On Accurate Reporting

and correction policies, what to expect, and where should your trust lie?

A commentary

I had a discussion with an irritated friend the other day. He was upset about a news report he happened to hear on the radio. This friend felt the news report was a bit misleading and misrepresented. We talked about what a person should do when something like that happens.

Beyond notifying the particular source of incorrect information, I'm not sure there is much the average citizen (or below or above average citizen?) can do to correct mistakes made in the media or at a Web log, for that matter.

Being in the somewhat unique position of having been an outsider looking in, then an insider looking out, to return to being an outsider, oftentimes, looking in, again, I think I have some things that might add to such a discussion. Also, you should recognize, I have no masters degree in journalism, experience, perhaps, but, no educational credentials.

One issue my friend had was that when incorrect information or misleading insinuations are made within a report, people form opinion, potentially, based on incorrect foundations. It is a problem, and if you are like me, you don't subscribe to the "Springfield News-Leader," (and I use them as an example, you could apply this to any news source) then you rely on a link, mostly obscure, which sits under the heading of, simply, "Correction." There is no indication to what issue or error the correction applies, no eye grabbing, intrigue inspiring enticement to cause your curiosity to be aroused to see what the correction of the day happens to be.

Newspaper articles have catchy titles, and are supposed to have catchy leeds, crafted to draw the reader in and hold their attention to the end of the article. Not so with generic "correction" links.

Oftentimes, if one clicks on a correction link at the News-Leader (again, just my example for the purposes of this entry) one will find some trivial mistake has been corrected, such as a misspelled name or the wrong name being placed as a caption under a picture. Nothing exciting and nothing that would inspire one to think it was particularly important to follow corrections at the paper every day. I'm not sure what, if anything, needs to be or, could be done about that.

In Saturday's News-Leader you'll find these corrections, listed under that generic "Correction" link:

"The $68,100 cut by City Council from the budget for the Springfield Human Rights Commission is from the city's general fund. It was incorrectly identified as grant money in a Friday story.

------

To clarify a Friday story on Shelly Lea Compton: She was charged with possession of a controlled substance."

You'll also find this statement:

"The News-Leader strives for accuracy and fairness. To request a correction, call Robyn Bates at 836-1112."

I don't question whether the News-Leader strives for accuracy and fairness. I'm sure they do, as an organizational policy. [I believe the N-L correction above, about the Mayor's Commission on Human Rights budget being cut by $68,100, needs corrected too. I think that is the total budget and the cut Council is discussing is $67,100] And, I haven't noticed, of late, any particular, notable tendency toward bias in any of their reporting but, as is the case with all news organizations, they depend on individual reporters to get the facts correct and report them fairly for them. And therein lies the proverbial rub. Individual integrity comes into play.

Journalists are not infallible any more than bloggers, though I like to think those who consider themselves professional journalists work a little harder at fact gathering and in the consideration of all sides of an issue than bloggers, as a general rule, unless, of course, they are blogging as a part of their duty for a news organization.

Getting paid to do something and being affiliated or associated with a particular news organization does bring with it an accompanying burden of responsibility, at least it did for me because, at the time I was writing for CFP, I realized my reporting didn't simply have an affect on my own credibility but, also on the paper for which I reported. I think, since I am no longer paid or affiliated through association with the "Community Free Press" that I might be more inclined to slack off a bit. That is a tendency I try to keep in check.

But, there's a second point I felt I wanted to share today.

Yesterday, (Friday) CFP staff reporter Brian Brown left a comment on one of my blog entries. He commented that he thought a certain reporter for the News-Leader "has done a really good job on his CU stories this week," and don't get me wrong, the reporter probably has done "a really good job on his CU stories this week" but, I don't know, for sure, if he has or not, and you don't either unless you have attended all of the meetings pertaining to that issue, and have been privy to conversations held between that reporter and the people he has interviewed and quoted.

Now, it should be noted CFP's Brian Brown knows more about the issue than I do because he has interviewed those involved in the CU/eminent domain issue. Therefore, when Brown compliments the News-Leader reporter's work, it has more credence than if I did, since I've interviewed no one on the issue, personally, though I've kept up on the media reports on the issue.

In the past, I have discovered a little error here, and a little error there, sometimes a more substantial error here, and more substantial error there, in some of the reports I've read in the News-Leader about various issues. The same is true of some of the reports I have seen at local television news stations. But, let's face it, if I had not been present, personally present, at some of the meetings that were being reported upon, I would never have known the reporting was not factually correct in some areas or, that it did not seem to adequately and appropriately reflect both sides of an issue. So, I assume that News-Leader reporter has probably done a good job reporting on the CU/eminent domain issue. For the record, I was in attendance when the Council discussed the issue of CU's potential taking of Becky Spence's land through eminent domain, and at the meeting Spence called at the library on South Campbell, however, I have not spoken to anyone at City Utilities on the matter.

So, I wrote all the above to, really, just to offer these thoughts, in summary:

There are no infallible reporters or journalists, and unless you have attended the meetings which they are reporting upon yourself, you really can't know whether good, accurate, fair reports are being issued. You can "think" they are reporting well on an issue but, you can't really know unless you know the issue for yourself.

I don't think it wise to trust and have faith that journalists and reporters are fairly and accurately bringing you their reports without really knowing whether these fallible journalists and reporters deserve that trust and faith, in other words, individual journalists and reporters are in a position of needing to build that trust.

What's the answer? If you really want to know the facts you need to attend all the meetings surrounding any issue which you believe is important. It is not an easily complied with answer. We all want to have trust and faith in journalists and reporters because it is much easier to do than to take responsibility and find out the facts for ourselves. They get paid to do that, we don't.

Because journalists and reporters are paid to issue reports, and it's their job to attend those meetings, they have the time to attend them, we don't always have the time to attend all the meetings surrounding an issue which we believe is important.

So, what's the other choice? Caution. Simply recognize that journalists and reporters are not infallible and they will sometimes fail you. Recognize that unless you've been to every meeting, you're working from a vantage point of ignorance until you find out the answers for yourself.

This isn't meant to suggest you can't form opinions based on the reporting of journalists or bloggers, sure you can but, recognize you are forming opinions based on second hand information, and in the case of bloggers, sometimes you are even forming your opinions based on the opinions of those who might, also, have formed them based on the same second hand information that you have accessed. Recognize, too, you might get just as valuable information from a non-journalist, who attended the meetings you did not attend, as you do from that paid and credentialed journalist, however, the non-journalist might not be quite so articulate in the telling as a trained reporter. On the other hand, sometimes the non-journalist might be more articulate than a trained reporter...I know some people that qualify in that category, as well.

Never forget, we live in the "Show Me State," not the "Tell Me State," or the "Write Me State."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Better Late than Never? This Week at Baptist Press: On Pollster Bias and Autism

This week, at "Baptist Press" (BP), Kelly Boggs laid out the reasons liberal bias in the media is now, more or less, an accepted and foregone conclusion but, he didn't stop there. Media bias, wasn't the entire point this week. While he pointed to several journalists' admissions about the liberal bias that taints reporting, Boggs pointed out another area that hasn't been so forthcoming in admitting a similar bias. Polling organizations.

In "Pollsters can spin their data too," Boggs pointed out, "...a recent report on a poll conducted by Gallup organization reveals that poll takers can spin their results with the best public relations firms in the land."

After citing Obama's approval rating after his first 100 days, Boggs noted Obama's rating was not compared to past presidents' approval ratings in the same way George W. Bush's approval rating was compared to past presidents after the same time period in office.

"Gallup was careful to put Bush's first 100 days into "perspective" in an obvious attempt to downplay his positive poll numbers by comparing him to all elected presidents since Eisenhower. In fact, Gallup sought to further qualify Bush's positive poll numbers by saying, "In general, the rating a president receives early in the term are quite favorable, but decline over time." No such comparisons or qualifiers were offered for Obama's poll numbers." -Kelly Boggs, BP

Boggs also looked at the headlines after Obama's first 100 days in office, with a 56 percent approval rating, and after Bush's first 100 days in office with a 62 percent approval rating.

Obama headline:

"In First 100 Days, Obama Meets or Exceeds Expectations"

Bush headline:

"After 100 days, Bush's Job Approval Rating on Par With Previous Presidents'."

Boggs made a very good case for his conclusion. Read his conclusion and the whole article, for yourself, by clicking the story link provided above.

------------------------------------------------------

Then, because I know I have at least one avid reader who has an interest in autism research, check out "God's gift of hope in a struggle with autism," written by Richard Nations. It's a heart warming story about one family's expectations of their son, who was diagnosed with asperger's syndrome, and how they got so much more than they expected.

"God promises "For I know the plans I have for you" -- [this is] the Lord's declaration -- "plans for [your] welfare, not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope." (Jeremiah 29:11 HCSB)"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, it IS called a free press!

At The Rhetorica Network on Media/Political bias, Andy Cline wrote:

"There is no such thing as an objective point of view.

No matter how much we may try to ignore it, human communication always takes place in a context, through a medium, and among individuals and groups who are situated historically, politically, economically, and socially. This state of affairs is neither bad nor good. It simply is. Bias is a small word that identifies the collective influences of the entire context of a message...."

Cline continues:

"Journalists, too, speak from political positions but usually not overtly so. The journalistic ethics of objectivity and fairness are strong influences on the profession. But journalistic objectivity is not the pristine objectivity of philosophy. Instead, a journalist attempts to be objective by two methods: 1) fairness to those concerned with the news and 2) a professional process of information gathering that seeks fairness, completeness, and accuracy. As we all know, the ethical heights journalists set for themselves are not always reached. But, all in all, like politics, it is an honorable profession practiced, for the most part, by people trying to do the right thing...."

So, when a blogger at the News-Leader.com Community Blogs - Ozarks Right wrote he was:

"...amazed that a citizen would criticize a news organization for ferreting out a story on violations of a SUNSHINE LAW..."

I had to wonder why and question whether he might have missed the point, entirely. I don't know that he was speaking of me when he talked about "a citizen" but I seemed to be among few (maybe the only) questioning why Tony Messenger, the Editorial Page Editor of The Springfield News-Leader has seemed so intent on taking Eckersley's side when the latter claimed he was fired for calling attention to the Governor's email retention policy. I've never questioned or objected to any "news organization for ferreting out a story" on any subject, let alone a story on violations of the Missouri Sunshine Law.

In fact, David Burtond, member of the Missouri Press Association, Southwest Missouri Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, Ozarks Press Association and the International Society of Weekly Newspaper Editors recently wrote, Journalists Should Expose Unethical Practices of Others in the News Media. Burtond was citing The Society of Professional Journalist's Code of Ethics. He wrote:

"Right under the heading of "be accountable," the code says journalists should "expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.""

From Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics (this is not a complete list, I selected from it to make a point but, please, do follow the link to read the entire list):

--Deliberate distortion is never permissible.Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
--Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
--Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
--Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
--Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
--Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
--Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
--Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
--Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

Certainly, the first amendment to the constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And, I'm not formally announcing that I would like to take David Burtond's charge of holding local media accountable for perceptions of ethical violation and I should point out that The Society for Professional Journalists code of ethics is followed voluntarily by members of the media, they are not required to follow it.

The readers of Messenger's combined articles, columns and blog entries on the Eckersley/Blunt administration/Sunshine Law affair can decide whether his writings have been entirely ethical or not but certainly, I have a right, and some might even say an obligation to consider and question that aspect of the coverage.

Editorial bias

One wonders why the story, Fired Blunt attorney offered to keep quiet, is published under the "Ozarks local news" section of the Springfield News-Leader today. The Associated Press story reports:

"An attorney who claims Gov. Matt Blunt fired him for disagreeing with the office's e-mail deletion practices said Wednesday that he would have kept quiet if Blunt's friends had helped him find another job...."

"Eckersley said he had remained silent for a month after his firing because a private attorney working on his behalf had attempted to negotiate a deal with Blunt's administration. Under the proposed arrangement, Eckersley said he would have remained silent and not pursued a lawsuit if he would have received a letter of recommendation and a job, preferably with Mitt Romney's presidential campaign...."

"Republican Party Executive Director Jarad Craighead claims Eckersley attempted to extort a job in exchange for his silence...."

"Craighead said he never contacted the Romney campaign on Eckersley's behalf because he didn't feel comfortable recommending him for the job.

"Essentially, they were trying to extort a position for Scott out of the Republican Party, out of the governor," Craighead said. "It was very clear, 'Hey, this can all go away if you give this kid a job."

I just find it interesting that this story finds its place alongside such topics as "Fall foliage may be near its peak," "Safe party for spooky night," and "Scarcity of hay bales leading to concerns over cattle," while the listing of "related news from the web" at the paper's website are "Mitt Romney" and "US News." Eckersley and the state Governor's administration is Ozarks "local" news?

What is the impact of this "local" story on recent editorials that clearly take the side of Eckersley in alleging the Blunt administration fired him because he tried to counsel them regarding the charge that the governor's office wasn't complying with their own policy regarding the retention of emails as public records?

Does it make any difference to journalists who had sided with Eckersley that the sun might not have shone on Eckersley's discontent if Eckersley had received a job recommendation for the Romney campaign? Apparently not.

Placing this story in the Ozarks local news section of the paper gives the appearance that the paper is trying to lessen attention from the public to this aspect of the story. The only thing "local" about it was/is that a "local" editorial editor of the News-Leader chose a side in his coverage.

I guess I just can't understand why Eckersley's word seemed to be given so much more credence by Tony Messenger than various members of the Blunt administration's word. Rather than stepping back and reporting events as they have unfolded there seemed to be a readiness on the part of some to pick a side and support it, as if it was a foregone conclusion that those in the Blunt administration were/are simply liars and Eckersley's word was above reproach, there was little question raised, locally, about the credibility of Eckersley and how reliable this disgruntled, fired employee's word really was, or is.

Messenger wrote today:

"This story never had to be public. Depending on how you interpret Jared Craighead comments, this is either more evidence that Eckersley was doing everything he could to make the story go away, or it might in some respects make Eckersley look bad for trying to "extort" a job.

None of that matters in the big picture of course."

Sorry, I don't buy it. Credibility does matter. Is Tony trying to make excuses for his approach to covering this issue? According to Messenger what matters is:

"...our governor's office horribly botching a personnel situation and using taxpayer dollars to coordinate a campaign to discredit one individual, AND continue to refuse to follow the state Sunshine Law that allows for accountability in these situations."

Just because he says so.

The Sunshine law should be respected by the Governor's office, the Governor's administration and the people who work within it, that much we know.

Blogger Note: excerpts from AP story purposely one sided to make an editorial point.

Dr. Cline replies to my previous entry

Because this is an important issue to me and I want to be fully understood in the position that I am taking regarding the Springfield News-Leader, I have decided to post Dr. Andrew Cline's comment to my previous entry: On Dr. Andrew Cline's "What a Quote Means," here as a primary entry rather than in the comment section, along with my response to him. Cline wrote:

re: "criticized" all journalists as having an agenda

Yes, but not in the way usually meant by those stuck on simplistic ideas of political bias in the news media. The truth is more complex and far more interesting. And, in a very important way, it is far more harmful to journalism's purpose than the occasional instances of political bias (that break both ways). I left that last line--the one you quote--hanging there for a reason, which I hope will become clear as I continue discussing quotes.

Well, Dr. Cline, I don't know what your definition of "simplistic ideas of political bias" means (yet). I don't know that people are as "simplistic" in their opinions or their determinations about media bias as you may think they are. It has been my experience that oftentimes people have a better understanding of what is going on in our culture than they are given credit. At least I am hopeful that this is the case. I like to think, rather than being "simplistic," that not all people are able to accurately articulate their thoughts and are caught in traps set up by their political opposition because they are unable to state those thoughts well. When they inarticulately reply they are then set out for display by their opponents and are misrepresented by their later sensationalized words.

I have been watching the immigration debate for some time. There is no debate. What there is is an effort by those who are sympathetic to the cause of illegal aliens to paint anyone less sympathetic than they as a bigot, as a racist, as a xenophobe. There is an effort to shut debate down, not listen to debate, not consider the views of the other side.

The Springfield News-Leader has been using this tactic for some time. They threw chum into the water over the weekend and then this morning in their most recent Our Voice column they stated:

"It allows us (Missourians, but they have already identified Republicans as the ones who support this bill) to say that we're so afraid of immigrants of a different color, and we're so ignorant of existing state law and how the state conducts its business, that we'll make an unnecessary change to our constitution because it makes us feel better."

By summing up Republicans or those who support an English language law in such a way (as IGNORANT XENOPHOBES), by polarizing people in such a fashion they do not seek debate, they do not seek to truly represent the two sides of the ILLEGAL immigration argument, they do not seek balance or diversity of thought, what they seek are vitriolic and angry responses which they can then use against those who supported the English language laws and would like to see our borders enforced against illegal aliens.

The ILLEGAL immigration debate has nothing to do with race but no matter how many times those who disagree with the News-Leader repeat that it will never make a difference because the News-Leader's ears are closed. They are COMMITTED to continuing the erroneous charge that anyone who is concerned about our borders is a racist, bigoted xenophobe.

When the News-Leader becomes a sensational rag with no respect for its readers who have a differing viewpoint, when the News-Leader's "subtlety" is as subtle as a rhetorical nuclear bomb, one has to wonder if they are in the news biz to educate the public or to propagandize it.

Just look over the flavor of the online edition of the News-Leader over the last weeks. It CANNOT be missed. Unless you happen to be one of those people requiring a brick to the head.

I thank you for your reply. It isn't my intention to drag you into this discussion about the News-Leader but since I have been very disgusted over the last weeks with the News-Leader's coverage I naturally, couldn't help but consider your words from that viewpoint.

On Dr. Andrew Cline's "What a Quote Means"

(or "everyone is entitled to their own opinion...")

Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal: What a Quote Means

Bingo. I found this interesting on a number of levels. Oh, okay, maybe on only one level.

I read it through the jaded eyes of considering our local daily newspaper's recent onslaught of controversial editorials.

Think about that.

If I may quote Dr. Andrew Cline of The Rhetorica Network from the above article:

"...what does a quote mean?

It means whatever the journalist intended by its use."

I'd really like to see Dr. Cline touch on what does the choice of a source mean next...? (and perhaps he has in a previous entry, I'll have to look into that.)

Naturally, I understand an editorial is not the same as a news report and in this particular local paper they publish these editorials under the heading of "Our Voice," but if it is the paper's voice shouldn't they simply give their voice? Give their straight opinion on the matter?

In giving their voice they also try to persuade and manipulate the reader to accept their qualitative sources as reason to join them in the opinion they hold. Their choice of sources can be one-sided to make the point the paper wishes to make or by choice of the quotes used from varied sources, they can direct the reader to draw the same conclusion they hold.

So taking, for instance, this "Our Voice" column, the "Our Voice" writer uses the Southern Poverty Law Center as the paper's sole quoted source. Indeed, they chose to summarize the local Minutemen Chapter member's commentary rather than quote him. At least the paper cannot be charged with taking him out of context, since they didn't quote him in the first place. We finish reading the article not knowing what local Chapter member Tom Franiac said at all, only knowing what the anonymous newspaper writer determined him to have meant by words he said that went unreported.

Now, I could have summarized Andy Cline's article by saying, "it became obvious" that Cline "criticized" all journalists as having an agenda. That would be a valid interpretation of his answer to the question, "What does a quote mean...? It means whatever a journalist intended by its use," but would that really be what Andy Cline meant? I don't think that is what Dr. Cline meant at all and if I wanted to I could ramble on a little longer and this could become an entry about moral relativism, your truth is as valid as my truth...right?

I like this Patrick Moynihan quote, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

Facts are much safer than opinion, facts are much safer than quotes and the truth is the truth when evaluated from the standpoint of fact rather than opinion.

(...and you can quote me on that.)

Jerry Falwell, liberal bias, freedom of speech and stuff

Jerry Falwell was certainly a controversial figure. Is there something wrong with that? I happen to think that it is respectable to stand up for one's convictions.

For the sake of supporting a man who stood strong on his convictions, I want to share an excerpt from an article at Baptist Press, Falwell recalled as 'friend'. Franklin Graham spoke at Falwell's funeral, I cite that portion of the article:

Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, called Falwell "a giant of a man. He was a man of faith, a prophet of our generation. I'm going to miss him."

"People have asked me, 'Franklin, did you agree with Jerry Falwell?'"

Every time he opened the Bible I agreed with Jerry Falwell," Graham said to applause. "And you know what? He opened the Bible a lot."

Graham said Falwell was "a man committed to the Gospel. I guess that's what connected me to Jerry so much. He believed with all of his heart that Jesus was the way, the truth and the life, and that there was no way anyone could approach a holy God except through Jesus Christ. He believed it.

"Calling Falwell "controversial," Graham ticked off a litany of social issues championed by Falwell, such as the sanctity of marriage and human life.

"He believed in the Gospel. That's controversial.

"He believed in the inerrancy of Scripture. That's controversial.

"He believed in the sanctity of life; he was against abortion. That's controversial.

"He believed in the family, and who would've ever thought that would be controversial?

"He believed in marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

"He believed that moral decay weakened the fabric of America. That's controversial.

"He believed that political leaders should be men and women of integrity and of character and of biblical values.

"He believed in the local church. God bless him," said Graham, who noted the impact Falwell had on his own family because all of Graham's children attended Liberty University.

I will note that recently in a local newspaper article a Professor at Missouri State University was treated very sympathetically after he took part in the grilling of Emily Brooker (see:News-Leader.com Tony Messenger) .

A part of the sympathy for this professor was due to his ongoing resolve to stand firm for what he believed, "He won't back down from his causes, liberal or not," writes Messenger. The professor didn't care if his convictions were liberal or not. Why should we care that Jerry Falwell's convictions were conservative or not? He stood for what he believed.

In America one has a right to do that.

One also has the right to embarrass oneself by painting a person who took part in abusing a young woman for her religious beliefs as a victim. One has the right to claim that the Alliance Defense Fund took advantage of MSU's "toxic" social work program because they filed a lawsuit for an razed and abused student, Emily Brooker. You know, not unlike what the liberals comparable advocate, the ACLU, does on behalf of liberal plaintiffs every day of every week? I can't help but wonder if Messenger has ever accused the ACLU of "taking advantage" of circumstances....

The law suit the Alliance Defense Fund filed on behalf of Brooker was settled by MSU rather than fought.

Liberty University does not use taxpayer funding. It has had ups and downs financially. Missouri State University does use taxpayer funding, just a little aside...humor me.

One day before the funeral of the late Jerry Falwell, Sarah Overstreet of the News-Leader wrote a damning article about Jim Bakker found here. She flat out stated that a new Bakker venture is the same old shell game that he played years ago in South Carolina, where he was convicted of 24 counts of fraud and conspiracy. Where is her evidence? There is none. She doesn't need it. His past is enough to condemn him forever. Interesting.

I'm beginning to get the impression that the Springfield News-Leader is anti-Christian, anti-Conservative, anti-traditional values, but you know what? They don't pretend they are anything else. They regularly put their stamp of approval on all sorts of liberal causes du jour with a few alternative viewpoints in the form of conservative blog quotes, conservative readers' letters to the editor, etc. and this is supposed to placate the conservatives in town and cause us to proclaim what a balanced newspaper they are. Gee, thanks. We're very impressed. We're very placated.

Just remember, the News-Leader has a right to publish from whatever bias they care to, and you and me and your next door neighbor have a right to either buy the paper or not. I wouldn't silence the News-Leader any more than I'd silence Newstalk, KSGF. I like freedom of speech, that's why I exercise it. I'd encourage you to exercise it too.

One thing I've learned in all my years of on-line debate and discussion. You really can disagree with people and like them. I disagree with the News-Leader and don't particularly like it. I disagree with Messenger but find him a likable sort of guy.

Liberals feel just as strongly about their viewpoints as conservatives do and it takes all kinds. We could all do better at honing our arguments and expressing ourselves. We could all do better at being open-minded to discussion...BUT, all that said, Tony's article on Kauffman really did smell, and that's all I can say about that. ;)

Liberal bias in the Springfield News-Leader? Surely you jest!

I did a word count on Tony Messenger's Sunday editorial, Riding out the storm: MSU's Kauffman gets his voice back, 2,250 words. That's TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY words spent in an eloquent effort to paint Kauffman as an unwitting and undeserving victim of the Christian right and the Alliance Defense Fund, oh, and let's not forget conservative radio talk show hosts who "ride the short bus."

This might be a reason why the conservative readers of the Springfield News-Leader believe that the News-Leader has a liberal bias.

2,250 words spent in telling the compelling personal story of Frank G. Kauffman. 2,250 words which include epitaphs hurled at Kauffman by:

"angry people all over the world, many of them claiming to be Christians."

One gets the impression that it was those evil evangelical, right wing, intolerant Christians and the evil Alliance Defense Fund which *might* have ruined a good man's life.

Kauffman admits Emily Brooker was:

"...subjected to unrelenting questioning about her religious beliefs. She was threatened with not being able to graduate. She was intimidated and scared."

And Kauffman admits to:

"...sheepishly, he says — participat(ing)..."

But that's okay because he's a liberal who "won't back down from his causes, liberal or not."

Taking a stand on social issues is commendable for a liberal, intolerant for a conservative. Don't believe me? Just ask the late Jerry Falwell.

We get it, Tony, we really do.

Messenger still getting HB 808 WRONG

At Tony Messenger's blog and in his editorial column today at News-Leader.com, titled "Tax credit bill is vouchers in a bad disguise," is it just me or is there some desperate mixed messaging going on?

Yesterday, at his blog he wrote that no matter what supporters call HB 808 it translates to vouchers, in 'Walks AND talks like a duck,' and yesterday he wrote that it's all about money and we should question why those, including the Catholic Conference, support it. He questioned their motivations, as though the only reason they would support it might be that they see themselves as beneficiaries on a money train.

Today, in his editorial he announced that whether you call it tax credits or vouchers "We don't care," (and one must assume he is speaking on behalf of the Springfield News-Leader itself, who else would "we" be?).

Yesterday he implied that state lawmakers who support the bill are lying when they claim it isn't a 'voucher' bill only to today, and I'm sure it was unintentional, misinterpret and misrepresent the bill, himself. Today he doesn't care what people call it? A tax credit bill or a voucher bill? Well, he certainly cared yesterday when he was busy implying supporters were lying about it by denying it was a voucher bill.

Then he notes in a blog entry posted today, titled "The slippery slope of vouchers," that he's now concerned for Catholic schools because HB 808 would require some state requirements on private schools and he doesn't want the state interfering with their curriculum. He opposes the bill today, in part, because he feels it abandons the urban public schools he supports which are regulated by the state on the grounds that private schools would be regulated by (gasp!) the state. He then writes he was educated in Catholic schools, received a quality education and is therefore not at all biased against them so, I assume he is genuinely concerned for their well being and freedom from state requirements? Uh huh. Implying one day that they have deep, dark ulterior motives for supporting the bill and then the next day being concerned for their independence because the big bad state will put requirements on them just doesn't jive. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Honesty is either important or not and the fact of the matter is, Springfield citizens expect when they read an editorial written by no less than the Editorial Page Editor of the paper that he will be more careful in his analysis. People take his word for matters such as this, and folks, he knows that.

I didn't plan to continue ad nauseam about Tony Messenger's coverage of Missouri's House Bill 808, it's just sort of turned out that way. Call this pick on Tony Messenger week, or call it pick on tax credit or voucher week, or misrepresentation week. WE (here at JackeHammer) DON'T CARE. We simply find it troubling that the leading newspaper in the City of Springfield is playing fast and loose with the facts. If the people who are to report the news and help educate the community about issues of vital importance pertaining to the education of our state's children doesn't care about the minute details of HB 808 and is so obviously opposed to it and biased against it how, then, can we expect fair coverage of the issue?

Where does Messenger get the figure that approximately $40 million dollars will come out of our state's general tax revenue? If he has given any indication, I missed it.

Can Messenger be more specific about who it is going to hurt? He appears now to be backpeddling on the alleged $40 million dollars hurting public schools, per se, in favor of it simply hurting someone, anyone. Who will it hurt? How will it hurt? Who will be effected, Tony?

Editorial, shmeditorial. Messenger failed to consider those who it will help, he discussed all the negatives without a single comment about who might be helped other than to say some children might be helped but not without adding that in the process those urban public schools will be abandoned. How? Is the state going to stop funding those public schools, Tony? No.

There may be legitimate reasons not to support the bill but instead of exploring those legitimate reasons Messenger has omitted, misinterpreted and misrepresented the bill, and yes, I will explain how, keep reading. He and his paper have an agenda, they are on record as opposing the bill regardless of what people call it and rather than give the public the facts about the bill they, through Messenger's editorial columns, have tried to influence others to oppose it for absurd and unrealistic reasons. It angers me. If Messenger was a simple blogger like myself that would be one thing. He isn't. There is no excuse for his misinterpretation and misrepresentation of HB 808. Period.

I've read the bill fairly closely. Tony claims in his editorial column today that the "tax credit" bill (ahem) requires that 80% of the revenues donated by tax payers must go to PRIVATE schools. The only mention of an 80% amount is in RSMo 135.713.4 (1), and it states:

"At least eighty percent of eligible revenues are allocated for educational assistance organizations for grants to eligible students to cover all or part of the tuition and fees at a QUALIFIED school, and that at least fifteen percent of the recipients are students receiving special education services with individualized education plans that reflect substantially the same distribution of the varieties of disabilities in statewide statistics for students receiving special education services. Of this amount, no more than twenty percent of eligible revenues shall be allocated for other approved educational expenses, including supplemental services such as private tutors, books and technology, or transportation to a public or nonpublic school outside of the eligible student's resident school district;" (emphasis mine)

Item 2, same chapter does state:

"No more than twenty percent of eligible revenues are allocated for public school foundation to be used for the benefit of public schools." (emphasis mine)

According to HB 808 a "public school foundation" is:

"a charitable organization registered in this state that is exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, that was created to secure donations to be used for the benefit of a public school district."

Messenger misinterpreted "public school foundations" as public schools and claimed that 80% of the eligible revenue was required to go to private schools. That's not true. Certainly the revenue can be used at a 'qualified school,' whether public or private, but only 20% of the eligible revenue can be allocated to public school foundations to be used for the benefit of public schools. It is a bit confusing but there is a difference.

I emphasized 'qualified schools' in the section of HB 808 I quoted above for a reason. What is a 'qualified school' under HB 808?

"qualified school", either a PUBLIC elementary or secondary school in this state that is outside of the district in which a student resides or a nonpublic elementary or secondary school in the state that complies with all requirements of the program;"

Public schools are every bit as 'qualified' as private schools to receive their fair share of that 80% in revenues that is to go to 'qualified schools,' they are as much 'qualified' under the definition given in HB 808 as private schools to take part in the receipt of that 80% of revenues.

I don't believe that Tony Messenger intentionally misled his readers when he claimed that 80% of the revenue was required to go to private schools. As I wrote, it is confusing, but shouldn't we expect the foremost newspaper in our city to spend the time necessary to get it right before they 'educate' their readers?

I would suggest, Springfield News-Leader subscribers, that you begin to question the motivations behind some of the columns you read in your paper. Is it possible there just might be a deep, dark, ulterior motive for what some columnists write? Messenger, to his credit, offered a link to the bill on his blog, just as I did in a previous blog entry. The problem is, how many people clicked on that link? Sometimes I wonder if writers don't put links like that on their blogs to establish credibility, I mean, surely he wouldn't put a link to the bill on his blog if he wasn't giving us a correct analysis of the bill, would he? It adds credibility just by being there. Sigh.

Don't take other people's words for things. Don't take my word for things. Study. Find out what the bill really says for yourself. Make your own individual decision about whether you support of oppose HB 808. I'm sure I wasn't blessed with all the higher learning with which Tony Messenger was blessed, and yet I figured it out. You owe it to yourself to find out the truth about important issues which effect your city and your state. Be a responsible citizen. Please.

I have not decided whether I either support or oppose HB 808. The purpose of all this ruckus on my part is because people can't make a proper decision if they are not properly informed in the first place. Get informed.