There are many ways to contribute to a campaign, but the most effective is often to run a story that supports one candidate, or attacks another, in a newspaper or on a TV program. (I say often, rather than always, because some newspapers have become so discredited that their opposition can help a candidate. That may have happened during the California recall when the Los Angeles Times did a last minute attack on Arnold Schwarzenegger.) Journalists understand this; in fact, it is one of the things that attracts many of them to journalism, the chance to have political power, without ever facing the voters.
(That desire for political power is one of the reasons, I believe, that newspapers have so often, in recent years, backed restrictions on competitive sources of information, especially advertisements, and sometimes talk radio and even blogs. For many, maybe even most, journalists, this desire to handicap their competitors is not conscious. They justify their calls for restrictions on free speech with claims, which they may believe, about corruption and the influence of "special interests" (other than, of course, themselves). For a brief discussion of those issues, see this post.)
We are already beginning to see some of those newspaper campaign contributions. For example, the Seattle Times ran this front page article attacking Mike McGavick for having supporters among Alaskan oil producers. (The article had the intended effect on at least one reader, assuming this letter is genuine.) Similarly, the PI ran this entirely positive story on a Patty Murray event, which began with this paragraph.
Democrats stand for affordable health care for everyone, fiscal sanity and educational support for the disadvantaged, liberal political satirist Al Franken said at a fund-raising and awards luncheon Monday.>/p>
(Those who read Brian Maloney or Michelle Malkin will know that not everyone thinks that Al Franken is really a friend of the "disadvantaged".)
As someone who really does support freedom of speech, even for those I disagree with, I have no objection to such campaign contributions. But I do think that the Times, the PI, and our other local news organizations, should be more honest and label contributions, just as they do ordinary political advertisements. Since there is no chance they will add labels to their contributions, we'll have to help them by noting these campaign contributions from time to time.
In fact, let's go farther and try to predict which campaign contributions they will make before this November's election. The more specific the prediction, the better, of course. For example, I think we all know that local journalists will attack McGavick for giving insufficient support to the religion of environmentalism. And almost everyone knows that one of those attackers will be our friend Joel Connelly. But what exactly will be in Connelly's attack? (Or attacks.) And for extra credit, what will Connelly leave out? And for extra, extra credit, what factual errors will Connelly make? (That last makes the assignment hard, but not impossible, in my opinion.)
Others may prefer a different journalist, or even the harder task of predicting what an anonymous editorial board will do. I'd be especially interested in seeing predictions about what our local TV stations will do, since I don't watch them enough to be able to make those predictions myself.
After the election, I'll come back to your predictions, so we can see who has the best understanding of our local news organizations
Finally, to keep this contest fair, I'll have to ask those who work for our local news organizations not to participate.
(I had planned to do this post closer to the election, but this PI editorial made me move it up.
By the way, does anyone know what an ad like the Times' attack on McGavick would cost? I assume that a front page advertisement would cost more than their regular ads. You should allow for the fact that the ad was not published in the PI.)
Posted by Jim Miller at April 13, 2006 08:54 AM | Email ThisDear Editor,
In case you haven’t seen or read this bit of text before:
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.
Regardless, the PI and Judge Wickham are apparently incapable of either reading plain English or comprehending it.
Congress shall make no law... The legislative branch cannot make a law, the judiciary (Wickham) cannot make law period and certainly cannot interpret a law which cannot be made, respecting... prohibiting the free exercise... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
That text is the supreme law of the land, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Wickham’s ruling is incomprehensible in light of above text. It brings in question his competency to serve on the bench.
The PI is arrogant in the extreme believing “the press” only applies to newspapers. At the time of the writing of the text, the town hall or square speech, or papers prepared on a printing press (hence the term “press”) were the only forms of mass communication.
The supporting documents, the Federalist Papers and other writings of the founders make it clear that freedom of speech was essential to a Republic and applied in all forms and in particular political and religious speech.
Radio, talk or other wise, is a modern implementation of both the speech in the town square and the broadsheet publications familiar to the founders.
Any law made by congress that limits this form of speech is patently unconstitutional. Judge Wickham’s ruling is grossly out of bound of any rational or legal standing, and should be summarily struck down.
As for the PI, it doesn't like the message or the messengers, and since it can’t compete in the free market of ideas (see PI subscription trends, vs. KVI ratings) it supports illegal, immoral and unconstitutional attacks on the competition.
Posted by: JCM on April 13, 2006 09:06 AMWe should try the same legal approach against the local rags. Personally, I think the the talk shows and newspapers should be free to boost any candidate or issue. But that law seems to only apply if one is for the "wrong" candidate or issue. While I support their right, I also express my disapproval by not buying their product.
Make an example of the newspapers. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110008225
Posted by: pagar on April 13, 2006 09:49 AMSierradog, I can't claim to know what motivated the P-I to do the series. Anyone who's given much thought to the issue would conclude that elected versus appointed is not an issue. If anything, an elected Sheriff is more accountable, and that's key.
If the series showed anything it showed that the union has inappropriate control over daily operations and discipline. I don't know yet if Sheriff Rahr is part of the problem or the solution, but there's no doubt she's busy.
Posted by: South County on April 13, 2006 10:05 AMSo, Jim, you are going to tell Mr. Sharansky to remove his ban on various liberals on this site? Or are you all really that scared of opposing voices?
Posted by: JDB on April 13, 2006 10:13 AMThis is definitely an issue, but it cuts both ways.
Posted by: smitty on April 13, 2006 11:14 AMPersonally, I'd enjoy this blog more if I didn't have to weed through the nonsense spewed by you and your ideological buddies. But it's Stefan's site, and he allows those who disagree with him to say so. Honestly, it's more than I'd do if I ran a blog.
And for the record, the owner of a blog can do whatever, whenever he/she wants with regards to comments and opinions expressed on his or her site. It is in no way comparable to a long-standing newspaper which operates under the guise of being a community service by providing (snort) objective news.
Posted by: jimg on April 13, 2006 11:23 AM
JDB - I regularly read the New York Times and the Washington Post, and many blog sites where I am sure to see different views than my own. And, if you look at my site, you'll see that I link to some that are on the left. (I would link to more if I could find more that didn't commonly contain obscenity and slander.)
I don't know of any leftists being banned from Sound Politics for their views. But since this is Stefan's site, he has every right to ban anyone that he wants to ban, for any reason.
Posted by: Jim Miller on April 13, 2006 11:42 AMThis is a magnificent look into the "Liberal Think" process and how they view free speech. Fascinating to say the least.
Posted by: swassociates on April 13, 2006 01:27 PMThanks for the entirely sensible response to an entirely insensible moron. JDB/biteme/halfwit feigns outrage and strains at gnats. His/hers/its favored flavor of blog wouldn't know diversity of opinion if it raised up and smacked him with it on the noggin (might be fun to watch ;'}
That Stefan allows him to continue to scrape his butt (doggie-style) across the carpet at SP is testament to your openness to opposing opinion (no matter how bizarre or insipid).
JDB/biteme/halfwit - quit sticking your tongue in light bulb sockets!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 13, 2006 02:02 PMMy predictions follow.
Newspapers will:
1. Run stories about McGavick's time at Safeco, and specifically mention a) financial difficulties at the company, b) workers laid off, and/or c) people dropped from their insurance coverage.
2. In stories about environmental stances of the candidates, McGavick's name will be mentioned with Ted Stevens continually, whether or not the story relates to Stevens. And the article will mention the Stevens plan (since dropped) to allow more tankers in the Sound, but will not mention McGavick's opposition to this as well. Cantwell will be portrayed in the article as "standing up" to Stevens' attacks because she was opposed to ANWR drilling. She will be pro-Kyoto (good), he will be anti-Kyoto (bad).
3. Regardless of whoever was involved in blocking the ANWR drilling, Cantwell will be portrayed as leading the charge, despite the fact that Democrats have opposed this for Bush's entire term and have filibustered it starting with the initial submission of his energy policy (this last part won't be mentioned). She will be the one portrayed as the one responsible for the drilling not passing.
4. Cantwell will be portrayed as a champion of protecting BPA rates for northwest consumers standing up to the Bush administration, when in fact every single northwest politician on both sides opposed diverting funds to pay down the deficit from BPA (this last part will likely not be mentioned either).
5. Unsigned editorial where Cantwell will be a "responsible" politician for allowing the tax cuts that benefited the rich to expire so she can be "fiscally responsible" and pay down the deficit. McGavick, if he favors not raising taxes, will be passing burdens on to our children.
6. Portray McGavick as someone who will "provide more power to the GOP majority" by voting along with the Bush administration policies. The article will fail to mention Cantwell's lack of a distinguished record in the Senate, other than the bone the Democrats threw her by making her the poster girl on ANWR.
7. I'm sure abortion will be mentioned somewhere, and Cantwell will be the "champion of women's rights" and McGavick "limits choice".
8. The "rollback of gay rights" will face a full-on assault in both papers. It will once again be compared to the Civil Rights movement.
Local TV stations will:
1. Portray McGavick as a supporter of the Iraq war, even though he never voted for it or spoke out in favor. His stance now is to complete the job, and not set a timetable for withdrawl. This will be either preceded or followed by a story of violence by "insurgents".
2. Run a story on Safeco as well.
3. Link McGavick to other Bush administration policies (other than the war). Examples include (but not limited to) - ANWR drilling, tax cuts (for the rich), NCLB, embryonic stem cell research, etc.
Posted by: Palouse on April 13, 2006 03:26 PMAMEN!!!
Send for the Sunshine Bus...load up the MEDIA...keep the windows dry!!!
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on April 13, 2006 08:51 PM"Cantwell's greatest successes recently involve energy policy, most prominently, her support of the Snohomish County Public Utility District in its legal troubles with Enron, and her victory keeping oil companies out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)."
Meanwhile, on McGavick:
"McGavick would vote to open drilling in the Arctic and urge more action on global warming, although he opposes the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gases. And he said Cantwell was too rough with oil-industry executives when they testified about high gas prices before her Senate committee last November."
"McGavick must persuade voters in a blue state to boot out a Democratic incumbent at a time when President Bush's poll ratings are hovering at historic lows."
How much is that in-kind contribution worth?