Talk To Tony

Media Rants: Censored in 2011, Part 1

2012-01-01T11:07:00.001-06:00

Censored in 2011, Part 1
Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

From the January 2012 edition of The SCENE

In 2010 suicide ended the lives of 468 American soldiers, more than the 462 killed in combat. Project Censored’s Censored 2012 (Seven Stories Press) identifies the soldier suicide epidemic as the top censored story of 2011.

Since 1976 Project Censored has shed light on news stories "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored in the United States.” The late Walter Cronkite once said that “Project Censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcasting outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism.”

Inspired by the Project, every year I dedicate two columns to what I see as the ten stories most censored. My focus is mostly on national and state issues. For readers wishing to keep track of stories marginalized and/or mangled by the mainstream media, I recommend: The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (www.publicintegrity.org), Wisconsin Center For Investigative Journalism (www.wisconsinwatch.org), ProPublica (www.propublica.org), and World Public Opinion (www.worldpublicopinion.org).

And now the censored stories:

#10: Has Bradley Manning Been Tortured? Army soldier Bradley Manning was arrested in May of 2010 on suspicion of having leaked classified material to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. From July of 2010 until April of 2011, Manning was held in solitary confinement at the Marine Corp Brig in Quantico, VA. The US State Department regularly condemns human rights abuses in other lands, yet would not allow Juan Mendez, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, to meet privately with Manning.

Manning’s treatment compelled classic rocker Graham Nash to record “Almost Gone (The Ballad of Bradley Manning).” He sings, “What I did was show some truth to the working man. What I did was blow the whistle and the games began . . . “

#9: The “Invented” Peoples’ Nonviolent Political Prisoner. Pandering and demagoguing on the campaign trail, presidential candidate Newt Gingrich recently claimed the Palestinians were an “invented” people. Anyone tempted to take the Newter seriously should become familiar with the case of Palestinian activist Abdallah Abu Rahmah. Amnesty International called him a “prisoner of conscience in jail solely for speaking out,” while the European Union said he’s a “human rights defender committed to nonviolent protest against the route of the Israeli separation barrier . . . The EU considers the route of the barrier where it is built on Palestinian land to be illegal.”

Rahmah, whose activities have been endorsed by South African Bishop Desmond Tutu, is very much like a Palestinian Martin Luther King. Only some pointed and principled questioning of American State Department bureaucrats by Associated Press reporter Matt Lee keeps Rahmah’s case from total censorship in the US.

#8: Execution by Secret White House Committee. Since 9/11/01 mainstream press coverage of [and editorializing about] the conduct of the war on terror has generally hovered between lame and lap doggish. Even when the facts of government excesses are reported, media fail to summon up the moxie necessary to provoke public outrage. Writing about the White House’s belief that it can place citizens on a “kill list,” Salon’s Glenn Greenwald communicates in a tone missing from the press most consumed by the masses:

“So a panel operating out of the White House, that meets in total secrecy, with no known law or rules governing what it can do or how it operates, is empowered to place American citizens on a list to be killed by the CIA, which (by some process nobody knows) eventually makes its way to the President, who is the final Decider. It is difficult to describe the level of warped authoritarianism necessary to cause someone to lend their support to a twisted Star Chamber like that . . .”

#7: Delaying Climate Action At Durban. For a brief time in the late 90s and early 2000s, it looked like world leaders were ready to take global warming seriously. Though the United States and other major polluters failed to sign on to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, scientific consensus about the problem and global activism sparked hope that something might be done. Yet in Durban, South Africa last month, world leaders agreed to do next to nothing for the next 10 years. Kassie Siegel of the Climate Law Institute says “It's like planning to buy a fire truck in a few years while your house, and all of your neighbors' houses, are burning down.”

Global warming denial rhetoric has accomplished its major goal: delaying decisive action in the interest of corporate polluters (many of whom fund climate denial “experts.”). Corporate media’s failure to frame this issue as one of literal planetary survival makes it that much more difficult for sensible policies to prevail.

#6: ALEC Exposed?: In 2011 the Center For Media and Democracy did yeoman’s work in revealing the sheer extent to which the corporate shills at the American Legislative Exchange Council have successfully hijacked representative government. The question is, why isn’t the mainstream media doing this work? Why aren’t there daily headlines, TV and radio packages, or online special reports alerting us to the many ways in which elected officials sacrifice our sovereignty to appease their corporate masters? The travesty of ALEC influence will never truly be exposed until mainstream press make them a name as common as Sheen or Kardashian.

Next month: The top 5 censored stories of 2011.

Media Rants: The 2011 TONY Awards

2011-12-01T10:55:00.001-06:00

The 2011 TONY Awards

Media Rants

Tony Palmeri

from the December 2011 edition of THE SCENE

Every year Media Rants presents TONY Awards for outstanding communication in the public interest. In 2011 Wisconsinites made history, taking direct action to hold public officials accountable in ways not seen since the Vietnam War era. The Occupy Wall St. movement (now spread out nationally), along with Ohio voters’ resolute rejection of Republican Governor John Kasich’s union busting measures, followed the lead set by Badger State activism aimed at reining in Scott Walker. Citizen action was THE STORY of the year.

With few exceptions Wisconsin’s corporate media in its coverage of and editorializing about THE STORY failed to operate in the public interest. Big media’s addiction to what New York University’s Jay Rosen calls “the view from nowhere” and “he said, she said” journalism resulted in pathetic attempts to draw moral equivalencies between the protesters and the governor. The good news is that we’ve not been bamboozled: even after being fed generous portions of corporate media enabling of Mr. Walker, a November poll showed that 58% support his recall, including 24% of Republicans.

TONY Award recipients for 2011 all made meaningful contributions to THE STORY. When democracy and decency are eventually restored in Wisconsin, it will be because of the collective efforts of people of integrity determined to halt the backward slide of a state whose motto is “Forward.” That kind of determination can be found in this year’s TONY Award recipients. Drum roll please:

*Best Mainstream Report: Ben Jones’ “Under the Dome in the Wisconsin Capitol, Protesters Build A Community.” Mr. Jones’ piece appeared in the February 24, 2011 AppletonPost-Crescent. Instead of speculating about the protest motives or filling his story with irrelevant attacks from opponents in the name of “balance,” Jones simply told the truth about what he witnessed in the Capitol. Anyone wanting to know “what democracy looks like” should read this piece.

*Best Framing of THE STORY: Bill Lueders’ “Walker’s War.” Mr. Lueders’ piece appeared in the February 24, 2011 Madison Isthmus. In one of the most passionate pieces of writing I’ve ever read, Lueders more than any other pundit captured the real travesty of Mr. Walker’s policies: pitting of family members against each other: “What has been fomented in Wisconsin is a rupture among ourselves, one that will ensure acrimony and contention for many years, perhaps decades. The dispute will be not just between Walker and his tens of thousands of newly impassioned enemies, but between the state's citizens; worker against worker, neighbor against neighbor, family member against family member.” Lueders concludes correctly that “None of this was necessary, none of it is justified, and none of it can ever be forgiven or forgotten.”

*Best Investigative Report: The Center For Media And Democracy’s ALEC Exposed. In this thorough and disturbing report (go to alecexposed.org) CMD posits that “Through the corporate funded American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state laws that govern your rights. These so called ‘model bills’ reach into almost every area of American life and often directly benefit huge corporations. Through ALEC, corporations have ‘a VOICE and a VOTE’ on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state.” Virtually every piece of major legislation emanating from the Walker Administration and GOP legislative majority has ALEC origins.

*Best Game Changer: Ian Murphy. An independent writer for the Buffalo Beast (buffalobeast.com), Mr. Murphy took on the persona of right wing billionaire David Koch and managed to get connection via phone to Scott Walker. Walker’s conversation with the person he thought was Koch represented a game changing moment in Wisconsin politics. When the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank listened to the call he heard in Walker an ‘unprincipled rigidity’ that sees politics as tribal blood sport featuring a ‘never-ending cycle of revenge killings.’” I’m generally not a fan of “gotcha!” politics, but Walker’s musings on the tape are so horrifyingly Nixonian that it’s difficult to get mad at the exposure method. Don’t be surprised if excerpts from the call figure prominently in recall election ads early next year.

*Best Independent Video: Sam Mayfield. In June Ms. Mayfield and her colleague Alex Noguera Garces were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct for filming protests in the Capitol building. Ms. Mayfield deserves a wider audience not just because of the arrest event, but because she’s made some outstanding videos that give voice to all sides of THE STORY. Check them out at her “Sam Land” blog (http://samville.blogspot.com/).

*Best Speech: Michael Moore’s “America’s Not Broke.” On March 5^th, 2011 documentary film maker Michael Moore delivered a rousing speech in Madison. Understanding the meaning of THE STORY, Moore praised the citizen activists for arousing “a sleeping giant known as the working people of the United States of America.” He passionately pointed out that what’s broke is not America or Wisconsin, but “the moral compass of the rulers.” And he prodded the mainstream press to publicize one simple fact: “Just 400 Americans, 400, have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.”

In 2012 THE STORY will be the recall of Governor Scott Walker. We know that the mainstream media will not likely tell it in the public interest. Therefore we will continue to need TONY Award types to keep telling it like it is.
Previous TONY Award recipients can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Tony Palmeri (tony@tonypalmeri.com) is a Professor of Communication at UW Oshkosh

Media Rants: An Interview With Jay Heck

2011-11-03T11:49:00.001-05:00

On Monday November 7^th from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. at UW Oshkosh Reeve Union Ballroom 227C Common Cause in Wisconsin will sponsor a FREE public forum on “Whatever Happened to Good Government in Wisconsin?” I’ll be participating along with newly elected Democratic Senator Jessica King, Republican Representative Richard Spanbauer, WOSH News Director Jonathan Krause, UW Oshkosh Political Science Professor Jim Simmons, and Common Cause Executive Director Jay Heck.Oshkosh Northwestern Managing Editor Jim Fitzhenry will serve as moderator.

My November Media Rants column for The SCENE features an interview with Jay Heck. Here it is:

Jay Heck has served as Executive Director of CC/WI since 1995. He’s an outspoken advocate for “small d” democratic reforms that will empower citizens and make elected leaders accountable to the public interest. Always available to the media, Jay graciously answered a few questions for this column. Want to hear more from Jay? Come to the forum on November 7^th!

Media Rants: Has the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision already had an impact on Wisconsin politics?

Jay Heck: The Supreme Court, in January of 2010, narrowly voted 5 to 4 to reverse over 100 years of precedent and settled law in order to open the flood gates and allow unlimited corporate, union and wealthy individual money to be utilized by outside, “independent” groups and organizations to influence elections at the federal and state level. Previously, there had been some restraints on this money. No longer. In Wisconsin it has meant an explosion in outside spending in our elections. This unlimited and largely undisclosed money overwhelmingly dominated the Wisconsin Supreme Court election earlier this year as well as the State Senate recall elections. Outside special interest group campaign spending was 4 or 5 times more than was spent by the candidates themselves.

Media Rants: What do you expect to see happen to Wisconsin elections as a result of the new Voter ID law?

Jay Heck: Wisconsin was once one of the easiest states in the nation in which to cast a ballot and was typically second only to Minnesota in voter turnout. We are now saddled with the most restrictive voter ID law in thenation. It will be easier to vote in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia than it will be in Wisconsin. The elderly, racial minorities, citizen with special needs and college students are the groups most severely affected by this new law because they are the groups least likely to possess the very narrow range of the forms of ID permitted. Voter turnout will most certainly fall across the state.

Media Rants: Our state Supreme Court has become a national joke, with justices involved literally in physical altercations with each other. Currently SC judges are elected for 10 year terms. Is it time to think about appointing them?

Jay Heck: Walker and the Republican majority in the Legislature repealed the “Impartial Justice” Law that was enacted into law less than two years ago. It provided full public financing to state Supreme Court candidates who agreed to abide by spending limits of $400,000 for their campaigns. Now, special interest campaign contributions will flow into the campaign coffers of court candidates and outside spending will blanket the airwaves with negative attack ads in even greater amounts than the $6 million that was spent in 2007, 2008 and 2011. We need to at least explore the possibility of whether or not a different system is better. It may be that merit selection of Supreme Court justices is not the way to go. But the current system in the aftermath of the repeal of the Impartial Justice law is clearly headed toward disaster. One thing is certain: the status quo cannot stand.

Media Rants: What's wrong with the way we redistrict legislative seats in Wisconsin? What would be a better way?

Jay Heck: Wisconsin’s current redistricting process is one of the most partisan and secretive in the nation. New congressional and legislative districts were drawn this year behind closed doors, with virtually no public input or inspection, and paid for with hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds to create new congressional districts less competitive and more partisan than ever before. Instead of allowing politicians to pick their voters we ought to do what Iowa does. There, a nonpartisan state entity draws the new district boundaries every ten years (after the Census). The result is that there are many more competitive elections at the legislative and congressional level in Iowa than here and it costs taxpayers a fraction of what is spent in Wisconsin to make elections as noncompetitive and inconsequential as possible.

Media Rants: Lots of citizens no longer recognize our state; they feel our politics are broken almost beyond repair. What advice to you have for them?

Jay Heck: The worst thing that any citizen can do is to disengage, throw up their hands and say it’s all hopeless. That is precisely what many special interest groups and politicians hope and work to make happen. That way they, and not the people, control the government. The better course of action is to get mad and get even! Engage, get involved, challenge those in power, create a fuss, make others uncomfortable, raise hell and make your voices heard. Loudly. Citizens greatly underestimate their power. You have it. Use it. And you can start by attending the forum at UW-Oshkosh on November 7^th. See you there!

Media Rants: Social Media Masks

2011-10-04T10:35:00.005-05:00

This Media Rant went to press before the outbreak of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. That movement appears to be making great use of social media in the civic manner outlined in the Rant. It remains to be seen if OWS can or will result in an Egyptian style uprising right here in the USA. -TP

Social Media Masks

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

from the October 2011 edition of the Fox Valley SCENE

New York University Professor of New Media ClayShirky argues that humans spend a trillion hours per year engaged in digital media creation and participation. That participation can be what Shirky calls “communal” (e.g. placing humorous photos on Twitter or Facebook largely for the benefit of online friends or followers) or “civic” (e.g. using digital media to coordinate political actions that benefit society at large.).

The ongoing revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa feature remarkable displays of civic digital media participation. Twitter, Facebook, texting, and other digital dynamics did not cause the toppling of corrupt, tyrannical governments in Tunisia and Egypt, but as noted by Internet pundit Stephen Balkam: “it is undeniable that the use of the web to organize and sustain many of the protests has been critical.”

In the United States, the disappearance of civic culture is well documented, depressing, and dangerous. Not surprisingly, Americans spend much time using social media for communal participation. As a moderately active Facebook and Twitter participant for more than a year, I’ve noticed that individual users create “personas” for their “friends” (Facebook) or “followers” (Twitter). I’ll call these personas “Social Media Masks.” Here are the masks I’ve observed:

*The Self Promoter: Online or off, we’re all self promoters to some extent. There’s nothing inherently wrong with drawing attention to our professional and other accomplishments. In business and in the nonprofit world, survival often requires effective self promotion. On Twitter and Facebook, the most pathetic self promotion tends to come from politicians. I read a tweet from a congressional candidate urging me to go to her website “to sign up or contribute and help send a bold, energetic leader to Congress!” Thank goodness politicians promote themselves that way; otherwise we might think they are “cowardly, lethargic followers.”

*The Mom and Dadzilla: The American family may be dysfunctional and in disarray, but you’d never know that if your only knowledge came from parental Facebook posts. In this my 50^th year of existence, thanks to FB I’ve seen more photos of happy children, more photos of happy children embraced by happy parents, and more photos of happy extended family gatherings than I had seen in my prior 49 years combined.

*The Town Crier: Unlike pure self promoters, town criers will announce events that may have nothing to do with them personally. In addition to promoting events, town criers are very good at forwarding useful information to their friends and followers about everything from how to find out where to vote to who’s running the best happy hour special.

*The Court Jester: The court jesters think the world would be a better place if we would all just lighten up a little. If there’s an over the top “lolcat” (a photograph of a cat with a humorous text) somewhere on the web, the court jesters will pass it on. Some court jesters have a preference for vulgar comedic material, which often puts them at odds with the mom and dadzillas.

*The Hyperpartisan: Democratic and Republican Party zealots are obnoxious offline, so it shouldn’t be surprising that they’d be that way on the net too. The hyperpartisan will forward link after link of punditry, reporting, studies, and literally anything else that shows their side is right and the other wrong (although the hyperpartisan’s tone usually implies the other side is not just wrong but also evil and corrupt.). The problem with hyperpartisans of any stripe, online or offline, is that they are too predictable. They’re usually bereft of original thoughts and so it’s easy to dismiss them as nothing more than hacks. You watch: if and when America does experience an Egyptian style rebellion, the hyperpartisan hacks will be the first ones to defend the status quo against the citizen “mobs.”

*The Pedantic: Often wallowing in obscurity, pedantics seek to enlighten friends and followers with bits of insight and information not typically available in the mainstream media. On Twitter, which allows only 140 characters per post, the pedantic sometimes communicates in proverbs. African-American scholar/activist Cornel West’s twitter feed has elements of a modern Sermon on the Mount. On September 7^th he tweeted, “interrogate your hidden assumptions.” A few days later he opined, “If you’ve got your heart in your slingshot, you can bring down giants.” Hmmm.

*The Bob Grahamer: In 2003 then Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham announced he would seek his party’s nomination for the presidency. The press revealed Graham’s obsessive journaling habits: “He has kept a running account of his every waking moment for the past 23 years; 14 in the Senate, eight in the Governor's mansion, even his days in the state legislature. Graham writes down every meal, every meeting, every person he meets.” In the online world, a Bob Grahamer is someone who matches the former senator’s level of minutiae documentation but insists on posting it for all to see. You all know the type.

All of the social media masks described above represent media users in creative action. Professor Shirky says “the stupidest possible creative act is still a creative act.” Using media to create is much better than the consumer, couch potato model of media use of the latter 20^th century. The 21^st century challenge is to turn the creative, purely communal social media masks into creative civic masks.

Journalism in Hyperpartisan Times: Brief Annotated Bibliography

2011-09-24T08:00:00.003-05:00

On September 22, 2011 I spoke at the Appleton Public Library on the topic of "Journalism in Hyperpartisan Times." I left the audience with a brief annotated bibliography of sources useful to me in preparing the presentation. Here it is:

Brief Annotated Bibliography

Anyone seeking to learn about the nature and role of modern journalism can find scores of insightful books, blogs, and other sources on the topic. Below I present a small sample of print and Web works that have directly influenced my thinking on the topic of “Journalism in Hyperpartisan Times.”

Books:

Rosen, Jay (2001). What Are Journalists For? Yale University Press.

A professor at New York University, Dr. Rosen writes extensively on journalism’s relationship to citizenship. The book highlights the shortcomings of modern journalism, especially in relation to politics and civic culture, and suggests ways to fix matters.

McChesney, Robert (2000). RichMedia, Poor Democracy. The New Press.

Dr. McChesney argues that journalism in a democracy should serve three major roles: accounting of people in power, presenting diversity of opinion, and fact checking. In his book he explores the reasons why corporate media fail to fulfill those roles.

Putnam, Robert D. (2000). BowlingAlone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster. (http://bowlingalone.com/)

Though not about journalism per se, Putnam’s important book demonstrates in dramatic fashion the breakdown of civic culture in the United States. An invigorated journalism is needed to help restore some sense of civic community.

Lueders, Bill (2010). Watchdog: 25 Years of Muckrakingand Rabblerousing. Jones Books.

One of the most valuable players in Wisconsin journalism for many years, Bill Lueders is a champion of freedom of information and transparency. He offers stinging critiques of all public officials who dare withhold information from the public.

On the Web:

ProPublica: Journalism in the Public Interest (http://www.propublica.org/)

Winner of a 2011 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting (for a series of remarkable stories on the role of Wall St. bankers in worsening the financial crisis for their own gain), ProPublica’s mission is “To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing.”

Jay Rosen’s PressThink Blog (http://pressthink.org/)

Almost every one of professor Rosen’s posts sparks important, thoughtful debate on a range of topics, including the failure of “horse race” coverage of politics and the shortcomings of “he said, she said” journalism. A persistent theme of Rosen’s is that journalists should strive not to eliminate bias from their work, but to show good, sound judgment.

James Fallows (national correspondent for The Atlantic) (http://www.theatlantic.com/james-fallows/)

Mr. Fallows might be the best working journalist in America today. His writings are always well researched, thoughtful, provocative, and always lead the reader to links that further substantiate his claims.

Wisconsin Center For Investigative Journalism (http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/)

Like old time muckrakers, the Center seeks to “Protect the vulnerable. Expose wrongdoing. Seek solutions to problems.” With a focus on government integrity and quality of life, the Center produces vital Badger State investigative journalism.

Bruce Murphy’s Milwaukee Magazine “Murphy’s Law” Blog (http://www.insidemilwaukee.com/Blog/murphyslaw)

Bruce Murphy is probably the finest journalist in the state of Wisconsin. He’s especially good at exposing lazy journalism as it is often practiced at wide circulation publications like the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Jim Romenesko’s Blog (http://www.poynter.org/category/latest-news/romenesko/) (In 2012 Romenesko will launch http://jimromenesko.com/

Few deliver the “news about the news” as well as Romenesko. Though now in semi-retirement, he continues to produce an invaluable blog for anyone interested in the “inside” story of American journalism.

Media Rants: Journalism in Hyper-Partisan Times

2011-09-05T21:04:00.003-05:00

[Note: The Appleton Public Library invited me to speak on the topic of "Journalism in Hyper-Partisan Times. The event will be held at the Library on Thursday, September 22 at 6:30 p.m. The September Media Rants column below is a preview of some of the comments I will make that evening. My main point is stated near the end of the Rant:"Great journalism isn’t nonpartisan. This is not to say that journalists should be partisan Democrats or partisan Republicans. Rather, journalists should be democracy partisans; news stories and opinion writing should be framed not to appease networks of power and influence, but to empower average citizens to participate in the never ending struggle to build a more just society." On the 22nd, I'll give examples of this kind of great journalism. It's rare, but it does exist--even sometimes in mainstream sources].

Journalism in Hyper Partisan Times

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

From the September 2011 edition of The SCENE

On Thursday, September 22^nd at 6:30 p.m. I’ll speak at the Appleton Public Library on the subject of “Journalism in Hyper Partisan Times.” The event is free and open to all.

Are we living in “hyperpartisan” times? Scores of mainstream political voices insist yes, and they’re pretty hyper about it. President Obama repeatedly tells the nation that "The only thing holding us back right now is our politics." Former California Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman told Newsweek, “We’re playing a hyperpartisan game with real ammunition, and it’s too dangerous . . . we need candidates and leaders who prize the virtues of bipartisanship and solving problems over blame game politics.”

A bipartisan group of former elected officials along with business and academic leaders have heavy hearts about hyperpartisanship. In response they’ve formed the advocacy outfit “No Labels.” They argue (politely of course) “Hyper partisanship is one of the greatest domestic challenges our nation faces. . . Rather than focusing on solving problems, hyper partisans use labels to demonize their opponents, enforce orthodoxy within their own ranks, and marginalize sensible compromises.”

Warnings about hyperpartisanship aren’t new. Madison’s Federalist Paper #10 suggests the Constitution is designed to check the power of political parties. Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address spoke of the evils of “faction.” In 1881 former president Hayes attributed the assassination of his successor James Garfield to the “extreme and bitter partisanship which so largely prevails in our country.”

The modern critique of hyperpartisanship seems rooted in the belief that “extremists” on the Republican right and Democratic left resist compromise and prevent “sensible center” solutions to America’s problems. The extremists are magnified by shrill talk radio hosts, shadowy Think Tanks, and over the top cable commentators on Fox and MSNBC.

There are two major problems with the hyperpartisanship thesis. First, a false equivalency is drawn between positions labeled “extreme.” In the debate over how to reduce the national debt, we are supposed to believe that standing against cuts in Medicare is the same as opposing any tax increases, even simply ending millionaire loopholes. Somehow the sensible “centrist” position is a shared sacrifice model in which millions of middle class and poor people see reductions in Medicare and/or Social Security benefits while the super rich “sacrifice” a tax break.

Second, the hyperpartisanship thesis wrongly assumes that the dominant contest in American politics is Left v. Right. It’s not. As UW Madison labor scholar Joel Rogers, former Republican Party strategist KevinPhillips and others have argued, American politics is not left/right but top/down.(Notice how the "No Labels" video below uncritically accepts the left/right axis as the cause of our dysfunctional politics; solutions are "common sense" if we could only get over the left/right divide). Yes there are real and meaningful differences between the Republican and Democratic parties, but only willful ignorance can blind us to the fact that since the 1980s we’ve seen disturbing bipartisan agreement on a range of reverse Robin Hood initiatives (financial sector deregulation, global trade agreements, tax cuts for the rich, taxpayer bailouts of “too big to fail” industries, high tech sector subsidies, etc.) that have turned the world’s greatest democracy into a plutocrat’s paradise. And it’s not an exaggeration to say that absent mass grassroots action, the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision will ensure elite control of our politics for many generations to come.

Unfortunately, almost all mainstream American journalism accepts and reinforces the hyperpartisanship thesis. Striving to be perceived as “nonpartisan” and “moderate,” political journalists believe they are doing their jobs properly if (a) their reporting marginalizes or keeps on the fringe all “extremist” perspectives and (b) the reporting upsets Democrats and Republicans equally.

The so called nonpartisan style pervades most press and broadcast coverage of politics. A typical example is New York Times reporter Matt Bai’s August 12th coverageof the Republican presidential candidate forum in Iowa. After correctly lambasting the candidates for pandering to base voters in claiming they would walk away from a hypothetical spending cut deal that required one dollar in new tax revenue for every 10 dollars of reductions, Bai then feels compelled to argue that Democratic candidates would pander just as badly. Bai says, “You could have put a lot of Washington Democrats up on that stage, and asked them if they would have accepted $10 in new taxes or new stimulus in exchange for $1 in cuts to Social Security, and you probably would have gotten much the same response: hell, no.” Those sentences add nothing to our understanding of Republican pandering in Iowa, but they do much to frame reporter Bai as “fair” inside the Washington beltway.

Great journalism isn’t nonpartisan. This is not to say that journalists should be partisan Democrats or partisan Republicans. Rather, journalists should be democracy partisans; news stories and opinion writing should be framed not to appease networks of power and influence, but to empower average citizens to participate in the never ending struggle to build a more just society.

New Washington Post Ombudsman Patrick Pexton wrote recently that journalistic populism might be the key to that paper’s survival. He says the Post should be “hard-hitting, scrappy and questioning; skeptical of all political figures and parties and beholden to no one. It has to be the rock ’em sock ’em organization that is passionate about the news. It needs to be less bloodless and take more risks when chasing the story and the truth.”

On September 22^nd I’d love to hear what you think!

Copyright 2011 Tony Palmeri

The Conservative Case For Recalling Governor Scott Walker

2011-08-12T12:17:00.001-05:00

In the entire history of the United States, only two governors have been removed from office via citizen recall. North Dakotans recalled Republican/Nonpartisan League governor Lynn Frazier in 1921, while in 2003 Californians showed Democrat Gray Davis the door in a circus-like recall election that brought Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger to power.
Frazier and Davis were recalled during times of great economic stress in their states, and both were accused of mismanagement. Given that our system of checks and balances gives the legislature significant power in shaping economic policy, the ineffectiveness of said policy can never be the fault of the governor alone. Thus the recalls of Frazier and Davis were blatantly political and probably represent an abuse of the recall statute.

Indeed, take a look at the petition circulated as justification for recalling Davis:

[Governor Davis' actions were a] "gross mismanagement of California Finances by overspending taxpayers' money, threatening public safety by cutting funds to local governments, failing to account for the exorbitant cost of the energy, and failing in general to deal with the state's major problems until they get to the crisis stage."

Virtually every clause of that petition (especially "failing in general to deal with the state's major problems until they get to the crisis stage") can be said about all 50 of the nation's governors at all times. Crappy job performance is a great reason to remove someone from office in a general election, but a recall ought to require something more substantial.

Should a recall effort against Governor Scott Walker get off the ground, his enablers at WMC, WTMJ, and WPRI will no doubt frame the effort as pure labor/leftist politics. But I think the case for a Walker recall is conservative in nature, and should be supported by all citizens who believe in good government regardless of party affiliation. Two main arguments support the recall: (1) the bait and switch, and (2) abuse of power.

First, the bait and switch: We all expect politicians to say one thing during the campaign and do something else once in office. What we DON'T expect is that the "something else" includes immediate overturning of 50 years of established precedent.

Mr. Walker ran for office on a platform of asking for greater state employee contributions to health care premiums and the pension fund. He was clear that if the state employee unions would not agree to greater contributions, he would support continued furloughs or layoffs. He did not run on a platform of union busting.

Baiting the electorate with the promise of being a tough negotiator and then making the switch to union busting mode sets a dangerous precedent for governing. Absent an attempt to recall Walker, the message to future gubernatorial candidates is clear: you can safely overturn settled precedent(s) or laws that you disagree with without even having to be crystal clear about your intentions during the campaign. The result is weasel politics of the worst kind.

Second, the abuse of power: The governor has the duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." No governor has to like state statutes governing state employment labor relations, and he's free to advocate for changes to the rules. Especially given that those rules have been around for decades, it's not unreasonable to expect that radical rewriting of them would be preceded at a minimum by legislative committee hearings, public hearings throughout the state, and vigorous debate on the floors of the Senate and Assembly. That's just good government.

Citizens need to communicate to Mr. Walker that in the phrase "faithful execution of the laws," the word "execution" does not mean "kill." Governors ought not have the power to kill off laws or statutes they do not like on the basis of manufactured crises, ideology, or crass politics.

Should a recall election against Mr. Walker actually take place, millions of dollars worth of outside spending will almost guarantee that Republican voters will stand by him. That's unfortunate, because the case for recall outlined in this post is actually a very conservative one. Conservatives are supposed to value law, precedent, and tradition; for real conservatives change ought to take place only when reasoned argument dictates and only when transparent deliberative procedures have been followed.

Conservatives reject (or should reject) any change that is the result of the application of raw power to overrun political opponents. Liberals should reject that kind of change too.

If the Wisconsin citizens decide to recall Scott Walker, they will be making a conservative statement about the standard of governing behavior we expect from our Chief Executive. The entire nation would benefit from hearing that statement.

My Take on the Recalls

2011-08-10T11:15:00.000-05:00

Last night the Republicans maintained control of the Wisconsin State Senate by winning 4 of 6 recall elections. For critics of Governor Scott Walker and the Republican legislature's blatant disregard for "small r" republican principles, the results were a major disappointment.

When the recall drive started, I honestly thought the Democrats would take at least 4, and possibly all 6 of the contests. I also thought they would win most of them by wide margins. So what happened?

First, let's stipulate that in any two party partisan election, the Republican and Democrat both start off with about 30% of the vote each (this is called "the base."). The remaining 40% are not "moderates;" rather, they are independents for whom campaign rhetoric matters. Winning campaigns are able to secure the base and the majority of independents.

In February and March I thought that the Republicans had been so disrespectful of basic rules of governance that the Democrats in recall elections would not only win the independents but also cut into the Republican base. That didn't happen, even though the Dems ran some excellent candidates. Pundits and Dem operatives will blame the media, or outside spending, or the fact that the elections took place in August, or any number of external factors, but I think at root the problem was ineffective Democratic messaging.

Most voters, especially the independents, believe (correctly) that elected officials should not be recalled simply for taking tough votes. I personally would not vote to recall an elected official just because he or she took a vote I disagreed with.

Unfortunately, the moment Democratic Party advertising started focusing on the fact that the Republicans had voted for massive cuts in school aids, voted for tax cuts for the rich, etc. etc., they allowed the Republican candidates to assume a victim pose: "I am being punished for taking tough votes." The independent voters, I am convinced, do not approve of the governor's budgets . . . but neither do they approve of removing an official from office simply for voting for those budgets.

An independent voter WILL vote to recall, in my judgement, when it can be shown that the elected representative did not meet his or her responsibility to REPRESENT constituents. A representative refusing to represent is most certainly exercising misconduct in office. This is especially true for state and federal elected officials, who are confronted with legislation that is often the product of narrow lobbies (e.g. ALEC) whose interests conflict with the representatives' constituents.

To represent does not mean to poll constituents and always vote the majority's wishes. But it does mean to listen genuinely to all sides, to be responsive to requests for information, to be willing to change one's mind when clear and compelling evidence requires it, to advocate for the most transparent government possible, to slow down the deliberative process when it is clear that insufficient debate has taken place, to do whatever is in one's power to prevent a vote on major legislation until sufficient public hearings have been held, and be a role model of respectful communication with all constituents.

The principles outlined in the last paragraph are "small r" republican; they are what we should expect from all elected officials regardless of party affiliation or office held. What Democrats needed to show in these recall elections was that after the election of Scott Walker the Republicans stopped being republican. Instead, the Republicans acted like apparatchiks; rubber stamping the governor's agenda, dividing the state by pitting public employees against the private sector, shutting down debate at the time when debate was most needed, and simply failing to communicate with their constituents.

My view is that every Republican on the ballot yesterday deserved to be recalled because they failed to uphold the basic principles of republicanism. To violate ALL these principles, as the Republicans most certainly did over the last 8 months, is most certainly malfeasance in office. Thus their behavior would fall under the strict recall language of the state of Georgia endorsed by the Oshkosh Northwestern today.

In short, when Democratic advertising started to critique the Republicans for their votes, they took the focus off of the Republicans' heavy handed governing procedures. Those procedures showed open contempt for some pretty basic rules of republicanism, and should be opposed by all civic minded people regardless of party or platform.

Murdoch Media: The Sleeze Finally Hits The Fan

2011-07-31T12:20:00.005-05:00

Murdoch Media: The Sleaze Finally Hits The Fan

Media Rants

By

Tony Palmeri

From the August 2011 edition of THE SCENE

In 2007 Clive Goodman, a “journalist” for Britain’s sleazy celebrity gossip tabloid The News of the World (NotW), went to jail for illegally hacking into voice mails of the paper’s “persons of interest.” For 4 years, NotW executives brushed off the hacking as the work of one rogue reporter. Owned by Australian born media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, NotW in 2010 averaged 2.8 million readers per week.

Then last month, the sleeze finally hit the fan; Britain’s Guardian exposed the targeting of as many as 7,000 citizens for phone hacking. Targets included victims of terrorism. Most enraging was the discovery that NotW weasels hacked the voice messages of 13 year old murder victim Millie Dowler. Though NotW had been in circulation for 168 years, public revulsion at the Dowler fiasco led to Murdoch closing down the paper. As I write in mid-July the scandal has already resulted in the resignations of top level Murdoch executives Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton as well as an array of journalists. [August 2 update: The Guardian recently exposed NotW phone hacking related to another young murder victim.].

Possible phone message hacking of 9/11 victims, along with allegations of bribing police officers for sensitive information, resulted in United States Attorney General Eric Holder launching an investigation into the News Corporation’s activities on this side of the pond. Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal responded with an outrageous editorial attacking “politicians and our competitors” using the scandal to “perhaps injure press freedom in general.”

Rupert Murdoch is not the first and will not be the last ethically challenged, power obsessed corporate media executive. Yet with the possible exception of William Randolph Hearst, the famed publisher whose “yellow journalism” rags whipped the public into war frenzy and in the 1930s exposed millions of readers to pro-Nazi propaganda, Murdoch is the single most negative force in the history of western media. Since the 1980s, television and print productions associated with the Murdoch brand read like a murderer’s row of exploitation, titillation, free market cheerleading, and right wing proselytizing. In addition to NotW they include “A Current Affair,” The New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Fox News Network and many others. Often, as in the case of the New York Post and Wall Street Journal, Murdoch’s ownership transforms once respectable news sources into sensationalist muck (the Post) or a propaganda arm for Murdoch’s market ideology (the WSJ).

Legendary Washington Post Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein, long critical of the Murdoch empire, argues the hacking scandal will surprise “only those who have willfully blinded themselves to that empire’s pernicious influence on journalism in the English-speaking world. Too many of us have winked in amusement at the salaciousness without considering the larger corruption of journalism and politics promulgated by Murdoch Culture on both sides of the Atlantic.” Not surprised is New York Times media columnist David Carr. His shocking July 17^th piece examines the extent to which Murdoch’s empire uses its financial clout to silence critics. News America Marketing, News Corporation’s newspaper insert marketing business “has paid out about $655 million to make embarrassing charges of corporate espionage and anticompetitive behavior go away.”

According to Nation columnist John Nichols, Murdoch has “gamed American politics every bit as thoroughly as Britain’s.” During a 2003 appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Murdoch discovered that Republicans on the panel could not wait to kiss his ass. Nichols quotes Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner as telling Murdoch, “When my wife doesn’t get a good dose of Fox News every day she gets grumpy. So there are some of us who appreciate what you are doing.” Today, Congressional Republicans appear to be in no hurry to investigate Murdoch’s News Corporation. Why risk harming the “fair and balanced” Fox News network’s incessant spewing of GOP talking points?

Given the above, it’s tempting to see Murdoch as the cause of the debasement of political discourse and journalism on both sides of the Atlantic. But that’s too simple; Murdoch more accurately is the most awful symptom of what happens when an unchallenged model of profit-driven media intersects with a weak media regulatory system. Here’s the equation: Unquestioned profit motive + weak regulations = Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Media critic Marvin Kitman’s fine piece in the November 2010 Harper’s (“Murdoch Triumphant: How we could have stopped him twice”) lays out in crisp detail how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) virtually suspended the Communication Act of 1934 in order to green light Murdoch’s growth plans. Kitman argues that the FCC, when it came to Murdoch, wasn’t a lap dog as much as a lap dancer.

The FCC lap dance happened in the 80s and 90s. Murdoch bought 6 American television stations, but because the News Corporation was Australia based the FCC could have denied licenses on the grounds that the Communications Act does not allow foreign ownership of American stations. The FCC ruled in Murdoch’s favor, and did again when he sought to own a newspaper and television station in the same market.

I learned from Ben Bagdikian’s classic The New Media Monopoly that Murdoch’s News Corporation even owns Zondervan, the largest producer of commercial Bibles in America. When conservative Christians buy a Zondervan Bible, do you think they know they are supporting a sultan of sleaze overseeing a morally challenged and quite possibly criminally corrupt empire? Not a prayer, I suspect.

Media Rants: Thank You Commissioner Copps

2011-07-01T10:24:00.005-05:00

Thank You Commissioner Copps

Media Rants

By

Tony Palmeri

from the July 2011 edition of The SCENE

The Communications Act of 1934 created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an independent agency charged with ensuring media owners operate in the public interest. The FCC rarely meets that charge, in part because like other federal regulatory agencies it tends to be controlled and/or coopted by the entities it allegedly regulates. The FCC’s own Working Group on the Information Needs of Communities in a recent report admits as much:

“Over the FCC’s 75-year existence, it has renewed more than 100,000 licenses. It has denied only four renewal applications due to the licensee’s failure to meet its public interest programming obligation. No license renewals have been denied on those grounds in the past 30 years. The current system operates neither as a free market nor as an effectively regulated one; and it does not achieve the public interest goals set out by Congress or the FCC.”

The FCC is run by 5 commissioners appointed by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate. One commissioner is selected by the president to serve as chair. As noted by mediahistorian Bob McChesney, the FCC’s an industry friendly outfit surrounded by corporate CEOs, lawyers and lobbyists; over the years they’ve studiously avoided meaningful input from the public in whose interest they supposedly operate.

In the FCC’s entire history three commissioners stand out for their commitment to the public interest. Newton Minow served as FCC chair from 1961 to 1963. His depiction of commercial television broadcasting as a “vast wasteland” inspired generations of educators and activists to advocate for higher media standards and media literacy as a mandatory part of the school curriculum.

Nicholas Johnson served from 1966 to 1973. Known for his dissent from business as usual at the FCC, Johnson in 1970 authored How to Talk Back to Your Television Set , a classic statement of the perils of corporate media ownership and a prescription for how to fight back.

Commissioner Michael Copps will leave the FCC at the end of this year. Since 2001 he’s been the FCC’s most articulate and principled voice in favor of forceful defense of the public interest. In 2003, when then FCC chair Michael Powell led the ill-conceived charge to ease restrictions on media consolidation, Copps and commissioner Jonathan Adelstein held unprecedented public hearings in 13 cities. They sparked 3 million letters and mass protests. The Powell faction still had enough votes to loosen media ownership rules, but opponents successfully challenged them in court.

With his typical clarity and force, Copps at the National Conference for Media Reform in April of this year sounded a clarion call for continued activism against media consolidation:

“The big money crowd keeps telling us media consolidation has run its course. Hmm, I wonder if Comcast and AT&T just didn’t get the memo? Don’t believe it for a second; the binge continues. And it’s even more dangerous because they’re now after new media, too, broadband and the Internet, which we all hoped would be the bulwark against more consolidation in radio, television and cable. So now it’s visions of gated Internet communities that dance in their heads. And to keep reformers at bay, they’ve come up with the rallying cry of ‘Don’t regulate the Internet.’ What they really mean, of course, is ‘Don’t let anyone but us control the Internet.’ So regardless of whether it’s a traditional or new media context, the real question remains the same: will we allow a few huge companies to control consumers’ access to information? Well, without vastly increased public outcry, the answer is clearly ‘yes, we will.’

Let me ask: Is there anyone here who wants a consolidated, cable-ized Internet controlled by a few corporate gatekeepers?

Is there anyone here who believes new media should suffer the same sad fate that decimated big radio, television and cable?

Is there anyone here who believes our civic dialogue, that precious and essential conversation we have with ourselves to keep democracy alive, can survive any more of this reckless folly?”

Challenging the aforementioned recent FCC Working Group report assertion that American news media is mostly vibrant, Copps says, “Where is the vibrancy when hundreds of newsrooms have been decimated and tens of thousands of reporters are walking the street in search of a job instead of working the beat in search of a story?” Copps has called for at least 3 public hearings on the Working Group Report; as I write this in mid June none have been scheduled.

Copps argues that media reform is not likely absent the creation of a sense of urgency. As he told the New America Foundation: “Knowing that our news and information system is not, right now, supplying the depth and breadth of information a functioning democracy requires for informed decision making, we must push hard for action. We need to be really engaged on this. . . This is no time to be timid. There is no need to be deflected or defensive or scared off by those whose vested interests, economic and political, argue against any and all public interest oversight.”

Michael Copps is originally from Milwaukee. Like every Badger should be, he is informed by a “Forward” mindset. If we had 5 Copps on the FCC, we’d have a more robust, accountable media.

Tony Palmeri (tony@tonypalmeri.com) is a professor of communication studies at UW Oshkosh.

So Much For The Kagan Rationale

2011-06-29T11:02:00.002-05:00

When President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, the major rationale offered was that Kagan would be a "consensus builder" able to sway conservative justices (especially Anthony Kennedy) in a progressive or at least moderate direction.

Now that Kagan's first term on the Court is over, it's a good time to assess how that rationale is playing out. Today's Washington Post includes a graphic indicating what percentage of time each justice agreed with the others. Let's look at what percentage of the time each conservative justice agreed with Kagan:

*Roberts: Agreed with Kagan 69% of the time.
*Alito: Agreed with Kagan 67% of the time.
*Thomas: Agreed with Kagan 65% of the time.
*Scalia: Agreed with Kagan 69% of the time.
*Kennedy: Agreed with Kagan 71% of the time.

Contrast those figures with the amount of time each of the liberal justices agreed with Kagan:
*Ginsburg: Agreed with Kagan 90% of the time.
*Breyer: Agreed with Kagan 88% of the time.
*Sotomayor: Agreed with Kagan 94% of the time.

What these numbers suggest is that Kagan, at least at this early point in her tenure, is a reliable liberal vote on the Court. There's very little evidence to suggest that, so far at least, she holds sway with any of the conservative justices in any meaningful sense.

The crucial case testing Kagan's consensus building abilities was the recent one that gutted Arizona's public campaign finance law. Two elements of that case should be troubling for those hoping that Kagan will be the Court's consensus builder.

First, the 5 conservatives took a very, to put it charitably, "novel" approach to the First Amendment in holding that using public money to "level the playing field" in political campaigns; i.e. guaranteeing MORE SPEECH in the campaign, somehow places a "burden" on a privately financed candidate. If Kagan could not persuade a "moderate" like Justice Kennedy to see the fallacy in that kind of reasoning, it does not bode well for other cases that will come before the Court.

Second, in Kagan's career before her appointment to the Court she was somewhat of a First Amendment scholar. That she could not move ONE of the conservative justices in an area that is her expertise seems to suggest it's highly unlikely she will be able to do it in other areas.

During the Kagan confirmation period, Salon's Glenn Greenwald argued forcefully that if Obama was looking for a consensus builder who could sway conservatives, Diane Wood would be an excellent choice:

"Wood's ability to craft legal opinions to induce conservative judges to join her opinions is renowned, as is the respect she commands from them through unparalleled diligence and force of intellect."

In short, the results of her first term indicate that Elena Kagan will be a reliable liberal vote on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, she was sold to the Congress and the American public as being able to do more than that. It's early and the jury is still out of course, but so far we have little evidence that Justice Kennedy is being moved by Kagan in any meaningful way.

Media Rants: On Heckling vs. Techling

2011-06-01T10:24:00.000-05:00

On Hecklers vs. Techlers

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

Controversial public communicators on the Left and Right can always count on the presence of hecklers in the immediate audience. The World English Dictionary says that to heckle is “to interrupt (a public speaker, performer, etc.) by comments, questions, or taunts.”

For some social movements, heckling of political opponents is a prime political strategy. Peace Movement and Tea Party activists share little common ground, yet wreaking havoc at events via often hysterical heckling is a modus operandi of both. Since corporate media doesn’t commonly cover events absent some kind of caustic clash, who can blame activists for acting up?

Some minimize heckling as merely a blatant form of uncivil behavior. I think that’s too simplistic. Sincere hecklers view themselves as blowing the façade off of tightly controlled, propaganda driven events designed to showcase establishment speakers in the most favorable possible light. Almost all Tea Party heckling matches that pattern, as does the recent heckling at a San Francisco fundraiser of Barack Obama by supporters of the President upset with the Administration’s treatment of Private Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of aiding Wikileaks.

Sometimes heckling is quiet and clever. When Scott Walker tried to score public relations points at the annual Governor’s Fishing Opener on Lake Wissota, he was met by boaters carrying signs protesting his assaults on worker rights. News coverage mentioned the actions and message of the protesters, effectively blowing the Governor’s portrayal of himself as an “average guy gone fishin’” out of the water.

Whether one views heckling as a legitimate part of democratic participation or as an obnoxious invasion of peaceful events, its effects pale in comparison to disruptions made possible by digital technology. Modern public communicators need not fear heckling as much as “techling.”

I define techling as the secretive use of digital recording technology to produce “gotcha” moments for partisan political purposes. The “techler” usually hides his true identity from the target, edits recordings to showcase the target in the worst possible light, then feeds the recording(s) to a corporate media all too ready to consume. The end result is the discrediting and sometimes total destruction of an organization or person.

Right wing provocateur James O’Keefe is the crown prince of techling, using deceptive communication practices to undermine the credibility of a variety of left leaning outfits. O’Keefe’s greatest “success” was sparking a media feeding frenzy that led to the dismantling of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), an advocacy organization for persons of low and moderate income. O’Keefe and a female friend posed as pimp and prostitute, and secretly videotaped ACORN employees giving advice on how to break tax and other laws. The videos were fed to right wing media and played endlessly, picked up by the mainstream press, and led to the suspension of federal funding for the organization along with the loss of much private funding. Though full investigations in multiple states found no wrongdoing, the organization dissolved in 2010 because, as stated on the group’s website, “vindication doesn’t pay the bills.”

A local example of techling involves the case of UW Oshkosh Criminal Justice Professor Stephen Richards. Last month Dr. Richards was chastised for encouraging students to sign a recall petition against Republican State Senator Randy Hopper. In the secret recording of the class period, Dr. Richards is heard making his views on the Budget Repair Bill crystal clear. Though the recording had been made available to Republican operatives several months earlier, the release came after enough signatures had been collected to move forward with the recall election and after former Oshkosh Deputy Mayor Jessica King announced that she would run for the seat.

Republicans anxious to shift the focus away from Hopper’s rubber stamping of the Governor’s Budget Repair Bill quickly called for Richards’ resignation. Richards will survive the techling, though the fate of provocative teaching is less clear. Back in the day, a teacher’s major concern when preparing a lecture was “will this material provoke my students to think?” In the age of techling, the question becomes, “how will this material sound on the Charlie Sykes show?”

The Richards Affair provides us with a case study in how techling and the techler differ from heckling and the heckler. Let’s summarize the differences:

The heckler wants to disrupt the speaker in real time. The techler studiously avoids disrupting the speaker in the hope that he will say something incriminating.

The heckler wants to call attention to him or herself and/or a message and tries to provoke the speaker to debate. The techler hides in the shadows, refrains from stating views and wants to avoid debate.

The heckler wants to rattle the speaker. The techler wants to destroy the speaker.

The heckler is usually an activist. After the heckling is done, she will usually talk to the press to offer clarification and expanded remarks. The techler is a tool; he funnels audiovisuals to an ideological outfit (e.g. Fox News, Breitbart) and lets the outfit do the talking.

In short, heckling is a consequence of democracy; an urge to challenge the establishment and add more views into the public arena. Techling appears to have more in common with Stalinism; an attempt to destroy political opponents and remove voices from the public arena by any means necessary.

Tony Palmeri (tony@tonypalmeri.com) is a Professor of Communication Studies at UW Oshkosh.
Copyright 2011 Tony Palmeri All rights reserved.

Media Rants: Inside Looking Out

2011-05-02T11:19:00.009-05:00

Inside Looking Out

Media Rants

by Tony Palmeri

Shortly after moving to Oshkosh in 1989 to teach at the university, a student asked me to grade the local media’s reporting on local politics. I gave them an “F,” and explained that corporate newspaper, radio and television coverage of influential people featured shallow, incomplete and biased coverage favoring establishment interests.

Rather than bitch and whine, I followed a path punk rocker Jello Biafra later referred to as “Don’t hate the media, be the media.” Throughout the 1990s and 2000s I helped produce and host independent television and radio public affairs programs along with a blog and this column.

In 2007 the path took a detour when I was elected to the Oshkosh Common Council. For the first time I’d have the opportunity to evaluate media from an “insider” perspective. In April of this year I lost the election for the office of Oshkosh Mayor and decided not to run for another Council term, so I’m an “outsider” again.

But I want to reflect on those four insider years. Bob McChesney’s great 1999 book Rich Media, Poor Democracy argued that in a Democracy, journalism has three major roles: accounting of people in power, diversity of opinion, and fact checking. From an insider’s perspective, what grade do I give the local mainstream media on each role?

Let’s start with the worst, television. In four years on the Council, the only stories that piqued the interest of TV news producers were those featuring nasty neighborhood conflicts, like controversies over deer culling or building a Muslim mosque. Modern TV “journalists” in smaller markets like the Fox Valley are usually charming and pleasant, but seem incapable of exploring anything in depth and appear to have zero interest in critical issues affecting the health of cities (e.g. budget intricacies, bureaucratic incompetence) that do not produce great visuals for the TV screen. Just awful.TV grades:

Accounting of People in Power: F
Diversity of Opinion: F
Fact Checking: F

Radio’s only marginally better. In many cities a locally originated talk radio call in program becomes a way for public officials to feel the pulse of the people, and also helps keeps them accountable. Charlie Sykes plays that role effectively on the Right in Milwaukee, and John “Sly” Sylvester does it well on the Left in Madison. Oshkosh has no local call in for politics, while syndicated call in programs tend to be nothing more than wingnut bloviation.

Commercial radio these days dedicates limited resources to local reporting. Consequently, listeners get little insight about local government actions. Bob Burnell’s “Morning News Focus” on WOSH occasionally challenges local officials to defend a position, and at least he does provide a discussion forum. But overall, radio’s mostly a non-entity when it comes to playing a meaningful role in building a healthy Democracy. What a waste of air. Radio grades:

Accountability of People in Power: F
Diversity of Opinion: D
Fact Checking: F

In Oshkosh, print media’s dominated by Gannett’s Oshkosh Northwestern. They have very little competition (the UW Oshkosh Advance-Titan, for example, did not cover the race for Oshkosh Mayor even though both candidates were campus professors!). That’s unfortunate because profit-driven print media have minimal motivation to pursue high standards of journalistic and editorial excellence when they are the only game in town.

The Northwestern does a decent job, in reporting and editorially, on open government issues. But other than that they exist essentially as establishment cheerleaders. Almost every thinking adult in Oshkosh senses the pull of a deeply entrenched old boy network in the way the city is managed and in the underperforming patterns of economic development, yet the press is just not willing or able to crack that nut with the rigor or persistence that could win them a Pulitzer Prize.

In my four years on the Council I never refused a request to talk to Northwestern journalists, and often had lengthy conversations with them in which I offered facts and opinions that ran counter to the establishment view of the issue at hand. Most of that would not make it into the paper, of course, due to what one reporter once communicated to me as a problem of “getting my vetters to accept this.” By “vetters,” he meant the old boys protecting the old boys. Surely not unique to Oshkosh, but not any less frustrating because of that. Newspaper grades:

Accountability of People in Power: D
Diversity of Opinion: C
Fact Checking: C

What about alternative media like blogs, public access television, and social media like Facebook and Twitter? At their best, newer media challenge business as usual while providing information and viewpoints the mainstream press can’t or won’t go near. At their worst, they are little more than hyper partisan forums for misinformation and (often anonymous) cheap shots.

There are too many alternatives to grade as a group, but for me the most valuable was and is Main Street Oshkosh (mainstreetoshkosh.com). That site kept me accountable during my elected official insider days NOT by insults or questioning my integrity, but by pushing me to become better informed.

From the inside looking out, mainstream journalism turned out to be as subpar as I thought it was from the outside looking in. Inside or out, I’ll keep doing my best to raise the media bar.

Media Rants: On Legacies; Ellis, Moore, and Us

2011-04-04T07:41:00.012-05:00

Note: The Media Rant below was submitted to the SCENE before the controversy erupted involving UW Madison Professor William Cronon and the Wisconsin Republican Party's requests for his emails. Like Cronon's New York Times op-ed, mine makes use of a Joe McCarthy/Scott Walker analogy. I agree with Professor Cronon that "Scott Walker is not Joe McCarthy," though my piece argues that Mr. Walker has divided Wisconsin in ways that McCarthy could not have even dreamed. But I am less interested in Walker and McCarthy as much as how RESPONSES to divisive politicians build a legacy for the person(s) doing the responding. Read on for more.

On Legacies: Ellis, Moore, and Us

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

from the April 2011 edition of THE SCENE

America ain't broke! The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers. Michael Moore in Madison, March 5th 2011

In office for barely several months, Governor Scott Walker’s already managed to divide our state in ways the late commie hunter Joe McCarthy could not. At least Tail Gunner Joe could be excused as a bumbling alcoholic or inevitable product of anti-Communist hysteria going on at all levels of the federal government in the 1950s. And when the cameras were off McCarthy befriended his political opponents; the New York Times reported recently that he would often have lunch with Milwaukee’s Socialist Mayor Frank Zeidler.

In contrast, Walker breaks bread with supporters or sycophants. He found 20 minutes for a phone chat with a person he believed to be billionaire Republican operative David Koch, yet could not find 20 seconds for any Democrat who could have helped resolve the impasse over the “Budget Repair” bill. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank listened to the Koch call and heard in Walker an “unprincipled rigidity” that sees politics as tribal blood sport featuring a “never-ending cycle of revenge killings.”

One good thing about politicians like McCarthy and Walker is that they force people in a position to influence current events to show their true grit. Well known politicians, pundits, business leaders, educators, and others end up intentionally or unintentionally building an entire legacy around their response to the McCarthy or the Walker.

Republican Senator Margaret Chase Smith in 1950 stood up to McCarthy as she delivered her courageous “Declaration of Conscience.” She left a legacy of integrity, arguing that the Republican Party should never ”ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny: Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.” (Someone needs to get that speech to Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, among others.).

Edward R. Murrow became an icon of American journalism as a result of his WW II radio broadcasts, but his 1954 defense of the right to dissent and denunciation of McCarthyite excesses solidified his legacy as a champion of free speech and free association. Of McCarthy, Murrow said that, “his primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind,” a statement that sounds eerily contemporary as we listen to Mr. Walker’s mantra that the reason the state is “broke” is because of public worker wages and benefits.

The controversy over the Governor’s curtailing of collective bargaining rights and balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class and poor represents a legacy producing moment. Democratic Senators left for Illinois to filibuster the legislation, while their GOP counterparts (with the exception of Dale Schultz) rubber stamped the governor or, like West Bend’s Glenn Grothman, served as his unofficial attack dog. I predict history will judge the Fab 14 more kindly than Walker groupie Glenn.

But I want to single two public figures out for special mention: Neenah Republican Senator Mike Ellis and film maker Michael Moore. Ellis lost, and Moore left, a populist legacy in the state of Wisconsin.

Mike Ellis, who served in the Assembly from 1970 to 1980 and in the Senate since 1982, was always known as an independent Republican. His strong stands against pay to play politics and for good government gave Republican Tommy Thompson heartburn. His ideas for dealing with the state’s structural deficit never included repealing the right of public employees to have a seat at the bargaining table. He’s truly been a source of provocative and often progressive policy ideas.

Until now. When the people most needed Mike’s voice to push an extremist governor to moderation, he chose to shut up. Worse, when he did speak he often spread the stale GOP party line: “pass the governor’s bill or lose 1,500 jobs.” A formerly principled reformer with a populist edge now leaves a legacy as a political hack. Saddest. Transformation. Ever.

In contrast, film maker Michael Moore came to Madison and passionately defined the moment for thousands of rally participants. He demonstrated, in a pointed and clear way, that the current attacks on workers because “we’re broke” represent merely a continuation of the same dynamic that gave us the taxpayer funded Wall St. bailout in 2008. He challenged the mainstream media to just once state a truism:

Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans, 400, have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Let me say that again. And please, someone in the mainstream media, just repeat this fact once. We’re not greedy; we’ll be happy to hear it just once. Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, 400 little Mubaraks, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008, now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Politifact meter rated Moore’s claim as True. Unfortunately what’s also true is that mainstream media moguls have no intention of repeating Moore’s claim with a frequency that might make it as well known as Charlie Sheen’s Twitter stats or Lady Gaga’s new look.

Moore predicts that the people will fix the broken moral compass of the rulers and “steer the ship ourselves from now on.” That would be a noble legacy for our generation to leave.

Tony Palmeri is a Professor of Communication Studies at UW Oshkosh

Media Rants: Scott Walker and the WI Media's View From Nowhere

2011-03-05T14:55:00.001-06:00

Scott Walker and the Wisconsin Media’s View from Nowhere

Media Rants

By

Tony Palmeri

Back in January of 1991 I traveled to Milwaukee to participate in a protest against Bush #41’s invasion of Iraq. Thousands rallied. An hour into the event, less than a dozen counter protesters showed up to back Bush. I went back to Oshkosh and eagerly anticipated news of the event.

Watching the mainstream media coverage, a few things stood out. First, the protest event itself was framed as a kind of political Olympics, an arena battle between competing teams. Second, the reporters and editorialists situated themselves as being outside the arena; just spectators watching and commenting on the action. Third, the coverage seemed lazy; i.e. simple “here’s what team ‘A’ says about the claims of team ‘B’” as opposed to a systematic and rigorous search for the truth. Fourth, after concluding that both teams were “outside the mainstream,” the media referees announced their own “moderate” views that were supposedly “objective” and ruled by reason and common sense not found in the rhetoric of the passionate Olympic teams.

Media treatment of the revolt of large numbers of working Wisconsinites against Governor Scott Walker’s plan to decimate public sector unions reminds me of that war coverage. Bill Lueders of the Madison Isthmus sees the pattern in the Wisconsin State Journal’s editorializing: “Two days after saying that moves to strip the collective bargaining rights of almost all public employees ‘aren't justified,’ it now urged that this be done, albeit just for the next two years, until June 2013. It also opined, ‘The chaos we're experiencing in Wisconsin is simply the extreme manifestation of politics as usual,’ suggesting that all sides are equally to blame for their inability to let go of excessive partisanship.”

The local Oshkosh Northwestern has been more critical of Mr. Walker’s bill, including a fine February 15 editorial exposing its draconian and unfair features. But then on February 19th the paper went back to an “objective” stance and concluded that both Republicans and Democrats were at fault for practicing a “politics that push issues to the far edges of ideology.” Thank goodness the editorial writers are always so moderate and responsible. (Sarcasm intended).

Mainstream television and radio coverage of protest events is typically much worse than newspapers, and that’s certainly been the case in Wisconsin. From TV especially it’s almost impossible to tell who is telling truth in the conflict. Instead, the “objective” newscaster tells us what each side says, with sensational pictures as a backdrop.

New York University Professor of Journalism Jay Rosen refers to the dominant style of American journalism as “the view from nowhere.” When I first became aware of Rosen’s idea in the mid 2000’s I thought he was perfectly describing the coverage of that earlier Iraq War protest and virtually all other substantive issues. As we shall see, the idea captures what’s going on in the Wisconsin media’s construction of Scott Walker’s row with unions.

Influenced by philosopher Thomas Nagel’s book of the same title, Rosen describes three elements of the “View from Nowhere”:

In pro journalism, American style, the View from Nowhere is a bid for trust that advertises the viewlessness of the news producer. Frequently it places the journalist between polarized extremes, and calls that neither-nor position “impartial.” Second, it’s a means of defense against a style of criticism that is fully anticipated: charges of bias originating in partisan politics and the two-party system. Third: it’s an attempt to secure a kind of universal legitimacy that is implicitly denied to those who stake out positions or betray a point of view. American journalists have almost a lust for the View from Nowhere because they think it has more authority than any other possible stance.

I can guarantee you that the folks who run the Wisconsin State Journal and Oshkosh Northwestern, along with every other mainstream print and electronic news source in Wisconsin, would defend their reporting and editorializing as “balanced.” They would say something like, “pro Walker readers think we are too liberal. Pro union readers think we are too conservative. We must be doing our jobs very well if we offend every side of the political spectrum.”

In contrast Rosen says “The View from Nowhere . . . encourages journalists to develop bad habits. Like: criticism from both sides is a sign that you’re doing something right, when you could be doing everything wrong.” Allowing constant repetition of false or inaccurate claims is one of the worst characteristics of a View from Nowhere news operation.

To their credit, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel tries to hold public figures more accountable with a “PolitiFact” section. Reporters research statements of public figures and rate them on a “Truth-O-Meter:” True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False and “Pants on Fire” for utterly ridiculous statements.

The Governor’s political opponents have shown some blatant distortions in Walker’s rhetoric, and even the Journal Sentinel gave him a “pants on fire” rating for the claim that the budget keeps collective bargaining “fully intact.” Media still let Walker and his fans get away with that claim or variations on it.

All news outlets need a Truth Meter to apply not only to statements of public figures, but to their own reporting and editorializing.

Media Rants: Censored in 2010, Part 2

2011-01-30T16:44:00.003-06:00

Censored in 2010, Part 2

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

Last month I identified half of the top ten censored stories of 2010. They were: (10) BobFest Shutout Again, (9) Forever Censoring Howard Zinn and Chalmers Johnson, (8) The 2010 South African World Cup. Invictus in Reverse, (7) Obamacare Unconstitutional!!! (6) What did Bernie Sanders Say? Each story was underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored by corporate media in 2010.

And now the top 5.

No. 5: Beck and Byron. Jared Lee Loughner’s January Tuscon massacre sparked a wave of corporate media blathering about the role of heated political rhetoric in creating a climate conducive to pushing lunatics over the edge.

Unfortunately the blather featured too little substance delivered much too late. Months earlier, in July of 2010, deranged felon Byron Williams set out to assassinate San Francisco members of the ACLU and the obscure Tides Foundation. A traffic stop leading to a shootout between Williams and the Oakland police foiled the plot.

The story disappeared from the corporate media until October, when Williams in a jail cell interview with John Hamilton of Media Matters for America described how his actions were influenced by Fox News’ self-described “progressive hunter” Glenn Beck. Describing Beck’s conspiratorial TV rants (Beck had condemned the Tides Foundation 29 times before Williams’ action), Williams said that “I look at it more like a schoolteacher on TV, you know? . . . And it was the things that he did, the things he exposed, that blew my mind.”

Why did it take the efforts of relatively small, left leaning media watchdog organizations like Media Matters and Democracy Now! to do the work necessary to link Byron to Beck? Beck’s fantasizing about the death of his political opponents is something that requires repeated exposure and denunciation from more than just the political left. Thankfully, the New York Times finally got around to reporting on how Beck’s mindless assaults on activist professor Frances Fox Piven have put her life at risk. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/media/22beck.html?_r=2)

No. 4: FBI Thwarts Own Investigation. Sometimes it seems as if salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald is literally the only journalist asking serious questions about the conduct of the so-called War on Terror. In November the FBI released an affidavit alleging that 19 year old Mohamed Osman Mohamud planned to detonate a bomb at a Christmas event in Portland.

As noted by Greenwald, mainstream media reporting on the event relied exclusively and uncritically on the FBI affidavit. Greenwald grants that it might turn out that the FBI lawfully foiled a nefarious act, “But it may also just as easily be the case that the FBI, as they’ve done many times in the past, found some very young, impressionable, disaffected, hapless, aimless, inept loner; created a plot it then persuaded/manipulated/entrapped him to join, essentially turning him into a Terrorist; and then patted itself on the back once it arrested him for having thwarted a 'Terrorist plot’ which, from start to finish, was entirely the FBI's own concoction. Having stopped a plot which it itself manufactured, the FBI then publicly touts, and an uncritical media amplifies, its ‘success’ to the world, thus proving both that domestic Terrorism from Muslims is a serious threat and the Government's vast surveillance powers, current and future new ones, are necessary.”

No. 3: War Disappears from 2010 Midterms. In a November Gallup Poll 68% of Americans said they were very (31%) or somewhat (37%) worried that the costs of war will make it difficult for the U.S. to address its domestic problems. That’s one reason it was shocking that Afghanistan and Iraq virtually disappeared as issues in the 2010 midterm elections, with Tea Party candidates like Ron Johnson allowed to pacify the press with Republican Party talking points. Shameful.

No. 2: Press Backs Away From Assange. Thanks to WikiLeaks, 2010 will go down as the year the first visible dent appeared in the armor of the military industrial complex. Yet as reported by McClatchy’s Nancy Yousseff, American journalists remain hesitant to defend WikiLeaks or its founder Julian Assange even though the survival of the First Amendment is literally at stake. Watching the mainstream American journalistic establishment bullied and intimidated by the Obama Administration on this matter is nothing short of sickening. To fight back, be sure to follow WikiLeaks on Twitter (http://twitter.com/wikileaks).

No. 1: Veterans For Peace Protest Outside White House. The mainstream press’ message to the oh so slightly dented military industrial complex seems to be, “don’t worry, we’ve got your back.” Case in point: More than 130 people, mostly war veterans, protested outside the White House in mid December. The event was completely censored in the corporate press. Former New York Times Pulitzer prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, a participant in the protest and author of the recently released Death of the Liberal Class, told Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman that the shutout was par for the course:

I think we’ve seen a kind of a withering of corporate media, including my own paper, the New York Times. As advertising rates decline and as circulation drops, they become even more craven in their service of the power elite and reportage that in no way offends the structures of power. So, you know, events like that one are nonentities for mainstream news organizations.

Censored in 2010, Part 1

2010-12-31T16:34:00.005-06:00

Censored in 2010, Part 1

Media Rants

By

Tony Palmeri

From The January 2011 edition of THE SCENE

Annually since 1976, Project Censored has identified news stories "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored in the United States." Censored 2011 (Seven Stories Press) cites the efforts of global leaders with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to begin the process of replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency as the top censored story of 2010. The Project argues that “If the world leaders succeed, the dollar will dramatically plummet in value; the cost of imports, including oil, will skyrocket; and interest rates will climb.”

Inspired by the Project, every year I dedicate two columns to ranking what I see as the ten stories most censored during the year. An important recent study by worldpublicopinion.org, demonstrating that the mainstream press misinform voters, shows the importance of Project Censored style work. And now the censored stories:

No. 10: Bobfest Shutout Again. By now even the organizers of Ed Garvey’s annual September Fighting BobFest at the Sauk County Fairgrounds expect the event to be censored in the mainstream press. But the censorship was especially absurd in 2010 as the corporate press couldn’t wait to cover Tea Party rallies in every part of the state. A Tea Party rally in Racine attracted half as many attendees as BobFest on the same day, yet the latter still earned little press.

No. 9: Forever Censoring Howard Zinn and Chalmers Johnson. Especially since 9/11, mainstream media have agonized over the “why do they hate us” question. Networks and cable stations trot out establishment historians and pundits to assure us that for all its flaws, America is at the end of the day a force for good in the world. That comforting mythology was challenged for years by two great thinkers who passed away in 2010. Professors Zinn and Johnson were war veterans (Zinn a WW II bombardier, Johnson served in Korea) who, in the tradition of America’s greatest patriots, dared tell the truth about their country’s behavior around the world.

Zinn’s A Peoples’ History of the United States is required reading for anyone interested in an account of our past not clouded by narrow, nationalistic ideology. Johnson’s Blowback series chronicles and exposes the effects of militarism and empire building on our safety, freedoms, and economy. That the insights of Zinn and Johnson are regarded in the mainstream press not as starting points for additional investigations but as “alternative” and marginal is a testament to the great power of the press to blind the masses.

No. 8: The 2010 South African World Cup. Invictus in Reverse. Watching USA coverage of 2010’s World Cup in South Africa, you’d have thought that the obnoxious sounding plastic horn, the vuvuzela, was THE story of the event. Another view was presented by Dave Zirin, one of the few American writers to reveal the social consequences of the tournament for South Africa:

“The present situation in South Africa could be called ‘Invictus in reverse.’ For those who haven't had the pleasure, the film Invictus is about the way Nelson Mandela used sport, particularly the near all-white sport of rugby to unite the country after the fall of apartheid. The coming World Cup has in contrast, provoked the camouflage of every conflict to present the image of a united nation to the world . . . All of these steps: displacements, crackdowns on informal trade, even accusations of state-sponsored assassinations, have an echo for people from the days of apartheid. It's provoked a fierce, and wholly predictable resistance.”

Evidence of resistance was difficult to find in the US press, unless it was about resistance to the vuvuzela.

No. 7: Obamacare Unconstitutional!!! In December district court judge Henry Hudson (appointed by George W. Bush) ruled the individual insurance mandate of Obamacare to be unconstitutional. This was a top news story on virtually every network and cable television news program, front page above the fold in lots of mainstream newspapers, and all the buzz on talk radio. Politicians like Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, who supported the mandate in the 1990s, said the opinion was a “great day for liberty.”

I personally do not like the mandate or Obamacare in general, as I believe coercing people to purchase a defective product from the corrupt private insurance industry is immoral and wrong. But from a media criticism perspective, I found it extraordinary how the feeding frenzy over one judge’s opinion minimized (and in many cases flat out ignored) the fact that eleven challenges to the insurance mandate were dismissed by courts and in two others judges ruled the mandate to be constitutional.

No. 6: What did Bernie Sanders Say? Another December story was Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ filibuster against the Obama/Republican deal on extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Ralph Nader wrote that “Sanders tore the covers off an oligarchic driven Congress and a concessionary President with eight and a half hours of nonstop presentations of facts and figures and a plea for fairness and justice.” Absent in most coverage was any emphasis on what Sanders actually said in 9 hours; e.g. ExxonMobil paid no federal income taxes last year, made $19 billion in profits and somehow even managed to get a $156 million refund from Uncle Sam.

Next month: the top five censored stories of 2010.

The 2010 TONY Awards

2010-11-30T09:30:00.003-06:00

There's only one TONY Award this year, and it's kind of an "award of distinction." Colin Crowley's done much admirable work around the globe. Read:

The 2010 TONY Awards

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

If ‘tis noble to think globally and act locally, then how much nobler still to travel the globe and act in some of the world’s most troubled localities?

If ‘tis true that if you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem, then how extremely valuable is he who opens our eyes to problems we never knew existed?

Those questions come to mind when I think of Colin Crowley, the recipient of the 2010 TONY Award for excellence in local journalism. In prior TONY Award columns, “local” literally meant working in Wisconsin. Colin Crowley hails from Oshkosh, though he’s not lived here since taking off for Afghanistan in 2005 to work as a video documentarian for Shelter For Life, International (then headquartered in Oshkosh).

So why should someone who calls Nairobi, Kenya home receive the 2010 TONY Award?

To answer that question requires a candid assessment of the state of news media today. Largely irrelevant in the lives of too many people, news media frustrate the hell out of the shrinking numbers of folks that rely on it to meet civic and personal needs. Becoming “relevant” invariably means catering to the lowest common denominator while cutting the budgets necessary to cover seriously domestic and foreign policy stories that matter. The result is devastating for “small-d” democracy. This critique isn’t new, but argued most cogently in Bob McChesney’s classic Rich Media, Poor Democracy (University of Illinois Press, 1999).

Colin Crowley holds a set of humane, “big picture” values that role model what journalism, corporate and independent, national and local, could be like if it could find a way to escape from the clutches of profit motive and the resulting pandering and pettiness. Though he no longer calls northeast Wisconsin home, Colin’s got a thing or two to teach us locals about what 21st century journalism could be.

In 2005 Colin kept the “Colin’s Story” blog to keep followers up to date on his Afghanistan work. I lost touch with him until May of this year, when we exchanged emails. I learned that since April of 2008 he’s been employed with the British NGO Save the Children UK (STC) as a multimedia officer. In that role he creates photo essays, makes videos, writes case studies, serves as a chaperone for international journalists when they visit STC programs, and contributes international media pieces on humanitarian crises.

Since 2008 Colin's covered China’s earthquake, Myannmar’s cyclone, a war in the Congo, cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe, food crises in Ethiopia and Northeast Kenya, the catastrophe in South Sudan, and Haiti right after the earthquake. I last heard from him in July as he documented a food crisis in Niger that received scant coverage in the US.

Because it conflicted with the Olympics in South Africa occurring simultaneously, Niger’s food crisis almost disappeared from the global media radar. For Britain’s Sky News, Colin worked on some of the only interviews and video footage of the crisis. STC UK reported a large spike in donations from the British public in the 24 hours following the broadcast. Colin says that “it’s a good feeling to think that this kind of reporting can make a bit of a difference.”

Colin has become quite knowledgeable and articulate about the nature of the global food crisis. His analysis is hard to find in the mainstream press:

“I don't think Americans realize how inefficiently their taxes are used when it comes to food aid. I can't tell you how ridiculous it feels to be standing in a World Food Program warehouse in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Northeastern Kenya, and other places and see tons and tons of bags of grain that was grown in Nebraska, Iowa, etc., and costs billions of dollars to transport while people all around are starving and local farmers are sitting on empty stores for a lack of fertilizer, modern farming tools, seeds, or irrigation systems. It invariably brings to my mind a seemingly simple question: ‘Rather than paying farm subsidies and shipping companies billions of dollars to grow this grain in the US and then transport it to Africa, couldn't we take a fraction of that money and just invest it into local agriculture?’”

Colin advocates replacing the current food aid system with one that many NGOs now endorse: simply provide cash to people to support local market. This would inject needed dollars into local economies and be much less expensive than traditional food aid programs. The problem, according to Colin, “is that it would threaten farm subsidies and profits of shipping companies.”

The human catastrophes covered by Colin Crowley exist largely because of lack of awareness. Awareness leads to outrage. Outrage leads to collective action. Collective action leads to social justice. The great tragedy of modern media is in its failure, in some cases purposeful failure, to use its remarkable powers of creating awareness for the common good.

Lewis Hine was an Oshkosh son whose photojournalism helped end the scourge of child labor in the early 20th century United States. For bringing the humanitarian spirit of Lewis Hine to a global level, Colin Crowley is the recipient of the 2010 TONY Award. You can congratulate him by making a contribution to Save the Children. (http://www.savethechildren.org/).

Note: Past TONY Award recipients can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Media Rants: Happy Anniversary to (Me)dia Rants

2010-10-30T14:14:00.005-05:00

The following piece will appear in the November 2010 edition of The Scene.

Happy Anniversary to (Me)dia Rants

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

The first Media Rants column appeared in the August 2002 issue of The Scene. By my calculation, that makes this November column the 100th (!) rant. When the column debuted, I wasn’t sure I’d have the discipline demanded by 10 rants, let alone 100. But here we are, 8 years later, still trying to shed light on the ways in which corporate establishment media can, in the words of the late and great Madison Capital Times editor Bill Evjue, be “used to reduce the people to conformity and dumb acquiescence.”

Given that the New York Times, Washington Post, regional Gannett tabloids, radio and television outlets, or even alternative web sources aren’t exactly lining up to talk to me about this most momentous anniversary, I guess I’ll have to interview myself. So here’s a retrospective of sorts on the last 99 columns.

Question: How did the Media Rants column get started?

Answer: In the summer of 2002 then SCENE editor Tom Breuer called and asked if I’d be interested in writing for the paper. Back then I wrote a weekly electronic newsletter to accompany a television program called “Commentary” I hosted and produced with my heroes Doug Freshner and Jim Mather. Somehow Tom got on the newsletter email list, and he liked it enough that he thought I might be able to contribute something worthwhile to the Scene. The name “Media Rants” was Tom’s idea. The first column was a critique of the local press’ annual and shameful subservience to the Experimental Aircraft Association.

Question: What writers have influenced your thinking and style?

Answer: All conscientious media critics owe a debt to the late George Seldes. Probably the greatest investigative journalist in American history, Seldes in the 1940s published a newsletter called “In Fact” which is now widely regarded as the prototype for how to expose the shortcomings of the establishment press.

Given that Media Rants is a monthly essay, stylistically I’ve been guided by my favorite essayists. I respect and admire the rebel passion of Thomas Paine, the moral clarity of George Orwell, the principled prose of I.F. Stone, the sheer eloquence of Christopher Hitchens, the wisdom of James Baldwin ("I love America more than any other country in the world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."), the unpredictability of Alexander Cockburn, the stinging humor of Molly Ivins and Maureen Dowd, and the in-your-face rhetorical flourishes of James Howard Kunstler. I’ve disagreed with each of these wordsmiths at various times yet stand in awe at their contributions to the craft of writing.

Question: Do you have any favorite Media Rants columns?

Answer: My favorites are the ones that make at least some minor contribution to our understanding of local history (“Press Coverage of McCarthy” from April of 2006; “Earth Day at 40” from April of 2010; “King Karma: Yesterday and Today” from March of 2003), challenge local and state establishment media to do better (“The Magruder Media’s Ethical Compass” from November of 2002; “Northeast Wisconsin’s Iron Triangle” from August of 2003; “It’s Not a Witch hunt if There’s a Witch” from June of 2004), counter the insane pro-war journalism of the last 8 years (“Will We Hear the Winter Soldiers?” from March of 2008; “Media AWOL on National Guard Coverage” from March of 2009), and take a stand for rational public discourse (“Fighting Reactionary Politics: Real Conservatives, Real Liberals, and Real Radicals Must Work Together” from April of 2005). I also look fondly on the tributes to Robert L. “Doc” Snyder and Doug Boone, and interviews with my friends Curt Andersen, Stephen Richards, Jo Egelhoff, and Ron Hardy.

Question: Most memorable Media Rants moment?

Answer: UW Oshkosh Professor of Political Science James Simmons found the essay “Deconstructing Don Kettl” (July 2004) interesting and asked me to publish a revised version of it in the Wisconsin Political Scientist Newsletter. The essay situated Professor Kettl, formerly of UW Madison and widely recognized as governor Tommy Thompson’s most revered academic, as a symbol of the extent to which UW profs had become tools of power rather than challengers to it. Some of Professor Kettl’s colleagues at UW Madison lambasted Dr. Simmons for publishing the piece, reducing it to nothing more than a cheap-shot personal attack. The irony was that the tone and vacuity of their complaint validated the thrust of the essay better than anything I could have said or written.

Question: What kind of response has Media Rants received over the years?

Answer: Though it’s now conventional wisdom to say “no one reads anything longer than a Facebook wall post anymore,” the fact that Media Rants does have an audience keeps me writing it. When the Appleton Public Library invited me to participate in a debate about the movie “Good Night and Good Luck” in 2006, I was pleasantly surprised at the number of people in attendance who recognized and appreciated the column. Media Rants columns also led to several invitations to lead discussions at the Harmony Café in Appleton, as well as numerous appearances on Wisconsin Public Radio.

Question: Any final thoughts?

Answer: I just want to thank everyone who has supported Media Rants over the years, especially those readers who take the time to offer constructive feedback. Many thanks also to Scene publisher Jim Moran and current editor Jim Lundstrom for making space every month.

Rant On!

Two Screenings of "Mad City Chickens"

2010-10-07T14:56:00.003-05:00

From citizen Dan Hoyt:

On behalf of the citizen group calling ourselves "Oshkosh Backyard Chickens" I would like to invite you to a free, public showing of the documentary film titled "Mad City Chickens".

This feature length production, with a total run time of 79 minutes, will be shown at the UW Oshkosh Reeve Union Theater on Friday, October 22 at 7:00 p.m. and again on Tuesday, October 26 at 3:00 pm. The times were chosen to allow for different schedules so the film would have opportunity for public viewing before the Oshkosh Board of Health meets on October 27th.

"Mad City Chickens" documents how the citizens of Madison, Wisconsin organized and worked to change their local ordinance to allow for "urban chickens" to be kept as pets. This film addresses all of the major concerns regarding "backyard" chickens including noise and enforcement issues among many other things.

Mr. Ronald Kean, the UW Extension Poultry Specialist, is interviewed in this film as are many local residents of Madison, a pet store owner and city officials. The film contains lots of great information, plenty of facts and a good dose of humor as well.

I encourage everyone to pick the time best for them and make a point of attending this free event. Also, please spread the word to your friends and neighbors as all are welcome. The Reeve Union theater, located on the 3rd floor of the student union on the UW Oshkosh campus, holds 196 people in comfortable, stadium style seating.

This event is being sponsored by the UW Oshkosh Student Environmental Action Coalition and (hopefully) many local businesses who would be happy to see chickens in Oshkosh.
For more information about this event contact me by reply email.

Thank you and I look forward to seeing you at the show!

Dan

Compulsory Voting on WPR Thursday Morning

2010-10-06T14:12:00.003-05:00

I'll be on Wisconsin Public Radio Thursday morning at 6 a.m. (yikes!) talking about compulsory voting with Joy Cardin. http://www.wpr.org/cardin/

Media Rants: For Compulsory Voting

2010-09-30T21:34:00.002-05:00

The following piece appears in the October 2010 edition of The SCENE.

For Compulsory Voting

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

The day after the September primary, Gannett’s Appleton Post-Crescent reported that “A projected record turnout of voters in Tuesday's election never materialized as only about 1 in 5 eligible voters cast ballots.” The 19 percent turnout fell short of the Government Accountability Board’s 28 percent prediction, which would’ve been the highest since 1964.

Nationally, the professional punditocracy insists that Tea Party activism and anger at Obama energizes Republican voters. Yet “record” turnouts in partisan primaries remained abysmally low; in some states a whopping 10 percent participation. If turnout nationally in the November midterm elections reaches 50 percent, professional election watchers will consider that “high.”

Even though voting in presidential elections has been on the increase, the 61 Percent turnout that brought Barack Obama to the White House in 2008 still fell short of the 64 percent in 1908 that propelled portly William Howard Taft over Bible thumping William Jennings Bryan. Is it not astonishing that in 100 years we have never had more than 64 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot for the highest office in the land?

Let’s face it: voter turnout in the United States, the country calling itself the greatest representative democracy in the world, is an international embarrassment. Elected federal officials wield immense power, yet low vote totals rarely provide them with a clear mandate to govern in any particular policy direction. In some ways the situation is worse at the local level: officials who set your property tax rates, (de)fund your child’s school, and approve crazy corporate welfare schemes usually get elected on the strength of less than 20 percent voter turnout.

But the lack of a mandate to govern is only one negative effect of low turnout. Over the last 20 or 30 years we’ve seen the makings of something much more nefarious. The sophistication and refinement of market research techniques now allow political operatives on the Democratic and Republican sides to discover quite easily what the “likely voter” wants to hear, and then tailor messages to that group. In a system dominated by petty partisan political hacks, what candidates stand for is always secondary to the need to “get our voters to the polls.” The result, always, are campaigns long on schmoozing and short on issue specifics, with obnoxious telephone, Email, and snail mail reminders to “get out and vote” for candidates so tightly scripted they might as well be running for a seat on the screen actors’ guild board of directors.

The system of political hackery is aided and abetted by the fact that in the USA voting is conceived of not as a duty of citizenship, but as a civil right that adults can choose not to use. Unfortunately, the system of voluntary voting isn’t working; we need a dramatic rethinking of citizenship expectations.

Think about it: if a person responded to a jury duty summons by saying, “I don’t feel like serving, “ or “I don’t care about the justice system,” or “I’m not well informed,” or “I don’t like the prosecution or defense,” we would laugh. We compel people not only to serve on juries, but to educate their children, pay taxes, and even keep their lawns trimmed. Oddly, we don’t compel people to have to go out and vote in elections the results of which will determine what kind of justice, education, taxation, and public works programs we have.

More than 30 countries require citizens to vote. In places like Brazil and Australia, voter turnout is well over 90 percent and thus the results more accurately reflect the “will of the electorate.” In Brazil, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva comes from a personal background of extreme poverty and stands for a set of leftist ideals that make USA liberal Democrats look like Rush Limbaugh. Right wing, corporatist leaders can and do get elected in places with compulsory voting (Silvio Berlusconi in Italy is one example), but at least no one can argue it’s because voters stayed home. In the USA, they merely need to spend lots of cash hiring field organizers, make large media buys to propagate mindless advertisements, and pay for other “get out the vote” activities.

The major arguments against compulsory voting are that it infringes on liberty, “ignorant” people will be forced to vote, and that there’s no one worth voting for. Let’s address each in turn.
First, non-voting has infringed on our liberties much more than a compulsory voting system ever could. The greatest assaults on our liberties, from the Espionage Act of World War I to McCarthy era mania to the post 9/11 homeland security excesses, were all put in place by elected officials who had no clear electoral mandate.

As for “ignorant” voters, they exist prominently in our current system. A compulsory system of voting results in more issue based elections; perhaps we’d see a drop in ignorance.

For voters who feel there is no one worth voting for, commentators from Ralph Nader on the left to the editorial page of the Wall St. Journal have argued that there ought be a “none of the above” option on the ballot. I agree.

It will probably be years before we see a serious discussion of compulsory voting. Until then, please VOTE!

The Joys of Teaching

2010-09-22T09:48:00.004-05:00

One of the great joys of teaching is the experience of reading critical commentary written by former students. We (teachers) usually don't know if the student was already an astute critical thinker before enrolling in our classes, but we like to tell ourselves that the classes had something to do with the former student's current critical faculties.

What's even better is when a former student demonstrates that he or she has the "lights on" even when there's no homework assignment. That is, the critical mindset has become a distinct part of their persona.

I thought about all this an hour ago when an email came in from a former student who is now in her first semester of graduate school at Marquette. Here's part of her brief email:

Last week, I had the opportunity to attend a conference here in Milwaukee featuring several famous speakers: Steve Forbes, Laura Bush, Colin Powell, and Rudy Giuliani. Fascinating to say the least, and a case study on how resting solely on one's perceived ethos is devastating to a decent speech. If I may, I'll just give you my tongue-and-cheek summaries: Laura read from a manuscript, trying hard to convince us that she & George are normal people who wear fuzzy slippers, drink coffee, and write their memoirs, all while reassuring themselves they made 100% justifiable decisions while in office. Steve Forbes tried hard to convince the audience that socialism is inherently evil, while generic, wealthy Republican interests are universal interests in America. Powell & Giuliani's speeches groaned with anecdotes and were boringly uncontroversial. I know you have more experience talking and listening to politicians than I do. Perhaps I was expecting too much?

No, I don't think she was expecting too much. In fact, I'd say her "tongue in cheek" observations are more on-point than 99 percent of what we get from the professional punditocracy. She's clearly a very good "crap detector." Good for her, good for society at-large, and a good feeling to know that I might have had some minor role in motivating her to think critically about public discourse.

Neumann Deserves To Win Republican Primary

2010-09-14T10:57:00.005-05:00

I don't think he will, but Mark Neumann does deserve to win today's Republican primary for governor of Wisconsin. Several reasons:

*Neumann is the only candidate to release plans--fairly detailed--specifying what he would do if elected governor. The Scott Walker campaign, which is based largely on bumper sticker slogans and silly soundbites, responded not with detailed plans of their own but by calling Neumann an "egomaniac." I disagree with probably 80 percent of Neumann's 210 page position manual, but applaud the candidate for taking some stands. We need more of those kinds of "egomaniacs" in contemporary politics.

*Neumann's campaign, unintentionally I think, has exposed how out of touch the Republican Party hierarchy is with the average voter on the street. The effort on the part of the party insiders to ensure that they get a nominee (i.e. Scott Walker) who represents no threat to Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce or other pet establishment insider groups has been nothing short of sickening. (Which is not to say that Neumann IS a threat to those groups; of course he is not. But at least in the campaign he has shown some ability to be independent.).

*Scott Walker's advertising might be the worst in the history of Wisconsin politics. Virtually everything is a gimmick (e.g. the "brown bag movement" nonsense), low level pandering (e.g. he'll appoint someone to guarantee more deer for hunters), or the most vile kind of "gotcha'" politics (e.g. Neumann's vote for a 1998 transportation bill while in Congress).

*Walker's performance as Milwaukee County Executive is a case study in the perils of governing with your eye aimed at someday running for higher office. Any person looking honestly at Walker's record as County Executive has to conclude that, in order to be able to posture as a fiscal tough guy, he has forced the County Board of Supervisors to do virtually all of the heavy lifting. Early in the campaign Neumann went after Walker on this point, but then backed down for reasons that are not very clear (I suspect he might want to run for another office someday and does not want to completely alienate the hacks in the party establishment.).

Recently the Walker campaign has trotted out the theory that Democrats will cross party lines to vote for Neumann because they think he (Neumann) will be a weaker candidate against Tom Barrett. If there is such a Democratic conspiracy in place, it's an extraordinarily stupid one. Scott Walker is the weakest Republican candidate since Scott McCallum (McCallum, you might recall, spent most of his campaign trashing state workers and the shared revenue program.).

Neumann v. Barrett would represent the best chance for an issue based fall campaign instead of the bumper sticker nightmare we'll get with Walker in the ring. I hope I'm wrong, but I think we're headed for the latter.

Media Rants: The New(t) Know Nothings

2010-08-30T10:23:00.004-05:00

The following essay will appear in the September 2010 edition of The Scene.

The New(t) Know Nothings

Media Rants

By

Tony Palmeri

In the mid-nineteenth century United States the “Know Nothing” movement emerged in opposition to European, primarily Catholic immigration. Vicious, widespread intolerance led historian Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. to call anti-Catholicism “the deepest held bias in the history of the American people.”

Know Nothing “leaders” like former president Millard Fillmore and congressman Lewis Levin argued that “Popery” could not coexist with representative democracy. Telegraph inventor Samuel Morse in a famous 1835 essay wondered if it were even possible for “Papists” to “repudiate” certain “noxious” Catholic principles. (Had Sam been a complete dimwit like a recent Republican Vice Presidential candidate, he might have said “refudiate.”).

Virulent anti-Catholicism existed into the twentieth-century, exemplified by the Ku Klux Klan’s overt and effective role in crushing Al Smith’s 1928 presidential campaign. Anti-Catholic fear mongering almost derailed John F. Kennedy’s 1960 campaign and forced delivery of a speech establishing that if elected President he wouldn’t be the Pope’s point main in the White House.

Kennedy’s “Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association” celebrates its 50th birthday on September 12. In it he said “I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals.” The fact that six Catholics sit on the US Supreme Court offers proof that irrational anti-Catholicism is a thing of the past.

But the controversy surrounding the location of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan suggests we still have a long way to go to meet JFK’s ideal.

Looking back on the Know Nothings it’s easy to recognize the movement as a product of a combination of factors including fear of the unknown, bigotry, xenophobia, scapegoating, political opportunism and cowardice. Contemporary Islamophobia in America represents a vile kind of Know Nothingism, more frightening than its 19th century anti-Catholic counterpart in large part because of the ease with which major media can literally overnight transform fringe positions into the mainstream. The old Know Nothings had to organize at the street level; newbies need only feed the right wing blogosphere and radio circuit and wait for the establishment media to exploit cyber feuds and twitter feeds for ratings points.

Former House Speaker and probable 2012 GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich, the Millard Fillmore of the mosque controversy, so thoroughly and shamefully demagogues the Manhattan mosque that even uber-conservative Pat Buchanan labels him a political opportunist. From making Nazi analogies to deconstructing “Cordoba House,” Newt’s rhetoric is like Know Nothingism on steroids.

Since September of 2001 the corporate media has done a poor job of calling out Islamophobic demagogues and opening up dialogue about the religion. Mix that with the cheerleading for wars against two Muslim countries and the result is an irrational, but completely understandable given the media environment, opposition to new mosques around the country. This excerpt from a recent New York Times article about opposition to a proposed mosque in Staten Island is heartbreaking in its depiction of vitriol that must have met plans to build Catholic churches in the 1840s:

The tenor of the inquiry became so fraught that the meeting eventually collapsed in shouting around 11 p.m., prompting the police and security guards to ask everyone to leave.
But just 20 minutes earlier, as Bill Finnegan stood at the microphone, came the meeting’s single moment of hushed silence. Mr. Finnegan said he was a Marine lance corporal, home from Afghanistan, where he had worked as a mediator with warring tribes.

After the sustained standing ovation that followed his introduction, he turned to the Muslims on the panel: “My question to you is, will you work to form a cohesive bond with the people of this community?” The men said yes.

Then he turned to the crowd. “And will you work to form a cohesive bond with these people — your new neighbors?”

The crowd erupted in boos. “No!” someone shouted.

Those who doubt the media’s influence should consider the lingering confusion about Barack Obama’s religious beliefs. According to the Washington Post, “The number of Americans who believe, wrongly, that President Obama is a Muslim has increased significantly since his inauguration and now account for nearly 20 percent of the nation's population . . . The number of people who now correctly identify Obama as a Christian has dropped to 34 percent, down from nearly half when he took office . . . Among those who say Obama is a Muslim, 60 percent say they learned about his religion from the media, suggesting that their opinions are fueled by misinformation.”

If the polls are accurate, today’s Know Nothing movement might make huge gains in the November elections, from the US House and Senate to state legislatures to governors offices. Abe Lincoln’s 1855 letter to Joshua Speed is instructive:

“As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes.’ When the Know Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty, to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

Media Rants: WikiLeaks vs. Corporate Media

2010-07-31T10:28:00.003-05:00

Note: The piece below appears in the August, 2010 edition of The Scene. It was submitted for publication before WikiLeaks' release of thousands of pages of classified Afghanistan War documents. Perhaps the most insightful perspective on those documents is by NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen, who refers to WikiLeaks as the "world's first stateless news organization."

WikiLeaks vs. Corporate Media

Media Rants

by Tony Palmeri

WikiLeaks, a kind of Wikipedia for whistleblowers directed by Australian activist Julian Assange, represents a set of journalistic values radically at odds with the values of the corporate press.

According to the UK Guardian’s Stephen Moss, “Assange unveiled wikileaks.org in January 2007 and has pulled off some astonishing coups for an organisation with a handful of staff and virtually no funding. It has exposed evidence of corruption in the family of former Kenyan president Daniel arap Moi, published the standard operating procedures for the Guantánamo Bay detention centre, even made public the contents of Sarah Palin's Yahoo account. But what has really propelled WikiLeaks into the media mainstream is the video it released in April of a US helicopter attack in Baghdad in July 2007, which killed a number of Iraqi civilians and two Reuters personnel, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen.”

The release of the leaked attack video (called “Collateral Murder”) led to the arrest of its alleged source, US Army intelligence specialist Bradley Manning. PFC Manning spent 30 days in a Kuwaiti jail without charges, and now faces court martial for downloading and releasing classified information.

Mainstream coverage of the video focused on the conditions of its release and whether or not Manning and WikiLeaks harmed national security. Those hoping for a discussion of the war’s morality or legality, or whether its architects should be charged with war crimes, were left disappointed.

On its website, WikiLeaks offers a compelling case for its encouragement of “principled leaking.” They say:

“Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future . . . The power of principled leaking to embarrass governments, corporations and institutions is amply demonstrated through recent history. The public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions forces them to consider the ethical implications of their actions. Which official will chance a secret, corrupt transaction when the public is likely to find out? What repressive plan will be carried out when it is revealed to the citizenry, not just of its own country, but the world? When the risks of embarrassment and discovery increase, the tables are turned against conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression. Open government answers injustice rather than causing it. Open government exposes and undoes corruption. Open governance is the most effective method of promoting good governance . . . We propose that authoritarian governments, oppressive institutions and corrupt corporations should be subject to the pressure, not merely of international diplomacy, freedom of information laws or even periodic elections, but of something far stronger — the consciences of the people within them.”

Time Magazine said that WikiLeaks “could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act.” New media technology scholar Clay Shirky tweeted that WikiLeaks “has had more scoops in 3 years than The Washington Post has had in 30.” Salon’s Glenn Greenwald writes that there are very few entities, if there are any, which pose as much of a threat to the ability of governmental and corporate elites to shroud their corrupt conduct behind an extreme wall of secrecy.”

That WikiLeaks is on the radar screen of the US government was confirmed in 2008, when a leaked classified report written by the Army Counterintelligence Center placed the site on "the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States." In what is an apparent attempt to intimidate potential whistleblowers, press reports revealed a Pentagon “manhunt” for Assange, who briefly seemed to go into hiding. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration’s policy toward whistleblowers appears to be the harshest in US history.

I see three major differences between WiliLeaks’s values and the corporate press. First, the corporate press would rather talk about transparency than actually make it a central component of journalistic practice. The mainstream press annually promote “Sunshine Week,” but for Wikileaks every day is dedicated to shining light on corrupt governments and corporations.

Second, WikiLeaks has no interest in “building relationships” with power. Contrast that with the White House press corps, a largely sycophantic bunch enamored with shooting hoops with the prez or otherwise being privy to the world of the “insiders.”

Third, WikiLeaks encourages maximum transparency as a means to pursue the end of justice. Since the end of corporate media is profit, it has difficulty shining light on big corporations that might cut off advertising or other forms of support. Do not be surprised if the majority of useful information regarding BP’s actions in the gulf gets released on WikiLeaks before the mainstream press.

Taking on WikiLeaks style values might help restore the credibility of the establishment press. Owners and editors are slowly starting to understand. Case in point: the Washington Post in July published an excellent multi-part series on “Top Secret America.” The series “describes and analyzes a defense and intelligence structure that has become so large, so unwieldy, and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, or whether it is making the United States safer.”

About the WP series, WikiLeaks tweeted: “Real change begins Monday in the WashPost. By the years end, a reformation. Lights on. Rats out.” Let’s hope.

BID requests 50 grand from taxpayers

2010-07-02T12:24:00.001-05:00

July 2, 2010

City Council Members
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130

Dear Council Members,

I would like to make a formal request, on behalf of the Downtown Oshkosh Business Improvement District (BID), for funding from the City of Oshkosh in the amount of $50,000 to support beautification and revitalization efforts on Main Street. The City of Oshkosh hired Ken Saiki Design Firm out of Madison, Wisconsin to design and make recommendations for placement of the following beautification elements which are not only enhancements but necessities to our Main Street.

Ken Saiki Design recommended adding benches, bike racks, flower pots, and trash receptacles to Main St.

The Oshkosh Business Improvement District (BID) has currently secured a 2 to 1 matching grant from the Oshkosh Area Community Foundation (OACF) in the amount of $25,000. In order to secure this grant the OACF would like to see $50,000 raised. In addition the Oshkosh Area Economic Development Corporation (OAEDC) has pledged $5,000 and the BID will continue efforts to raise an additional $25,000 plus for decorative banners and other beautification items. The BID is requesting $50,000 for the cost of the material. In addition to our fundraising efforts the BID will maintain all the planters, watering, and all bump outs and grass areas in the district.

Thank you for your consideration on this important aspect to Oshkosh’s Main Street. Please refer any questions or concerns that you have to me at (920) 303-2265 ext. 11. I look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,

Maureen Lasky
Downtown BID Manager
Oshkosh Area Economic Development Corporation

Cc: Mark Rohloff, City Manager
Jeff Nau, City of Oshkosh Planning
Dave Sparr, BID Board Chair
Megan Hoopman-Lang, BID Board Vice-Chair
Rob Kleman, OAEDC

Media Rants: LZ Lambeau and The Good Soldier Consensus

2010-07-01T08:51:00.005-05:00

The following piece appears in the July, 2010 edition of The SCENE.

LZ Lambeau and The Good Soldier Consensus

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

From May 21-23, thousands of Wisconsinites attended LZ (“Landing Zone”) Lambeau. Flyers printed in advance urged readers to “Be part of Wisconsin’s official Thank You event at Lambeau Field, honoring our Vietnam veterans for their service and sacrifice.”

Vietnam Army vet Will Williams originally supported the event. He told WLUK television that he turned against it when "The idea of welcoming home Vietnam veterans morphed into a promotion of militarism and support for the current wars and recruitment of young people."

Veterans for Peace echoed Williams. Spokesperson and Army vet Leslie “Buzz” Davis said that attendees would get an incomplete picture of the war: "They won't be presented with the lying politicians, they won't be presented with the power of the military industrial complex."

I believe LZ Lambeau organizers, including Wisconsin Public Television and the Wisconsin Historical Society, sincerely wished only to honor Vietnam vets. WPT’s documentary “Wisconsin Vietnam War Stories” is powerful and deserves a wide audience. Unfortunately and despite good intentions, LZ Lambeau reinforced what has become a disturbing mainstream consensus on the treatment of soldiers in our society. I’ll call it the “Good Soldier Consensus.”

According to the Good Soldier consensus, the military ought to be able to recruit workers just like any other employer. Especially in de-industrialized and economically depressed parts of the country, military service becomes a way of obtaining education and job training.

Upon signing the dotted line, the new soldier agrees to follow orders. In return, the Good Soldier Consensus holds that the soldier is owed: proper training, modern equipment, nondiscrimination in housing and employment, access to high quality medical facilities and full coverage of treatment, education benefits, and other resources to maximize the chances of survival in war while easing the transition from battlefield back to home.

Virtually all establishment politicians and press adhere to some version of the Good Soldier Consensus. Indeed, establishment propaganda and the promise of good benefits attract thousands of young people to military careers.

The problem with the Good Soldier Consensus, other than the fact that the politicians can’t even guarantee the benefits promised, is that it allows political hacks in the White House and Congress and their corporate press cheerleaders to portray themselves as “pro-soldier.” But can political hacks (many of whom did whatever they could to avoid military service) really be “pro-soldier” if they support the continuance of illegal, immoral, never ending wars? Can press hacks be “pro-soldier” if they continue to minimize or censor the heroic stories of soldiers who refuse to follow orders that their conscience tells them are illegal?

Those who believe it naïve or dangerous to expect soldiers to question their orders don’t understand the lessons of World War II. After the war, the Nazis put on trial at Nuremberg for war crimes repeatedly justified their horrific treatment of civilians on the grounds that they were “just following orders.” In response, the Nuremberg tribunal released a list of principles to guide future conflicts. Principles IV states "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

What happens to a young American who tries to act in accordance to the Nuremberg Principles? The case of Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada is instructive. Watada invoked the Nuremberg Principles in refusing to deploy to Iraq on the grounds of the war’s illegality and immorality. Though the US government eventually dropped its case against him, Military Judge John Head held that the issue of the legality of war is a “nonjusticiable political question.” In other words, American soldiers who act on conscience will not be able to count on the judiciary to challenge abuses of power emanating from the executive and/or legislative branches.

What about the case of Pvt. Travis Bishop? Amnesty International labeled him a “prisoner of conscience” after he was jailed for refusing to fight in Afghanistan. After joining the military, Bishop reflected on his Baptist upbringing and came to the conclusion that Jesus’ message is one of pacifism. He could not fight in Afghanistan because “I had to get right with God in case I died or in case I had to kill someone.” His lawyer wants the courts to order the military to make it mandatory for soldiers to be briefed about conscientious objector status in the same way they are briefed about other benefits.

The website Courage To Resist (http://www.couragetoresist.org/) includes additional, detailed stories about modern soldiers who refuse to fight unjust wars. Another great resource is the award winning film “The Good Soldier” (www.thegoodsoldier.com/).

As for establishment media, we get more of the same: on the front page of the June 14th New York Times, the paper announced the “recent” discovery of a trillion dollars worth of minerals in Afghanistan; that nation could become the “Saudi Arabia of Lithium.” The subtext was that struggle over these materials will provide a pretext for the US to stay in that country for another generation.

Political and press hacks will not end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, but soldiers of conscience and active citizens might. That’s what got us out of Vietnam.

I'll be on Friday's "Week in Review"

2010-06-24T13:30:00.002-05:00

I'll be on Friday's WPR Week in Review tomorrow (June 25) opposite former WI state senator and Lieutenant Governor Margaret Farrow. Gene Purcell will be hosting the show in place of Joy Cardin. You can call in live at 1-800-642-1234 or email talk@wpr.org

Jim Joyce's Lessons For Politicians

2010-06-04T13:38:00.002-05:00

By now everyone knows that umpire Jim Joyce's blown call cost the Tigers' Armando Galarraga a perfect game. Umpire Joyce's recognition of his error has earned him praise from Mr. Krause and many others.

They/we probably won't, but politicians can learn two important lessons from the Joyce Affair.

Lesson Number One: Don't Pander; Call 'em as you see 'em: Joyce's blown call occurred with two outs in the top of the 9th inning, in Galarraga's home park, with the crowd cheerleading for the perfect game. Especially on such a close play, the easiest thing for Joyce to do would have been to call the runner out even if his eyes and heart told him the runner was safe. Instead of pandering to the crowd, he called the play as he saw it and suffered the immediate consequences.

Contrast that behavior with the norm in contemporary American politics. Pandering to cheerleaders--who are frequently well connected insiders with a vested interest in the outcome of policy deliberations--is the way the game is too often played. (That's essentially Madison and Washington politics in a nutshell.).

No one should be surprised that pandering to the powerful is the norm in Madison and Washington, but one of my biggest wake-up calls since getting on the City Council has been the extent to which that dynamic plays out locally too. Just raising questions about Oshkosh Corporation, EAA, and other entities backed up by well connected cheerleaders is extremely difficult.

Lesson Number Two: Evidence Matters. What's significant about Joyce's change of mind on the call is not just that he admitted error, but that he changed his mind after being confronted with contrary evidence. Even though the video evidence seemed pretty conclusive, Joyce could have easily said something like, "the video is misleading; if you'd been standing where I was you would have agreed that the runner got there first." Instead of spinning and rationalizing, Joyce accepted that the video evidence suggested that the runner was probably out.

Contrast that with the "dumbassification" that we see in American politics. Facts and evidence often mean nothing, especially if they get in the way of a good smear or a catchy, poll-tested slogan. (Probably the best current example of this phenomenon is the repeated attempts by Obama's opponents to label him a "Socialist" in spite of the fact that his economic policies were developed by Wall St. insiders and outfits like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase have been among his biggest contributors.).

American politicians tend to change positions not because further study reveals powerful counter evidence, but because of some need to pander to a cheerleader perceived as powerful. That's why we justifiably refer to position-changing pols as "flip-floppers."

Integrity means not only the willingness to take heat for a controversial stand, but also the courage to change course when contrary evidence emerges. Jim Joyce showed that kind of integrity. How sad that the modern Democratic and Republican parties have no room for that kind of individual.

Media Rants: Justice Stevens' Uneven First Amendment Legacy

2010-06-01T09:25:00.002-05:00

Justice Stevens’ Uneven First Amendment Legacy

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

From the June 2010 issue of The SCENE

Disgust with the Supreme Court’s rightist RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) often leads leftish legal pundits to exaggerate the accomplishments of the Court’s so-called liberal bloc.

Nowhere is this tendency clearer than in the reactions to Justice John Paul Stevens’ retirement announcement. Senator Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) comments were typical: ''Justice Stevens' commitment to expanding freedom, safeguarding our rights and liberties, and understanding the challenges faced by ordinary Americans will be his legal legacy. He has had no judicial agenda other than fidelity to the law and the Constitution."

Appointed by President Ford in 1975, Stevens labeled himself a “centrist” and early in his term authored conservative opinions on affirmative action, the death penalty, and other hot button issues. His views on the death penalty and coercive state power in general evolved over time, so that by the 1990s media depictions almost unanimously recognized him as the Court’s liberal leader. Indeed, Stevens deserves kudos for being a voice of reason against Bush-era executive branch excesses in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).

As regards freedom of speech and the First Amendment, Stevens’ legacy is mixed. I believe his passionate and superbly argued dissenting opinion in the recent Citizens United v. FEC case will in future years have an impact not typical of minority opinions. In that case, the RATS were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy in outlawing virtually all restrictions on corporate involvement in elections. Wrote Stevens: “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.”

Even more powerfully, Stevens dissent featured a rare example of a judge questioning the “personhood” of corporations:

“The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it . . . It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”

Should the Supreme Court ever break free of its dominant RATS/moderates coalition, Stevens’ cogent understanding of the nature of corporations might serve as a foundation on which to reclaim the Constitution for “We the People.”

Stevens First Amendment contribution with the most practical and positive impact is probably his majority opinion in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios (1984). In that case, a court majority led by Stevens rebuffed Hollywood’s attempt to outlaw video tape recorders on the grounds that they could be used for copyright infringement. In a victory for consumers, Stevens wrote: "the sale of copying equipment...does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses."

Unfortunately Stevens did not apply the same logic in MGM Studios v. Grokster (2005), joining the majority in refusing to apply the Sony standard to file sharing technology. Holding narrowly that file sharing technology was legitimate but that Grokster’s “crime” was in encouraging copyright infringement, the Court guaranteed only that entertainment companies would continue to use the courts to stifle what they perceive as illegal downloading. The result? Tens of thousands of lawsuits filed against music fans, against everyone from teen students to grandmothers.

Stevens’ two worst First Amendment opinions dealt with flag desecration and “indecent” media, respectively. In Texas v. Johnson (1989), Stevens was one of four justices disagreeing with the majority opinion that flag desecration constituted expression worthy of First Amendment protection. In a dissent that sounded more like Archie Bunker than a great civil libertarian, Stevens insisted that requiring he who desires to burn a flag use an alternative method for expressing his ideas is a “trivial burden” on free expression.

Stevens’ First Amendment opinion with the most negative impact can be found in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (1978). The case dealt with the FCC’s power to prevent broadcasters from airing “indecent” material such as George Carlin’s famous “Filthy Words” monologue. Writing for the majority, Stevens insisted that the pervasiveness of mass media, along with government’s legitimate interest in protecting children, allowed the FCC to restrain the broadcast of “indecent” materials without violating the First Amendment. Thanks to this decision, we’ve now lived through more than thirty years of the FCC in the role of a boorish Big Brother, anxious to level fines at broadcasts featuring penis jokes or anything else deemed “indecent” by bureaucrats and judges.

Justice Brennan’s dissent aptly smacked down the Court majority, finding in Stevens’ opinion “a depressing inability to appreciate that in our land of cultural pluralism, there are many who think, act, and talk differently from the Members of this Court, and who do not share their fragile sensibilities.”

At his best, John Paul Stevens defended the Constitution against government and corporate attempts to bend and subvert it for their own purposes. Should Elena Kagan be confirmed as his replacement, let’s hope she is Stevens 2.0 instead of a RATS clone or Stevens-lite.

Amen

2010-05-29T11:51:00.001-05:00

From Bob Herbert's latest column on the BP disaster:

"The U.S. will never get its act together until we develop the courage and the will to crack down hard on these giant corporations. They need to be tamed, closely monitored and regulated, and constrained in ways that no longer allow them to trample the best interests of the American people."

Colin Crowley: Humanitarian Videographer From Oshkosh

2010-05-28T09:22:00.006-05:00

Received a wonderful email yesterday from Colin Crowley. I first met Colin around 2004, when I was running for state assembly and he was doing a barista stint at the New Moon coffee shop. A gifted photographer and videographer, Colin has taken his talents around the globe. A few years ago many of us followed his gripping portrait of life in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As for what Colin's been up to in the last few years, I'll quote directly from his email:

I've been working for the British NGO Save the Children UK since April of 2008. I work for their emergencies team as a multimedia officer which means I create photo essays, make videos, write case studies,and very often contribute to international media pieces on humanitarian crises - sometimes acting as a chaperone for international journalists when they visit Save the Children's programs. The last two years have been great for me, and rather than feeling like a "weird" guy who speaks French and takes photos in Oshkosh - I've fallen into a role where those things are completely normal - expected even in my current milieu.Since I started, my travels have followed major humanitarian emergencies around the globe. China for the earthquake, Myanmar for the cyclone (terrible government, wonderful country and people), DR Congo for the war, Zimbabwe - cholera outbreak, Ethiopia - food crisis, Northeast Kenya - food crisis, South Sudan - everything, Haiti - right after the earthquake (very ugly situation) and a bunch of places in between for this and that. I'm currently in Niger documenting a really bad food crisis that will unfortunately probably pass under the media radar until the World Cup excitement is over with. But anyway, it's been an interesting ride and it's been a great way to see the world and meet people - kind of like a vacation to all the places where you'd never want to take a vacation.

Colin's wife is Kenyan, and they live in Nairobi with their baby daughter. He says that "living in Africa is fun, frustrating, inspiring, relaxed, frightening, easy-going and highly-stressful all at the same time, and very often all those things within the course of 24 hours."

Traveling in the third world has given Colin an interesting perspective on the American "Tea Party" movement: "I have spent the past two years working in countries where governments don't spend ANY money on ANYTHING for their people, and all I have found is overwhelming human suffering. Then I look back home and see all these people shouting about not wanting to pay taxes for this and that. I noted your reference to the "dumbassification" of the American Public and it made me think of just this sort of thing."

Colin spent some time in Haiti documenting the horrific after effects of the earthquake. His photo essay can be found here. He also emailed me a piece he write back in February on what it was like to be a photographer in Haiti after the event. I'll reproduce it here in full:

Some thoughts on the photographer situation in Haiti and what it was like to be a photographer/videographer in the weeks immediately following the earthquake:

…in a lot of ways, I think things got out of hand, because for the population who suffered through the earthquake, they saw about 3000 foreign photographers swarm into their city overnight - long before it was possible to get them any substantial aid in those circumstances. So it put out a lot of mixed messages to Haitians - they saw that foreign countries are able to send people to gawk faster than they are able to actually give out any help. By week two people started getting fed up with this and I certainly felt these repercussions in my own interactions with the Haitian public.

However, as a member of an aid organization, it gives me more flexibility. First off, I'm not under pressure to file the most sensationalistic story I can find so that I can beat out the hundred other photogs who were all within the same area I was when I was following a story. I was also able to take a lot of time to hang out with people and try to establish relationships before I started taking any pictures. Speaking French and enough Kreyol to break the ice helped a lot as well, and it was a bit embarrassing to see how many photographers had flown in without the least bit of French language background

Finally, whenever I was met with mild hostility I could diffuse some of the negativity directed towards me by explaining the relationship between the pictures and video I was taking to the tangible aid they were receiving. In particular, Save the Children was distributing household items, food, water, tents, medicines, doctors and putting up latrines showers and water points in the camps all within the first two weeks. So if anybody got angry asking what the hell I was doing taking photos, I could just take the time to point to these things out and explain very clearly and very slowly that I was trying to help our organization to get more donations so that we could continue providing more aid. Very often these conversations would become the starting points for friendly relationships and people who were initially hostile would end up being extremely helpful. I think it helped to understand that the hostility was born out of very real frustrations.

But it wasn't easy, and some days I would go out and visit the little girl and family I was following and I could just tell that they didn't want to have their picture taken. One aspect of being photographer in these situations that is difficult for me is that on my end there is a level of excitement about being able to document peoples' lives and tell their stories at this huge moment in history, and this is accompanied by adrenaline and an enthusiasm for my work. But the point of view of the people whose situations I’m documenting is completely different - they've just lived through a catastrophe that destroyed their homes, killed their friends and family, turned their city upside down, and put them out on the streets living shameful conditions - and now there's this guy here who wants to take pictures of us!?

So I definitely have some things to process and think about. This is actually my third post-earthquake trip and I have to admit I have a morbid fascination with the visual beauty of all this destruction. The figure of a human being standing amidst a pile of ugly, urban rubble is for me, this overwhelmingly powerful symbolic image.

But what it symbolizes exactly, is a question I'm still grappling with. For now, all I can really come up with is "the best laid plans of mice and men..." A lot of journos started getting rocks thrown at them in the second and third weeks - mostly with good reason - i.e. not knowing when to put the camera down, not attempting to communicate with people, and in some instances taking pictures of woman and girls while they were bathing in makeshift showers in the camps. I would like to think that I have some sort of immunity to this, and while I think having a good head on your shoulders and making judgment calls that incorporate a certain morality can help keep you out of trouble - there is always the unknown factor and randomness of a crowd of people that get pushed to an extreme and spontaneously degenerate into frenzy. Just look at Dan Eldon's example to see proof of that - no matter how careful you are or how good your intentions, there is always the possibility that you will get caught in the wrong place at the wrong moment.

Finally, after the initial period of voyeurism passes and the Haiti earthquake fades out of the 24-hour news cycle, we should consider the very real possibility of there being "too few" photographers in Haiti. While these immediate weeks have brought the eyes of the world onto Haiti, we all know how short the attention span of the international media can be. The response to this crisis is not going to be finished in five months, a year, or even five years, but is going to literally take a generation. How the world pays attention to this, and the kind of attention they pay will largely affect how well the people of Haiti are able to recover.

Finally, finally - as a French speaker and certified “Creolefile,” I would like to say that despite the sensationalistic reports of looting and rioting post-earthquake, Haitians are just an awesome people – resilient in ways that are unimaginable to us in the States, and strong in their ability to cope with unthinkable extremes. Haiti, despite its grave problems is still a wonderful place.

Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
February 10, 2010

Colin says that "my goal is to just let people speak for themselves as much as possible and tell their story in their own words - without imposing too much of a spin onto what they're saying." Here are some examples:

A boy dealing with the food crisis in NE Kenya 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/oct/27/kenya-drought-childs-eye

A former child soldier tells his story in South Sudan 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/may/14/childs-eye-sudan-child-soldier

A girl talking about her experience of the Haiti Earthquake 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/jan/25/haiti-earthquake

As noted, Colin is currently in Niger documenting a bad food crisis. He will soon be blogging from the area. I will put the link on T2T.

Rooting For Clegg and the Lib Dems, Part II

2010-05-13T09:22:00.003-05:00

Even though the flawed plurality voting system resulted in his Liberal Democrats actually losing seats in the recent UK elections, Nick Clegg today sits as Deputy Prime Minister, Liberal Democrats now occupy a handful of cabinet seats in a coalition government led by Tory (conservative) David Cameron, AND the citizens will have an opportunity to vote in a referendum on an alternative voting system. The Tory/Lib Dem policy agreements can be found here.

The lesson for American third parties? Actually, there are a few lessons:

1. Televised Debate Participation: Third party participation in nationally televised debates greatly changes the campaign dynamic. Had Nick Clegg not been allowed to participate in the debates, it's doubtful that he would have had the credibility necessary to be part of coalition government--especially given the fact that his party actually lost seats in the election.

That third party participation in debates changes the campaign dynamic is not news. Indeed, Ross Perot's showing in 1992 and 1996 led to the Republicrats creating debate participation criteria that effectively rule out anyone but them from participation. It will be difficult for American third parties to make progress at the national level without such participation.

2. Coalition Politics: The Liberal Democrats were formed in the late 1980s when the Liberal Party and Social Democratic Party merged. The Social Democrats included former Labour Party politicians. The merged party had enough credibility to win seats in the Parliament.

I know it's difficult to imagine here in the US, but I can envision a scenario in which a variety of third parties coalesce , recruit former Democrats and Republicans, and win some seats in the Congress. There actually is some precedent for that here in Wisconsin, where the Progressive Party controlled state government for a brief period in the 1930s and won a few US House seats.

3. Voting Reform: Clegg's maneuvers resulted in the conservatives agreeing to have a national referendum on voting reform. It's not clear yet what kind of reform proposal will be voted on, but it will probably be along the lines of a system that will ensure that a seat cannot be won with less than fifty-percent of the vote.

In essence, Clegg has succeeded in putting the ball in the court of the UK citizens. If they want to see fairer, more representative elections, they will have to support the referendum. Expect Labour and the Tories to fight like hell to defeat whatever proposal comes forward.

In the US, we're seeing a growing number of establishment politicians running as Independents. Most want to follow the Lieberman Model in Connecticut: take advantage of one's name recognition to score a narrow victory in the rotted plurality voting system.

All the Democratic Party outrage at Lieberman doesn't seem to translate into any action on their part to change the voting system. Consequently (and as is typically the case in American politics), it's going to be up to grassroots activists to do the heavy lifting.

CSI

2010-05-12T06:54:00.003-05:00

That stands for "Citizen Statement Irony." At last night's Common Council meeting, for the first time the Council allowed citizen statements at the end AND at the beginning of the meeting. The only caveat is that if a person speaks at the beginning, they cannot speak at the end and vice versa.

Some were concerned that allowing statements at both ends of the meeting would result in more speakers and thus, longer meetings.

That still could happen, but I found it ironic that at last night's meeting we had a grand total of zero comments during the citizen statement period(s).

In this age of extremes, we'll probably have 100 statements at the next meeting.

Rooting for Clegg and the Lib Dems

2010-05-06T09:12:00.004-05:00

UK citizens go to the polls today, and have an opportunity to send a loud message that could be heard across the Atlantic. Dominated for generations by two major parties (Labour and Tories; roughly the equivalent of the Democrats and Republicans), the star of the campaign season has been Nick Clegg of the opposition Liberal Democrats. Should Clegg end up as Prime Minister, it would represent a stunning rejection of the "Coke v. Pepsi" politics that has dominated Britain and the US since, well, the 19th century.

Why the Clegg surge this year? Because he was allowed to participate in national televised debates. Clegg persuasively argued that Labour's Gordon Brown and the Tories David Cameron are merely more business as usual, "making the same promises and breaking the same promises." John Nichols examines the phenomenon here.

Given the British parliamentary system, the odds of Clegg actually becoming PM this year are not great. But whatever the result, his performance has been a wake-up call for the establishment parties. Additionally, it is now clear that in the US, the so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates" must no longer be allowed to exclude legitimate third-party candidates from nationally televised debates.

Another lesson we should learn from the Brits is to shorten our campaign season. The general-election season in Britain is 30 days; less time for the monied interests and political hacks to undermine the process. Also less money wasted on big media advertising and less chance of the voters just getting sick of the candidates.

Media Rants: Health Care, Dumbassification, and the Fairness Doctrine

2010-05-01T09:11:00.003-05:00

Health Care, Dumbassification, and the Fairness Doctrine

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

From the May 2010 edition of The SCENE

Did you catch any of the broadcast “debate” over the “historic” health care “reform” legislation? On television and talk radio, health care news and commentary sounded so detached from reality that I half expected to see the “expert” pundits escorted out of broadcast studios in straitjackets.

Being a corporate media expert or talk show host these days requires being or acting delusional. For health care discourse, this means Democrat-leaning flaks must refer to Obamacare as akin to Social Security and Medicare. Republican flaks, meanwhile, find “socialism” in everything Obama.

Rather than expose delusional talking points as fraudulent, corporate media uncritically present partisan propaganda as “mainstream” thinking. Fact: Obamacare is neither socialist nor even FDR or LBJ lite. Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich is spot on: "Don't believe anyone who says Obama's healthcare legislation marks a swing of the pendulum back toward the Great Society and the New Deal. Obama's health bill is a very conservative piece of legislation, building on a Republican (a private market approach) rather than a New Deal foundation. The New Deal foundation would have offered Medicare to all Americans or, at the very least, featured a public insurance option."

Obamacare is a Mitt Romneyish, Wall St. friendly health care scheme that will coerce 30 million people into purchasing a defective private insurance company product. The private insurance industry becomes another “too big to fail” operation. In the topsy-turvy world of modern partisan politics, Democrats call this a great progressive achievement while the GOP condemns it as socialist. Such absurdities are part and parcel of what hip-hop icon Chuck D calls the “dumbassification” of American popular culture.

Too bad Dr. Obama’s health care plan doesn’t treat our ailing, dumbassified discourse. Perhaps a revival of the Fairness Doctrine is the necessary medicine.

The Communications Act of 1934 created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The 1934 Act and 1996 update empower the FCC to revoke the licenses of broadcasters not operating in the “public interest.” License revocation is extremely rare, and almost never the result of incompetent or incomplete news programming. (Threats to revoke licenses are usually the result of broadcasts defined by the FCC as “obscene, indecent, or profane.”).

In 1949 the FCC adopted the “Fairness Doctrine” as a formal rule to promote balanced coverage of controversial issues. The Congress in 1959 amended the 1934 Act to endorse the Fairness Doctrine: “A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.”

In a landmark 1969 decision (Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine. Justice Byron White argued that, “A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a . . . frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others . . . It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.”

The FCC never enforced the Fairness Doctrine in a heavy handed manner; Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting essayist Steve Rendall writes that “Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials . . . The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.” Yet Ronald Reagan’s deregulation friendly 1980s FCC revoked the Doctrine, aided by a US Court of Appeals ruling (written by Justice Robert Bork and concurred with by soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia) that Congress’ 1959 amendment did not obligate the FCC to enforce it.

Fairness Doctrine opponents argue that cable television, the Internet, and satellite radio make it irrelevant. That is, anyone upset by one-sided coverage or commentary only need to find alternative views somewhere else. Sounds plausible, except for the fact that most citizens do not “opinion shop” for balanced views, nor should they have to purchase cable, Internet, or satellite services because the media they do have access to selfishly broadcasts a narrow spectrum of reporting and commentary.

Republicans and conservatives tend to be virulently opposed to the Fairness Doctrine, yet ironically they suffer the most from its absence. Conservatives could have established that Obama and the Democrats were pushing a Republican health care bill, while the GOP could have negotiated stronger market reforms. Instead, following the lead of the one-sided echo chamber that is right wing talk radio, they were reduced to renouncing “death panels,” “socialism,” and other absurdities. Said former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum,“We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.”

Delusional Democrat and Republican leaders needn’t worry about the Fairness Doctrine coming back. President Obama’s FCC Chair Julius Genachowski says “I don’t think the FCC should be involved in censorship of content based on political speech or opinion.” Requiring more voices and balance is “censorship of content?” I suppose it shouldn’t surprise anyone that dumbassification exists at the highest levels of the federal government.

City Manager Evaluation Documents

2010-04-25T22:23:00.003-05:00

Councilor Jessica King will serve as Deputy Mayor (DM) this year on the Oshkosh Common Council. The major responsibility of that position is to facilitate the annual evaluation of the City Manager (CM).

During my term as DM, I said that the CM evaluation should be guided by three principles: fairness, rigor, and transparency. All the principles are crucial, but without transparency there really is no way for the public to know if the evaluation process was in fact fair or rigorous.

Several months ago, when the Council in open session discussed the CM evaluation process, it seemed clear that the majority were not comfortable with releasing evaluation information that linked evaluative comments or survey scores to individual councilors. At that time City Attorney Lorenson provided us with a memo that [in my opinion] did not take a clear stand on what could or could not be released as part of the process.

In March, I released to the press a memo that summarized the Council's evaluation scores.

Early this month, the local corporate press filed an open records request (which to this day I have not seen) asking for additional materials (I found this somewhat interesting since this is the same outfit that said that we should "praise in public and criticize in private" or some such worn cliche'). I provided Director of Personnel John Fitzpatrick all the material I compiled in the process, which included survey scores attached to individual councilors and summary comments that were made in closed session. The materials can be found here.

An objective reading of these materials will show that the evaluation of Mr. Rohloff was in fact fair and rigorous. The documents do not indicate any cheap shots or attempts to minimize Mr. Rohloff's accomplishments. Nor do the documents reveal any kind of old boy network sweeping under the rug of legitimate concerns. Indeed, my perception during the entire process was that all councilors and Mr. Rohloff took it very seriously and appreciated the interaction.

My hope is that the release of these material will go a long way toward ending what I think has been, for too many years, unnecessary secrecy in the evaluation process. I'm confident that Councilor King will continue to keep the process open and in fact look for ways to increase the transparency.

Maybe The Pittsburgh Pirates Will Win World Series This Year

2010-04-23T09:50:00.005-05:00

Having a "My Two Cents moment" (i.e. Mr. Krause frequently writes about sports).

Imagine being on the Pittsburgh Pirates roster today. After having just taken a 20-0 beating, AT HOME, at the hands of [let's admit it fellow Wisconsinites] a so-so Milwaukee Brewers team, you'd think that not even an over-inflated salary would cure the anguish and embarrassment.

On the other hand, a beating like yesterday's could become a real test of character. Today the Pirates should make a decision: should we (1) play out the season as lousy as the media pundits and fans expect or (2) pledge to rise from the ashes and provide the entire nation a lesson in pride and character. The latter will require every man on the roster to play each remaining game as if it was his last.

If the Pirates do win the World Series this year, great stories can be told about how that 20-0 shellacking was a transformative event. That game could become a metaphor for everyone who's been beaten down, laughed at, and told they didn't have chance.

Okay, so the Pirates will probably finish in last place.

Friday Week in Review

2010-04-15T19:34:00.003-05:00

I'll be on WPR's Week in Review on Friday with host Joy Cardin and conservative blogger Dave Blaska. You can join the conversation from 8 - 9 a.m. at 1-800-642-1234. You can also email questions or comments at talk@wpr.org

Media Rants: Earth Day at 40

2010-03-30T08:36:00.003-05:00

The column below will appear in the April edition of The SCENE. --TP

Earth Day At 40

By Tony Palmeri

On April 22 Earth Day, the brainchild and legacy of the late Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, celebrates its 40th birthday. With the word “sustainability” now part of everyday speech, and with record numbers of people seeking “green” options on everything from appliances to food choices, one could say that the Earth Day ethic of environmental preservation prevailed. On the other hand, corporate “greenwashing” and the generally awful state of big media reporting on the science and fact of global climate change do not inspire confidence that Earth Day will enjoy a robust middle age.

Which is not to say that big media were much better in 1970. Earth Day coverage generally sucked. Bill Christofferson’s excellent biography The Man From Clear Lake: Earth Day Founder Gaylord Nelson (University of Wisconsin Press, 2004) summarizes the national print media mood of the time

“The nation’s news media were uncertain what to make of Earth Day. Newsweek was bemused, and somewhat dismissive, calling Earth Day ‘a bizarre nationwide rain dance’ and the nation’s ‘biggest street festival since the Japanese surrendered in 1945.’ Time said the day ‘had aspects of a secular, almost pagan holiday…’ The question, Newsweek asked, was ‘whether the whole uprising represented a giant step forward for contaminated Earthmen or just a springtime skipalong.’ The event lacked the passion of antiwar and civil rights movements, Newsweek said, and the issues were so unfocused as to give rise to ‘the kind of nearly unanimous blather usually reserved for the flag.’ Time said the real question was whether the movement was a fad or could sustain the interest and commitment it would take to bring about real change. ‘Was it all a passing fancy…?’ The New York Times asked in a morning-after editorial, then answered its own question: ‘We think not. Conservation is a cause … whose time has come because life is running out. Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.’ . . .”

Northeast Wisconsin print media weren’t as dismissive, though certainly did not heavily promote Earth Day events. On April 21, 1970 the Oshkosh Northwestern had this announcement buried on page 4:

Will Air Teachin (sic)

The university radio station, WRST, will provide extensive coverage of the environmental teachin (sic) Wednesday. The station will carry programs live from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. It will also broadcast a kickoff speech tonight at 7.

We can excuse the Northwestern copy editor for not knowing how to express “teach-in,” but they couldn’t see fit to announce the speakers or panels? The paper did present two good editorials on April 22: “Everyone Can Help” and “Man Faces Extinction.” The former said that “Today the bell is sounding. Hopefully everyone will take up the challenge.”

The afternoon Northwestern of April 22 carried an above the fold story headlined “Condition of Environment ‘Sad Commentary’ on Man.” Turns out that the Earth Day keynote speaker at the Wisconsin State University Oshkosh was Dr. James Flannery, Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior. Flannery told the audience that “the condition of the environment is a sad commentary on man’s stewardship,” and that “this period in history may well be regarded as the period of conscience.”

Below the fold the paper chose to print correspondent Sarah McClendon’s “Nelson has some Earth Day Doubts.” That story was part of a nationwide press trend to place Senator Nelson on the defensive by forcing him to respond to inanities suggesting, for example, that April 22 was chosen for the celebration because it was the commie V.I Lenin’s birthday.

The Neenah/Menasha edition of the Northwestern actually had some of the best pre-Earth Day reporting in 1970. On April 20, the paper announced some of the UW Fox “Survival 70’s” events. They announced the participants in a panel called “Problems of Pollution in the Fox Cities.” The paper also presented fair treatment of the efforts of UWGB and UW-Fox Valley students to launch a petition drive to amend the Wisconsin Constitution. They even printed the proposed amendment language:

“The people have a right to a clean and healthy environment and this right has priority over any use of the environment for private or public purposes. To secure and maintain this right there shall be an immediate, permanent and continuous end to any degradation of the environment by individuals, public agencies, and private corporations or individuals.”

The amendment never found its way to the Constitution, but students at more than 75 Wisconsin colleges, universities, and tech schools were rallied to the cause.

Student environmental activism was actively encouraged by Senator Nelson and Earth Day national coordinator Denis Hayes. Wisconsin responded enthusiastically and with much idealism. At WSU Oshkosh, weekly programs were held from February until the April event. At Stevens Point, April 21-23 was called “Project Survival.”

At the Oshkosh campus, the “Environmental Crisis Organization” was chaired by Harley Christensen (who was also the first News Director at WRST). On Earth Day 1970 the Northwestern quoted him as saying something that still holds today: “We have a moral obligation to air . . . to the water, the land, and the generations to come.”

Happy Earth Day.

TIF Standards

2010-03-24T11:18:00.002-05:00

Due to a bout with pneumonia, I missed the city council meeting last night.

Former councilor Kevin McGee wrote a great commentary for the NWestern on TIF standards (or the lack thereof) in Oshkosh. Money quote:

Without standards, without strict rules identifying what TIF money can and cannot be used for, we're easy marks. If you were a developer or an expanding business, and you knew you could extort a few grand from the public coffers to improve your bottom line, you'd do it too, wouldn't you? Of course you would. Unless of course you had ethical principles, a sense of public spiritedness, a belief in asking what you can do for your country, or something nonsensical like that. Not much risk of that happening around here.

Too bad that commentary didn't appear before the council's vote on the Oshkosh Corp TIF proposal. The corporate press had no interest in looking at the matter seriously; perhaps McGee's commentary could have influenced the vote outcome. We'll never know.

New Politics Site

2010-03-15T09:54:00.001-05:00

Launched by Milwaukee Magazine, and called MilwaukeeNewsBuzz. Seems like a clearinghouse for mainstream reporting and commentary from around the state.

Sunshine Week 2010: March 14-20

2010-03-14T20:42:00.004-05:00

A Scripps poll conducted for Sunshine Week shows that the majority of Americans do not believe that the federal government has become more open under President Obama:

A new survey of 1,001 adult residents of the United States found that 70 percent believe that the federal government is either “very secretive” or “somewhat secretive.” The largest portion of respondents, 44 percent, said it is “very secretive.”

That matches the worst rating the federal government received during the final year of George W. Bush's presidency.

Surprisingly, people believe that local government is somewhat more open. In response to the question, "Is your local government open or secretive?" 60 percent said "somewhat or very open." 36 percent said "somewhat or very secretive."

The Oshkosh Northwestern on Friday rightly took the Oshkosh Common Council to task for not being more forthcoming in our assessment of City Manager Mark Rohloff.

UW Madison Student Rips Feingold For Oshkosh Corp. Support

2010-03-04T15:05:00.003-06:00

I don't agree with everything that UW Madison student Steve Horn says in this op-ed piece about Senator Feingold's support for Oshkosh Corporation. What I like about the piece, however, is the fact that Mr. Horn is still at the point in his life where he has not accepted that political reality in this country involves hard-to-dismantle old boys networks, a corporate press that enables those old fellers, and sell-out politicians who go along for the ride. For young Mr. Horn, something like the "military industrial complex" actually means something; it's more than a punch line to a Jon Stewart joke. Money quote:

Many more productive jobs for society, which are much less deadly, could be created with the money we spend on waging war, so the argument that to oppose Oshkosh Corp. is to oppose Wisconsin workers doesn’t hold its weight in a debate. With that same money we could employ people to build a national rail line that would help save the environment; we could be putting more money into improving our schools and paying teachers higher salaries; we could be opening factories to mass-produce electric cars. The point is, there are few jobs less productive and more dangerous for society than working for a war contractor, and those same bodies could be used to do things that actually enhance humanity rather than diminish it.

Horn's essay does suggest an interesting question: in the (unlikely as it may seem now) event that genuine peace breaks out in the world, what are we going to do with the war infrastructure that we've created? We just spent lots of time and energy figuring out a way to give Oshkosh Corp. 5 million bucks. Perhaps we should be spending some time trying to figure out what to do when we come to the realization that war economy just isn't sustainable.

March Media Rant: Jo Egelhoff Reviews the Post-Crescent

2010-02-28T16:39:00.004-06:00

Last month at the annual meeting of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association (WNA), the Appleton Post-Crescent (PC) was named the state's “Daily Newspaper of the Year” in the WNA’s Better Newspaper Contest. Judges from the Illinois Press Association said this about the PC:

“The Post-Crescent is everything a great newspaper can and should be . . . The Post-Crescent is a champion of the communities it serves, as both a watchdog of local government and a fundraiser for those in need. Readers in Appleton and the Fox Cities have to know that their daily newspaper has tremendous heart and is, very likely, one of the best of its circulation size in America.”

Those remarks struck me as grossly inflated, but not being a regular PC reader I’m not in the best position to know. So I asked former Appleton Common Councilor Jo Egelhoff, publisher of the TONY Award winning foxpoliticsnews.net site, what she thought of the PC. [Note: For purposes of space I had to edit some of Jo’s responses for the print edition of The SCENE; the unedited interview follows below.]

Media Rants: The WNA Better Newspaper contest judges say the following about the Post-Crescent:

"The Post-Crescent is everything a great newspaper can and should be. Each section is filled with local news and advertising and offers a great variety of storytelling, from indepth series on important topics such as domestic abuse to well-thought opinions on the state budget crunch to fun lifestyle stories told in graphic form without a lick of text . .. The Post-Crescent is a champion of the communities it serves, as both a watchdog of local government and a fundraiser for those in need. Readers in Appleton and the Fox Cities have to know that their daily newspaper has tremendous heart and is, very likely, one of the best of its circulation size in America."

Do you agree with the gist of that statement? Specifically, would you call the PC a "community champion" and "local government watchdog?"

Egelhoff: A community champion? Perhaps. But a local government watchdog? No, that’s a reach. The Post-Crescent is the kind of cozy hometown newspaper that will drive serious readers to FoxPoliticsNews.net, where they can find serious policy and politics news from the Fox Valley and throughout Wisconsin. I see the Post-Crescent like a 3 Musketeers bar – fluffy on the inside and not real stuffy, leaving an appetite for real news.

Media Rants: You served on the Appleton Common Council for quite a few years. During that time, did the Post-Crescent in your judgment provide accurate, fair, and complete coverage of issues facing the city? Did you sense that the paper was playing a rigorous watchdog role?

Egelhoff: Accurate, yes. And yes, most often “fair” if that means they include two sides of a story. Complete? No. A rigorous watchdog role? No.

A good example is the Appleton water plant. I called foul on it almost from the beginning. (Here’s just one of the several blogs I did on the subject.) I asked the Post-Crescent to report on it, bringing them a stack of supporting evidence. Finally, with a third or fourth request, a second alderperson accompanying me, P/C editors and the P/C’s Council reporter on hand, the P/C finally agreed to look into it – and subsequently did quite an expose'.

Then there’s the story of what was then termed the “Co-Gen” – a $2 million boondoggle that two of us objected to repeatedly with quality documentation at Council, and ultimately took to the Post-Crescent. Not a thing was done. Two months after this $2 million white elephant was up and running it was shut down by the Finance Director as not being cost efficient. Unbelievable.

Today, the P/C doesn’t have the time or money or inclination to dig into critical issues, such as:

Does it make sense for the city to contract out asphalt paving – or to own its own paver?
Why did the City of Appleton’s 2010 tax levy not increase as much as surrounding municipalities? (Not because they decreased spending – but because a large TIF was brought back on the tax roles.)
How do public employee benefits compare with comparable private sector benefits? How do wages compare?
How do the City of Appleton’s 3% increases in 2009 and 2010 compare with increases (or more likely decreases) in compensation in private sector jobs?
Exactly what do school district salaries and benefits look like? If school district employees’ compensation was frozen, would that allow for keeping more teachers, keeping class sizes from growing?
What do experts think about the $2 million of contributions every year needed to supplement earned income at the Performing Arts Center (PAC)? What do experts think about the compensation package of the PAC’s Executive Director? What is the compensation for the E.D. of this large and significant 501(c)(3) in our community (well over $250K)? What do experts think about an unusual $36,700,000 mortgage carried on the PAC building, that isn’t being paid off (payment terms are a highly unusual interest-only requirement through 2035)? Is the PAC using endowment or reserve funds to fund annual operations?

Media Rants: What critical issues, if any, do you feel are not getting the right amount of coverage in the PC?

Egelhoff: Several specific examples are mentioned above. Public spending, budgets and public sector compensation packages and settlements could be looked into in further detail. This is critical information for taxpayers – and time consuming stuff; that kind of time is seemingly just not available at the Post-Crescent. Or a series on accountability – what are the standards set up for a specific department or sub-department and are those standards being met? The City of Appleton has clearly defined standards – what of other municipalities – do they even have standards and whether or not they do, how is accountability carried out? How about campaigning for putting a city or county’s checkbook on line? Cook County just did it. http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/746190. Public spending vs. contracting out. The cost to Appleton and indeed, of the Fox Cities, to comply with water quality and quantity NR 151 regs. Or how about questioning a Kagen news release once in a blue moon?
(Larry Bivins, covering D.C., does an ok job, digging effectively occasionally, but doesn’t necessarily aspire to greatness; doesn’t probe or aim to stretch minds. Ben Jones, Gannett’s (and USA Today’s) man in Madison, has done some helpful investigative work.)

Media Rants: What is your general opinion of the PC editorials? Are they well informed and fair?

Egelhoff: The P/C’s editorials are informed enough to sound well-informed, but don’t often challenge readers to think and understand. The editorials are mushier than I like to read, never hard-hitting and stay away from those very controversial, tough issues. More often than not, it’s 3 Musketeers stuff.

“Fair” isn’t an adjective I use for editorials. Accurate, informative, in-depth, convincing. Teach me something, in 400 words or less.

Media Rants: What would you like to see the PC do that it is currently not doing?

Egelhoff: You’ve hit it – and I’ve referenced it – I’d like to see the PC be a watchdog for us taxpayers, a serious questioner. Dedicate a reporter to local government, preferably someone with some first-hand government experience. I know that can be hard, the newspaper business and budgets being what they are, but the P/C needs an insider who can pull news out from between the toes of local government.

Media Rants: Your own media activism requires you to be familiar with many newspapers across the state. Which ones, in your judgment, are the best?

Egelhoff: Understandably, the most frequent in-depth work is done by the Journal-Sentinel, with the largest circulation in the state. It’s lamentable that the J/S is no longer delivered on weekdays in the Fox Valley, though is available delivered on Sundays and at newsstands during the week. The news from the State Journal is ok, though skimpier, less inquiring than from the Journal Sentinel. Sean Ryan and Paul Snyder at The Daily Reporter do thorough work.

The editorials that come out of the Journal Sentinel editorial board are more fluff than stuff. I like the editorial sensibilities at the Beloit Daily News. The Tomah Journal and Racine Journal Times have written some surprisingly thoughtful editorials in the past year – and the Cap Times, left-leaning or not, does a good job calling ‘em as it sees ‘em.

Media Rants: Many thanks to Jo Egelhoff for taking the time to respond to the questions. Be sure to sign up for Jo’s daily news alert at foxpoliticsnews.net.

Sunlight and the Health Care Summit

2010-02-25T13:28:00.003-06:00

Kudos to the Sunlight Foundation for their brilliant live coverage of today's White House Health Care Summit. As each wealthy special interest sycophant (i.e. elected members of the US Congress) speaks, the Foundation reveals what financial interests are in their campaign accounts. Excellent.

I'll be on Week in Review Tomorrow

2010-02-18T12:54:00.002-06:00

AnnAlthouse and I will be on Wisconsin Public Radio's "Week in Review" tomorrow from 8-9 a.m. Questions/comments can be called in at 1-800-642-1234 or email: talk@wpr.org

Censored in 2009, Part 2

2010-02-01T07:10:00.003-06:00

Censored in 2009, Part 2

Media Rants

By

Tony Palmeri

Last month I identified half of the top ten stories that were underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored by local and state corporate media in 2009.

Now the top 5:

No. 5: Oshkosh Grand Opera House Repairs: No Thinking Allowed. When the city of Oshkosh restored the historic Grand Opera House in the early 1980s, costs were spread out among city taxpayers, federal funds, private donations, and foundation grants. Because of the lease terms agreed to by the Oshkosh Common Council in the 80s and rubber stamped by subsequent councils, Oshkosh taxpayers cover repair costs over $1,000. That’s an extremely uncommon method of funding repairs; historic arts houses similar to the Grand (e.g. Baraboo’s Al Ringling Theatre, Wausau’s Grand Theater, Milwaukee’s Pabst Theatere, Viroqua’s Temple Theater, the Kenosha Theater, Menomonie’s Mabel Tainter Theater) rely mostly on private, corporate, and foundation funding.

Last summer the Oshkosh Common Council approved $1.8 million dollars for roof repairs. Coverage and editorializing by Gannett’s Oshkosh Northwestern was incomplete, under researched, intolerant of different points of view, and unwilling to consider that the current ownership model is not sustainable or suitable to guarantee the Grand’s long term health. Reporter Patricia Wolff’s tepid story on ownership issues appeared a week after the repair vote, greatly limiting the story’s value. The lesson? When Gannett has to choose between responsible journalism and protecting ad clients (in this case the Opera House Foundation), the ad clients will prevail every time.

No. 4: Oshkosh Corp. TIF: Gannett Mocks Press Watchdog Role. Gannett’s “Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms” are worthless. Still, the corporation claims that “We will be vigilant watchdogs of government and institutions that affect the public.” In 2009, the Oshkosh Corporation announced a request for taxpayer assistance from Oshkosh citizens in the form of tax incremental financing. Gannett won’t ask difficult questions about the request or Oshkosh Corp’s financial health. When I pointed this out at a December 22 common council meeting, the Oshkosh Northwestern’s managing editor responded with a piece of inane pettiness that mindlessly lampooned citizens involved in a serious neighborhood dispute with the Oshkosh Corp that threatens their home values and safety. Worse, he actually mocked Gannett’s own watchdog principle: “We’re just watchdoggin’ it, you know.”

No. 3: Health Care Reform: Misinformation and No Medicare For All Coverage. Good reasons exist to oppose Barack Obama’s health insurance reform scheme. The idea that the president is proposing a “government takeover” of health care is NOT one of them. Indeed, Obama’s plan would force at least 30 million Americans to purchase insurance from private, for profit corporations; the exact opposite of a government takeover. A single-payer, Medicare for all proposal exists in the House of Representatives and Senate, yet insurance lobby controlled “leaders” refuse to give it a fear hearing, and the corporate press are all too ready to sweep the measure under the table. Throughout 2009 mass media eagerly covered tea party shouting matches, yet the arrest of nine citizens at New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s office while rallying in support of Medicare for all received scant coverage.

No. 2: Outsourcing Wisconsin. In 2004 the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign revealed that the state was paying huge sums of money to engineering giant HNTB in spite of the fact that state workers formally did the same work for a fraction of the cost. You’d think that since then the state’s media would do a better job of monitoring outsourcing in return for campaign contributions, right? Wrong. Even though a study showed engineering work done in-house by state DOT workers was 18% less expensive that the outsourced work, the outsourcing continues without any public accountability. The Democracy Campaign’s Mike McCabe told me that a source inside the Department of Transportation claims that the feds have registered a complaint about the level of outsourcing in Wisconsin. Federal funds might be in jeopardy if the state doesn’t address this. The remodeling of Highway 41 in northeast Wisconsin provides local media with a golden opportunity in 2010 to do some Pulitzer Prize worthy reports on outsourcing.

No. 1: Obama’s Bush-Lite Foreign Policy. Mainstream media insist Barack Obama is committed to softening the War on Terror. A contrary view comes from Glenn Greenwald, author of Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics. He told Amy Goodman that Obama talks a good game while continuing Bush’s policies:

But despite that rhetoric . . . the same policies are being continued. So we’re closing Guantanamo at some point, but we’re shifting the very indefinite detention scheme and military commission scheme that caused such controversy simply to a new location. And although he talks about how air strikes enflame that part of the world, he has escalated air strikes not just in Afghanistan but in whole new countries . . . and in Pakistan especially . . . I think what you see is that he is afraid to or unwilling to challenge the orthodoxies of the intelligence community, of the Pentagon, of the lobbyists and industry interests that have long run Washington. And so, whether his intentions are good, whether he has a purer heart, these things are impossible to know, but they’re really irrelevant. The reality is that the same dynamic continues.

Thank You Howard Zinn

2010-01-30T14:29:00.003-06:00

When I think of all the people who have influenced my politics, civic life, and approach to teaching, the late Howard Zinn is near the top of the list.

Lots of obits and tributes can be found on Zinn's site.

I attended some great schools over the years (Archbishop Molloy High School, St. John's University, Central Michigan University, Wayne State University), and was lucky to learn from some fabulous teachers, yet I never remember Zinn's name coming up even once; not even in history classes.

My serious introduction to Zinn came around 1990. On a road trip back to Oshkosh from Brooklyn, I decided to stop in Erie, PA to visit good friends Tim and Dee Thompson. Leaving their place, I put public radio on. The station was playing a talk called "Second Thoughts on the First Amendment" by someone named Howard Zinn. I was so impressed by the talk that as the station signal began to fade I pulled into some fast food parking lot just to be able to continue listening.

When I returned to Oshkosh I went to UWO's Polk Library and scooped up everything by Zinn that I could find. Eventually I would make Zinn's A Peoples' History of the United States required reading in my History of American Public Address course.

One experience I will never forget was Zinn's visit to Oshkosh a few years ago. I had the chance to interview him for the "Commentary" television show, introduce him to the audience for his Reeve Union talk, and talk to him privately for a bit. He was a "gentleman" in the best sense: interested in others, radiant smile, brilliant without making others feel lesser than; I remember thinking "I wish I could have taken a class from this guy."

Because Zinn took pacifist views on issues of war and peace, it was easy to forget that he was a World War II fighter pilot. One of my favorite Zinn writings is his "Dissent at the War Memorial." Excerpt:

"I'm here to honor the two guys who were my closest buddies in the Air Corps--Joe Perry and Ed Plotkin, both of whom were killed in the last weeks of the war. And to honor all the others who died in that war. But I'm not here to honor war itself. I'm not here to honor the men in Washington who send the young to war. I'm certainly not here to honor those in authority who are now waging an immoral war in Iraq."

I went on: "World War II is not simply and purely a 'good war.' It was accompanied by too many atrocities on our side--too many bombings of civilian populations. There were too many betrayals of the principles for which the war was supposed to have been fought.

"Yes, World War II had a strong moral aspect to it--the defeat of fascism. But I deeply resent the way the so-called good war has been used to cast its glow over all the immoral wars we have fought in the past fifty years: in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan. I certainly don't want our government to use the triumphal excitement surrounding World War II to cover up the horrors now taking place in Iraq.

"I don't want to honor military heroism--that conceals too much death and suffering. I want to honor those who all these years have opposed the horror of war."

Former City Manager Was Not Fired

2010-01-29T10:22:00.002-06:00

One of Gannett's questions to this year's common council candidates starts off with "When the Council fired the former city manager . . ."

For the record, the Council did not fire the former city manager. He retired. Yes, his retirement followed much public, press, and council scrutiny of his performance, but it's simply not accurate to say that he was fired.

Review of Going Rogue

2010-01-21T12:45:00.004-06:00

Over 40 people showed up at the Appleton Public Library last night to discuss Sarah Palin's Going Rogue: An American Life. After Brian Farmer and I spoke for about 15 minutes each, there was some very thoughtful commentary and discussion.

I spoke extemporaneously about Palin's book. Here's a summary of what I said:

1. The book's 6 chapters are not a VP campaign memoir.

Chapter 1, "The Last Frontier," is mostly early biography and Alaska history.

Chapter 2, "Kitchen-Table Politics," is about Palin's years as a city councilor and then mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

Chapter 3, "Drill, Baby, Drill" is about Palin's gubernatorial campaign and what she sees as her accomplishments in that office.

Chapter 4, "Going Rogue," deals with the trials and tribulations of the VP campaign.

Chapter 5, "The Thumpin'," is about what Palin perceives as unfair press and leftist attacks on her that led to her decision to resign as Alaska governor.

Chapter 6, "The Way Forward," presents Palin's general political beliefs; what she calls "Commonsense Conservatism.

2. Even though I am mostly critical of Palin and her book, there's much in it that I find appealing.

As an elected member of the Oshkosh City Council, I find Palin's description of local government political dynamics to be insightful and accurate.

The section of the book dealing with her discovery that her son would be born with Down's Syndrome is enough to move even the most strident Palin haters to tears.

I like the fact that Palin writes admiringly about Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter for Bush #43 who has written an excellent book establishing respect for animals as a conservative principle. (Palin says of him: "A political conservative, he is a bunny-hugging vegan and gentle, green soul who I think would throw himself in the path of a semitruck to save a squirrel."). [Note: I interviewed Matthew Scully for Radio Commentary several years ago. That interview can be found here.]

I like the notion of the "rogue" politician; someone who isn't predictable and doesn't always follow the party line.

3. I believe the purpose of this book was/is to restore Palin's credibility; a credibility badly damaged as a result of the VP campaign.

She wants the book to help make people comfortable not only in voting for her, but in listening to her as serious voice on national policy issues.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle (see paragraph 3) said that restoring or establishing credibility is essentially a matter of an audience perceiving a rhetor as intelligent, of good moral character, and of goodwill.

4. For four major reasons, I don't believe the book succeeds in raising Palin's credibility.

First, in the book one finds a pattern of resignation and withdrawal when the heat gets too hot. Resigning as governor is the obvious example, but she also writes about resigning from her position with the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission when she could not get governor Frank Murkowski to act in a way she saw fit. Palin's resignations may or may not have been the proper course of action, but she seems to have difficulty imaging other ways of resolving intense political conflicts. She concludes that to be governor in the face of a mountain of investigations, much of it frivolous, you "either have to be rich or corrupt." Are those really the only choices?

Second, the book features much petty defensiveness. She complains incessantly about a left bias in the media, and goes to length to take shots at Katie Couric. But her defensive complaints are not only about media; she complains about the way her family was treated by higher ups in the McCain campaign, about being "forced" to wear expensive clothing, and about not being able to deliver a speech on the night of the general election. She even includes a bizarre story about McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt interrupting her during her prep for the debate with Joe Biden to say that the campaign would be flying in a nutritionist (who never arrived) because of a concern that a high protein/not enough carbs diet was leading to some mental lapses. You read these complaints and cannot help but say, "isn't it time to move on from this nonsense?"

Third, when it comes to political discourse Palin is still mostly stuck on the low road. She does not regret the "palling around with terrorists" remark about Obama, and without a shred of evidence suggests that his performance as president proves that the comment was appropriate. (Low road politics have been her MO outside of the book; politifact.com--a nonpartisan, Pulitzer Prize winning outfit--called her "death panel" assertions the "lie of the year.")

Fourth, there does seem to be quite a bit of "culture war," red-state posturing in the book. She tells us, for example, that after she resigned from the Alaska Gas Commission and wondered what to do next she thought of a passage from Jeremiah 29: 11-13. Much of that kind of thing can be found in the book; kind of like an attempt to out-Huckabee Mike Huckabee for the red state vote. In fairness to Palin, she's hardly the first politician to pander in a memoir.

5. Has the book made Palin a credible figure outside of a segment of the Republican Party? No.

In November, during the special election to fill New York's 23rd congressional district seat, Palin overtly endorsed the conservative independent Doug Hoffman over the Republican nominee who she thought too liberal. Bill Owens ended up being the first Democrat elected to represent that part of New York since the mid-19th century.

Scott Brown's historic upset in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's former seat in Massachusetts was accomplished without help from Palin. Indeed, the Brown campaign studiously distanced itself from Palin.

6. Can Sarah Palin be elected president in 2012?

I can envision a scenario where she enters the Republican primaries and battles with Mike Huckabee for the red state conservative vote.

I think John McCain's former campaign manager Steve Schmidt has the right angle on Palin:

"She is someone who has a passionate base that constitutes millions of Americans. But in the year since the election has ended, she has done nothing to expand her appeal beyond that base into the middle of the electorate, where elections are decided. In fact, were she to be the nominee we could have a catastrophic election."

Discussion of Palin Book at APL Wednesday Night

2010-01-19T10:02:00.002-06:00

Political activist Brian Farmer and I will be leading a discussion of Sarah Palin's Going Rogue tomorrow (Wednesday) evening from 6:30 - 7:30 p.m. at the Appleton Public Library (225 N. Oneida St.). The event is free.

Deer Cull: Firearms Were Discharged Illegally

2010-01-07T15:04:00.004-06:00

Because neither the public at-large, the press, nor the city council were warned of the imminence of a deer cull, no one was in a position to make sure the procedure was done to the letter of the law. We are all in the unfortunate position of having to ask questions after the fact. As an example of the kind of mishaps that result when government intentionally chooses to implement its actions secretively, today the city attorney confirmed for me that the sharpshooting did in fact occur in violation of the city code that prohibits the discharge of firearms within the city of Oshkosh. Some background:

On January 13, 2009, the city council passed ordinance 09-12, "Approval of variance to deer feeding ban and firearm discharge ordinances/culling of urban deer/Osborn Ave. area." The ordinance specified that the granting of a variance to allow for the discharge or firearms would be for the time period from January 14, 2009 through April 1, 2009. Thus, when Urban Wildlife Specialists discharged firearms in late December, they did so illegally.

That the council had passed ordinance 09-12 occurred to me last night when I went over my notes relating to the deer cull issue. I immediately emailed city attorney Lorenson to ask if the council had renewed the ordinance, since I had no recollection of us having done so. Here is her response:

"I checked and I do not believe that the variance was ever renewed. As a practical matter we would not pursue citations in this instance for violations of this ordinance though; as the individuals that would be cited under the ordinance are the persons who discharged the weapons, and in this case they did so at the City's direction."

The most charitable explanation of the situation is that it was a bureaucratic mishap; the city manager, attorney, and chief of police somehow forgot that the variance had expired. If that is in fact what happened, it reinforces why it's so important to have a council and press ready to serve a watchdog role. (Unfortunately the secrecy did not allow the council or the press to serve that role.).

Someone less charitably inclined might suspect that the failure to renew the variance was done willfully. To renew the variance would have meant, for one thing, that the city council would have had the opportunity to deliberate about it. Unlike last year, when only I spoke in opposition, this time the deliberation would have included the voice of Bob Poeschl. Mr. Poeschl openly opposed the deer cull during his campaign, and I believe he received one of his highest vote totals in the ward affected by the culling. No doubt citizens pro and con would have came to the council to speak on the issue.

More important, if we had had the opportunity to deliberate about the variance and if the public had had the opportunity to comment, we would no doubt have insisted that firearms not be discharged without public notification.

Regardless of how one feels about deer culling (or fire trucks and pump stations), I hope we can all agree that a city manager ought not have the power to direct an organization or individual to discharge firearms in violation of city codes. Giving a local executive that kind of power is more in line with the old Soviet Union than the US Constitution.

Lamb Not Sheepish About Transparency

2010-01-07T10:59:00.003-06:00

The C-Span icon wants the congressional Democrats and president Obama to hold true to their pledge of maximum transparency in health care deliberations. See Lamb's letter here. Money quote:

"President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank and file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system. Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation through the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."

So Much For Transparency

2010-01-04T14:51:00.002-06:00

All members of the City Council received this notice today from city manager Rohloff: "Chief Greuel reported to me that Urban Wildlife Specialists harvested nine deer in the Armory area last week. This was done prior to the expiration of their contract on December 31, 2009."

There was no public announcement that the culling was to take place, and to my knowledge no member of the council was apprised in advance.

So much for government transparency.

I've asked to have this situation placed on the agenda for the January 12 meeting.

Censored In 2009, Part I

2009-12-28T15:39:00.002-06:00

The following Media Rants column will appear in the January, 2010 edition of The SCENE.--TP

Censored in 2009, Part I

Media Rants

By

Tony Palmeri

Annually since 1976, Project Censored has identified news stories "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored in the United States." Censored 2010 (Seven Stories Press) cites the Congress’ sell out to Wall St. as the top censored story. Mainstream media minimized or ignored the fact that “Nearly every member of the House Financial Services Committee, who in February 2009 oversaw hearings on how the $700 billion of TARP bailout was being spent, received contributions associated with these financial institutions during the 2008 election cycle.”

Inspired by the Project, every year I dedicate two columns to the top ten stories censored by the local and state corporate media.

And now the censored stories:

No. 10: Obama’s Big Sellout: In punting away campaign promises, Barack Obama is no different from all 43 politicians preceding him over at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Still, it’s rare to see such a complete 180 degree reversal on something as fundamental as economic policy. The Obama sellout is narrated in excruciating detail by Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi:

“What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.”

Probably because corporate media barons perceive they’ll benefit from a Wall St. friendly White House, the mainstream press rarely comment on the real ideological makeup of the president’s policy makers. The Obama administration on economics is still presented to us as governing from the “left”. Thus the tea baggers, birthers, and other Obama foes, of which there are many in the Fox Valley, really do believe that the administration is teeming with “socialists.”
[Note: An excellent recent interview of Taibbi by Thom Hartmann can be seen/heard below; the interview starts at about the 3:50 mark.].

No. 9: Democracy Now! Alone In The Bella of the Beast: The most important international conference in world history was held December 7-18 in Copenhagen’s Bella Center. On opening day, 56 newspapers from 45 countries ran a common editorial arguing, “Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security.” Only two US newspapers (one a Spanish language paper) ran the editorial.

Mainstream media failed to cover Copenhagen with the urgency required. Thank goodness for Amy Goodman; her Democracy Now! program staked out “In the Bella of the Beast” and provided the finest grassroots reporting of the event available.

No. 8: GAB Website FUBAR: I asked the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign’s politics watchdog Mike McCabe for an opinion on underreported stories. He said in part: “At or near the top of my list is the failure or at least serious shortcomings of outsourcing of government services. ABC News made a big deal out of screwed-up information on the federal government's website showing how stimulus funds have been used. The next day the problem was fixed. But we tried calling attention to data on the GAB's campaign finance website that was totally FUBAR for the better part of a year, and there was next to no media coverage. The state contracted out this project; the initial cost estimate was $1 million but now the tab has been run up to over $2 million and the meter is still running.” [Note: GAB is Government Accountability Board and FUBAR means F*cked Up Beyond All Recognition.]

No. 7: The Twisted Saga Of Mercury Marine. The October Media Rants column discussed Mercury Marine’s low road strategy of extracting huge concessions from workers at the Fond du Lac plant. Also in October, the nonpartisan Institute for Wisconsin’s Future told the true story, a “twisted saga” that Merc’s corporate media lapdogs won’t tell:

“The story of Mercury Marine is a sad documentary on how large corporations can reward executives for failure while dismantling the manufacturing structures that generate real value. Wisconsin’s income tax didn’t scare the company. Workers didn’t drain the firm’s cash. Rather, the company’s senior executives and directors presided over an internal fiscal meltdown while collecting massive incomes. Employees, stockholders and taxpayers are paying the price for their mismanagement and their luxuries.”

No. 6: The Councilor Appointment Process. The election of Paul Esslinger as Mayor of Oshkosh created a vacant city council seat. In a ridiculous display of press arrogance, the Oshkosh Northwestern refused to report or editorialize accurately or fairly about procedures used across the state to fill such vacancies. Anxious to pressure the Council into appointing the Northwestern’s endorsed candidate, the editorialists became his mouthpiece. I’m proud to say the Council stood up to the bullying, applied procedures commonly used across the state, and appointed an individual (Harold Bucholtz) who’s everything the corporate press isn’t: fair, independent, and trustworthy.

Next month: The top 5 censored stories of 2009.

Not Quite Blowin' In The Wind . . .

2009-12-25T08:02:00.003-06:00

. . . but Bob Dylan is now using music to help feed the hungry. Proceeds from his "Christmas in the Heart" recording will support anti-hunger efforts. From Investment News:

“The problem of hunger is ultimately solvable,” Mr. Dylan said in a statement. That “means we must each do what we can to help feed those who are suffering and support efforts to find long-term solutions,” he said.

The recording features Dylan's cover of Brave Combo's cover of "Must Be Santa."

Buyer Beware Care Passes Senate

2009-12-21T07:40:00.003-06:00

I had an opportunity to watch some of last night's US Senate "debate" over health insurance reform. Earlier in the day, the extent of the sell-out to lobbyists was depressingly documented, so the end result was no surprise.

The saddest speech had to be Senator Dick Durbin's (D-Illinois). Durbin, usually one of the more sane members of the Senate, with a straight face tried to compare passage of what is, at best, a national version of Romney Care (i.e. mandating the purchase of private insurance) to the battles over Social Security and Medicare. He wants to call the new law "Kennedy Care."

Durbin is smart enough to know that Social Security and Medicare analogies went on life support the moment genuine single-payer was taken off the table; and smart enough to know that the analogies died when even a diluted public option could not make the cut through the insurance industry's Senate. I realize he and other Dems desperately want to score a legislative victory for Barack Obama, but c'mon.

If the legislation gets through conference and becomes law, I think it should be called "Buyer Beware Care." The main feature of the reform, after all, is the provision to buy private health insurance. Think of how distinguished this Senate will sound when the history of the era is written 50 years from now: "In the 1930s FDR and the Democrats in Congress created Social Security to ensure some measure of retirement security for seniors. With Medicare, LBJ and the Dems expanded the New Deal vision. Then at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, Barack Obama and a Congress bought by the private insurance industry gave us Buyer Beware Care. Some called it de-evolution."

And Russ Feingold? The "maverick" ultimately took one for the team. Apparently he has decided he's going to pacify Wisconsin libs by blaming Barack Obama for the lack of a public option in the final bill. I didn't think the Republicans had any chance of unseating Feingold in 2010, but as more details of this monstrous bill become known, anything can happen.

Barack Obama is sending Democrats into the 2010 elections having to defend:

*The TARP (Wall St.) bailout
*Escalation of the war in Afghanistan
*A mandate to buy private insurance

Good luck with that.

Actually, some statistics in this month's Harper's Index now makes sense. It said since assuming the presidency, Obama has attended 26 party fundraisers. At the same point in his presidency, GW Bush had attended 6.

Even Jay Leno gets it: "I'm trying to...sum up President Obama's first 11 months in office. He gave billions to Wall Street, cracked down on illegal immigrants getting healthcare, sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. You know something? He may go down in history as our greatest Republican president ever."

Tell Feingold to vote NO on Lieberman Bill

2009-12-17T10:04:00.002-06:00

Back in June Senator Feingold said he was "not interested passing health care reform in name only." He called a strong public option "fundamental" to reform.

The Lieberman Bill (i.e. the current "reform" bill under consideration in the Senate) is a travesty, shown by Howard Dean and many others to be much worse than anything Senator Feingold could have imagined in June. Go here to tell the Senator to vote against the bill.

Below is Feingold's statement from June followed by Keith Olbermann's "special comment" from last night.

Dean: Vote NO on Health Bill

2009-12-16T00:04:00.003-06:00

Howard Dean urges the Senate to kill a "reform" bill that no longer includes even a diluted public option. Russ Feingold, who ought to be tough enough to stand up to the insurance and big pharma lobbies that wrote the bill, should be speaking out against this mess as forcefully as Dr. Dean.

House Honors "Kind of Blue"

2009-12-15T14:13:00.003-06:00

Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), who recently received a request from the POTUS to stop "demeaning" him, hasn't been able to get the House to vote on or even talk about a genuine single-payer health care plan.

But Conyers was able to get 409 votes for a resolution honoring the late Miles Davis' jazz classic "Kind of Blue."

Given that Conyers is from Detroit, perhaps he might see fit to get the House to recognize the 40th anniversary of the Detroit-based MC5 classic "Kick Out The Jams." The album is #294 on Rolling Stone's top 500 and includes the rebel anthem "Motor City Is Burning." Somehow I don't think Conyers would get 409 votes for that one, and he might even end up getting another tense call from the POTUS.

HRES 894 IH

111th CONGRESS1st SessionH. RES. 894Honoring the 50th anniversary of the recording of the album ‘Kind of Blue’ and reaffirming jazz as a national treasureEH

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESNovember 5, 2009Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. MCGOVERN, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTIONHonoring the 50th anniversary of the recording of the album ‘Kind of Blue’ and reaffirming jazz as a national treasureRes. 894

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,Comments Close Comments Permalink

December 15, 2009.Comments Close Comments Permalink

Whereas, on August 17, 1959, Miles Davis, Jimmy Cobb, Bill Evans, Wynton Kelly, Paul Chambers, John Coltrane, and Julian ‘Cannonball’ Adderley collaborated to record the album ‘Kind of Blue’;Comments Close Comments Permalink

Whereas ‘Kind of Blue’ ranks 12th on the list of the ‘500 Greatest Albums of All Time’ published by Rolling Stone magazine;Comments Close Comments Permalink

Whereas ‘Kind of Blue’ was recorded in 1959, the year Columbia Records declared ‘jazz’s greatest year’;Comments Close Comments Permalink

Whereas ‘Kind of Blue’ marked the beginning of the mass popularity of jazz in the United States;Comments Close Comments Permalink

Whereas in 2008, the Recording Industry Association of America awarded ‘Kind of Blue’ quadruple-platinum status, meaning 4,000,000 copies of the album had been sold;Comments Close Comments Permalink

Whereas in 2002, the Library of Congress added ‘Kind of Blue’ to the National Recording Registry;Comments Close Comments Permalink

Whereas ‘Kind of Blue’ was recognized as the bestselling record in the history of jazz;Comments Close Comments Permalink

Whereas 50 years after the release of ‘Kind of Blue’, MOJO magazine honored the Legacy Edition of the album by giving it the ‘Best Catalogue Release of the Year’ award;Comments Close Comments Permalink

Whereas ‘Kind of Blue’ both redefined the concept of jazz for musicians and changed the perceptions of jazz held by many fans;Comments Close Comments Permalink

Whereas today, the sole surviving member of the Miles Davis Sextet, Jimmy Cobb, is performing and touring with his So What Band in tribute to the 50th anniversary of ‘Kind of Blue’; andComments Close Comments Permalink

Whereas ‘Kind of Blue’ continues to be the standard masterpiece of jazz for American musicians and audiences: Now, therefore, be itComments Close Comments Permalink

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--Comments Close Comments Permalink

(1) honors the 50th anniversary of ‘Kind of Blue’ and recognizes the unique contribution the album has made to American jazz;Comments Close Comments Permalink

(2) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to transmit enrolled copies of this resolution to Columbia Records;Comments Close Comments Permalink

(3) encourages the United States Government to take all appropriate steps to preserve and advance the art form of jazz music;Comments Close Comments Permalink

(4) recommits itself to ensuring that musical artists such as Miles Davis and his Sextet receive fair protection under the copyright laws of the United States for their contributions to culture in the United States; andComments Close Comments Permalink

(5) reaffirms the status of jazz as a national treasure.Comments Close Comments Permalink

Attest:Comments Close Comments Permalink

Clerk.

Brooklyn Guerrilla Bike Lane Painters

2009-12-10T20:14:00.005-06:00

Thanks to Lo for passing this on. I'm actually from the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn where this biketroversy is taking place.

Palmeri, Egelhoff on Friday "Week in Review"

2009-12-10T12:14:00.002-06:00

Jo Egelhoff of FoxPolitics.net and I will join Joy Cardin for WPR's Week in Review on Friday, Dec. 11 from 8-9 a.m. You can call in during the program at 1-800-642-1234 or email talk@wpr.org.

One topic that will certainly come up is President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech. You can watch it below.

The 2009 TONY Awards

2009-12-01T08:25:00.003-06:00

Yes, what everyone's been waiting for . . . the 2009 TONY Awards Media Rants for excellence in local media. The hard copy can be seen in the December SCENE. Here's the column:

In its annual report, the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism late last year identified an important emerging trend: “Power is shifting to the individual journalist and away, by degrees, from journalistic institutions. The trend is still forming and its potential is uncertain but the signs are clear. Through search, e-mail, blogs, social media and more, consumers are gravitating to the work of individual writers and voices, and away somewhat from institutional brand.” Given the low journalistic quality of, and citizen disgust with, local corporate media, that trend can’t come fast enough to the Fox Valley.

Every December since 2002 I've given TONY Awards to local independent media practitioners who think outside the corporate box and show excellence in educating, agitating, enlightening, or entertaining Valley audiences.

And now the 2009 TONY Award recipients. Drum roll please.

Most Missed Editorial Writer: Alex Hummel. For years Oshkosh Northwestern editorials often featured cheap shots, ornery gripes, and a general dumbing down of the issues under discussion. All that changed when Alex Hummel became the editorial writer. Though I frequently disagreed with Alex, his editorials were always well argued, civil, and demonstrated a desire to move the community forward as opposed to the traditional Northwestern model of settling scores or serving as mouthpieces for favored special interests and ad clients. Disagreeing with Alex’s editorials required reflection and contemplation of counter-argument.

Not anymore. Early in 2009 Hummel announced he was leaving the Northwestern for a position as Community Outreach and Education Coordinator for Christine Ann Domestic Abuse Services in Oshkosh. No one is indispensable, but it’s difficult to exaggerate the depths to which the editorial page has sunk since his departure. The ornery dumbing down returned with a vengeance, making it too easy to ignore the page. Alex, you’re missed.

Best Investigative Journalism: “Rumors of Murder” by Daphne Young in The Scene. The State Department of Justice recently announced that felony vehicular homicide charges in the 2004 death of Kevin McCoy would be filed against Rory Kuenzi, one of the rocket scientists also facing charges for the snowmobiling massacre of deer in Waupaca County. No doubt the DOJ was aided by Daphne’s Scene piece, which exposed in depth the incompetence that resulted in Kuenzi avoiding charges for 5 years. Daphne’s follow up piece, “Remembering Kevin McCoy,” provided readers with a moving portrait of McCoy as told by his family.

Best Independent Local Film: Dr. Kickbutt’s “Kick Savin’ a Beauty.” A project of Leif Larson and Aaron Baer, the film’s slapstick comedic antics evoke marriage of Monty Python, the Three Stooges, and Laurel & Hardy. Shown at the Time Community Theater in Oshkosh in September, the production represented grassroots filmmaking at its bedraggled best.

Community Arts Award: The Time Community Theater. Not only did the Time provide space for Dr. Kickbutt, but also fine musical acts. Great young bands were featured at the “Oshstock” concert, while the alt-country sound of the Blueheels, smooth jazz of Amina Figarova and soulful singing of Eli Mattson graced the Time’s stage in 2009. If you believe in supporting venues that provide a space for local artistic talent, then you need to go to the Time website (http://www.timecommunitytheater.com/Home.html) and make a contribution. Do it today.

The Snyder-Jarman Award For Excellence in Radio. Randall Davidson. A former newscaster for Wisconsin Public Radio, Randall Davidson in 2008 replaced Ben Jarman as Director of Radio Services for UW Oshkosh radio station WRST. Randall has already expanded the station’s outreach efforts, brought new alternative programming, and established himself as a mentor for students seeking to become radio professionals. Under Randall’s guidance, students produce excellent public affairs programs and special features like election night programming. Quite the refreshing alternative to commercial radio.

Best Blogging About A Local Issue: Roger Bybee. During the Mercury Marine Corporation’s summer of heavy handed tactics in extracting concessions from union workers while at the same time demanding boat loads (pardon the pun) of taxpayer money to keep jobs in Fond du Lac, it was impossible to find any quality local news coverage of the travesty. Roger Bybee, a Milwaukee-based freelance writer, wrote about the issue in the “Working In These Times” blog with the kind of guts and integrity rarely found in the mainstream press. Sample Bybee:

“The onslaught of plant closings and relocations—both threatened and real—will continue until the Obama administration comes up with an industrial policy that prevents corporations from playing off workers and states against each other in order to further drive down wages.”

General Excellence: Jo Egelhoff, Foxpolitics.net. This is Jo’s second TONY. Though the former Appleton alderperson leans much more to the right than Media Rants, her site is a treasure trove of useful information. Every morning, usually before 8 a.m., Jo sends subscribers to her email list a huge archive of northeast Wisconsin news, news from around the state and nation, provocative pieces on politics and elections, and opinion pieces. Jo wrote something in a blog post not too long ago that we agree on completely: “It continues to be time to participate in our local media – and indeed – to hold our local media accountable to ask the tough questions and persist as long as it takes to get meaningful answers.”

Prior TONY Awards columns can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Referendum on Domesticated Animals in City Parks

2009-11-23T11:53:00.003-06:00

Back in August, the City Council passed Resolution 09-315, the purpose of which was to "amend ordinance to allow dogs at Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park." During the deliberation about the resolution, it was revealed that dogs had been in Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park for a long time because most people considered the area to be a trail. But because Rusch/Sawyer Creek is legally defined as a park, in order to continue with the accepted behavior (i.e. allowing dogs to walk on the trail), we had to change the municipal code. The language of Res 09-315 said the following:

"Persons will be allowed to have domesticated animals at Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park provided that such domesticated animals shall be on a leash no longer than six feet (6') and shall be under full control of their owners."

Also during that evening's deliberations, it became clear that there is a segment of the citizenry that would like to see dogs allowed in all city parks. I suggested that evening that we should have an advisory referendum to find out how large that sentiment is. In late September I met with City Attorney Lynn Lorenson and Acting Parks Director Bill Sturm to work on referendum language. My view was that the language of a referendum should be similar to what we passed in Res 09-315. Thus, here is what the Council will be voting on tomorrow:

WHEREAS the issue of whether domesticated animals should be allowed in Oshkosh city parks is one of great interest to citizens at-large; and

WHEREAS the Common Council desires to receive advice from City voters about whether or not to adopt an ordinance that would allow domesticated animals in City parks.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the following advisory referendum question be placed on the April 6, 2010 ballot:

Should persons be allowed to have domesticated animals at city parks--except in areas such as zoos, playgrounds, golf courses, the water park, cemeteries, and athletic fields--provided that such domesticated animals shall be on a leash no longer than six feet (6') and shall be under full control of their owners?

Yes_______________ No______________________

My gut feeling is that a majority of people in Oshkosh would like to allow dogs in parks. That is based on the commentary about it I've seen over the years. However, I do not know if those comments represent a vocal minority or the majority of citizens. I personally lean toward allowing dogs in city parks, but if a clear majority of citizens in a referendum said that they did not want them there, then I would not support it. This strikes me as a classic case of an issue where an advisory referendum is appropriate and useful. Perhaps it might even increase voter turnout in April.

If you'd like to contact the City Council and provide input on whether we should place the referendum question on the ballot, click here.