TRIBULATIONS OF THE TEXAS TRIB: Part II - PBS' NEWSHOUR "Debate"

Maybe James Moore's critique of the Texas Tribune (see part I here) is just part of a broader generational conflict. Moore is a Boomer and the Trib's Evan Smith is Gen-X. Is this simply Old School journalism vs. New School? 

If so, it isn't an isolated incident. Not too long ago, a fistfight (of sorts) broke out in the Washington Post's newsroom. Henry Allen, a curmudgeonly Pulitzer Prize winning Baby Boomer, socked a Gen-Xer for (among other things) what Allen called "the second worst story I have seen...in 43 years." 

As a Boomer, I'm biased. Also, Henry is my cousin. Putting all that aside, who doesn't like to see the old guy with ink-stained hands clock some upstart with a J-school degree from Northwestern? 

With the Trib-ulation, we have another old guy with ink-stained hands taking a swing (metaphorically for now) at some Northwestern J-school Gen-Xer...

Maybe this isn't a "just" or "simply" Old School vs. New School, a changing-of-the-guard conflict that doesn't mean much. Boomers came of age with the Fourth Estate serving as a decisive element in our democracy during the Watergate Era. How very different from today's corporatized media "embedded" with (in bed with?) the Powers that Be. 

Now this is all by way of introduction...additional context for what I have to say about the Texas Tribune and the possibilities for "public media" today. That's coming this Sunday. I'm still setting the stage...

In Part I, we looked at how the Trib's highfalutin goal of becoming "the next great public media brand in the United States" doesn't really impress given my experience with NPR. Now, let's look at PBS' NEWSHOUR.

Grassroots leader or Koch stooge?

Last Summer, as we prepared for implementation of the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"), NEWSHOUR asked if "Health Care Reform (is) a Good Bargain or Burden for Young Americans?"

A classic "he said/she said" debate moderated by Ray Suarez serves as centerpiece of the 11 minute piece. The nay-sayer to Obamacare is identified as "Evan Feinberg...the president of Generation Opportunity, a group of younger adults opposed to the law."

Is that a sufficient description for this source? According to the New York Times, he represents "a Koch-financed group focusing on young voters."

A Koch stooge who never had a real job

Feinberg's Linked In profile is revealing. Apparently, he's been nurtured by the Far Right back to his college days at Grove City College, sort of a second-rate Hillsdale. These are part of a circle of schools that crank out fresh faces for the Far Right media machine. They are good-to-go for jobs at places like State Policy Network affiliates as well as other tentacles of the Kochtopus. 

How does NEWSHOUR rate in terms of disclosure? The Society of Professional Journalists ethics code has a common-sense guideline here. It says that "the public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability."

Does identifying Feinberg as "the president of...a group of younger adults opposed to the law" suffice? Would it give viewers a better sense of his "reliability" to reveal that he was plucked out of the Charles Koch Institute to head this Koch front group? Or, let's take this one step further - what about NEWSHOUR's decision to give this character equal time alongside a representative from an authentic grassroots organization? Maybe they couldn't find any authentic young adult group against Obamacare. So they have to accept a bogus one to create a manufactured debate? 

This brings us right back to what I observed at NPR enabling the manufacture of the climate change debate. Now, 10 years later, CNN is beginning to wonder if it's really a "debate" at all. Now why did it take so long to recognize the obvious? What is the price we pay in democratic society when we are so easily sidetracked into manufactured controversy that delays finding solutions to problems? 

But I digress. Let me finish my critique of this NEWSHOUR feature.

Ray Suarez is no slouch. He does not let Feinberg dance through his talking-points without interruption. At about 9:45 into the video, this Koch spokesperson goes into his rant about Obamacare being some kind of a "wealth redistribution scheme." 

EVAN FEINBERG: They’re trying to dupe young Americans into saying, well, this is going to be a good deal for you, because somehow that’s the crux. That’s how Obamacare works. If young people take a bad deal and enter the exchanges, well, then maybe older individuals can get health insurance.

RAY SUAREZ: But, Evan, isn’t that how insurance works, that people who don’t use benefits are in effect helping pay for those who do?

EVAN FEINBERG: No, no, that’s not how health insurance works at all.

Health insurance works by covering you in the event that you need health care services that you wouldn’t normally necessarily need.

RAY SUAREZ: But if pay $10,000 in premiums and get into a $50,000 accident, the money comes from somewhere, the people who weren’t in a $50,000 accident.

EVAN FEINBERG: Absolutely.

And that’s why we would encourage young Americans to buy an insurance policy that would protect them against those kinds of costs. But insurance doesn’t work by having prepaid health care for everyone and having young people pay a greater portion than they would otherwise use, so that older people who are necessarily going to use it.

That’s not insurance. That’s just a wealth redistribution scheme, where young people pay for older, sicker people. So, no, that’s not at all what young Americans should be interested in. They should be interested in real health insurance that meets their needs, that reflects their choices what’s best for them and their families.

***

Breathtaking. 

Suarez could have stomped this charlatan for either not knowing the basics about insurance or for grossly distorting the realities. Instead, he punts. Interview over. The viewer is left hanging. Literally, we're shown yet another "he said-she said" without resolution.

Is this entertainment or infotainment? Does this really rate as public journalism serving the PUBLIC INTEREST? Or is PBS, as David Sirota recently wrote, "becoming the "Plutocrats Broadcasting Service"?

Now, this isn't an isolated instance on NEWSHOUR. About two week ago, a feature about the union vote at the VW plant in Tennessee fit the same pattern - a "debate" between a legit source and a Koch-connected State Policy Network propagandist. The propagandist didn't really have an argument. Instead, he spouted an "anti-union feeling masquerading as an argument." Yes, he actually got called out on this - but not by the moderator.

Do such "contests" in the "marketplace of ideas" help inform us in matters of public interest? Recently, Suarez bailed from NEWSHOUR. Maybe he got sick of this charade.

Looking at PBS' flagship news program is especially interesting when considering the Trib - Smith serves on its board of directors. Also, as I've written before, his "confrontational" interview style delivers mild discomfort rather than a moment of truth. 

Is this how to "speak truth to power" - or to cozy up to it? 

***

PS - a Ray Suarez anecdote, circa 1998.

I was chatting with a staffer at an NPR affiliate at some public broadcast convention when the conversation turned to religion. As is often the case, I was in an irascible mood. So when she identified herself as a Quaker, I could not resist: 

"A Quaker? Like Richard Nixon?" I asked.

"Nixon was not a Quaker. Quakers are pacifists," she said.

"Yes he was! Nixon was one of those 'Fighting Quakers'," I answered.

At this point, she insisted that we find someone to ref this disagreement. As it happened, Suarez was a few feet away. Ray is well-known for his encyclopedic knowledge, and we agreed that he could resolve this. So we put it to him. He did not disappoint.

"Nixon did not identify with any one Christian denomination, per se," Suarez explained, "but his mother was Quaker and he was raised in a Quaker household. So, by default, you could say he was a Quaker."

To wit, I quipped "imagine how different US History would be if Nixon's mother had been a Shaker instead of a Quaker."

Ray got my little joke. It passed over the others present without incident. 

PPS - how sad that in our Internet-enabled Smartphone era this anecdote makes no sense. We'd have reached into our pockets to go online rather than consult the authority present. How depressing - and dehumanizing. 

 

In Part III, I add some insights as to my particular perspective on these matters. 

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com

EVAN SMITH'S CHILLING EFFECT

Badge of Honor

"There should be rules and regs and standards messaged from on high, and bad actors should be publicly stoned. Beyond that, the self-appointed integrity cops — you know who you are — need to take a chill pill."
                                 - Evan Smith

TRIBULATIONS OF THE TEXAS TRIB: Part I - NPR's Integrity

How "great" are public media greats?

Recently, The Texas Tribune has come under a barrage of withering criticism from James Moore, a long-established journalist on-the-scene here in Texas (check his HuffPo piece here, and four-part full-court-press Philippics here). Broadsides aside, Moore has taken on the serious task of raising fundamental questions about the ethics underlying what is intended to become "the next great public media brand in the United States." 

The fact is that The Trib has become a key player on the political scene here (FULL DISCLOSURE: I have been a Trib "supporter" - have donated money to it, am a frequent attendee at Trib events, and cite it here regularly) with little critical review. All else being equal, this should be a welcome occasion for public discussion of the Trib's not-for-profit model for "print" journalism in the Online Era. Moore's provocations have received some some response from The Trib. Executive Editor Ross Ramsey addressed questions about transparency this morning on WFAA's "Inside Texas Politics." Still, an in-depth public discussion of both the larger issues raised and the particular problems claimed needs to happen if the Trib is to claim true "public media" status.  

Since the Trib intends to become "the next great public media brand in the United States," let me join the discussion here with problems I've seen with two of the "great public media brands" - National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

PRI's Environmental News Magazine

About ten years ago, I had an administrative gig at what was then NPR's Living on Earth, the weekly environmental news program (now distributed by PRI - FULL DISCLOSURE: after amicably ending my employment there, I continue to support LOE. In addition, Steve Curwood, the program's Executive Producer and host, remains a close personal friend). Part of my work for the show was sitting in on "air checks." Living on Earth is an independent production. Programmers at the network critique outside productions regularly to be sure they remain above reproach. 

What I observed during these conference calls was problematic at best. 

Living on Earth has championed the climate change story since going on-air in the early 1990's. Here, more than a decade later, this obscure topic was finally entering into the mainstream. As such, it had become a palpable threat to those profiting from the "Carbon Economy" based on fossil fuels. Much of the reporting featured on the show included interviews with noted climate scientists about their findings. How did the NPR programmers judge this public communication of scientific research? They criticized it as being "unbalanced." In their opinion, the science needed to be evened-out by other "stakeholders" - eg. industry public relations for the oil industry. So what if the spin was intended to negate the science!

This was not an isolated event. I remember a shocking moment at the Public Radio Program Director Association's conference in San Antonio in 2004. The PRPD is THE conference for public radio programming. This is where station Program Directors, the people who pick what goes onto stations, meet to discuss programming trends and to meet with show producers. As you might imagine, this world revolves around NPR. 

The PRPD is serious business, but it is also a lot of fun. Like any professional conference, a wide assortment of speakers are invited. That year, noted environmentalist Bill McKibben was along to talk about an article he'd recently published in Harper's Magazine, "Small World: Why one town stays unplugged." It was about the power of radio to enhance "localism" and community. McKibben took the occasion to call-out NPR's leadership about a major new "underwriter" for NPR - Walmart. He nailed them for the hypocrisy of inviting him to laud the very localism that, he said, Walmart destroys.

The public broadcast crowd is a fairly insular group, and it's rare to have anyone openly break ranks like that. Of course, what explains this breach of decorum is the fact that McKibben was an outsider. Any insider that did so would find themselves on the outside fast! 

So, as beloved as NPR is to many - despite how "great" this "great public media brand" is, corporate funding can taint coverage. Worse, there's little likelihood for effective internal opposition to the distortions induced by such forces. 

One of Moore's fundamental issues with the Texas Tribune? Partisans on the political scene in Texas paying for coverage of Texas politics. Does the Trib, like NPR, police itself? Can it do better?

NEXT - Part II: the Koch Brothers balance the coverage on PBS's NEWSHOUR.

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com

A FIZZLE OF A SCANDAL

A brief ruminations this Friday before I head out to The Texas Observer's 13th Annual Rabble Rouser Round-Up & Fat Cat Schmoozefest. 

The Texas Observer is one of those venerable publications that is ready for a renaissance. They do fine reporting on under-reported subjects of interest to Progressives. Still, it's been some time since it has been hip and happening as it was in the storied days of Ronnie Duggar and Molly Ivins. I arrived here after the heyday, but it must have been quite a time as evidenced by the still engaging "Final Friday" gatherings set in motion some 40 years ago. The bonfire of a community they built around the Observer has burnt down, but the embers are still hot. Soon, they'll have a new publisher aboard. That may be just the thing. After decades of Far Right control, Texas is tinder-dry and there's plenty of fuel for the fire. 

Now, to the business-at-hand. What of the latest scandal from the Perry-Abbott campaign? 

It seems that James O'Keefe's threat of generating scandal after scandal for the Wendy Davis campaign and Battleground Texas has fizzled. Yes, he got a lot of play with his first fraudulent video which has been thoroughly debunked. His follow-up released two days ago purportedly shows flagrant violations of Texas election law. Last time, the media neglected to add a grain of salt when swallowing his pap whole. Now, an appropriate dose of skepticism has been added. As Jonathan Tilove closes his story in the Austin American Statesman: 

In late January, the American-Statesman compared the raw and edited footage of a Project Veritas video that purported to show Battleground Texas volunteers and Wendy Davis supporters mocking Greg Abbott’s being in a wheelchair, and found that the tapes had been edited in a misleading manner, including moving the sound of laughter to produce the desired effect. 

And the Texas Tribune reports that election law experts disagree with O'Keefe's interpretation of what is and is not legal. 

It seems that the best that the Right Wing echo chamber can do to diffuse skepticism about O'Keefe is to try to instill skepticism about legit media coverage.

Speaking of skepticism about media coverage, what of the Far Right's reaction to O'Keefe's last scam - before and after it was exposed? Did anyone in the Far Right retract, or correct their claims about the smear once it was exposed? Take, for example, the loathsome Katie Pavlich's "coverage." No sign that she will correct her error. This demonstrates her nonexistent ethics as a would-be "journalist." Likewise, "The Real Wendy," the Texas GOP's attack website, keeps beating this one on Facebook.

To paraphrase Erich Segal, "Being a Republican means never having to say you're sorry." Need I further illustrate this point with what should be their embarrassment over Ted Nugent?

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com

DISRESPECT THAT IS UNPATRIOTIC & UN-AMERICAN

Smith between cheery moments

The Texas Tribune's voraciously cheery Evan Smith has an unhappy task. He has to stand in the middle of a divide that has no middle. How does he manage that? I've learned his simple trick after watching him work numerous "conversations" at the Austin Club. Whether interviewing a Republican or Democrat, he drops a conversation-stopping question. Then, after they've squirmed sufficiently, we return to our regularly scheduled programming. 

Smith's squirm for Republican candidates trying to gain traction against GOP opponents in next month's primary? Name something substantive that separates you from your ideologically indistinguishable "adversary." Check Lt. Governor David Dewhurst's difficulties with this on January 16th. As expected, he fails to distinguish himself from his rivals. The party line is straight (white) and narrow(minded). The Texas GOP brand's predominant virtue? Consistency.  

Another crisis, Same GOP 

For Democrats, Smith has a different question that also seems to point to party branding. Last week, he put it to Sen. Leticia Van de Putte. She will soon become a national figure in her campaign for Dewhurst's job. Given that attention, President Obama is sure to be available to join her on the campaign trail. Would she avail herself of such an opportunity? 

The assumption is that, in Texas, being seen with the President of the United States of America is political poison. Certainly, the Texas GOP's hatred for the President is palpable. Dewhurst, in a peculiar moment last Fall, even joined the Far Right Bengazi Battle Cry for impeachment. 

For me, what's interesting is what's behind this question. That tells the story of how the GOP in general - and the Texas GOP in particular - has demonized the President - and not just President Obama. The real question: have they taken this to such a degree that they are now disrespectful of the presidency itself? It sure looks like they have.

From the Far Right in Dallas, 1963

Such disrespect is a cancer of the body politic. This is the final stages of an illness that may prove fatal for the GOP. It traces its origins back to what manifested as a fevered distemper over FDR and the New Deal. Social Security was the Obamacare of that era. Then, in the 1960's, Far Right extremists left an infamous legacy in Dallas. The story of Gen. Edwin Walker's celebrity for his animosity towards President Kennedy foreshadows today's Tea Party - complete with Koch brother connection! Next, the 1990's saw the relentless campaign to undermine the Clinton White House. 

And today?

The cancer has progressed to a new, terminal stage. We see contempt for President Obama that is not just unproductive - it is un-American and unpatriotic. Let's start with Supreme Court Justice Alito's shocking violation of decorum at the State of the Union address in 2010. And what of Texas Congressman Steve Stockman walking out of the State of the Union address last month? 

So what is my reply to Smith's conversation-stopper for Democrats? 

"Evan, regardless of what your personal views are towards President Obama, we should NOT forget that he is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Sadly, blinded by their ideology, the Texas GOP have lost sight of that. 

I grew up in an America where, whatever your personal political beliefs, we all respected the Office of the President. To do otherwise was shameful. Now, what was shameful has now become a badge of pride for the Texas GOP. It's not just a matter of bad taste either. This is hand-in-glove with the toxic attitudes that "inspired" Sen. Ted Cruz and those that follow him to shut down the government last year. Oh, and now? He blames that disaster on - THE PRESIDENT! 

So let the President of the United States come to Texas. I'll greet him with open arms. And let me take this opportunity to call out to other patriotic Americans whether they are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents - whatever their political persuasion. Come and join me! Let us join together to say loud and clear that the disrespect for the presidency that now defines the Texas GOP is unacceptable, unpatriotic and un-American."

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com