Red Clay Citizen

Guilt by Association

A lot has been made recently about whether "guilt by association" has a valid place in political campaigns.  Raleigh attorney Pressley Millen made an impassioned plea against its use on the editorial page of the News & Observer yesterday. His conclusion:

In the end, both logic and law counsel that we judge our candidates personally and not based solely on associations with others, whether it be other persons, groups, ideas or even products. Obama has held elective office since 1997 without ever uttering one word that might cause someone to think that he holds some of the more egregious views attributed to his former pastor. In 22 years of public life, Lt. Gov. Perdue has never given any indication that she pines for the antebellum South. The associations -- thin as they are -- don't lead to guilt.

It's nice that the N&O would allow a Democratic Party insider such as Mr. Millen make a passionate defense of the candidates he supports.

According to NC State Board of Elections and Federal Elections Commission reports, Mr. Millen and his family has donated over $25,000 to Democratic candidates in the past few years.  He has even given money to Bev Pedue and Richard Moore -- two candidates he makes sure to defend valiantly in his op-ed.

The N&O should have disclosed this.   Without this disclosure the reader of the editorial is led to believe that this supposedly neutral 3rd-party is standing up and making a plea against guilt by association, when he is, in fact, guilty of associating with the people he seeks to defend.

Guilt by association is a time-tested campaign tactic.  How many times have we seen Democratic candidates put any and all Republicans next to George Bush?  Heck, they are even doing it to McCain right now, all the while disavowing the NCGOP ad connecting Moore and Perdue to Obama. Only now as it is hitting those on the left a little harder than usual do we hear cries of "guilt by association" being unfair.  Never before have Democratic gubernatorial nominees so embraced the Party's more liberal nominees for President. (Where was Easley when Kerry came to Chapel Hill?  Where's a picture of Bob Jordan and Dukakis?).

This year we have Moore and Perdue both running as fast as they can to throw their arms around and embrace Sen. Obama.  So either they really support Obama and his policies or they are just using his race and popularity to win support for themselves.  One makes them a true-believer and therefore guilty by association, the other makes them, well... the oldest profession in the book.

Cone's Local Economy, Our Tax Dollars

Ed Cone writes of our piece in the N&R this weekend, criticizing the Triad's Skybus fiasco:

Thanks for the advice, fellas, your one-size-fits-all ideology is just so interesting and relevant to people in the Triad who are trying to cope with the realities of our own local economy.

If it's your "local economy," why was the N.C. Dept. of Commerce involved? And why, pray tell, does your local economy require my tax dollars?

There's nothing ideological at all about criticizing the PTI's, the counties, and the State's corporate whack-a-mole failure in practical terms. What's more, it is pretty petty and snarky to refer to us as a "propaganda mill." Yes, we have opinions. That's why the piece was on the editorial page.

(Maybe he should check out this on other towns who've failed at corporate welfare.)
-Max Borders

Pinker Up, Lakoff Down

I'm not sure the polemicists over at Policy Watch would grasp the intricacies of Pinker's and Lakoff's competing cognitive theories of mind and language, but Steven Pinker - one of the brightest bulbs burning today - has sliced up Lakoff a few times - like here.

In this curious essay, Rob Schofield tries to distill some of Lakoff's psycho-political metaphor-speak for the laity. An example:

If there was any core message that emerged from Lakoff’s presentations it might be this: “It’s time for progressives to get back to basics.” While it remains important for progressive advocates to continue to work in each of their many specialized fields and sub-fields and to remain actively and pragmatically engaged in direct lobbying and electoral politics, it’s also critical for progressives to do a much better job of shaping the overall debate.

If I didn't think there was more to this, I'd ask Schofield if he's planning on asking for a refund from Lakoff. "Framing the debate" is not some grand progressive vision dreamt up by a (once) brilliant cognitive psychologist, it is what political types have been doing since time immemorial. Only progressives do it with less truth and less principle.

Anyhoo, I'm happy Rob and the gang got to have their little powwow with Lakoff -- to come up with new ways to dupe voters into rehashed socialism using goofy metaphors. My personal favorite is higher taxes being "membership fees", which is as heavy on mendacity as it is light on trope. But Steven Pinker said it best:

One can just imagine the howls of ridicule if a politician took Lakoff's Orwellian advice and renamed "taxes" as "membership fees." (Indeed, Orwell himself singled out revenue enhancement as an egregious euphemism for a tax increase in his famous 1949 essay "Politics and the English Language.") ... To take the most obvious example, taxes and membership fees are not two ways of framing the same thing: if you choose not to pay a membership fee, the organization will cease to provide you with its services, but if you choose not to pay taxes, men with guns will put you in jail.

Remember, for all of their metaphors about the left being more nurturing, it all comes down to the fact that government fetishism means if you don't comply, men in guns will put you in jail. Period. Facts trump framing, eventually.
-Max Borders

Paul Krugman Just Got Destroyed

For all those people who's only source of information on economic issues is the New York Times - more specifically Paul Krugman - take the time with this. It's devastating.

If you're tired of warmed over Keynesianism, of Have-nots rhetoric, and of analytic ineptude, you'll enjoy this very well done critical review of Krugman's work. (What's most interesting is that they have catalogued a number of contradictions and difficulties with his own avowed principles.)
-Max Borders

Same Story, 3 Headlines

Look at the way 3 of the major media outlets covered the Auditor's report of campaign use by the offices of Richard Moore and Bev Perdue:

N&O:  "Perdue, Moore used offices for campaigns"
Charlotte Observer:  "Auditor finds against Perdue, Moore"
WRAL.com: "Moore rips audit critical of computer use"

Interesting that N&O and Charlotte articles are the same text, same byline, except with different headlines.  The N&O gives top billing on its website to the article with pictures of both candidates.  WRAL, conversely,  gives Richard Moore front billing with a picture of just him and the fact that he finds the report flawed.  Favoritism by WRAL editors?  I think so.

Climate Change: Availability Entrepreneurs

Absolutely wicked piece in the NY Times from John Tierney. A sliver:

Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.

I think this global warming sham is starting to unravel. There's just too much going on of late to suggest anything but a sea change.
-Max Borders

Journalistic Integrity

Journalistic integrity is not dead:

Mary Cornatzer, business editor, said she wasn't aware of that connection [between Workplace Options and Public Policy Polling] and would not have used the survey if she'd known. She said the reporter knew that Debnam was an investor in Public Policy Polling but didn't pursue that link - "a decision she is now regretting," Cornatzer said.

This was a problem. It undermines the credibility of the story. The N&O should have done more due diligence in checking out that poll and, especially, checking into Debnam's dual roles. I first became aware of the problem through this blog [Red Clay Citizen].

Kudos also to Chris Hayes for pointing this out, yesterday, and to the N&O for their humility in recognizing an honest mistake and handling it with grace. (Not so much, perhaps, for Public Policy Polling, who probably should've known better.)
-Max Borders

Disclosure Needed?

In Sunday's News & Observer's Business section, one of the main articles detailed the growing use of "backup daycare" centers and how this was becoming an increasingly useful benefit to employees to reduce absences.

The article cites polling data from our friends over at Public Policy Polling that "80 percent said they have missed one to five days of work because they lacked backup care."

Then, the article cites solutions being offered by a company called Workplace Options and their CEO Dean Debnam.

What the article doesn't point out is that Debnam is also the President of Public Policy Polling, whose poll is cited earlier in the article.  Now I'm sure he did not intentionally conceal that fact from the reporter, but didn't the reporter and the News & Observer have a duty to report it?

And apparently providing day care options runs deep in the Debnam household.  His wife, Stephanie Fanjul, is the President of NC Smart Start.

Illlegals & College: Crediting Civitas & Luebke

Let it be known that Bob Luebke of Civitas broke the recent spate of stories about Community Colleges being forced to accept illegal immigrants. I realize the media don't usually credit a press release, but Dr. Luebke deserves credit for the legwork the press didn't do in this case.
(Stories: here, here, here, and here.)
-Max Borders

News & Observer, MSM: Justified Bias

This article by Ted Vaden is one of the strangest, most epicyclical articles I've ever read about the media's (and Vaden's paper - the N&O's) bias towards Democrat candidates. Please, read it all -- an effort in sophistry stretched so gossamer that it makes the case against itself. But if you're short on time, here's my summary of it:

The media are biased towards Democrats because people are jazzed about Barack Obama, even though HIlary is the frontrunner. Oh and we're biased towards Hilary Clinton and John Edwards, because John Edwards is from North Carolina and Hilary is the frontrunner and because people are jazzed about Barack Obama. Oh and we quoted a libertarian candidate for governor so that absolves me of writing the most convoluted explanation for bias you've ever heard. I'm shocked that you would even question it.

From Vaden we finally get:

"The paper should be aware of that and make sure the Republican nomination battle is getting as much attention overall as the Democratic race. After all, one of these people will end up being president."

GIuliani and Clinton are locked in a dead heat right now. But you wouldn't know it from watching the MSM on TV or reading the N&O. So much for objectivity in journalism -- if ever there was such a thing.
-Max Borders

Lies and the Left: Hand in Glove

First it was Stephen Glass of TNR. Now Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp is making up stuff.

This is really disappointing. As a former enthusiastic New Republic subscriber (yes, I know where they stand), I had hoped they had put this behind them. They once had more than an ounce of credibility. Now, it's almost like they're the same people who call middle class families "the working poor." Oh wait, that's the Democrat Party. Or maybe Al Gore, who cites fictional scientists who claim 20 ft. sealevel rises before the 21st Century is out.

But seriously, this is bad. These mendacious writers are willing to distort reality for the sake of both personal gain and an ideological win-at-all costs mentality that has become so pervasive it now plagues both the leftist blogsphere and the mainstream media. It's sick. But the big lie is the one that will be believed, right? Just wait till the Schip issue revs up again, you'll be knee-deep in lies from the left.
-Max Borders

Crusty Old Fitzsimon Piece makes Observer

For some reason, the Charlotte Observer decided to run an old piece from Chris Fitzsimon -- one that we debunked more than a month ago! In it, he argues that the General Assembly and Governor haven't been raiding the Highway Trust Fund. And he's either lying or ignorant of the truth. I think the former, because surely he read our post.

But also: doesn't the McClatchy want first rights? And wouldn't they like their writers not to obscure the truth? (If the Observer wants old crap, I've got a few pieces they can run.)
-Max Borders

Think-Tank Equity

In case you missed yesterday's John Hood post on NC think tanks, here's a choice bit:

I’ve just started a new assessment, but my guess is that the proportions will not have changed much in the past couple of years. Oddly, many politicos in Raleigh are under the impression that conservative and free-market groups in North Carolina are more numerous and better-funded than their lefty counterparts, neither of which has ever been true.

So is this mendacity or ignorance on the part of these "politicos"? Either way, the left has some explaining to do about "big political money" -- and this extends not just to the realm of thinktanks, but also to political campaigns.
-Max Borders

Tampon Cookies and Other Strategery

MoveOn.org is getting a lot of extra press from its Petraeus Betray Us ads. Apparently, George Lakoff is helping out. I know Lakoff from his work on metaphor (that used to be non-partisan). Now he's become a darling of the left, and therefore far less academic, but he knows how to shape perceptions with figures and tropes -- which are often more effective than rational argument. The right should take a page from Lakoff's book (literally and figuratively).

Indeed, there are all sorts of mental models, figurative language and powers of association that people can use to influence others (and change minds). Just yesterday, I saw a talk by a Duke psych prof named Gavin Fitzsimons, who has studies showing the influence of the "contagion effect" on the purchasing habits of folks in grocery stores. You can take a sterile, unopened box of tampons and have them touch an unopened box of cookies (on, say, a display) and people will often refuse the cookies due to subconscious revulsion.

I can see people applying this contagion phenomenon in other media: Run ads with roaches crawling over Hilary Clinton's face. Or repeat the phrase "Jim Black Democrats" whereever possible. Anyway, politics has become a war for hearts and minds and no device is beyond our grasp in a society of free speech and expression. (We've even criticized our counterparts on the left for less-than-artful use of such tactics.)
-Max Borders

Bias for Breakfast

Every day as I'm getting ready for work, my wife turns on some of the morning shows, like Matt Lauer and the gang. We'd begun to notice lately just how much coverage they were giving the Democratic Presidential candidates as opposed to the Republicans. Of course, the Republican coverage that comes to mind was something about Fred Thompson's trophy wife and Senator Bathroom Bandit. As if to confirm my suspicions, I run across this study. A sliver:

>The networks offered nearly twice as much coverage of the Democrats. More than half of all campaign segments (284, or 55%) focused on the Democratic contest, compared with just 152 (29%) devoted to the Republicans. The remaining stories either offered roughly equal discussion of both parties or did not focus on the major parties.
 
>All three Democratic frontrunners received more attention than any of the top Republican candidates, with New York Senator Hillary Clinton receiving the most coverage of all.
 
>Undeclared liberal candidates such as former Vice President Al Gore and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg received more network TV attention than many of the declared Republican candidates.
 
>The network morning shows doled out nearly three times as much airtime (4 hours, 35 minutes) to interviews with the various Democratic campaigns. In contrast, the Republicans received just 1 hour and 44 minutes of interview airtime.
 
>In their interviews with the candidates, the network hosts emphasized a liberal agenda. Of the substantive questions that could be categorized as reflecting a political agenda, more than two-thirds (69%) of the questions to Democrats reflected a liberal premise, and more than four-fifths (82%) of the questions to Republicans came from the same perspective.
 
>The top Democratic candidates received much more favorable coverage than their GOP counterparts, with Senator Clinton cast as "unbeatable" and Illinois Senator Barack Obama tagged as a "rock star." The most prominent Republican, Arizona Senator John McCain, was portrayed as a loser because of his support for staying the course in Iraq.
 
>Not once did network reporters describe Senator Clinton and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards as "liberal," while ABC only once labeled Obama as "liberal." Yet the networks showed no hesitation in attaching the "liberal" label to Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, who was so branded 12 times.
-Max Borders

Bias Watch

In today's segment of Bias Watch, we draw your attention to an article in today's Charlotte/News & Observer regarding transportation funding.

Reporter David Ingram writes:

The problem is money.

Policymakers in Raleigh can raise the taxes that pay for infrastructure, such as the gas tax, at the risk of alienating many voters. Or they can cut money from other programs, such as health care for the poor.

Wow.  Raise taxes or cut health care for the poor.  Those are our only two choices for how to solve the transportation funding problem?

Why does he not say "spend a portion of the $1.4 billion surplus" or "eliminate corporate incentives" or "not increase spending by 9.5%."  Or better yet, "not fund athletic scholarships."

Why is "health care for the poor" the only item he chooses to highlight?

Laura Leslie: How Reporting Should be Done

Laura Leslie's reporting on the state budget has generally been excellent. Unlike most NPR material at both the local and national level (filtered, biased, and loaded as it often is), Leslie tries painstakingly to present both sides of any issue -- as in this piece.

While no media outlet deserves the 'fair and balanced' moniker, a few dogged reporters remain in pursuit of that unicorn known as objectivity. Laura Leslie deserves credit and thanks in her efforts to arm citizens with good information and diverse viewpoints.

(Thank you, Laura.)

Green: the New Yellow (Journalism)

Great article on green-tinted journalism and media fifth column.

Brad Crone to the Right Wing : Lay off Social Issues

Democratic strategist Brad Crone spoke at the Civitas poll (pdf) luncheon yesterday and said (I'm paraphrasing) that North Carolina conservative candidates should lay off of social issues and talk about economic and straightforwardly political issues like corruption. Crone believes that since more urbanite Unaffiliateds are moving into the state, they may be turned off by too much of the culture war language that once wooed Dixiecrats to Reagan.

He even conceded that the conservatives have a lot of really good (and popular) points against their liberal counterparts (particularly on issues of bloated government and ethics) and that appropriate framing could allow conservatives to pick up some seats in the GA next go round. But conservatives in NC - outfunded, outteched, and outframed on the issues - will get their behinds handed to them unless they unify under some solid ideas. Those messages, Crone said, should be "positive". It was almost as if he were saying: now's your chance. And he may very well be right. But he also knows that with all the redistricting and special interest money going into the liberal coffers, its doubtful the right has a snowball's chance in North Carolina. (For goodness sake, most people still think Jim Black is a Republican.) -Max Borders

Twice in a day...

I'm thinking we might have to start a "Media Watch" blog just to point out all the misinformation and bias contained in media reports.

Unfortunately, at the current rate, we'd probably need to hire someone full time to write about it.

The latest entry is currently the headline article on the News & Observer regarding Progress Energy delaying the constructing of a new nuclear (er... nucular, right Mr. President?) reactor at Sharon Harris and committing to reduce energy consumption by 2,000 megawatts per day through conservation. 
***Wait, hold on... Progress is doing this on their own and not being mandated to by government?  How in the heck?  You mean, business can do good and right things to "go green" without government edict?  Really?

But anyway, back to the article, an interesting theory is advanced...

Progress will develop an energy efficiency program to offset 2,000 megawatts of electricity, equivalent to several power plants. At the same time, the company vowed not to propose any new coal-burning power plants for two years. Coal plants are the primary contributors to global warming.

What?  The primary contributor?  According to what research?  How can a statement like this just be made by the largest newspaper in North Carolina as fact without any sourcing?  Are there no editorial standards anymore?

Hook, Line, Sinker

You know the old saying about how if you repeat something enough times, no matter what the veracity, that people will start believing them?

Well, it seems to have happened with the Associated Press and their esteemed reporter Gary Robertson.

Note this quote from Rep. Paul Luebke (D-Durham) on Monday, May 7, 2007 regarding the NC House's budget continuing the $300 million in temporary taxes:

Without the extra money, "there's no way to meet the educational and health care needs of the state," said Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, co-chairman of the House Finance Committee.

Now read this quote from the same reporter from yesterday when describing the differences between the House and Senate budgets:

The House's two-year budget approved earlier this month keeps a quarter-penny on the sales tax and a higher income tax bracket for the state's top wage-earners for another two years. Those moves add about $300 million to the government coffers next year to pay for education and health care needs.

Out of a $20.3 billion budget, the argument can be made that the $300 million in additional taxes could be used to pay for anything in the budget, so why does Robertson echo the words of Rep. Luebke and claim that the increased taxes are used for education and health care?

Opposite Polls?

It appears the Civitas Poll and the Policy Policy Polling group in Raleigh have something in common, according to Rob Christensen of the News & Observer. Both polls found dissatisfaction with the President is growing and Democratic contenders for his replacement aren't faring much better:

Only 41 percent approve of the job the president is doing, while 52 percent disapprove, according to a new statewide survey by Public Policy Polling, a group in Raleigh. (A similar question asked by a survey conducted for the Civitas Institute found 39 percent approve and 57 disapprove of Bush's job performance.)

Asked if they would tend to vote for a generic Democrat or generic Republican, North Carolina voters preferred a Democrat over a Republican 47 percent to 42 percent.

But voters don't seem particularly overjoyed with any of the prospective Democrats. Those polled said they would be less likely to vote for the ticket if Democrats John Edwards, Barack Obama and especially Hillary Clinton were on the ticket.

Debatable Debate

The GOP Presidential debate was odd -- not least because of the hosts and format. NRO has a roundup of opinions from their crew. Here's a more leftish take. One thing was clear: frontrunner Giuliani didn't shine. Indeed, they kept haranguing him about abortion. Could this have been calculated?

All in all the first two debates - both Democratic and GOP - have been lackluster in many respects. Certainly no "your no Jack Kennedy" moments as of yet. And none of either group has seemed very 'presidential' -- politics aside.