Bright Hall

Non-Profit: Not Going To Save Newspapers

Tony Romm — 2009-03-25T02:17:00+00:00

Filed under: Advise & Dissent, American University

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates, and click here to read Matt Negrin's first post on non-profit newspapers.

Perhaps some journalists will head to work tomorrow (assuming they still have a job) rather relieved: A new bill, introduced on Tuesday by Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md, would allow struggling broadsides to declare themselves as "non-profit," pursuant to the U.S. Tax Code's guidelines for 501(c)(3) organizations.

In English: Newspapers could take the form of universities, as proposed on The New York Times' op-ed page in January, and similarly sustain their enterprises through endowments.

The analyses that have accompanied the news of Cardin's proposal have accurately attributed to the new business model one important downside: Newspapers who self-declare as "non-profit" cannot endorse political candidates for office, among other political activities. Unfortunately, that is hardly the only side effect of such a switch. Non-profit status, which has served some media outlets rather well, could actually prove quite harmful to newspapers in the long term. Here are two reasons why:

1. Investment incentives? -- If Zachary Seward's estimates are correct, it will require at least $114 billion to guarantee the short-term survival of every struggling American newspaper -- approximately one-seventh of what the United States conferred to homeowners in its recent stimulus package. Of course, the non-profit model proposes that private investors, not the federal government, would provide the funding to endow journalistic enterprise writ large.

But therein lies the problem.

Even if it's true that a cadre of news enthusiasts anticipate the opportunity to sustain the sagging "fourth estate," their philanthropy will hardly be even handed. The Times' tested college endowment analogy explains why: Despite a manifest concern for the future of higher education, philanthropists most commonly offer their coveted cash to colleges likely to produce notable successes and breakthroughs. In those academic settings, innovation underpins investment; investors have the greatest incentives to donate only to the best.

Applied to the news industry, however, it is hardly "the best" who require dire financial assistance. Both the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's collapse this year elucidate that it is the lack of innovation, not the incidence of it, contributing to the medium's decline. Therefore, if money flows in the direction of those most capable of evolving, small, local papers will still stand to suffer (a truth to which the American university system can also well attest). And that's the exact scenario Cardin designed his bill to reverse.

2. Whither political ads? -- The recession may diminish the ability of corporations to advertise their products, further compounding print media's financial dilemma, but one revenue source is always bound to be booming: national politics. Contrary to economic pressures at the time, The Washington Post reported in 2004 that news Web sites expected to earn over $1 billion in election advertisements that year -- money they, of course, intended to share with their print counterparts. And by 2008, even $1 billion seemed minuscule. That year, Politico alone (which has a moderately successful print edition) captured $146,000 in direct ad buys from the Obama campaign; WashingtonPost.com, similarly, raked in $100,000 over the same period. Although both estimates included neither Sen. John McCain's, R-Ariz., advertising figures -- the campaign did not file Web-itemized FEC reports -- nor the ads either site sold via third-party firms, the numbers still convey the importance of political advertisements to newspaper publishers.

Non-profit status would likely erase those net financial benefits. According to the IRS tax code, "Section 501(c)(3) organizations" -- newspapers, in this case -- "are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." That could include political ads, which could be construed as "indirect participation" in the election. However, the new business model would permit publishers to claim other advertisement revenue as "tax exempt." How much this would save newspapers -- and, additionally, how much it would cost the federal government -- still remains unclear.

Then again, maybe it is the mindset -- not the method -- that is flawed here. Conventional wisdom (and a cultural meme to boot) suggest that the demise of newspapers corresponds with a demise in understanding, knowledge and curiosity. Yet, that's hardly true. Formats determine the most effective means by which a message is transmitted, to be sure, but good journalism exists irrespective of its aesthetic. The "fourth estate" is thus likely to keep its title, regardless of whether its audience learns about the world from a dead tree or a flickering laptop screen. For that reason, even if Cardin's bill passes -- and it is unclear, at this stage, whether it will -- it is unlikely non-profit status will save the dying newspaper industry. Indeed, only ingenuity (and, perhaps, a better conceptualization of what "journalism" is) can do that.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Since When Do Politicians Care About Newspapers?

Matt Negrin — 2009-03-24T23:36:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Boston University, Advise & Dissent, Media, The Economy

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates, and click here to read Tony Romm's argument against nonprofit newspapers.

The difference between a newspaper and a press release from a senator's office is that the first usually contains the whole, objective truth, and the latter is full of spin and bias.

So it may be striking some political and media observers as odd that politicians have begun lining up to offer federal help to print journalism. The latest effort comes from Senator Benjamin Cardin, who on Tuesday introduced a bill that would allow newspapers to get a bunch of tax breaks if they work as nonprofits.

There is a catch, though -- they would be barred from political endorsements on their editorial pages.

Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland, said his effort is aimed at helping local papers, not big conglomerates that also dabble in TV and radio. Unprecedented numbers of newspapers big and small are on the verge of disappearing, and many have already declared bankruptcy or stopped printing -- like the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

The cause is a deadly cocktail that is part terrible economy and part old business model, which relies almost solely on advertisements, which have been steadily declining for years.

"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy."

The Tribune Co. -- which owns big state papers like the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun -- filed for bankruptcy last December. One of its papers, the Hartford Courant, shed 100 jobs last month, bringing the newsroom to a shadow of what it once was.

Other papers -- like the Baltimore Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle -- will likely stop publishing in mere days if a miracle doesn't arrive (like a rich buyer). Although to save the Chronicle and other Bay Area papers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has asked the Justice Department to consider allowing some of those publications to merge.

And at the beginning of January, a Connecticut lawmaker, Frank Nicastro, asked the state government to consider bailing out the local Bristol Press, a scrappy paper in danger of shuttering its printers.

Why would politicians -- who thrive on mastering control of their carefully crafted messages -- step up to the plate to help newspapers, which have a history of uncovering political secrets and at times bringing down elected officials?

"[Pelosi]'s been a big fan of newspapers her whole life," spokesman Brendan Daly said to the Chronicle about the California Democrat's letter to the attorney general. "She wants to ensure their survival, but is also very concerned about antitrust laws."

But not all of Washington's suits are backing dead-tree journalism. Colorado Rep. Jared Polis, a Democrat, earlier this month took partial credit for the Rocky's death and argued it was "mostly for the better."

Still, even extreme ideas like shoring up a federal bailout for newspapers isn't a totally new idea. But the problem lies in what makes newspapers unique -- their inherent objectivity and independence from government. The fourth estate operates as the most established watchdog of public office. If federal, taxpayer dollars were injected into its ink, could the press on one hand thank the government for the help but on the other hand continue to ask dogged questions of leaders?

Perhaps the debate is too idealist, if newspapers are on the way toward obsolescence as many suggest. And maybe the time has come for the industry to think of the bigger picture. Former Miami Herald editor Tom Fiedler, now my dean at Boston University's College of Communication, told Fox News, "I truly believe that no democracy can remain healthy without an equally healthy press. Thus it is in democracy's interest to support the press in the same sense that the human being doesn't hesitate to take medicine when his or her health is threatened."

Yet there are a lot of angry readers out there who would like nothing more than for newspapers to cease -- and the sooner the better -- despite not understanding the barriers between newsroom reporters and opinions on the editorial pages. As one commenter wrote on this very blog, "When the media changed from having a responsibility to having an agenda then the fourth estate lost its credibility."

One thing is for certain. Whether you agree with a newspaper's editorial positions or not, it is tough to refute that both local and national newspapers do serve a public good. You can whine all you want about how The Washington Post endorsed Barack Obama or how your local paper backed Sarah Palin. But to think that those papers don't spend every day trying to report what's happening in your community and the world is just naive.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

How The Press Can Remain Relevant Under Obama

Tony Romm — 2009-02-24T12:27:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, Advise & Dissent, American University

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates, and click here to read Matt Negrin's first post on Obama's media management style.

In March 2003, then-President George W. Bush did the unthinkable: He snubbed Helen Thomas.

Indeed, contrary to established White House ritual, whereby Thomas concluded presidential press conferences with her signature "Thank you, Mr. President," Slate editor-at-large Jack Shafer noted at this particular Spring presser that "Bush denied her that supporting role, ending the conference with his own sign off, 'Thank you for your questions,' and flushing a decades-old White House custom."

To a press corps that is as much a part of Washington culture as the presidents they cover, Bush's misstep was pure anathema; journalists could not conceive of a previous abomination of equal impudence.

Their manifest perplexity, however, was not a function of Bush's audacity; rather, it was a byproduct of their short collective memory. Before Bush brazenly brushed-off Thomas, Ronald Reagan renounced press conferences and jipped journalists of due access to the United States' intervention in Grenada. After the impeached Richard Nixon realized he could profit from perceivably facile foreign interviews, the lore of which now lives in Oscar infamy, Bill Clinton sat cozy with critical columnists on his airplanes.

Of course, these abuses of the "fourth estate" varied in effect, duration and warrant. But they nonetheless represented repeated attempts by presidents to manhandle press-government relations and control the scope and tone of national political reportage.

Is it any surprise, then, that the Obama administration has employed a similar strategy to cordon journalists in 2009? The new president's pre-determined question lists exhibit a striking resemblance to his immediate predecessor's surprise seating rearrangements or follow-up question bans, among other silencing tactics. Add to the brewing controversy Obama's over-reported tendency to ignore conservative-leaning reporters and outlets, and it is easy to understand why journalists at large are growing increasingly upset with the new administration.

That is, easy to see, but nonetheless unreasonable. The presidency and the press have always maintained a historically adversarial relationship, one that is contingent upon coexistence: the president depends on media to articulate policy, and reporters depend on presidents for information.That the two constantly struggle for control in that relationship is merely an inherent byproduct of political tradition and media evolution.

It is also why journalists should not expect anything more from the Obama administration. No matter how frequently he associates his presidency with a new "era of transparency," the executive branch's general need to rebuff external criticism and skepticism persists irrespective of which party or president controls the White House (and whatever rhetorical platitudes they offer voters on the path to get there). Openness is integral to democracy, -- and the journalists who claim to defend it -- to be sure. But an unfiltered relationship between the press and government is hardly as practical as some reporters would like to believe.

To stay relevant, journalists must adapt. From the news media's incremental lateralization -- the idea that news is now a many-to-many dialogue, not a one-to-many hierarchy -- has arisen the importance of truth gatekeeping, a task for which professional journalists have always been best suited. And in this occasionally cacophonous era of "social media" -- an area in which Obama's administration also possesses some advantages -- the value of news filters have increased exponentially.

As a result, Beltway journalists are still the most tactically and (surprisingly) financially equipped breed to build source networks, launch massive investigations and deliver enterprise reporting -- even if their poor short-term memories often cause them to forget this. Obama's hackneyed information strategy may complicate those tasks, make no mistake; but those "abuses" hardly constitute brash exceptions from an unfortunately historic -- yet democratically destructive -- political norm.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

How the President Manages Those Pesky Reporters

Matt Negrin — 2009-02-24T11:20:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, Boston University, Advise & Dissent, Media

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates.

Three days into his presidency, Barack Obama visited the press corps in the White House briefing room to introduce himself and trade a few pleasantries. What he didn't expect was that one of them would still be on the job.

One of Politico's top reporters, Jonathan Martin, approached Obama and asked why he was nominating a former lobbyist for a top defense post, when he had promised that no former lobbyists would work in his administration.

The president laughed it off. "Ahh, see," he said, "I came down here to visit. See, this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here."

The reporter tried again, repeating his question. Then Obama became agitated, placing his hand on Martin's shoulder and staring him down.

"All right, come on," the president glared. "We will be having a press conference, at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say 'hello' and introduce myself to you guys - that's all I was trying to do."

But unfortunately for Obama, making friends with the men and women who will cover his presidency isn't a dream that most of them share. White House reporters have a very specific job: to tell the public what Obama is doing, what he isn't doing and what he's hiding. There's nothing friendly about it.

Granted, the D.C. journalism club mingles with their political sources almost to a fault. The term "Washington insider" now applies not only to policymakers and analysts, but to reporters who have roamed the halls of the Capitol for most of their professions.

Yet for all his promises of fresh government transparency, Obama, just coming off his first full presidential month, has repeatedly bucked reporters and dodged questions, casting a bleak forecast for what may be a trying time for Washington bureaus seeking the truth.

At Obama's first presidential press conference, on February 9, MSNBC's Chuck Todd confronted the president on a paradox in his stimulus plan. Todd noted that Obama's plan encourages increased consumer spending, but asked him if taxpayers should save money and pay down debt before they start putting money back into the economy. In short: Should the American people spend or save?

The president offered a long-winded answer that coursed through a variety of talking points, none of which answered the question. Ultimately, Americans were left with no more clarity than they had before the press conference began.

Yet even before Obama took the helm, he had treated reporters in a few instances as a pesky annoyance rather than the fourth-estate check on his power. In mid-December, Chicago Tribune reporter John McCormick tried to ask the president-elect at a press conference why his chief of staff gave the embattled Illinois governor a list of names of potential Senate replacements, possibly acting illegally. He was abruptly cut off.

"John, John, let me, let me, let me just cut you off, 'cos I don't want you to waste your question," Obama interrupted.

The awkward scene was reminiscent of a press conference a few weeks prior, in which a reporter asked Obama why he chose Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state just months after mocking her foreign-policy claims. Obama replied, "This is fun for the press to try to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign. No, I understand. And you're having fun."

Throughout the 2008 campaign and for at least four decades, conservatives hounded the mainstream media for harboring what they call a "liberal bias," implying that the journalists covering elections and the government are not objective, as their job requires, but instead favor Democrats. This bias, they say, leads to more flattering coverage of liberals and "negative" stories of their opponents.

Proof of such a theory may be hard to find, although in several surveys, many polled reporters claim to align their views liberally. (Whether this seeps into their stories is another question entirely.) Yet if political journalists are so liberal, why have they been confronting Obama whenever they can about the blunders of his infantile presidency - like Rod Blagojevich, Tom Daschle and Judd Gregg, to name a few men who have given the president a growing headache? And why have reporters forced him to evade their questions and instead turn on the press, like John McCain and Sarah Palin repeatedly did in the summer and fall?

Notably absent from the news organizations allowed to ask questions at Obama's first press conference were The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages consistently run conservatively, as well as TIME and Newsweek magazines. And notably present was The Huffington Post, the liberal website that banners more Obama-friendly news than any respected news organization. The president's decision to call on HuffPo's blogger was seen by some as an indication of new media's rise in the digital age, while others - notably the Journal's conservative editorial board - took offense.

If Obama continues to portray his press corps as a menace, the tones of their stories will darken. For example, just an hour after Obama refused to answer that question from Martin, the Politico reporter in the media room, Politico fronted a story on its website with the headline, "Obama flashes irritation in press room."

But he can appease them in other ways. At the February press conference, CNN's Ed Henry probably caught Obama off guard by asking him if he would lift the ban on photographs of soldiers' coffins coming back from war. At the time, Obama avoided an answer, saying, "We are in the process of reviewing those policies in conversations with the Department of Defense, so I don't want to give you an answer now." Yet such a move would be incredibly popular among photojournalists and editors who want to visually show the human cost of war.

The president has other tools: He can restore more access to records available under the Freedom of Information Act that President Bush shrouded in secrecy. He can undo one of Bush's executive orders that barred the 1978 Presidential Records Act from making many documents public. He can reverse former Attorney General John Ashcroft's secrecy policy that agencies have the right to deny FOIA requests whenever they want, provided they have some sort of "legal basis."

Yet in the end, the press wants respect. Reporters want their questions answered - whether those answers fall in one political ideology or another. What they don't want is to be ridiculed, mocked or, maybe worst of all, ignored.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Beer in Vending Machines -- What Drinking Age?

Matt Negrin — 2009-02-21T00:03:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, International News, Boston University, Advise & Dissent

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates.

The idea behind lowering the U.S. drinking age to 18 is that it will let police focus on enforcing more serious crimes, while simultaneously removing the stigma of consuming alcohol among the underage. One consequence, however, could be that waves and waves of newly legal drinkers will endanger their lives and others by being careless.

But look around the world.

The United States is one of just a few countries with a drinking age as high as 21 years old. Some of the oldest countries in the world have lower drinking ages -- and higher expectations for youth.

Take Japan, where I've been studying for almost two months now. Next to every other soda and potato chip vending machine on the corner is a similar display for different brands of beer and cigarettes. The country's drinking age is officially 20, but practically it's anyone with 230 yen (about $2.50). There is very little police enforcement, and no laws forbidding public consumption, although it happens rarely. The reason is because there is a high moral and social expectation that most people will be responsible.

In France, the heart of the world's wine community, the legal age is 16, and the same goes for Germany, Indonesia, Denmark, Italy and a variety of African countries.

What about Greece, the Netherlands, Norway and New Zealand? No drinking age whatsoever, which is actually common in a lot of smaller countries and islands in Europe and Asia.

India is the only country that restricts alcohol in some areas to those who aren't at least 25, the highest drinking age in the world. In Pakistan, Iran and Libya, among others, alcohol is actually illegal.

Just a handful of other countries have the same requirement as the United States, at 21: Armenia, Egypt and some islands near Australia.

So why is the land of the free nearly alone in this category? Its immediate neighbors are less restrictive: Canada's age is 19, while Mexico's is 18, the most common around the world.

But most of these countries didn't set their ages in the teens for the same reason that many advocates want to in the United States, most notably the Amethyst Initiative, a group of college presidents who say lowering the drinking age to 18 will be more effective than simply imposing "abstinence" education. The university chiefs say they have their students' health in their best interests, and that lowering the drinking age will constructively change their Animal House behavior.

Obviously a chief concern is drunken driving. In the United States, more than 13,000 people died in drunk-driving accidents in 2006. That alarming figure has triggered interest groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving to call for greater enforcement, and also oppose the Amethyst plan.

Yet in France, where the drinking age is 16, there were only 1,241 alcohol-related deaths on the streets in 2007. In Canada (19 to drink), about 1,000 die because of drunken driving every year. In Japan, fewer than 500 people a year die in motor accidents involving alcohol, even given the country's strict DUI enforcement.

Would lowering the U.S. drinking age be productive as long as teenagers are responsible? And if so, how do communities and the authorities guarantee better alcohol education? It seems that most college students either know someone or know a friend of someone who died in a drunk-driving crash. Anecdotal evidence is almost more powerful than the figure of 13,000 people each year getting in fatal crashes.

It's unlikely that the drinking age will change anytime soon, despite the United States' high age requirement compared to the rest of the world. There's just too much at risk.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Don't Lower the Drinking Age

Joshua Sharp — 2009-02-20T20:36:00+00:00

Filed under: USC, News, Advise & Dissent, Microtrends on Campus

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates.

My colleague Megan Baker has a post up today proposing that the U.S. would be well-served by a lower age limit on alcohol consumption, in advance of a "60 Minutes" special airing Sunday which is sure to renew the national debate.

Critics of the current age limit are undoubtedly well-intentioned, but their focus is ill-advised. Lowering the age limit from 21 years of age to 18 would send precisely the wrong signal to young people across the country: that alcohol isn't as dangerous and serious a substance as has been suggested for the last twenty-five years, when the current limit was put into effect.

Rather than focusing energy on slightly modifying a somewhat arbitrary number, we should instead unite around effective education and prevention programs led by student ambassadors armed with the real facts. Too many alcohol education programs sound like they've been crafted by out-of-touch administrators instead of actual peers.

Students need to hear about the effects of alcohol from fellow classmates speaking in our common language. Relying on hyperbolic scare tactics and abstinence-only rhetoric ends the dialogue far too early.

"Haze" is a new documentary which strikes this important balance. Centered around the devastating, preventable death of a University of Colorado freshman, this gritty film explores the culture of binge drinking and guides viewers toward an effortless conclusion, reinforcing the stark realities of excessive alcohol consumption. (You can see the film here. It is difficult to watch, so viewer discretion is advised.)

At the start of my freshman year at USC, all incoming students had to complete a two-part online education course, AlcoholEDU. The first half of the program had to be completed before the start of classes, and the second half began much later in the semester. While AlcoholEDU was certainly more memorable and conversational in tone compared to others I've seen, there remains a powerful subculture at college in which binge drinking is socially acceptable.

Penetrating this subculture and making binge drinking "uncool" again has to be our top priority today on campuses across America. Instead of spending money on campaigns whose legislative proposals, if passed, would suggest that alcohol is now more acceptable than ever before, we should work together on making binge drinking more unacceptable than ever. Such a social stigma would have a far greater impact than any legal limit.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Why the Drinking Age Should be Lowered to 18

Megan Baker — 2009-02-20T16:15:00+00:00

Filed under: St. John Fisher College, News, Advise & Dissent

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 changed the drinking age from 18 to the now legal age of 21. Over the past couple of years, there have been debates as to whether this makes sense anymore (see my colleague Joshua Sharp's take here). This will also be the topic of discussion on 60 Minutes on Sunday, Feb. 22, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

One of the major subjects will be Gordie Bailey, a young man who unfortunately died of alcohol poisoning during a fraternity initiation in 2004 at The University of Colorado at Boulder.

Despite tragedies like this, there has been a notable push to change the drinking age back to 18.

One of the most well known (and most recent) movements is the Amethyst Initiative, which is made up of chancellors and presidents of universities and colleges across the United States. The Amethyst Initiative (which is aptly named as the word "amethyst" ii derived from a word in Ancient Greek meaning "not intoxicated") aims to educate youth on responsible drinking rather than pretend that underage drinking is a non-issue.

The initiative is actually being supported by a large number of college presidents and chancellors including President Richard Brodhead of Duke University, President James E. Wright of Dartmouth College and most notably President Emeritus John M. McCardell Jr. of Middlebury College.

In 2004, President Emeritus McCardell submitted an op-ed piece to the New York Times that brought this debate back to the forefront. In the piece he said that college students are drinking regardless of age and regardless of the law, and anybody who ignores this fact is making a huge mistake.

"To lawmakers: the 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law. It is astonishing that college students have thus far acquiesced in so egregious an abridgment of the age of majority. Unfortunately, this acquiescence has taken the form of binge drinking. Campuses have become, depending on the enthusiasm of local law enforcement, either arms of the law or havens from the law," McCardell said.

Since writing this piece, McCardell has been a big advocate of Choose Responsibility, a non-profit organization that is working to educate the public on the realities of underage drinking and the sensibility of lowering the drinking age to 18.As a college student, I can only agree with lowering the drinking age.

Ask any college student out there - binge drinking goes on no matter how old you are, no matter what laws exist, and heck, no matter what day of the week it is. To be completely honest with you, I easily got a fake ID when I got to college at the age of 18 and used it to get into bars until I turned 21 my junior year. While I never went to a store and purchased alcohol with it, I was never once turned down from a bar in Rochester, NY. I went out just about every weekend.

I knew that I could get a ticket for getting caught with someone else's license, but it didn't matter to me. Several of my friends have been ticketed for using a fake ID, but all it did was inconvenience them for a few days until they were able to find another one and get right back out to the bars. Saying that the drinking age is effective on curbing drinking on college campuses is like Bristol Palin telling us abstinence is the best way to avoid teen pregnancy.

Joelle Joseph, a former student at The University of Colorado at Boulder (where Gordie Bailey passed away) admitted that while the story of Bailey remains pervasive at the college, it has not curbed drinking.

"Since that incident, the school has been stricter about sororities and fraternities. They are not allowed to have rush events involving alcohol, but a lot of the fraternities still do," Joseph said.

Joseph explained that while the sorority system is under the branch of the school, the fraternity system is not so alcohol is still very much a part of rushing despite past incidents.

"Binge drinking is still a huge part of college life there. If you are going to visit there, be ready to party because any reason they can find to drink, they take it."

But beyond the fact that underage drinking goes on anyways, let's think about all of the other things 18-year-olds are allowed to do. Once you turn 18, you can vote in elections. You can go overseas and die for your country. You are also allowed to serve on a jury. There are also plenty of Americans out there under the age of 21 who are married and have children.

So, let's re-cap. As an 18-year-old, you are mature enough to partake in some of the most important tasks as an American citizen and have another life in your hands, but you are not mature enough to have a beer. Doesn't make much sense now, does it?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

4 Fictitious Characters Better Than Hillary for the Cabinet

Matt Negrin — 2008-11-18T18:54:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Featured Stories, Boston University, Advise & Dissent

There's one word to describe both Barack Obama's consideration of Hillary Clinton for secretary of state and flash dancers at the Luxor: gimmicky.

The president-elect is hard-pressed these days to find a good, diverse mix of people for his round table while being loyal to the many diverse groups that propelled his candidacy. Should he choose black people? Gay people? Labor supporters? College students playing Halo 3 all day?

Then there's ex-First Lady and glass-ceiling-skimmer Hillary Clinton, whom the world has decided would be a great secretary of state, presumably because of those dangerous sniper-fire-dodging missions to Bosnia. But is she the most qualified? I can think of a few people who carry more weight ... and less baggage.

1. Carmen Sandiego

Talk about street cred. Carmen Sandiego has more foreign-policy experience than Bill Richardson has facial hair. The international thief once stopped off in 15 countries in a single day after stealing a precious piece of artwork from the Louvre. She can name every country's capital, leader and probably the security codes for their garages.

Plus, she's practically impossible for the press to catch if she's ever in a bind. I once tried to chase her down for four hours, only to find myself dehydrated in Cairo with a red-herring clue I found in Addis Ababa.

Of course, with Sandiego comes her drooling entourage of bumbling henchmen. But there you save on Secret Service costs.

2. James Bond
Obviously. And I don't mean any of this gallivanting Daniel Craig business knocking out bad guys and betting millions of dollars at casinos. I'm talking classy, buy-you-a-drink-and-tell-me-your-secrets Roger Moore.

How many times does the president run into a situation in which the only way to stop nuclear meltdown is to dispatch a suave double-agent to a Western European country and assassinate an organized crime boss? Secretary of State Bond does this every day after breakfast.

In fact, I'd even consider him for Supreme Court justice, on the basis that his confirmation hearings would be a cinch.

3. Fred Thompson

My friends tell me Fred Thompson is in fact a real person; I find this hard to believe, because I've been watching lots of episodes of Law & Order recently, and he's all over them. And he's great - always has the perfect solution for every legal problem imaginable.

That's my point, though - the fictional Fred Thompson would be a much better secretary of state than the actual Fred Thompson, who got fewer votes in the Republican primary than Dennis Kucinich did in the Republican primary.

4. Droopy Dog

This one's kind of a dark-horse nominee. On the exterior, Droopy Dog seems lethargic, passive and uninteresting - not exactly qualities we've seen in secretaries of state, save for Henry Kissinger. But Droopy always outwitted his enemies and always came out on top.

Droopy's other strength comes in, well, his enormous strength. Granted, Hillary Clinton is a pretty ferocious negotiator - she's a fighter, and she doesn't quit. Well Droopy can lift 100 times his own body weight - he has thrown over his own head a villain, a bull and a dragon.

And at least he doesn't come with a quagmire of a husband.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Why "Joe the Plumber" Still Matters

Joshua Sharp — 2008-10-19T05:03:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, USC, Advise & Dissent

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates.

Joe the Plumber matters in this election. He has brought national attention to Obama's ludicrous tax policy, which would discourage investment in favor of mandating further redistribution of wealth. The top 50% of income-earners already pay 97% of all taxes. Telling people to "spread the wealth around" ignores what we've been doing for decades.

The national media has mostly given their favorite candidate a pass, despite this being a gaffe as potentially toxic as calling small-town Americans bitter, being proud of your country for the first time, or having a pastor who damns America. The media have instead targeted Joe the Plumber for asking a legitimate policy question.

He's not licensed. He owes back taxes. "Joe" isn't even his first name, he's actually Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher.

Joe is taking these blows in stride. Even though he won't be hurt personally by Obama's plan (the one with tax cuts for those who don't pay taxes), the principle still bothers this plumber. He told the Associated Press, "I hope someday I'll make ($250,000 a year). If you believed (Obama), I'd be receiving his tax cuts. But I don't look at it that way. He'd still be hurting others."

This is about as good as Joe's initial response:

"His answer actually scared me even more. .... He said he wants to distribute wealth. And I mean, I'm not trying to make statements here, but, I mean, that's kind of a socialist viewpoint. You know, I work for that. You know, it's my discretion who I want to give my money to, it's not the government decide that I make a little too much and so I need to share it with other people. I just -- that's not the American Dream."

All of us were annoyed and jealous at how many times Joe the Plumber was referenced during the debate. But his celebrity has provoked an honest discussion of tax policy in this country, and a lot of Americans are concerned by Obama's socialist-sounding rhetoric.

John McCain is wise to pile on.

In addition to political commentary, the author co-chairs USC Students for McCain. Views posted here are solely those of the author.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Why Can't Republicans Stop Lying?

Matt Negrin — 2008-09-06T12:22:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Boston University, Advise & Dissent, Media

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates.

And here I thought this election might be a little different.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain is airing an ad that claims Barack Obama wants "a tax increase for everyone earning more than $42,000 a year." Pretty serious stuff. But it's not true, and the campaign can't back it up with any credible facts whatsoever.

And in her first national appearance as the fabled maverick's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin told the country she opposed the famous "Bridge to Nowhere," a $400 million project widely ridiculed for wasteful spending. The only thing wrong with that is that she never backed away from taking the money until it became a clear symbol of pork-barrel spending that drew heated criticism from nearly everyone.

Of course, you would never know these things by reading the spun literature from conservatives, even some on this blog. (Perhaps Republican Joshua Sharp should have done more research and less complaining. Obama's claim that McCain voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time is true.)

Let's start with the first ad. McCain, the Arizona senator, claims in an ad that Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone making more than $42,000 a year. PolitiFact, a widely-lauded nonpartisan fact-checking source, explains that this claim is 100 percent false because it is based on budget resolutions in which Obama voted with Democrats to end Bush's tax cuts to fund programs. The tax cuts apply to the richest people in the country (who Bush courted), but reaches some making $42,000.

"But voting for a budget resolution is quite different from voting for a tax increase," PolitiFact says. "Budget resolutions are nonbinding, don't have the force of law and don't include precise details on taxes or spending. They're different from legislation that raises or lowers tax rates."

That statement starkly contradicts the McCain ad that blares: "The perks are amazing, like a tax increase for everyone earning more than $42,000 a year."

Now, Palin's claim about killing that Bridge to Nowhere nonsense. Palin did kill the plan in September 2007, nearly two years after she had lobbied for the $398 million check. Yet in her stump speeches as McCain's running mate, Sarah Barracuda has proudly proclaimed: "I told the Congress, 'thanks, but no thanks,' on that Bridge to Nowhere.'"

The bridge would have connected Ketchikan, a town of about 8,000 (like the one she was once a mayor of), to an island with just 50 residents, but an airport. It could already be reached by a five-minute ferry ride.

Yet when Palin ran for governor just less than two years ago, she pandered to the residents of Ketchikan and said she fully supported the bridge.

Here are the facts: When Palin killed the project, she had already used most of the money for other transportation projects in Alaska, and it was no longer practical to ask for what was now $329 million to complete the bridge.

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," she said. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."

Here are some other truths you'll probably enjoy reading about, courtesy of PolitiFact:

More on Taxes: McCain and Palin say they will keep taxes low while Obama wants to raise them. Half-true.

On Palin: McCain says she had "executive experience" in the PTA. False.

On Energy: Obama says McCain opposes higher standards for cars' efficiencies. False.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Yes, Sarah Palin!

Joshua Sharp — 2008-08-30T13:11:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Breaking News, USC, Advise & Dissent

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates.

My colleagues seem a bit ruffled by McCain's choice of Sarah Palin for VP. "Baffling," Megan Baker sighs. "[Biden] is going to crush her," a presumably overjoyed Matt Negrin squeals, before wondering if Alaska is part of the States. (Yes it is, Matt.)

But I couldn't be happier. Sarah Palin (pronounced PAY-lin) was the wild-card pick my Republican friends and I wanted McCain to make, but didn't know if he would or could.

In a state like Alaska, a cesspool of corruption, she took on members of her own party, fought to end the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," and resigned as the head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission to protest a corrupt state party chairman. The investigation which followed led to his resignation. She brings executive experience, energy expertise, and a record of reform that highlights McCain's own maverick track record.

The Senator who led an investigation of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has found a perfect match in Sarah Palin. And conservatives are electrified.

A friend attending the Republican National Convention told me excitedly, "Everyone here in Minneapolis is stoked for Palin!" James Dobson says he would pull that lever. A surge of energy Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty could never provide has struck conservatives, with a beauty-queen face to boot. No matter which ticket wins in November, history will be made, and the Republican Party will never be the same again.

Palin is a mother of five, including one who's headed to Iraq and another born with Down Syndrome. Her pro-life record isn't just rhetoric; it's her reality. She brings a compelling emotional narrative to a party often characterized as too insensitive.

This bold move is classic McCain -- high risk, high reward, and unconventional as hell.

Could Palin make a gaffe on the national stage? It's possible. But with the heft of experience McCain brings to the ticket, he just needs a practical, no-nonsense, anti-establishment running mate.

Enter, Sarah Palin.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama and Biden: BFFs for Life

Sam Guzik — 2008-08-24T10:23:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Washington University, Advise & Dissent, Veepstakes

On the same steps where Senator Barack Obama declared his candidacy 19 months ago, Obama introduced Delaware Senator Joseph Biden as his running mate on Saturday.

Biden - the former contender for the Democratic presidential nomination - was chosen 10 days ago while Obama was vacationing in Hawaii, according to The New York Times and was first made public through a text message to Obama supporters early Saturday morning.

Naysayers of the Biden choice were quick to highlight what they call a history of "insensitive, stupid, and counter-productive comments," his politics which are "more of the same," and a reputation that risks "alienating the working-class voters Obama so badly needs" (and those were just Bright Hall's own).

At the end of the day, though, Biden is the right choice to do what a vice president needs to do: bolster his running mate on policy issues without upstaging him and drawing away the spotlight.

Specifically, Biden has the foreign policy experience that Obama's detractors say he lacks - the experience to help with that 3:00 a.m. phone call. As the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he has become a respected voice about everything from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the Balkans conflict and the Global AIDS crisis.

Biden has an innovative plan, based on historical experiences, for dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions, one for Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, the so-called Biden Plan, which has been praised by Obama and other leading democrats.

If the ticket is elected in November, Biden - who has served six-terms as a senator - will have the skills and relationships to work with the Senate to ensure that Obama's legislative agenda is carried through just as Lyndon Johnson did for President Kennedy.

Biden also showed yesterday that he is willing to stand up to Senator McCain - to get his hands dirty in a way that Obama has been more reserved about doing - saying bluntly and forcefully: "And during those 18 months, I must tell you, frankly, I have been disappointed in my friend John McCain, who gave in to the right wing of his party and gave in to the Swift boat politics he once so deplored."

Whatever he has said in the past about Obama, Biden is now clear on one point: he is and will be a vocal supporter for the rest of the race.

Biden is a political survivor - he has made it through one botched presidential run in 1987, the charged 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings and his trademark off-the-cuff remarks that have raised flags in his past. This trait should help him coach Obama through a tougher than expected race.

For all those skills, Biden does not have the same looks or youth to take the public's eye off Obama (the way a candidate like Evan Bayh might have done). Biden will be the traditional vice presidential candidate, getting occasional moments to shine, but mostly slaving away at stump speeches around the nation.

Regardless of Biden's skills, though, the Obama campaign (now the Obama-Biden campaign, really) has its work cut out: Obama is floundering in some polls and falling behind in others; despite the lack of a clear message, McCain is undercutting Obama's talking points successfully.

At the end of the day, we won't know the true wisdom - or lack thereof - in Biden's selection until the results come in on election night. But, hopefully, at the very least, the selection will help to ensure that there is a dynamic and powerful race on both sides of the aisle.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Why Obama Made the Wrong Decision

BH Staff — 2008-08-23T19:21:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Featured Stories, National News, Advise & Dissent, Veepstakes

The text message has been sent! Obiden '08 is the Democratic ticket! Our Bright Hall staffers weigh in on the decision. Click here for our Veepstakes archive.

Megan Baker: Biden's scathing remarks about Obama back in the good 'ol primary days are going to come back and bite Obama's campaign in the, well, you know...In fact, McCain's camp has already released an ad campaign featuring Biden saying he does not think Obama is "ready" to be president and that he would be "honored to run with or against McCain." Ouch. Biden has the foreign policy experience to help out Obama, but he is also more of the same, which will kind of hurt Obama's message of change. I still think Bayh would have been a better choice with his experience in economics, but Biden isn't too bad of a choice in the end. At least he didn't pick Hillary, right?

Joshua Sharp: Biden is a gift that keeps on giving -- for Republicans. His track record of insensitive, stupid, and counter-productive comments is well-known. More importantly, though, this pick shows that even Obama wants "Experience" over "Change." No matter who is president, the next Administration will have to fill positions in the White House, and Obama has shown he's willing to pick the ultimate "Washington insider" -- a Senator spanning four decades -- over any agent of change. Obama likes to allege that John McCain has been in Washington too long. Joe Biden has been there a decade longer.

Matt Negrin: The folly of the Biden selection lies only in who Obama passed over as his running mate. It is admirable in choosing someone from a non-battleground state, enforcing the idea that the Delaware senator's policies count more than his territory and political convenience. However, Biden's ideas are moot if the pair lose sin November, especially if states like Virginia (Kaine), Indiana (Bayh) and New Mexico (Richardson) and other western states don't vote Democrat.

I wouldn't be so concerned about Biden's previous and so-called gaffes in which he said Obama isn't ready to lead, or that he's the first clean and articulate black presidential candidate. I'd be more worried about his arrogance alienating the working-class voters Obama so badly needs.

Finally, Obama could have done worse. He could have gone with Clinton.

See also: Our colleague Sam extolls the virtues of Barack's selection of Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Check Race-Baiting at the Door

Joshua Sharp — 2008-08-04T21:18:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, USC, Advise & Dissent, Media

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates.

My colleague Matt Negrin's most recent post, "No Blacks Allowed on McCain's Bus?" smacks of dishonesty and race-baiting. The artful use of omissions, carefully-placed suggestions, and irrelevant side stories would be impressive if it wasn't so irresponsible. I received his permission to critique and inform readers here.

First, Negrin says a black reporter, Stephen Price, "was singled out and asked to leave ... by the John McCain campaign." This statement is hugely misleading and not supported by the facts. It was a member of the security detail which accompanies the campaign who asked Price to leave; that's quite different than if, say, top adviser Steve Schmidt had made the request.

But beyond that, there's no proof race had anything to do with it:

"Jonathan Block does advance work for McCain's campaign. He was in Panama City on Friday but was not present when reporter Stephen Price was asked to move from a restricted area.

"'Access to the senator is tightly controlled,' Block said. 'I would first express regret that your reporter was moved, and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that race had nothing to do with it.'"

Later in the story:

"Block said the area where Price was standing was restricted to members of the traveling national press corps that accompanies McCain on the campaign trail.

'At the end of the day, your reporter was in the wrong place. I do not know why the other reporters were not moved. The rest of the local press should have been moved as well,' Block said."

Instead of just commenting on the story, Negrin baits readers with an outrageous headline ("No Blacks Allowed on McCain's Bus?"), and then "sets the scene" with a reference to the appalling racism and segregation faced by Rosa Parks and other black Americans more than a half-century ago.

While omitting most of Block's response, Negrin links to a 2004 op-ed alleging that police ("working for then-governor Jeb Bush," Negrin notes), suppressed voters. What is the purpose of this reference, and why mention Jeb Bush?

Negrin explains, "[This story] is different -- because this time, a half-black guy is running for president." He later adds, "But the good news is that black voters apparently don't even matter in this election," linking to a poll of low-income white workers which doesn't mention black voters once.

Sarcastic or otherwise, Negrin's purposely provocative language seriously clouds this debate. I'm so offended by the title of the piece, and the provocative racial language, that I'm less bothered Negrin wrote "McCain played the race card," while linking to my post, "Obama Plays the Race Card."

"Or maybe Barack Obama played the race card," Negrin then writes, almost as an afterthought.

Is it possible the security guard acted because of racism? Sure, it's possible. But to discuss this story as Negrin does, baiting readers and jumping to conclusions, is irresponsible and disappointing.

(Sheesh. And I was hoping to write about something other than the election.)

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

No Blacks Allowed on McCain's Bus?

Matt Negrin — 2008-08-04T14:08:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Boston University, Advise & Dissent, Media

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates.

Rosa Parks would be proud.

A black reporter for the Tallahassee Democrat was singled out and asked to leave the media area by the John McCain campaign in Panama City, Fla. on Friday. Stephen Price, a senior reporter for the Florida newspaper, was the only black person amid a handful of journalists and had already shown his media credentials to get in before security shooed him away.

Then another reporter asked why Price was being kicked out, and she too was booted.

So why all this fuss over a pit stop with the state's governor, Charlie Crist, and his fiancee aboard the bus? A McCain campaign worker, Jonathan Block, later said that access is "tightly controlled." Also, he said, "race had nothing to do with it."

Block also told the paper that the area Price was in was only for the national press, not the state press. But then why weren't the other state reporters asked to leave? "I do not know," he said.

Now, readers, don't call the American Civil Liberties Union and your civil-defense lawyers just yet. This isn't the same thing as in 2004, when Florida police working for then-governor Jeb Bush raided the homes of black voters getting out the vote in their communities.

No, this is different -- because this time, a half-black guy is running for president. And somewhat ironically, the incident comes the week after McCain played the race card. Or maybe Barack Obama played the race card. Somebody played the race card.

The bizarre event is also ironic given the timing of a report from the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, who says McCain is favoring local media over the national press corps.

But the good news is that black voters apparently don't even matter in this election -- the swing bloc is, that's right, white people. Specifically, poor white people. And probably more specifically, poor white people who may be a little bit racist but also might vote for a black man to make themselves feel better.

Update: Joshua Sharp tells me to check my race-baiting at the door.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

AP NEWS ALERT: We Just Got Interesting

Matt Negrin — 2008-07-21T19:25:00+00:00

Filed under: Boston University, Advise & Dissent, Media

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates.

Reading a news story is nothing like talking to the reporter who wrote it.

If you've ever spoken to a journalist, you know how true that is. Maybe, in conversation, the reporter reveals more information, or more background that comes from spending years on the same beat.

Or maybe he gives you his perspective -- and not an ill-researched, slanted opinion like the ones you find in super-partisan literature, or in the comments section at the bottom of blog posts like this. A reporter who spends a half-dozen months covering a presidential candidate sometimes knows more about that person than the candidate himself.

At the very least, reporters know much, much more than what they write in their stories, simply because a news hole is finite but knowledge is not.

One man who understands that principle is Ron Fournier, the new Washington bureau chief for the Associated Press, who has encouraged his staff to put themselves in their stories. This has ushered in ledes written in first-person, and a writing style that is more unconventional to the AP than the flat tax is to congressional Democrats.

That's a joke that wouldn't have flown at the bureau until Ron took over in May. Since then he has essentially asked his reporters to be more human. It's the reason I called him by his first name at the beginning of this paragraph, and the reason I used the word "I" three times in this sentence.

Yeah, the AP is going to be around forever. It will always be the first to the news, and it will always be the most accurate and fair news service. To suggest it is biased because its reporters have suddenly been told to use the right sides of their brains is to reveal limited knowledge of what bias is.

Bias suggests intent. The intent of an AP reporter is not the same as the intent of the propaganda distributors for the campaigns of Democrat Barack Obama, Republican John McCain or still-deciding Mitt Romney.

What my colleague probably meant, in accusing the AP of a flaming bias, is that the most reliable institution of information in the world is suddenly becoming more conversational, and more appealing to readers at a time when most Americans would rather watch Miss USA 2008 fall down than pick up a newspaper.

There is nothing wrong with veteran political reporter Beth Fouhy leading her story with, "I miss Hillary." You know why? Because she does. And if she didn't write that, she wouldn't be telling you the whole truth.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

AP Encourages Bias in News Stories

Joshua Sharp — 2008-07-21T12:18:00+00:00

Filed under: USC, Advise & Dissent, Media

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates.

It hasn't always been easy editing stories in the busy newsroom of the Daily Trojan, my university's student newspaper. As a young reporter, I often fought with my editors over whether a word was hyperbolic, an article's structure unfair, or whether a particular conclusion was misleading or inappropriate.

With that editing came other guidelines: Ask every side for comment. Place the most important content first. Never use anonymous sources, except in the rarest of circumstances. And never, ever, become involved with the story, by expressing opinion or otherwise.

This is why the AP's decline into the annals of New Journalism, a type of "activist journalism," is so disheartening. Recently-appointed Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier is leading a stylistic overhaul of the hallmark institution, once a beacon of fairness and objectivity, to create a more casual, subjective version which tramples over basic journalistic principles. Politico asks if Fournier is saving or destroying the AP, and I would have to say he is destroying it.

The trademark values of journalism, and by extension, the Associated Press, have always been based in an understanding that the power of the pen should be used responsibly. Especially prior to the blogosphere, most news organizations carefully maintained a reputation of objectivity, by bringing both sides of the story and remaining detached throughout.

But today, it's the Wild Wild West of New Journalism. This loose approach permits ledes like, "I miss Hillary," and "Obama is bordering on arrogance."

Also okay: "Hillary Rodham Clinton, a former first lady who hasn't driven a car or pumped gas in many years because of Secret Service restrictions, joined a blue-collar worker at a filling station Wednesday to illustrate how the high price of gasoline is squeezing consumers."

And: "The Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes. The economy is booming. Anybody who leaks a CIA agent's identity will be fired. Add another piece of White House rhetoric that doesn't match the public's view of reality: Help is on the way, Gulf Coast."

I understand the frustration that comes with not being able to write more openly. But when a person becomes a reporter, he or she sets aside the right to editorialize on the topics they're covering, because it's not their place.

It's not the AP's place to imitate Nancy Grace, Lou Dobbs or Keith Olbermann, successful though they may be. The role of a journalist has always been to inform, not opine or persuade, and the rigorous standards set in place by decades of precedent are meant to protect against the very bias advocacy journalism champions. Fournier's mentality lays out the red carpet for this bias.

We already have CNN's Jack Cafferty setting new lows for blending reporting and opinion with barely a blink. We don't need the Associated Press abandoning basic principles, too.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments