Major Network Seems Not to Like Phrase 'Under God'

Maybe it's time for a refresher on the Declaration of Independence. It contains a very important phrase, which points out that our rights are endowed by our Creator. That phrase was important as we sought independence from England and England's king. There are rights that are not the King's to give; they would not be the yet-to-be formed U.S. Government to give; they are rights given by God to human beings. Doesn't that seem like an important concept?

To be specific, those words from the Declaration of Independence are, "We hold these truths to self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." Is there any reason to be ashamed of those words?  Aren't those same words indicative of people of all races having the same rights? We certainly aren't ashamed of that concept today.

And given that thought, it seems easy to accept the words "under God" that are in our Pledge of Allegiance. After all, that phrase was part of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. After a bold statement in our Declaration that our rights are given by our Creator, and the landmark Gettysburg Address saying we are a nation under God, having it in the Pledge seems consistent.

Yet, it seems that NBC is not at all comfortable with those words. In this weekend's broadcast of the U.S. Open Golf Championship, NBC played a moving "Americana" segment with the Pledge interwoven. But NBC decided to move the words "under God" out of the script. They are a non-governmental company (although there are serious ties these days between the Federal Government and the parent company of NBC), so they can do what they want. But if I ran the company and didn't care one way or the other about history, God, etc., I still might have guessed differently about which version might offend fewer members of the audience.

Read more here:
NBC Cuts 'Under God' From Pledge of Allegiance

Media Bias: Corporate Donations Far Out of Balance

Below is a story about how donations by employees of network television gave money to Democrats over other parties to the tune of an 88% share. That only amounts to a little over a million dollars in total individual contributions, but the degree of imbalance is striking. The imbalance is notable enough that I have even created a special tag for many posts on this blog called Media Bias (click that link to see the list).

The country is in approximate balance between Democrats and Republicans. If all else were equal, this would be similar for reporters and employees of the major networks. Why is it different. That's a question I won't try to answer here, but it's a good question.

Another good question is whether this imbalance is represented in the reporting. Some of the posts link above demonstrate that it is. Would people in the major networks deliberately sway the coverage of candidates or issues? There are many posts here that show an imbalance, but it is hard to prove that it is intentional. But whether intentional or not, it should not exist to any noticeable extent.

Various levels of government and private entities have instituted affirmative action programs to make sure that various minorities are represented within their "walls." If you are hiring a college professor, would it not seem logical to ensure that students have a diversity of opinion available? Hiring a black instructor when the percentage of blacks is less than the population could be supported with that type of logic. And certainly someone who grew up black might have developed different opinions and may have had different experiences because of skin color.

How about reporters? Would not conservative reporters have a different perspective compared to liberal reporters? If the country is balanced, should not both points of view be affecting coverage to the extent that one's personal opinions might affect one's coverage? (Actually, Gallup reports that more people say they are conservative that liberal in the United States, so why is it that liberals have stronger representation, assuming "conservative" and Republican are linked somewhat and that "liberal" and Democrat are somewhat linked?)

Coverage of the main subject of this blog, the First Amendment's religion clauses, would presumably be affected by a left or right bias in the media. I have pointed out in many posts that the media often gets it wrong, in my opinion. If the media shows a bias, then so some extent that becomes the public's understanding of the issue.

If you wanted to increase the readership of a newspaper, wouldn't you want to have Republicans and Democrats equally and fairly represented? That would seem to be the best way to reach the largest number of readers. A policy of outright hiring to that goal could probably be legally challenged on the basis of First Amendment free speech rights (viewpoint discrimination), but it would create a more interesting newspaper than is typical today.

Read more about the issue here:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/08/27/lefties-upset-murdoch-donation-take-note-88-percent-network-donation

Ignorance of First Amendment at Law School

You can read the "long version" of this story at the links below. Here is the short version, which goes to the point of this blog.

There was a debate at a between Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell on October 19, 2010, for Delaware's open U.S. Senate seat. The debate was held at Delaware's Widener Law School (that's an important fact). The debate at some point wandered into whether local schools could teach creationism or should stay with Darwinism, and the phrase "separation of church and state" came up. O'Donnell then asked, "Where in the Constitution is "separation of church and state?" The law school audience laughed and some were heard to say "Whoa!," and the context seems to be that they were laughing at O'Donnel. Coons claimed that is is in the First Amendment and made light of her question.

I would think a room with a high population of law students would not laugh at the question, hoping they would know that those words are not in the First Amendment. When quoted, the reference is to a private letter of Thomas Jefferson, and in the legal world that should be an important distinction. Not that the phrase should be overlooked, but its context is important. Also important is the fact that the Founders signed a document that did not contain that phrase. But the laughed at her. In my opinion the [sad] joke is on them, not her.

You will read in some of the text below that some in the media are also making fun of O'Donnell's question. Political journalists should know the Constitution and some of the important Supreme Court cases well enough to understand her question. Clearly they do not all meet my own preferred standard. But I'm not paying their salaries, I don't live my life around what they tell me, and I don't hold them as accountable as I do law students. That's partly because I keep hoping that law schools will point out that in the 1947 Supreme Court case that first brought "separation..." to a legal status, the court only used that quote without actually quoting from the words of the First Amendment and without looking at prior decisions and court writings. They can agree or not with the spirit of that 1947 court decision, but they should take note of the distinction between personal writings and the dictates of the Constitution.

Now that I re-think all this, I don't know why I am surprised. I have done random testing with various demographics and learned that it is probably the majority of the U.S. population who believe that "separation of church and state" is literally in the Constitution. That's my primary motivation for starting this blog in the first place.

Read more at the three links below (one include a media file):

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/19/odonnell-takes-coons-constitution-courtroom-debate

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/10/19/christine-odonnell-separation-church-and-state-not-constitution-msnb

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/19/chris-coons-cant-name-the-five-freedoms-in-the-first-amendment/

Mainstream Media: Is It Reporting or Creating News?

We live in a large country with a diverse population. We naturally have people who disagree about various issues, and our nation was founded with a guarantee of the right to express your thoughts in words. Our courts have either clarified that right or possibly extended it by saying that certain actions are protected "speech" as well. Flag burning would be in that protected category, for example.

Now we see news of a pastor in Florida who wants to have an "event" on September 11. He announced he would be burning a copy of the Koran. This man leads a congregation of perhaps 50 people at most. He is not, to my knowledge, famous in any of the conventional ways. I don't see books by him at my local Barnes & Noble or on Amazon.com, I don't see a Sunday morning TV show with him preaching, etc. But he has been made famous in this country because of this Koran burning event. [He has announced just recently that he would cancel the event.]

It seems to me that various entities with something gain from it have played this up more than it deserves. Not that such an intention is not an awful thing; it is worthy of criticism. But this should not be an international event. A couple years ago there were incidents overseas of burning of Muslims using rocker-propelled grenades to break into a church, after which they desecrated the church, tore Bibles apart, etc. Was our press filled with stories of this? Had you even heard about it?

Does this pastor in Florida have a "free speech" right to burn a book, even one that is holy? Yes, apparently he does based on what our Supreme Court has ruled in various decisions. But having a right to do something does not mean you should do it. Does the press have a right to make an international issue of this pastor? Yes, they do. But that doesn't mean they should. Would the press report someone burning a Bible to the extent that it became an international story?...

Read more below:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/09/did-media-negligently-create-koran-burning-controversy

Hate Crimes Against Muslims Fewer but Over-Reported

Here are the facts discussed in the article linked below. The mainstream news (i.e. New York Times and similar) have been shouting about the rash of anti-Muslim crimes in this country. We have a term in our lexicon of "anti-semitism" and a term of "islamophobia." If you search Google for each of those, you will get about 3.5 million for the former and 5.2 million for the latter. Yet there are 10 times as many hate crimes reported by the government against Jews than there are against Muslims. Not in the article is the fact that there are about twice as many Jews as Muslims in this country. Given that, one might expect twice as many hate crimes against Jews if all else were equal, which could be attributed to opportunity. But there are 10 times as many hate crimes.

Who is accountable for this seeming discrepancy? In my eyes that would be the media. If I walk around complaining about one kind of crime or the other, few people will hear me or be influenced. If I post a complaint on this blog, the reach will still be limited. I think it takes the power of the large media to get this slanted message to "stick."

What do you think?

Read the whole story below:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/06/inconvenient-truth-10-times-more-hate-crimes-against-jews-muslims

Separation Important on the One Hand, Not So Much on the Other

I believe in all aspects of the First Amendment, including the freedom of our press. They are free to say things I don't like. They are free to criticize our leaders. They are even free to be hypocritical.

Remember back to the Fall of 2009. Catholic bishop Tom Tobin asked Patrick Kennedy, who is  pro-choice, to refrain from the sacrament of communion. For standing up for the Catholic Church's stance on abortion, the Bishop was criticized for violating the so-called separation of church and state. Many in the media seem to think our First Amendment is intended to keep the church from speaking its mind.

Around that same time, President Obama called a meeting with certain (i.e. sympathetic) religious leaders to enlist their help in promoting his health care initiative. Isn't that worthy of a "separation of church and state" foul call by the media? When, then, was the press so silent in this case? Fortunately the the press, they are not constitutionally required to be fair in their reporting.

Read a more thorough discussion here:

Media Promote Church Involvement In Politics...For Liberal Agendas

Chris Matthews Wants to Censor Only Religious Voices

This is an issue that is in the news often these days, and it is not just from the rather outspoken Chris Matthews of MSNBC. But in this interchange he pushed a Catholic bishop quite hard on speaking out over abortion and the responsibility that Catholic politicians may have to their religion.

Is that a radical point of view, to think politicians who profess to be Catholic recognize certain core tenets of the Catholic Church? Look through this blog and you will find countless examples where the very men who founded this country thought it was important to have faith and to seek God's guidance. Many denominations can be a bit mixed or vague about some issues, and a politician of faith could see things one way or the other. But the Catholic Church is not at all vague on certain issues. Isn't it at least a fair conversation to discuss whether a Catholic politician who goes to Mass and takes communion could be chastised by church leaders if he or she goes completely against an absolute statement by the church?

Matthews seemed concerned that the church is telling politicians how to vote. But should the church not be a "special interest group" like any other? What if the NAACP speaks out about Sen. A's vote on an issue? What if a labor union criticizes Rep. B's vote on an issue? Should a labor union be allowed to tell Rep. B how to vote? If so, then is the church disallowed that opinion?

Read the interchange here:

MSNBC's Chris Matthews Brow-Beats Catholic Bishop Over Abortion



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/colleen-raezler/2009/11/24/msnbcs-chris-matthews-brow-beats-catholic-bishop-over-abortion

Political Speech in Pulpit OK if It Is Liberal

During the last election season some members of the clergy, in combination with some public issue groups, decided to push the envelope created by some government regulators and speak out about some moral/political issues, even from the pulpit. Regular readers of this blog know that I don't think we should limit religious leaders from speaking about moral issues that happen to be political - no matter whether they speak from a liberal side or a conservative side. But the IRS would threaten churches that did so by saying they would lose tax-exempt status. You may have seen stories in the mainstream media about ministers speaking out in the last election. You may have read that the ACLU and/or Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) raised complaints.

But have you seen stories or complaints lately about this issue? A large movement in a similar mode took place this past labor day, but I don't recall seeing stories on the nightly news, and I don't recall hearing "separation of church and state" thrown about.

The AFL/CIO unions sponsor events in houses of worship to bring their opinions around for discussion with congregation members. The AFL/CIO has traditionally been liberal in its policies and political support. Could that have something to do with the fact that no one seemed to mind this series of events? Where is the ACLU? Where is AU? Where is the mainstream media?

Conservative blogger Michael Malkin has a well-formed post about this, which also explains the union program in more detail.

Union politicking at the pulpit

The Mainstream Media Has Lost the Public Trust... Big Time

Regular readers of this blog know that I sometimes post on a secondary topic: media bias in favor of the Democrat/liberal stance. Now I am starting to wonder if that topic holds any interest for most people. Not that it isn't an interesting topic, but perhaps most people already assume that and don't need convincing.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a study in October, 2008 (just prior to the most recent Presidential election) with some interesting results. Apparently, at least at that point in time, the population could see the bias fairly clearly. The survey asked which, if any, candidate the readers thought the media wanted win. The conclusion was, "Voters overwhelmingly believe that the media wants Barack Obama to win the presidential election." Below is a chart of the results:



Read the whole story here.

And learn even more here:

Double Standard of Faith-Based Initiatives

During the last President's term, there was much consternation in the press about President Bush's faith-based initiatives. President Obama has continued the program virtually unchanged, but the media seems to have forgotten they ever had a problem with such a program. Pew Charitable Trusts did a study and found that there has been about seven times as much coverage as the program under President than there has been under President Obama. But far beyond that, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) also notes that, "the office has become a major hub of political outreach."

Now, I have posted before in this blog that I am not against an office of faith-based initiatives and I still feel that way. The reason I am posting about this is that the imbalance in the media has become more obvious. They should have as much need to fret now as they did in the last eight years. One could argue that it is less newsworthy now that it is not so new. Fair enough. But when a candidate talked about change; when his campaign was strongly supported by groups like AU, who are on a hair trigger about such things; and when The Nation magazine complains that this administration's rendition "is plagued by a lack of transparency and accountability and has seemingly already been exploited as a tool for rewarding religious constituencies with government jobs" -- when all that is true one would expect more of an uproar. One would be disappointed.

Read the whole article here:

Faith-Based Double Standards

Media Bias - Know How to Spot It

As I have mentioned before, part of the reason we don't understand the First Amendment as well as we should is related to bias and inaccuracies in the media. But with a little practice it is not hard to spot certain types of bias.

Common tactics are to carefully choose which of many truths you reveal in a story, or to choose where to run certain stories (on the front page or on page 18). For example, consider some recent coverage of politicians' woes.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is from Wyoming, and the University of Wyoming is preparing to name a building after him. However, not everyone is happy about that. A petition was circulated and has gather over 150 signatures in a year - out of 13,000 students. Despite that meager turnout, it warranted a pretty good headline from the Associated Press: Protest brews over Cheney center at Univ. of Wyo.

On another front, those who are opposed to the House Bill 1300 on health care have circulated a petition against the bill. That petition has 1.3 million signatures and was delivered to Congress today (I'm writing this on Sept. 9, 2009). Yet so far AP has not picked up this story as I scan their headlines, despite the fact that this is the largest such petition ever. I saw coverage on CNN about it this afternoon, but no mention was made of the number of signers. Don't you think that is an important fact? Normally a record-breaking event is noticed.

The Drudge Report is run by a conservative, but largely it just lists headlines from stories on current events. However, Matt Drudge can choose which headlines to run, or can even word the "teaser" himself. The following four lines were at the top of the site today:

• Obama scare: 'more will die' if we do nothing on health...
• 'Deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close'...
• System 'at breaking point'...
• 'Time for games has passed'...
• 'We have seen scare tactics'...

They are all from President Obama's speech on health care. Notice how well the first four go against the last one? Get his point?

So keep your eyes open. Look for the details, look for the balance, and don't depend on just one source! It's not even a little hard to find both conservative and liberal sources on the Internet!

Words Have Power - to Enlighten or Confuse

I have spoken up many times on this blog about media bias (overwhelmingly toward the left). I believe that slanted reporting, either due to ignorance or deliberate attempts to taint the coverage, is partly responsible for the general misunderstanding about "separation of church and state." Consider the statistics below. The results are shown for three search phrases in the Google News site. Each was search surrounded by quotes to eliminate other arrangements of the words or incomplete phrases in the results. One phrase is the commonly-used "separation..." metaphor, which is "assumed" to describe the First Amendment's statements on religion. Another phrase is "Establishment Clause" - the generally-used phrase used to describe the first of the two religion clauses in the First Amendment. The other phrase, "Establishment of Religion," is taken from the actual words of the Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." I purposely left out the words "Congress" and "law," which would make the results even more restricted for this phrase. But the essence of the meaning has to do with an establishment of religion.



These results are not totally under the control of news services. Many times they are quoting individuals or groups who use the particular language. But shouldn't full reporting of the First Amendment show its words more often than that? Couldn't the reporter/editor enlighten us with the words the founders wrote? I'm not sure all of our citizens are even learning that in school, much less remembering it later.

PBS - No Religion, But Partisanship Is OK

The nation's public broadcasting network, PBS, recently made an announcement that it would eliminate religious programming. It said it must do so to obey its own rules (from 1985, I believe), which said that programming must be non-sectarian. Note that the same rule says its programming must be non-partisan.

If they are truly striving to be a "neutral" organization, they must be every bit as non-partisan as they are non-sectarian. But even casual observers notice a clear lean to the left. I often tune in on Sunday evening, and several times I have heard intellectual discussions about religion, but much, much more often they are coming from a skeptic's point of view. For example, recently I was treated to a Sunday night discussion about how Jesus Christ could not be divine because he was wrong in saying that the (then) current generation would not pass before he returned to this world.

In an article in the Washington Post, the following quote was given as an example of left-wing commentary that seemed not to offend the powers-that-be at NPR. The snippet is from the Bill Moyers show:

"The entire federal government -- the Congress, the executive, the judiciary -- is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. That mandate includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives. It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich….And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture."

Now all this is not going to make much difference in religious content on television. PBS has no national programming and precious little local content that is sectarian. But is seems another example where we find censorship no so bad when it is blocking religious speech in America.

Read the whole Washington Post article here:

PBS's New Ban on Religious Programming

Media Bias - Covering the Scandals, Or Not

We hear a lot about the "Fairness" Doctrine, or similar limitations wrapped differently. The liberal complaint is that talk radio is dominated by conservatives. That's probably true as far as my observations can tell. But it's not a plot or monopolistic practices. For whatever reason, talk radio has been more successful among conservative audiences. The liberals tried hard to make Air America work. It had some heavy hitters, such as the newest Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken. But the shows did not do well, despite infusion of cash from liberal donors.

Of course, focusing on the talk radio realm ignores the fact that newspapers and the major networks are dominated by liberal thoughts. Look back at previous posts on this blog for more background, especially of the donation and voting tendencies of the press corps. So does the mainstream media have an agenda? It certainly appears so. And it shows a consistent hard lean to the left.

Consider the latest political scandal, which involves a Republican. It is getting tediously frequent coverage on the major networks. Similarly interesting scandals involving Democrats have been almost ignored. I have documented some of these below, thanks to data provided by Newsbusters (linked below also). The politicians are Rep. Charles Rangel (D), Rep. John Murtha (D), Rep. Pete Visclosky (D), Rep. James Moran (D), Ex.Rep. William Jefferson (D), and Gov. Mark Sanford (R). The graph below shows the number of segments the major TV networks devoted to each. The picture finishes my narration nicely.




Newsbusters: Heavy Coverage of Sanford’s Woes, But Where Are Democratic Scandals?

Media Bias - Find the Party

Many people don't dig very deep for their information. Much of what they believe comes from TV, and in political matters they rely on the major networks. I have said before that this has affected the perception of the so-called "separation of church and state."

The major networks had a field day recently when a scandal was discovered involving South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, a Republican. Their morning shows devoted a total of 18 segments to the affair. In every segment Sanford was identified as a Republican.

However, in earlier stories involving New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and his prostitute scandal, the networks identified him as a Democrat in 20% of the segments. Do you suppose that was just an oversight?

Perhaps it reflects a bias. It is known that the Washington Press Corps is about 85% Democrat. That might coincide with a tendency to report he news one way or the other. See the graphs below (click on the graphs image to see a larger version).



Morning Shows Devote Almost an Hour to Hyping Sanford Story

Media Bias - CBS & NY Times Distort Health Care Poll

Between June 12 and 16 the New York Times and CBS News did a poll showing the level of support for President Obama's health care plan. The results showed a very strong 72% support. That makes for a pretty good story, doesn't it?

But suppose support wasn't really that strong? And further suppose that your organizations also like the President's plan and want it to succeed? If you really wanted the poll to work out, what could you do? You could poll an unbalanced number of people who would tend to agree with Obama. And they did.

This poll sampled almost twice as many who voted for Obama as those who voted for McCain. That's one way to look for an imbalance. And the poll drastically undersampled Republicans and oversampled Independents based on voter registrations.

The charts are below. I think the pictures speak loudly. And you can read more detail on the CNS News Site

Media Bias - the Power of the Omiting Words

There are a lot of words in most news articles. But a news report obviously will choose excerpts from a speech for reporting purposes. The words chosen can make a big difference in the "slant" of the report.

Let's take one example from history and one from today. One historic quote that you can find on various atheist blogs is especially misleading. John Adams is quoted as saying, "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it." The whole quote is:

"Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!' But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in public company—I mean hell."

The meaning changes and you have more background when you see the whole quote.

Now consider a very recent quote by President Obama. He is no doubt sensitive to the resistance that the voters may have to a single-payer system (i.e. government system exclusive). The President gave a speech before the American Medical Association (AMA) about health care. In that speech he said these words:

"There Are Countries Where a Single-Payer System Works Pretty Well."

But the large news outlets apparently were not anxious to report those words. None used that sentence in their coverage. Three sources were the Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and the New York times. Each used the sentences before and after the quote above but skipped over that one revealing part. One used the ellipses (...), and the other two broke the quoted portion with a few editorial words, and then continued, skipping over the words above.

Read more detailed coverage here:

Obama: ‘There Are Countries Where a Single-Payer System Works Pretty Well’

Hurray! No More Griping About Religious Speech!

Do you remember the Presidency of George W. Bush? Many eyebrows were raised when people starting learning of his born-again faith during the campaign. When asked who his favorite philosopher was, he said it was Jesus Christ. And it was all downhill from there.

We heard of more shock and dismay when it was learned that President Bush actually held Bible studies daily with those of his staff who were so inclined (including - horrors - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld). And the President would sometimes dishearten folks even more by attending prayer breakfasts.

Opponents were not silent during those days. There were many articles, blog posts, etc. fretting that he was too religious. What about separation of church and state? And so on. Those thoughts sprung up from the very start of his first term.

Now that we are past six months of President Obama's administration, those who count such things have noted that Obama has actually invoked Jesus and Christ in high-profile public speeches, something President Bush never actually did. So naturally we must be ready for an onslaught of worried and complaining articles and posts (and tweets) about this, right? No so much. But what about the really liberal blogs? Surely they... Not so much. Actually, not at all.

Many feel that President Obama's use of religious words are superficial and for political gain. Is it a belief of that nature that would explain the silence of the left? Or is it simply a case of not wanting to complain about the guy you worked so hard to elect? Or is it something else? What do you think?

Read more here:
Barack Obama invokes Jesus more than George W. Bush

Media Bias - ABC and the White House

I have developed a second track for this blog called "Media Bias." Even though the thrust of the blog is primarily the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, I believe that the way the media presents that issue is slanted and contributes to furthering the misunderstanding the public has about the First Amendment.

Many eyebrows were raised this week when it was learned that ABC News was essentially turning over its programming on June 24 to the White House. The news will be anchored from within the White House, and there will be a "town hall" meeting from there discussing the President's health care plan. In my memory this is unprecedented. Even more interesting is the fact that ABC is not only refusing to broadcast an opposing (i.e. Republican) point of view, they will not even accept paid advertising that presents a different point of view.

Perhaps my readers can think back to the 8 years of President George W. Bush. Can anyone recall and of the three networks turning over so much broadcast to present the President's side of the issue? ABC says there will be both points of view represented at the town hall portion, but keep in mind the venue: the White House. That's a tremendous "home court advantage" for the President. How do you suppose the press would have reacted if President Bush has suggested debating Senator Kerry in 2004 from within the White House?

So what do we conclude? Could it be that ABC is biased on this issue? Some inference could be made from the following two charts. The first shows the positive vs. negative coverage ABC has given to the President's health plan. The second shows the balance of the political contributions made in the last election by ABC News staff.






The Chief of Staff of the Republican National Committee, Ken McKay, sent the following protest to ABC News. It did not sway ABC's position.

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay, Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

Perspective on the Office of President

The United States Constitution begins with the words,"We the people..."

We seem to have lost some respect for the high office of President. Perhaps it started with President Clinton's seeming lack of respect for the office itself. I'm not talking Monica-gate, but even the casual dress code, pizza in the Oval Office, etc. Perhaps it's because of the incredible amount of news available today, allowing us to see things we never would have seen in administrations a couple decades ago.

And we seem to be putting too much faith in the President. No President can solve all our problems. No President can fix a failing economy alone - it takes the help of Congress at the very least. No President can suddenly decide we should have world peace and achieve that goal.

President Calvin Coolidge said, "It is a great advantage to a president, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man." Good advice, indeed. I fear our current President may be at risk of taking himself too seriously. It is always important that, even as Leader of the Free World, he is an employee of the people of the United States.

Certainly I want a President to respect the "office" itself. In other words, he needs to remember that he is working for the people, those who voted for him, those who voted against him, and those who chose not to vote. He needs to show respect for the other office holders around him, no matter what party they belong to. He needs to remember that we don't have a king any more.

During the time I gifted to President Obama as the so-called Honeymoon Period, I was not "looking for trouble." Yet I was distracted by a couple incidents where his words were uncomfortable to my image of a President's attitude.

The White House has often been called the "people's house." That's certainly how I think of it. The words below (emphasis added) are different from that concept.

During the White House Cinco de Mayo festivities, President Obama referred to the way they "...do things at my house." (Meaning the White House)

Then in a different discussion he talked about entertainment available to the President: "Now, movies I've been doing OK [with] because it turns out we got this nice theater on the ground floor of my house …"

And consider ABC News. In their promo for the White House health care special they did, they used the phrase, "We're going into his house."

Also, the President chose to return a gift given to the USA by the United Kingdom. It was a bust of Winston Churchill. That act took the British by surprise, and they even suggested he want to just store it so it would be available to future administrations. He returned it anyway. Pardon me, but that bust was the people's, not his personal property.

Clearly the media has lost perspective on the office of President. We have well-known media figures talking about a thrill going up their leg when they see Obama; we hear a journalist say he is "like a god;" we see tough interviewers giving him mere silly questions or slam-dunk items.

We recently watched the "election" in Iran. As we got close to the election, and Iran's current leader seemed to be lagging, I heard several news outlets speculate that President Obama's speech in Cairo might just have made the difference to sway that election so the current leader would be ousted. That's unfair to any President. No matter how gifted a speaker he may be, it is unrealistically optimistic to think that a President in office only a few months could unravel the mess that exists in Iran.