Political Tuesdays: How did we get to this point?

 It was a quiet Saturday in the church fellowship hall, sewing machines humming and ladies talking. I demonstrated how to piece a Jacob's Ladder block, Gail demonstrated how to make a neck cooler to deal with the heat wave, fabrics were displayed and shared. Then someone checked a phone, and announced, "President Trump's been shot!" and the world seemed to shift on its axis.

We saw the instantly iconic photo of Trump, bleeding and raising his fist in the air to reassure and motivate the crowd. There was a discussion of the Secret Service (I shared my personal story, which I'll save for a more lighthearted moment in blogging). We wrapped things up and prayed for Trump and those affected by the shooting. On the drive home I listened to the radio news and observed a troubling repetition: "possible assassination attempt." It was the same when I flipped on the TV at home. ABC was using "possible" as the qualifier of choice. NBC and CBS were also similarly guarded... the language I remember was "apparent gunshots" and "apparent assassination attempt" well over two hours after the event and even the morning after. There was some speculation that it might have been a bb gun, or firecrackers. Fox was the first that actually used plainer language; they called it an assassination attempt, and a shooter, and they were honest about what they didn't know. There was a real fatality, and one wonders how other media outlets planned to spin that. I have nothing but contempt for people and organizations who call themselves journalists but refuse to communicate plainly because it might hurt their favorite candidate.

Regardless of the future, there needs to be, in the security world, an accounting for the lapses that surely contributed to this, and in the media world, an increase in editorial discipline to keep biases from creeping into reporting. Because streaming is everywhere in real time, and false narratives are created for fun and clicks, and the current President is clearly suffering from deterioration in his faculties. I'm old enough to remember the Reagan assassination attempt, and my mother's stories of the Kennedy brothers. I'm also old enough to remember the glory days of the daily newspaper, and reading up on major world events with a reasonable confidence that I was being told the truth by the reporters, to the best of their ability to determine it. Broadcast journalists have a disadvantage; they see the same footage as we do, and they have to keep talking so people will keep watching. But analysis falls by the wayside in a fluid situation, and they usually end up talking to fill empty airtime, and bias creeps in. If you're really that fearful of a lawsuit, it would be better to say nothing and let the images speak for themselves.

Or alternatively, if you are really afraid, so very afraid, that the guy you hate might win because of something you say on air, maybe you should get out of the field formerly known as "journalism."

Political/Journalism Thursday: Evaluating the Post

This is an infographic I found on Facebook, shared on my wall because I thought it was pretty close to accurate, and then that sparked a discussion about evaluating news sources between some of my incredibly diverse and thoughtful friends. It appears to originate at a site called pigscast.com, and that site references mediabiasfactcheck. There is a similar but - I believe - less accurate version here. Whatever graphic you prefer - or none! - I think it's worth having a post on the state of journalism today, and how an informed citizen can respond to it.

So this post will be different from my usual ones. This election cycle "Fake News" has become a watchword and everyone wants to be well-informed, but feelings are running high and it is genuinely hard to know whom to trust. I have a little journalistic background: I took journalism in college, worked as an in-house newsletter editor for National Right to Life, and then most recently I taught for 16 years and wrote all of my own study guides and support material. I care deeply about the business of keeping people informed, in whatever context, passing on real and factual information with the minimum of personal bias, but still maintaining a personal voice: after all writing is an art, not a science. That is what I believe a teacher's job is, and what a good journalist's job is. So why is it so frustrating to be a news junkie this year? Well, if you believe the graphic above, our major news sources are pretty badly polarized. My personal chart would put most mainstream news even further left, and the "garbage" news would also be pretty far down on the low-quality graphic: because manipulative and selective journalism on either side is not journalism at all, it is propaganda.

For reference, as most readers know, I am a conservative and I almost always vote Republican, except for this presidential election. Still, I caucus with the Republicans and I hope for the best from the Trump administration despite his daily gaffes. I have an online subscription to the Washington Post and read it as much as I can stand, which is less these days. Why is that? Well, the above chart puts it pretty close to the hyper-partisan left, which is good for confirming your already existing biases but not so great for convincing those who don't share that bias. So tonight I want to do a media watchdog exercise and evaluate the lead stories of today's Post, pointing out which ones I think are "hard news," i.e., factual, content-rich and helpful, which ones are opinion-driven or agenda-driven but still have relevance to the news cycle, and which ones are unworthy of the Post's august reputation.

Many people don't know this, but there are some checks and balances within the news industry that try to maintain high journalistic standards. But as the internet expands and social media regularly scoop the established news sources, "big journalism" is cutting corners and letting some of those safeguards go. Newspapers are supposed to have a reader's representative, called an ombudsman or public editor, who is responsive to reader complaints and will check out alleged bias. When the Post in the early 1990's alleged that members of the Religious Right were "poor, uneducated, and easy to command," it was the ombudsman who had to apologize for the paper in his column. But the Post apparently no longer has an ombudsman. Still, any reader or viewer has the right to correspond with the authors and publisher of a story with which there are problems, and point out those problems. A reputable news source will welcome this and will respond respectfully. There are also media watchdog groups. I knew a girl who worked at one, before the internet. It must have been a tedious job and involved filling out graphs to tally the number of mentions of certain keywords that would tend to illustrate media bias in one direction or another. Now a simple google search can handle a lot of that, but the accusations of media bias are lost in a sea of social media memes. I wonder if we are really any better off? Finally, the ongoing expansion of alternative media has mainstream news running scared. Even the big names are having trouble staying solvent, as we amuse ourselves to death and choose video and interactive media instead of the more cerebral print. Journalists have to "pitch" an "angle" to their editors, or they don't get to write the story at all. That "angle" has to be appealing to a public with diminishing attention spans, or the story won't get read. To a certain extent, it's no wonder the news business has declined since I took Journalism with Dr. Stansberry 30 years ago. It's no wonder you don't see lead sentences with "who-what-when-where-how-why" anymore... they would be too boring for most of us to read. But that's no excuse for

I read or at least skimmed all the stories in the "Top Stories" section of today's Washington Post (Kindle version: the owner of the Post is Jeff Bezos, head of Amazon, they are careful to point out. I don't know what kind of Emoluments clause the Post has but it was a good deal on the subscription). I will record the headlines of these 16 stories here, and my conclusions about the story in italics. These are my personal reactions; yours might well be different. I rate A for hard news, informative and relatively unbiased, B for leading or angling toward a desired conclusion but still following the journalistic conventions of multiple sources and clear reasoing, or also if it is a fair piece of journalism but doesn't merit placement in the top section; C for an obvious hit piece that should be labeled "opinion" and put in the opinion section. Guess what- A pieces are fairly boring; B and C pieces have a lot more punch and will play well on Facebook. All biases are assumed to be towards the Left unless otherwise noted (spoiler alert: this is the Washington Post. There is no corporate bias toward the Right, although some individuals in the Opinion section do express such opinions from time to time).
Today's Top Stories:

1. Trump's Travel Ban Remains on Hold A - although it listed a Trump tweet it also interviewed sources on both sides and showed good factual reportage of the lead hard news of the day.
2. Trump Lashes out at Senator who Revealed Supreme Court Nominee's Comments B - this kind of he said/he said gossipy political piece obviously advances the "Trump is irritable and irrational" narrative, admittedly this is the kind of piece that writes itself and is part of the news cycle. But it should have been in the politics section since it doesn't really contain any hard news. It is full of reactions to reactions to rumor; admittedly, there's a lot of that in Washington right now.
3. Trump Attacks McCain for Questioning Success of Deadly Yemen Raid B -another reactionary piece; I don't give it a C because the character of our President is part of the news cycle. Three screen-captures of Donald Trump Tweets, but no actual policy is advanced, and if you don't already know about the deadly Yemen raid, good luck finding out about it here.
4. In Executive Actions, Trump Vows Crackdown on Violent Crime: Is America as Unsafe as He Thinks? B - I would have given it an A without the leading subtitle, and the author's note in the article that Trump has misstated crime statistics in the past.
5. Sessions' First Comments as Attorney General Inflated U.S. Crime Problem C - I flat out couldn't stand to read Philip Bump's sanctimonious tone. If we could maybe let the new AG be AG for a full day before writing his political obituary? Bump was the writer who predicted a few days before the election there was no possible path to victory for Trump. How is he still employed?
6. Sessions Confirmed as AG after Bitter Senate Debate A - Pretty much as the headline states
7. Conway "Counseled" after Touting Ivanka Trump's Products B - probably a hit piece on Conway, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Trump administration needs to learn quickly to meter their speech because the Post will not give them the benefit of the doubt.
8. For Years, this Mother got a Pass from Immigration Authorities. This Week, they Took her into Custody B - read on and you'll realize she was originally charged 8 years ago and has been getting deferrals ever since. Again, I'm too nice to give them a C but this is at least a little biased and pushing the narrative that Trump is unfair to immigrants.
9. Washington Gives Hockey a Diplomacy Shot: Female Player from the UAE Practices with the Capitals B - but a fun visual of a hijab-wearing hockey player on the ice. This one should have been in the Sports section, not Top News. I routinely skip the Sports section.
10. Kenyan Court Blocks Plans to Dismantle World's Largest Refugee Camp A - some real world news, but relevant to the news cycle. They even mention the concerns of ISIS recruitment at this camp, so it doesn't appear to be biased
11. Archaeologists Find Evidence of New Dead Sea Scroll Cave A - Cool, more stories like this please!
12. How to Stop your Smart TV from Collecting your Data B - probably should have been in Business/Tech section; interesting but how come they don't warn me of the dangers of Amazon collecting my data using the Post app?
13. Call Me, Maybe? Trump Reaches out to China's President in a Letter B - this had a gossipy and insinuating feel to it, although not necessarily anti-Trump, it passes on hearsay rather than hard news and implies Trump is dragging his feet on establishing China relations
14. Muslim/American Olympian Says she was Detained by U.S. Customs B - Other than showing another female hijab-wearing athlete, and drumming up anti-Trump sentiment this is a non-story. A lot of people were detained by U.S. Customs recently, and her detention did not seem to be very long
15. Not all Processed Foods are Bad for You B - Should have been in the Life section
16. Essay - The Unexpected Blessing of Being a Stay at Home Dad B - Heartwarming as I'm sure it was, I did not read this. I was only interested in hard news this read-through.

Post sections in my app: Top Stories (listed above), Wild Card, Around the World, Politics and Power, Business and Tech, Opinions, Sports, Life and Entertainment, Don't Miss, Backstory, Comics, Horoscopes

Because the Post is so lengthy and the average article length is substantial, reading one or two sections is a reasonable goal for a well-informed citizen each day. 

My analysis of the 16 stories in "Top Stories" today: 4 were timely, relevant to the news cycle, fair and as balanced as a good journalist can make them. 11 were leading toward a particular bias, or perhaps just poorly placed in the front section. And 1, well, I couldn't trust the author not to continue his pattern of bias

Bonus analysis: in the Opinions section today there were 20 pieces. Two of them were official editorials "from the editorial board": 

• Just Because GOP Can, Doesn't Mean it Should
• Do Your Homework, Ms. DeVos

Both contained obvious anti-Republican bias, if you had any doubt. Honestly, I believe the editorial board of any newspaper is entitled to have its opinion and to state it. I would read the Opinion section more readily if you kept the Top Stories, Around the World, and Politics sections more grounded in the realm of fact.

So that's that, and that's the evening. I enjoy news analysis, but it's another one of those time-consuming hobbies that doesn't win you any friends. I might consider doing this as an occasional feature though, we'll see.

Crickets Still... Some avenues of exploration for conflicted reporters

Social media such as Twitter and Facebook may have their detractors, but right now I am inclined to believe they are ground zero for the war for the soul of America, and if you want to fight on the side of the angels, this is where you need to be. At some point in the last weeks Planned Parenthood mounted a social media campaign, encouraging supporters to tell inspiring stories of how they were "helped" by the abortion superstore, in hopes of countering the trafficking in baby parts scandal.  My absolute favorite - "I can share my story because my mom didn't abort me and have me parted-out like an '87 Honda."  By multiple accounts, Planned Parenthood is losing the battle for social media.

But  in the mainstream media, television networks ignore the scandal entirely and newpapers cover it in the most clinical and detatched fashion possible.  Despite massive, spontaneously-organized demonstrations in every major U.S. city.  Why is that?  Well, in my opinion, part of it is the embarrassment of being scooped.  No journalist likes to be beaten to a big story.  And these rank amateurs at the Center for Medical Progress. Everything they have released so far is on their You-Tube channel, for anyone to view and analyze. And even amateur bloggers like me are viewing and analyzing it, both the edited (not so deceptively, actually) and unedited versions.  But that doesn't explain why most news outlets still tread on eggshells around the sacred ground of Planned Parenthod.  The sensible thing, the thing you would expect most conscientious reporters to do, is to jump on the investigative journalism bandwagon. Careers are to be made if you can come up with a new angle... and you would expect to see energetic brainstorming going on in the newsrooms at all the major networks.  This just in... as I was writing, it does appear that Fox News is doing it old school. A special segment for tonight.  Kudos to Fox, and let's hope this is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to news coverage.



But what about everybody else?  Showing the films is a guaranteed way to keep away pro-abortion protesters, as Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal discovered when they showed up at his mansion.  Democratic congressional staffers also respond to them about as warmly as vampires to garlic, as the Susan B. Anthony list discovered when they hosted a screening.  Sooner or later, all Americans will have to face any moral culpability they personally may have in the abortion culture that has stood unchallenged for far too long.  I think we will start to see more moral honesty coming from reporters who have wrestled with it, as from the man who wrote "I don't know if I'm pro-choice anymore."  So many reporters have probably had abortions themselves, or been responsible for one of a partner, or been told "this is a fundamental right period end of statement" so often, they don't know how to challenge it.  But that is, kind of, what reporters are supposed to do.  If you're a journalist who happens to stumble across this little blog and you're wondering how to tackle it, I double dare you.  Find out the truth.  Some of us aren't in a position to do so.  But feel free to take any of these ideas and explore them.  I think most of them would be of general interest, not just to those who are pro-life already:

What exactly do fetal tissue procurement companies like Stem Express need "at least 50 more livers a week" for?  Could it be for the "skid mice" that Daleiden mentions a few times in the interviews with Stem Express and ABR?  And what exactly are BLT, humanized mouse models?  They appear to be chimeras, genetic combinations of human cells from you-know-where and mouse cells.  A lot of this research seems to be done in large "mouse houses" like the Jackson laboratory or the University of Wisconsin. (Just to name a few phrases my not-too-keen ears  caught in listening to all the uncut videos.)  This appears, to my unscientific eye, to be some serious genetic engineering.  With or without tissue from aborted babies, is it ethical, by general consensus? Is there a general consensus? How is this research funded? Any of it federally?  What about those tantalizing mentions on the videos of Planned Parenthood clinics that ship a lot of tissue for government research? Did you even hear them, or have you watched the videos? What kind of guidelines are there for procuring the tissue, and who makes sure they are followed? If the abortion providers aren't supposed to make a profit on the tissue, how much of a profit are the middleman companies making? Stem Express no longer makes their price list publicly available but records exist, and fetal liver cells start at more than $500 a vial.  That's a pretty significant markup from the $75 a specimen Planned Parenthood is getting, if that's all they're getting.  Or is that $75 per body part, and then Stem Express and ABR and other companies like them do the work of "deboning the chicken" as they say, and passing along to researchers isolated cells that are unrecognizable to the average lab technician as coming from a human fetus? What kind of training do lab techs have, and why would they "freak out" and "have meltdowns" if they received a recognizable baby part? Is there an ideological test for people who aspire to do biomedical research at the graduate level? Are people with ethical or religious objections blacklisted in major research universities? What kind of legal protections exist for someone like Holly O'Donnell, the whistleblower who used to procure tissue for Stem Express?

To acquire the right kind of fetal tissue in pristine condition, not all abortion techniques work well from the procurement tech's point of view. But federal law prohibits an abortionist from modifying the abortion technique in any way other than as patient care (the mother's, not the baby's obviously) requires. The procurement companies are quick to acknowledge this legal requirement as one of their limiting factors.  But why do the doctors at Planned Parenthood not do the same? They appear to agree to "convert to breech" or "crush above and crush below" in order to obtain a usable product.  If there is federal law against this, they must surely know it, right? And to disregard it with a wink and a nudge, and figure out how to put it down as a line item that won't raise suspicion, there must be some kind of incentive for them, right?  Follow the money.  I dare you.

Planned Parenthood and ABR are nonprofit organizations, but that doesn't mean that people who work there can't make a huge salary.  Kind of like the NFL, from what I understand.  The janitor at Planned Parenthood makes more than $100,000 a year. What do the doctors and other clinic staffers make? Why is it necessary to publicly fund them in addition to their large donor base, other than as a political payback for their well-known support for Democrats? What safeguards are there to make sure those public funds don't go toward abortion, a practice that is ethically troubling, at least, to a majority of Americans?  Why is Planned Parenthood, an abortion specialist with a sideline in supporting a sexual ethic that is divorced from any value system (other than early 20th Century Eugenics), receiving so much more funding than community health centers that provide more life-saving services like vaccinations, mammograms, and broad-based health care?

In all honesty, I would love to see someone in the media explore these questions.  With each video that is released by the Center for Medical Progress, I am increasingly sickened by the depths to which our culture has sunk.  But reporters, you represent the freedom of thought and inquiry that has made America great.  The CMP has scratched the tip of the iceberg, but there's more, much more, that thoughtful Americans want to know. Go find it out for us.  I dare you.