law passed last year that he says threatens to paralyze Rhode Island government by blocking his ability to use private companies to conduct state business. ...

The law requires state departments to conduct detailed cost comparisons before awarding contracts to private firms. It also requires that "the savings to the state is substantial," but does not define "substantial" savings. And the law gives "affected parties" — program recipients, state employees or unions — 60 days to appeal any privatization decision to a Superior Court judge.

The Democrat-dominated General Assembly has defended the law as an essential safeguard for ensuring savings.

"If the governor could prove by going through this process that he could save money, I would be standing next to him to support that," said Rep. Charlene Lima, D-Cranston, who had introduced the legislation for 13 consecutive years before it was approved close to midnight in the final days of the previous legislative session. "I just find it incredulous that the governor, in light of the great fiscal crisis we're facing, would be asking the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of a bill that would provide transparency and ensure that there's a taxpayers' savings."

As we've explained on this page before, requiring "state departments to conduct detailed cost comparisons" hardly does justice to what this law does. It stacks the deck for the unions, delays the process by months, and allows the General Assmbly to throw up road blocks.

The bill didn't make it into the law for thirteen years, until midnight on the even of our state's clearly looming fiscal crisis. One way or another, it ought to go.

Comparative Welfare

The Providence Journal, as represented by Steve Peoples, still isn't giving the whole story when it comes to Rhode Island's Family Independence Program:

Lawmakers spent yesterday afternoon poring through Governor Carcieri’s 101-page plan that would dramatically cut benefits to the poor, while encouraging a "work-first" model and promoting "healthy marriages."

The governor's sweeping proposal, if adopted by the legislature in the coming months, would constitute the most significant shift in the state's Family Independence Program, often referred to as welfare, in more than a decade. Carcieri has even created a new name: the Rhode Island Work First Program. ...

Carcieri wants to push low-income Rhode Islanders into the work force immediately, while the current system allows for training and education first. He also wants to cut eligibility for cash assistance from 60 months to 24 months for new recipients beginning July 1. ...

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that 28 states and the District of Columbia have 60-month time limits for cash assistance, which is the maximum benefit allowed under federal Medicaid rules. Massachusetts is one of two states that have no lifetime limit, but intermittent caps allowing 24 months of cash benefits during each 60-month period.

For one thing, Rhode Island is one of seven states that continue to give support in some form after that limit (cash for children is one example). For another, Rhode Island doesn't count time spent on similar programs in other states. And although I can't find the mention of it, just now, I'm pretty sure we're unique among those seven states in offer our 60-month lifetime limit in consecutive years.

If the General Assembly were to tweak the governor's proposal to address these considerations, that'd be a good start. But the people of Rhode Island can't rally on behalf of reforms when they don't know the specifics of what they're reforming.

The Activist's Scientific Assertion

Following the titular formula typically used in articles about scientific (or at least quasi-scientific) studies, the Providence Journal gave this story the headline "Views may spur hate crimes":

Anti-immigrant sentiment is fueling nationwide increases in the number of hate groups and the number of hate crimes targeting Latinos, a watchdog group said Monday.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, in a report titled "The Year in Hate," said it counted 888 hate groups in its latest tally, up from 844 in 2006 and 602 in 2000.

The most prominent of the organizations newly added to the list, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, vehemently rejected the "hate group" label, and questioned the law center's motives. FAIR said the center was using smear tactics to boost donations and stifle legitimate debate on immigration.

"Their banner may be 'Stop the hate' but it's really 'Stop the debate,'" said FAIR's president, Dan Stein. "Apparently you can't even articulate an argument for immigration reform without being smeared."

I suppose we should be grateful that the headline writer conceded the "may," but even if it the suggestion had been the result of some sort of actual correlative study, the emphasis strikes me as odd. It puts the responsibility all on one trend, on one group. An objective report would reflect the reality that hostilities grow from the interactions of differing groups, so the headline would be along the lines of "Immigration tensions may spur hate crimes."

As it stands, the paper takes a side, the opposite of which might be "Illegal immigration, government inaction may spur hate crimes."

WPRO AM gets FM Signal

Attention fellow members of the VRWC: set decoder rings to "Q2340442LLM"

The Score is no more and WPRO 630 AM has acquired the 99.7 FM slot to better promulgate VRWC talking points.

That is all.

Media Event or Partisan Rally?

Has anybody else picked up on something curious in coverage of the Providence Newspaper Guild Follies?

Chelsea Clinton, in town to campaign for her mother, was squired around by US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. And US Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee in 2004, turned up as a surprise guest about a third of the way into the program, upstaging the eventual Mystery Guests, Attorney General Patrick "Superdelegateman" Lynch, his Clinton-supporting brother Bill, chief of the RI Democratic Party, and their mother, who mediated their clashing presidential choices. Vote your conscience, she said.

Of course, the political split is what it is in Rhode Island, but I haven't seen anything that made this event distinguishable from a high-profile partisan gathering.

Loder is a Libertarian

Huh. Anyone who remembers MTV back when they played those things called "music videos" also knows who Kurt Loder is. Like me, you may be surprised to learn that he's a libertarian. That's what you get when you stereotype people based on their employer. He recently did an interview for Reason here, which is a discussion on technology, the MSM and freedom (among other things). In the interview, Loder is asked about "Rock the Vote" and responded, "It's a Democratic organization set up to speak to children." Heh. There's a suspicion confirmed...Another, "Don't trust anything celebrities say, they're not gonna save anybody's world. Not even their own..."

As an example of Loder calling upon his libertarianism in his work, the interview references Loder's review of Michael Moore's Sicko, which is worth a read.

Geldof - Press Has Shortchanged Bush's Successful Africa Policy

Live Aid organizer Bob Geldof is chastising the US Press corps for under-reporting the positive effect that President Bush's Africa policy has had:

Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the achievement.

Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, "has done more than any other president so far."

"This is the triumph of American policy really," he said. "It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion."

"What's in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing," Mr. Geldof said.

Mr. Geldof said that the president has failed "to articulate this to Americans" but said he is also "pissed off" at the press for their failure to report on this good news story.

"You guys didn't pay attention," Geldof said to a group of reporters from all the major newspapers.

Bush administration officials, incidentally, have also been quite displeased with some of the press coverage on this trip that they have viewed as overly negative and ignoring their achievements.

And more...

Mr. Geldof said that he and Bono, U2's lead singer, have "gotten a lot of flak" for saying that Mr. Bush has done more for Africa than any other U.S. president.

Mr. Geldof said that "the main thing now is asking the candidates, 'What are you going to do?'"

Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, has "put in place a whole foundation" in the form of aid for disease prevention, government institution building with accountability measures, and investing capital in African countries to build up their economies.

"The next guy really must take it on," Mr. Geldof said, referring to the next president.

If the press has underplayed the success of such policies that liberals would otherwise find compelling (say, if a Democrat had implemented them), then what else has the media underplayed or spun differently? In some simple minds, the man can do no good.

Najarian: The Providence Journal Statehouse Bureau Strikes Again

The ProJo reported on Thursday:

Governor Carcieri has withdrawn his nomination of Beverly Najarian for reappointment as director of the Department of Administration less than 24 hours before she was supposed to face a Senate committee hearing and confirmation vote.

The article went on to strongly imply that Governor Carcieri had done so because he and Ms. Najarian were fearful of a difficult confirmation hearing.

Friday morning, an exasperated Bev Najarian appeared on the John Depetro Show (am 630 WPRO) confirming that nothing could be further from the truth and that she had asked to be removed from consideration for reappointment over a year ago.

This morning, the ProJo took another whack at the matter. While continuing to hypothesize about difficult matters that Ms. Najarian might have faced at a confirmation hearing that was not going to take place, they did include this time a statement from the subject of their article:

“In all honesty, a year ago December I had made a decision that I did not want to continue in this particular office. I had served here four years, I loved the job, but I wanted to play another role,” said Najarian, who is paid $113,631 a year. “Since that time, two of my key lieutenants, Brian Stern went to work as [the governor’s] chief of staff, Jerry Williams went to DOT. Therefore there was not a viable candidate. Either one of those gentlemen could have assumed my position.

This incident was preceded by the contention last week that the Governor had declared war on Rhode Island nursing homes (or some such silliness) which had been preceded by other reporting mis-fires. As such inaccurate but satisfyingly sensationalist-toned articles are usually followed the next day by a corrected reference in a related article or even an entire corrective article, management of the Providence Journal may want to implement a twenty four hour cooling off period for stories promulgated by certain reporters in their Statehouse bureau. That seems to be about how long it takes to assemble the truth.

Such a Disappointment

Yesterday, Ian Donnis suggested that my latest Providence Journal op-ed "oversteps in prescribing [ascribing?] an advocacy role to [WPRI's Steve] Aveson, who like [himself] and other panelists, uses various rhetorical devices (the ever-popular devil's advocate, for example) in the interest of posing questions and stimulating discussion." Truth to tell, I didn't see myself as ascribing advocacy to Aveson. My impression was more that he was simply voicing his general opinion.

Yes, the "devil's advocate" defense is always available, but as with journalists' nigh upon pathological use of the word "alleged," that strategy of conducting interviews is generally heavily laden with such phrases as "some people say," and I don't recall Aveson deploying that device at all during discussion of illegal immigrant RIte Care. Indeed, I don't think a fair viewing of that exchange leaves any doubt that Aveson is speaking his own mind. At 3:53 of segment three, here, Aveson turns to somebody whom he knows agrees with the point of view that he's describing, Jennifer Lawless, and asks:

Jennifer, let's rally back to the question of depriving 2,000 kids who are illegal immigrants [sign language quotation marks], by definition, of access to healthcare. It seems like, of all the people that could be criticized for taking... solving the budget deficit on the backs of people, how do you solve it on the backs of kids who aren't able to go out and earn a living, for example.

And before she's even finished her thought, Aveson continues:

I mean, it almost feels a little bit like a harsh carrot and stick: "Okay, we can't solve this problem in a big way, so if we deprive children of this support, then at least they'll get the idea, those parents of those kids, and they'll go away from Rhode Island."

Let me be clear, here: I'm not faulting Aveson for expressing his opinion. I'm faulting him for having that particular opinion. But while we're on the topic of tough interviews, Donnis mentions that he poses a sticky question to Patrick Crowley on tomorrow's edition of Newsmakers (viewable already here). While I won't dispute that Ian's question is not an example of "rolling over," I have to admit that it struck me as pretty mild, considering that he and Aveson had just let Crowley get away with the following package of lies, after Aveson explained that "Governor Carcieri sat here.. and said that the rich are leaving the state":

Yeah, the facts don't bear that out. Since 2004, the number of people with incomes over $200,000 have actually risen in the state of Rhode Island. And while we have lost some population, it is a typical demographic shift, and we are not in any worse position than our neighboring states of Massachusetts and Connecticut. But what we have done is cut our taxes for the upper income people more deeply than Massachusetts and Connecticut has, and that's what's contributing to our economic problem, right now.

Ian should know better. He reads Anchor Rising and presumably skims my Projo op-eds. Even Crowley's latest propaganda (currently being published in local newspapers across the state) doesn't support his claims. In that letter, Crowley claims that the number of such people rose "between 1997 and 2004." The latest data that I've seen shows upper income Rhode Islanders disappearing by the tens of thousands between 2005 and 2006.

It's understandable that Crowley would find it advantageous to spread lies that undermine the reality that I and others have been trumpeting, but it's very disappointing how broadly those lies are enabled — even by respected and respectable media figures.

Another Source for Steve Peoples

Talk about transparency (emphasis added):

The state will forgo an estimated $23.4 million next year as a result of the flat tax, according to an analysis of the Poverty Institute at Rhode Island College. The average tax cut will be $5,337. And the beneficiaries are overwhelmingly in higher-income brackets: 98 percent of the savings will go to taxpayers earning $200,000 or more; almost two-thirds will go to those making more than $1 million, according to the Poverty Institute.

Meanwhile, the reduction of the capital gains tax to 1.67 percent will cost Rhode Island $39 million in lost revenue from 4,384 taxpayers. The average savings for those taxpayers is estimated at $4,300, according to the Poverty Institute analysis. And 84 percent of the taxpayer savings will go to 7,500 people earning more than $200,000.

Since Mr. Peoples is so keen on using objective sources, I'd like to offer him another so that he can remove the "anecdotal" from the following:

Carcieri says he's asked his newly hired director of revenue, Gary Sasse, to study whether the tax breaks are indeed stimulating the economy. The governor cites anecdotal evidence that high-income earners are leaving the state because of Rhode Island's high tax burden, which is seventh-highest in the nation, according to an analysis of state and local tax collections for fiscal year 2005 by the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, formerly headed by Sasse.

Here's a paragraph that Mr. Peoples can cut and paste into his next related article (based on data to be found here):

According to an analysis of the most recent U.S. Census data performed by Anchor Rising, a public-policy think tank, 12,084 fewer Rhode Islanders lived in households earning over twice the poverty level (around $60,000 per year, for a family of four) in 2006 than 2005. Around 30,000 fewer people earned over three times the poverty level, almost 25,000 fewer were above the five-times-poverty mark.

I realize that the Journal may be reluctant to rely on sources of less manifest objectivity than the Poverty Institute, but really, how many times are journalists going to throw up the following lob to be smacked down?

"Welfare is the most commonly used weapon in class warfare. People don't understand the facts, such as that we spend less than one half of 1 percent of state funds on cash assistance and that those families who remain on the program have significant barriers to employment, including disabilities and very limited skills," said Kate Brewster, executive director of the Poverty Institute. "Therefore, it is an easy target for politicians who want to scapegoat the poor for our state's budget problems rather than asking tough questions like — can we afford to continue certain tax breaks or tax credit programs that are costing our state tens of millions of dollars?"

For those without the time to click the link just above the blockquote, the upshot is that holding up cash assistance as Rhode Island's "welfare system" is like holding up its tail as the elephant. But Peoples isn't done acting as the Poverty Institute's proxy yet:

Carcieri will cut welfare much deeper in his 2008-'09 budget, reducing eligibility from 60 months to 24 months. The governor's office would not say how many people would be affected. But the cut would put Rhode Island in the minority of states.

Thirty-seven states have a 60-month limit and five states and the District of Columbia have no limit, according to an analysis provided by the Poverty Institute.

As has been pointed out several times on Anchor Rising (here, by Marc), 30 of those states have shorter consecutive time limits: "For instance, in Connecticut you can only receive assistance for 21 consecutive months and are capped at 60 months over your lifetime. In Massachusetts, you can receive assistance for 24 out of 60 months, but there is no lifetime cap." In other words, even with no lifetime limit, Massachusetts requires recipients to survive on their own for three years for every two of cash assistance. (If the Poverty Institute wants to be useful, perhaps it can research recidivism rates in Massachusetts — that is, how often people actually accumulate 60 months of handouts over their lifetimes in Mass.)

It may be that Anchor Rising's clearly stated ideological bent might deter reporters' usage of our analyses. Sometimes we even acknowledge a religious foundation for our beliefs. But then, in a state governed by theocrats, that should hardly disqualify us:

Meanwhile, [Sen. Harold Metts, D-Providence], a Baptist deacon, appealed to the public and other legislators to shift their priorities.

"Our mission is clear," he said. "Psalm 82:3,4 says to 'Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and the needy. Deliver the poor and needy; rid them out of the hand of the wicked.'"

Nit-Picking the Coverage? I Don't Think So

Something jumps out about this isolated parenthetical "correction" in today's story about the state of the state address in the Providence Journal, by Katherine Gregg, Steve Peoples, and Cynthia Needham:

With respect to state workers, he said: “The average state employee earns $61,000 per year in salary with fringe benefits valued at another $34,000 (a total of $95,000) and a 35-hour work week. Bringing the health-care, pension benefits and work week into line with the private sector could save the state tens of millions per year. This will be the focal point of our contract negotiation with labor leadership.”

(A Journal analysis found that the median state employee salary was $46,600 as of last June.)

As I'm sure the professional journalists are aware, there's a difference between the average of a set of numbers and their median., and there are different circumstances during which each is more appropriate. I have a hard time believing, frankly, that the writers of both the speech and of the news article weren't very careful about which word they used.

If it is indeed the case that the average is 31% greater than the median, the implication would be that more than half of state workers make well above the that number. I'd have to do more research than I care to expend on this particular item to say for sure, but I'd wager that there are additional considerations (e.g., which jobs are counted) that make it inappropriate for the Projo to offer such a note unless it's willing to spend the column inches on a thorough explanation.

The Projo's Technical Difficulties with Digital TV

An unsigned editorial in Saturday's Projo had this to say about the coming transition to digitial television…

The government is taking away the analog spectrum to boost wireless services (which are becoming ever more important) and for public-safety needs. That’s why the Feds (i.e., taxpayers) are even offering to help pay for those converter boxes.

So those rooftop antennae that were such important images in so many Christmas cards and magazine illustrations (will magazines disappear too?) will leave the scene, increasingly dominated by cell-phone towers.

…but I don't think that's correct.

Digital TV signals are broadcast over the airwaves on standard UHF frequencies, so cable or satellite TV is not required for receiving digital or high-definition broadcasts. All that's needed is a) a digital converter and b) a good UHF antenna for acquiring signals to convert. (Channels that were originally VHF; 6, 10, and 12 in the Rhode Island market, have each been assigned some portion of the UHF spectrum, which the converters are programmed to find whenever the "old" VHF channel numbers are selected).

In anticipation of the change-over to digital, most televisions being manufactured now have converters built directly into them. External converters will only be required for older sets. WJAR-TV (NBC 10) has more detail available here; WPRI-TV's (CBS 12) digital information is available here.

Thus, contrary to the Projo editorial, UHF antennas will be more important than ever for receiving over-the-air broadcasts after the conversion to digital.

Narnia Out of Order

Now why would Disney go and make the Narnia movies out of order?

I understand why the film makers wouldn't want to start with The Magician's Nephew, which is the first book according to the storyline. C.S. Lewis, after all, didn't write the book until after The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I suppose I can even understand why the makers would hold off on the book even as they move on with the series: The whole thing reads a bit like the first few chapters of a long book.

But why skip The Horse and His Boy? Is it the Arabian flavor of the backwards Calormenes? More practical considerations could be holding the day, of course, such as the need to make all of the movies in which the Pevensie children play central roles so that the actors don't out pace their characters too dramatically in aging, as with the Harry Potter movies (which has been a huge distraction, for me as a viewer, anyway).

Tom Shevlin Goes National

Congratulations to RI Report founder Tom Shevlin on his new gig…

The presidential candidates can run, but it will be hard for them to hide from the horde of citizen journalists tapped by MTV's Choose or Lose '08 to cover the race for the White House.

A group of 51 local reporters — one from each state and Washington, D.C. — will follow the 2008 elections and deliver weekly multimedia reports tailored for mobile devices.

Don't worry Tom, even though you've gone MSM on us, we know you'll continue to bring a fresh and innovative perspective to your reporting!

Incredibly Random Bit of RI Political Trivia

I've thought of myself as pretty well tuned into Rhode Island political trivia, but until I stumbled across this Weekly Standard article mentioning a "famous Rhode Island drawl", I never realized that John McLaughlin – the McLaughlin of The McLaughlin Group -- was a native Rhode Islander. Here's the opening of his Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame entry…

The marvelous story of Rhode Island's own John Joseph McLaughlin leads one through more twists and turns than a Rocky Point roller coaster. Born on March 29, 1927 to Augustus and Eva (Turcotte) McLaughlin, he grew up in the neighborhoods of Edgewood and Mount Pleasant. His earliest run at greatness included stints as a pharmacy soda jerk, Triggs greenskeeper and caddy, Narragansett Park racetrack money-runner and a stock boy at Shepard's department store.

(I am now trying to picture McLaughlin as a Triggs caddy)...

Golfer: Do you think I should use my six-iron here?

McLaughlin: WRONG!!!

McLaughlin even ran against John O. Pastore for Senate in 1970…

John "tiptoed" onto the political scene in 1970 by brashly challenging the iconic Senator John Pastore in McLaughlin's very first, and Pastore's very last, political campaign.

Knowing John McLaughlin's origins certainly goes a long way towards explaining the rough-and-tumble format of his TV show!

See the Commercial too Controversial for NBC...

...then try to explain why NBC rejected it.

More details available from the Powerline blog.

Sometimes, We Just Have to Agree to Agree

In the comments section of a recent post mentioning his book Rescuing Providence, after thanking Anchor Rising for the plug, Providence firefighter Michael Morse wrote…

I can't say I agree with a lot of your views, but they are always interesting and thought provoking.

However, upon reading sections from his most recent Projo op-ed, like this one…

Our society once prided itself on rugged individualism, fairness and the ability to take care of ourselves, and our own. The tide has turned. People now expect to be taken care of.

…or this one…

Taxpayers pay for a service and deserve to get their money’s worth. It is a sad day when a proud, effective force must be diminished to cater to a growing population that takes government services for granted, and treats emergency vehicles as their private taxi service.

…I have to say that I can't see much disagreement at the level of basic philosophical views!

Belo Corp Subdividing?

Any local media watchers care to speculate on whether this announcement via CNN's Money.com means anything significant for the future of the Providence Journal...

Belo Corp. will present at the UBS 35th Annual Global Media and Communications Conference in New York on Tuesday, December 4, at 9:00 a.m. EST, providing an update on the Company's operations and its plan to create separate newspaper and television businesses.

Belo Corp Subdividing?

Any local media watchers care to speculate on whether this announcement via CNN's Money.com means anything significant for the future of the Providence Journal...

Belo Corp. will present at the UBS 35th Annual Global Media and Communications Conference in New York on Tuesday, December 4, at 9:00 a.m. EST, providing an update on the Company's operations and its plan to create separate newspaper and television businesses.

Bill Reynolds on Rescuing Providence

Projo sports columinst/general critic Bill Reynolds offers this capsule review in his weekly "for what's it worth" column...

Rescuing Providence, a new book by Providence firefighter Michael Morse, is an interesting look at the Providence they don’t put in the travel brochures, all told in a very readable, effective, descriptive style.

A Front-Page Parody of Journalism

Even just the lead of the Providence Journal's front-page reprint of this McClatchy Newspapers story deserves an LOL:

With little to gain and much to lose, the [Democrat] party's presidential hopefuls avoid highlighting their positions, which are more moderate than their GOP rivals.

But David Lightman's actual text gets even better (if one is judging his work as a specimen of journalistic parody, that is):

Democratic campaigns also are calculating that once the party nominations are decided, probably early next year, their party's detailed, comprehensive approaches to giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship will look good next to Republicans' demands simply to get ultratough with anyone who's in the country illegally. ...

Democrats are making two political calculations on immigration.

One is that their comprehensive, arguably more tolerant approach will help woo Hispanic voters, who could make up an estimated 10 percent of next year's electorate. ...

The other calculation by Democrats is that bringing up immigration can only hurt them at the moment, because it isn't easy to explain comprehensive action during a quick-answer debate.

Call me an intolerant simpleton, but it's all too easy to see legerdemain in comprehensive plans that, when looked at upside-down in a mirror (in Spanish), read: "Amnesty!"