Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

Analysis:

This Associated Press story that ran in the Grand Rapids Press could be described as a typical horse-race story. What is the value of the story to potential voters? Is the story based on facts and information that could assist people in making an informed vote? The AP story tells readers that a local TV station was “tipped off” by an anonymous source that Senator Obama went to the home of former Presidential candidate John Edwards. The TV Station has footage taken from a helicopter of Obama leaving the Edwards’ home. How does this qualitfy as journalism?

The only source cited in the story is Bill Burton, an Obama spokesperson. The article goes on to say, “People close to the Edwardses, speaking privately, say they have been torn about whom to support.” How seriously should readers take the comments of anonymous sources? What does it mean “people close to the Edwardses?” Then it says that Edwards was highly critical of Clinton, “her policies, her ties to special interests and her character,” but the story offers no evidence or examples to support these claims. The story goes on to use comments from anonymous sources and then uses an excerpt froma speech Senator Obama gave in Wisconsin, even though we could find no evidence of these comments on Obama’s website. The story ends with a speculation that the Democratic Party is divided, but offers no real evidence to support such a claim.

Story:

Barack Obama sneaked down to North Carolina Sunday and met with former rival John Edwards, who has yet to make an endorsement in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Officials at North Carolina television station WTVD said they have video taken from a helicopter of Obama leaving Edwards’ home in Chapel Hill. A producer said the station was “tipped off” about the meeting, but said the source was confidential.

The Obama campaign confirmed the meeting. Although reporters normally travel everywhere with Obama, he left them behind to fly down in secret from his hometown.

“Senator Obama visited this morning with John and Elizabeth Edwards at their home in Chapel Hill to discuss the state of the campaign and the pressing issues facing American families,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. He wouldn’t comment on the possibility of an endorsement.

People close to the Edwardses, speaking privately, say they have been torn about whom to support. The former North Carolina senator is concerned that Obama may not be ready for the presidency and that his health care plan is inferior. But Edwards was highly critical of Clinton — her policies, her ties to special interests and her character — during his campaign, making it more difficult to support her now.

The couple has been impressed with Clinton, who has more effectively courted them since the 2004 vice presidential nominee dropped out, people who talk to the Edwardses say. Obama has been less attentive, they say, and some of those close to the Edwardses have been annoyed that Obama has continued to ridicule him for once saying his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others.

Still, since Edwards has left the race, Obama often praises him in public. This week he told Wisconsin voters that Edwards will “be a major voice in the Democratic party for years to come, and I want him involved and partnering with me in moving this country forward.”

None of the other former Democratic presidential candidates — Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Dennis Kucinich — have endorsed Obama or Clinton, reflecting the party’s split over who would be the best president.

Analysis:

This Associated Press story is based upon statements that Presidential candidate John McCain made during an interview that was taped for ABC’s “This Week.” McCain is the only source in the story and he makes several claims about the US economy and tax policies. The only issue that the reporter attempted to clarify was McCain’s position on a new new tax pledge that he had to defend in light of the position put forth by the “conservative Americans for Tax Reform.” However, the reporter provides no information or background on Americans for Tax Reform nor its founder Grover Norquist.

The AP reporter does not verify McCain’s claims about taxes by checking the candidate’s online positions nor his voting record while in the US Senate.

Story:

Republican John McCain says there will be no new taxes during his administration if he is elected president.

“No new taxes,” the likely GOP presidential nominee said during a taped interview broadcast Sunday.

McCain told ABC’s “This Week” that under no circumstances would he increase taxes, and added that he could “see an argument, if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates, and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates,” as well as giving people the ability to write off depreciation and eliminating the alternative minimum tax.

McCain was defending his support for an extension of tax cuts sought by President Bush, which McCain voted against. The Arizona senator now says allowing the tax breaks to expire would amount to an unacceptable tax increase.

McCain’s “no new taxes” statement marked a turnaround. Last September, he was forced to defend his refusal to sign a no-new tax pledge offered by the conservative Americans for Tax Reform.

“I stand on my record,” he said during a televised debate in Durham, N.H. “I don’t have to sign pledges.”

The leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination, McCain blamed out-of-control spending for a lack of enthusiasm among Republican voters.

“Spending restraint is why our base is not energized,” he said. “I think it’s very important that we send a signal to the American people we’re going to stop the earmark pork-barrel spending.”

McCain said the $35 billion worth of spending on special projects that Bush signed into law in the last two years amounts to a $1,000 tax credit for every child in America, and would have been better for the economy if spent that way.

McCain also said he was open to the idea of helping homeowners facing foreclosure, provided they were “legitimate borrowers” and not “engaged in speculation.”

Analysis:

This New York Times story that ran in the Grand Rapids Press is about the Senate vote on whether or not phone companies can legally be held accountable for their cooperation in the government program of monitoring phone calls. The GR Press version of the story is considerably shorter than the original New York Times version and leaves out the comments from legislators and a “former Justice Department intelligence lawyer who represents several telecommunication companies.” The story says that the vote was 68-29, but does not provide a break down along party lines. The article does mention some partisan positions by saying, “Republicans hailed the reworking of the surveillance law as essential to protecting national security, but some Democrats and many liberal advocacy groups saw the outcome as another example of the Democrats’ fears of being branded weak on terrorism.” Unfortunately, none of the “liberal advocacy groups” were identified.

The story does mention that GOP Presidential candidate John McCain did vote for this bill. Both Democratic Presidential candidates, Senator’s Obama and Clinton did not vote on the matter, but the story does mention “Obama did oppose immunity on a key earlier motion to end debate. Mrs. Clinton, campaigning in Texas, issued a statement saying she would have voted to oppose the final measure.” The story ends by saying, “AT&T and other major phone companies are facing some 40 lawsuits from customers who claim their actions were illegal,” although no details of these lawsuits are provided, nor whether or not this legislation will impact the outcome of those lawsuits. One other omission worth mentioning is the role that the TeleCom industry plays in both lobbying and campaign contributions in the this year’s election, information that might have some bearing on the Senate decision.

Story:

After more than a year of wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory on Tuesday by voting to broaden the government’s spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush’s program of eavesdropping without warrants.

One by one, the Senate rejected amendments that would have imposed greater civil liberties checks on the government’s surveillance powers. Finally, the Senate voted 68 to 29 to approve legislation that the White House had been pushing for months. Mr. Bush hailed the vote and urged the House to move quickly in following the Senate’s lead.

The outcome in the Senate amounted, in effect, to a broader proxy vote in support of Mr. Bush’s wiretapping program. The wide-ranging debate before the final vote presaged discussion that will play out this year in the presidential and Congressional elections on other issues testing the president’s wartime authority, including secret detentions, torture and Iraq war financing.

Republicans hailed the reworking of the surveillance law as essential to protecting national security, but some Democrats and many liberal advocacy groups saw the outcome as another example of the Democrats’ fears of being branded weak on terrorism.

“Some people around here get cold feet when threatened by the administration,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee and who had unsuccessfully pushed a much more restrictive set of surveillance measures.

Among the presidential contenders, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, voted in favor of the final measure, while the two Democrats, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, did not vote. Mr. Obama did oppose immunity on a key earlier motion to end debate. Mrs. Clinton, campaigning in Texas, issued a statement saying she would have voted to oppose the final measure.

The measure extends, for at least six years, many of the broad new surveillance powers that Congress hastily approved last August just before its summer recess. Intelligence officials said court rulings had left dangerous gaps in their ability to intercept terrorist communications.

The bill, which had the strong backing of the White House, allows the government to eavesdrop on large bundles of foreign-based communications on its own authority so long as Americans are not the targets.

The Senate plan also adds one provision considered critical by the White House: shielding phone companies from any legal liability for their roles in the eavesdropping program approved by Mr. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. The program allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda.

AT&T and other major phone companies are facing some 40 lawsuits from customers who claim their actions were illegal.

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

A secret intelligence court, which traditionally has issued individual warrants before wiretapping began, would review the procedures set up by the executive branch only after the fact to determine whether there were abuses involving Americans.

“This is a dramatic restructuring” of surveillance law, said Michael Sussmann, a former Justice Department intelligence lawyer who represents several telecommunication companies. “And the thing that’s so dramatic about this is that you’ve removed the court review. There may be some checks after the fact, but the administration is picking the targets.”

The Bush administration maintains that if the suits are allowed to continue in court, they could bankrupt the companies and discourage them from cooperating in future intelligence operations.

The House approved a surveillance bill in November that intentionally left out immunity for the phone companies, and leaders from the two chambers will now have to find a way to work out significant differences between their two bills.

Democratic opponents, led by Senators Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, argued that the plan effectively rewarded phone companies by providing them with legal insulation for actions that violated longstanding law and their own privacy obligations to their customers. But immunity supporters said the phone carriers acted out of patriotism after the Sept. 11 attacks in complying with what they believed in good faith was a legally binding order from the president.

“This, I believe, is the right way to go for the security of the nation,” said Senator John D. Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the intelligence committee. His support for the plan, after intense negotiations with the White House and his Republican colleagues, was considered critical to its passage but drew criticism from civil liberties groups because of $42,000 in contributions that Mr. Rockefeller received last year from AT&T and Verizon executives.

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican on the intelligence panel, said the bill struck the right balance between protecting the rights of Americans and protecting the country “from terrorism and other foreign threats.”

Democratic opponents, who six months ago vowed to undo the results of the August surveillance vote, said they were deeply disappointed by the defection of 19 Democrats who backed the bill.

Mr. Dodd, who spoke on the floor for more than 20 hours in recent weeks in an effort to stall the bill, said future generations would view the vote as a test of whether the country heeds “the rule of law or the rule of men.”

But with Democrats splintered, Mr. Dodd acknowledged that the national security argument had won the day. “Unfortunately, those who are advocating this notion that you have to give up liberties to be more secure are apparently prevailing,” he said. “They’re convincing people that we’re at risk either politically, or at risk as a nation.”

There was a measure of frustration in the voice of Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, as he told reporters during a break in the daylong debate, “Holding all the Democrats together on this, we’ve learned a long time ago, is not something that’s doable.”

Senate Republicans predict that they will be able to persuade the House to include immunity in the final bill, especially now that the White House has agreed to give House lawmakers access to internal documents on the wiretapping program. But House Democrats vowed Tuesday to continue opposing immunity.

Congress faces a Saturday deadline for extending the current law, but Democrats want to extend the deadline for two weeks to allow more time for talks. The White House has said it opposes a further extension.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats hope to put some pressure on Republicans on Wednesday over another security-related issue by bringing up an intelligence measure that would apply Army field manual prohibitions against torture to civilian agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency.

Republicans plan to try to eliminate that provision, a vote that Democrats say will force Republicans to declare whether they condone torture. Democrats also say it could show the gap between Mr. McCain, who has opposed torture, and the administration on the issue.

“We know how we would feel if a member of the armed services captured by the enemy were, for example, waterboarded,” Mr. Reid said. “So I think that we’re headed in the right direction, and I hope that we’ll get Republican support on this.”

Analysis:

This story appeared on the back page of the “Your Life” section of the Grand Rapids Press. One would think that the announcement of this “news partnership” between two area broadcasters would appear in the regional or business section of the Press, not right above the movie listings. The article reads much like a Media Release, with the announcement of the partnership up front, followed by bullet points for the “viewers and listeners,” and then comments from representatives from both stations.

Phil Tower, former WOOD radio staffer and now program consultant had some interesting things to say in the story. First, he says “it’s a good way to just further enhance each of our respective brands as places to find local news.” So, it’s about branding,not doing better local news. If the stations are “sharing” news resources an expected outcome is using fewer journalists since they will no doubt be streamlining news stories between themsleves. Tower then responds to the issue of whether or not this decision to collaborate has anything to do with recent job cuts at WOOD radio. “Whether it’s radio or television, everybody’s dealing with tightened budgets; that’s a reality of corporate America that’s been around for decades,” Tower said. Unfortunately for readers of the Press there are no other perspectives to question such a comment, but recent broadcast history can certainly tell us something about this move between the two broadcasters.

There is an excellant report done by Cornell University on the downsizing impact of Clear Channel’s radio ownership since the 1996 TeleCom Act was passed. Clear Channel is also on the verge of being bought out, so this could be a move in preparation to possible downsizing under the new owner. WOOD TV is also no stranger to downsizing of their staff. A few years ago the Battle Creek affiliate, WOTV, which had a full staff in Battle Creek was downsized so that what viewers got in Battle Creek is what viewers get in West Michigan. For the Grand Rapids Press to not seek out an independent voice on this issue does a disservice to the community. One could certainly ask the question, “does the partnership between WOOD TV 8 and the GR Press have any bearing on how the Press reports on the business affairs of WOOD radio?”

Story:

Two longtime West Michigan news organizations are reuniting after 36 years in an effort to provide news, weather and other coverage.

WOOD-TV (Channel 8) and Clear Channel’s Newsradio WOOD-AM (1300) are sharing resources, effective immediately, in a full-content partnership involving news, weather, sports and traffic.

Representatives of both stations said viewers and listeners will notice:

WOOD-TV reporters giving daily news updates on WOOD-AM.

WOOD-TV being incorporated onto woodradio.com, providing daily news feeds of top headlines as well as Storm Team 8 Doppler radar.

TV8 meteorologists providing expanded weather forecasts for WOOD-AM and all seven local Clear Channel stations.

Kevin Richards reporting real-time traffic conditions on both stations.

“All of our stations will be taking on whatever elements they want to use from WOOD-TV. And WOOD-TV will have access to our news-gathering sources and traffic sources,” said Tim Feagan, vice president and West Michigan marketing manager for Clear Channel.

“From my standpoint, having been in this marketplace before, (I) could never understand why WOOD-TV8 and WOOD radio, especially, didn’t have a full-content partnership. Certainly, we both have resources that the other could use to our advantage … and certainly do not see ourselves necessarily in a competitive battle.”

Grandwood Broadcasting owned the two organizations for 22 years. LIN TV now owns WOOD-TV, WOTV (Channel 4) and WXSP (Channel 15).

Diane Kniowski, president and general manager of WOOD, WOTV and WXSP, said she sees the partnership as a return to roots.

“What (the partnership) provides for us is our information and our message gets out to the public through their distribution,” Kniowski said. “And then what they give us in addition to more ears and listeners and a distribution point for our brand of news is they also give us a partnership for covering stories.”

A change in management helped facilitate the partnership, which had been in discussion for many years, Feagan and Kniowski said.

“The initial reason is Clear Channel has a new chief (Tim Feagan),” Kniowski said. “That’s the new element that opened that door. He’s the one that came to us and said, ‘Let’s do this.’

“I mean, we’ve always had a partnership, (but) it’s never been this expanded.”

Both outlets have been combining for decades due to a shared office or close proximity, said Phil Tower, WOOD-AM’s programming and operating consultant and new general manager of the Atlanta-based Allen Hunt Show.

“What it says about the two entities today, I think they realize that it’s a good way to just further enhance each of our respective brands as places to find local news,” Tower said.

Recent staff reductions at WOOD radio had nothing to do with the partnership, he said.

“Whether it’s radio or television, everybody’s dealing with tightened budgets; that’s a reality of corporate America that’s been around for decades,” Tower said.

Making new appearances — after laying dormant in closets at WOOD radio — is Woody the Woodpecker.

The mascot will frequent parades, but Kniowski said she is unsure if the image will return to letterheads, packaging or other promotions.

“The woodpecker is going to be making appearances everywhere with us to kind of bring the reminiscence of the brand back.”

Analysis:

This Associated Press story is typical of how the debates have been reported on so far. The headline is a good indication of what the GR Press considers news worthy, by calling it a “boxing match.” The third paragraph also continues this type of language by saying “John Edwards played the role of referee, but many of his calls went against Obama.” The rest of the article has quotres from only Clinton and Obama but none of their comments have anything to do with issues or policies. The reporter doesn’t even investigate the claims and comments made first by Senator Obama when he says, “There’s a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton, as well as her husband, that are not factually accurate.” First, there is no mention of what the “assertions” are and no verification of said assertions.

Senator Clinton then says,” Your record and what you say does matter. And when it comes to a lot of the issues that are important in this race, it is sometimes difficult to understand what Senator Obama has said, because as soon as he is confronted on it, he says that’s not what he meant.” Again, readers are left just wondering about what Senator Obama’s record is and what he has said about it since none of that information appears in the story. The three Democratic candidates did talk about issues, with the economy be the first addressed. In fact, the proposed tax-rebate by Bush was discussed and trade policies such as NAFTA and the recent Peru Free Trade Agreement. You can read an online transcript of the debate for more information.

Story:

Barack Obama wasn’t kidding when he said he would start speaking out more aggressively against the Clintons.

From his first answer at a highly acrimonious debate Monday night, the Illinois senator went after the first couple of Democratic politics with a tenacity he had not shown before in his campaign of hope. He drew quick return fire from Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is pointing her campaign toward Super Tuesday Feb. 5 when more than half the Democratic delegates are at stake.

John Edwards played the role of referee, but many of his calls went against Obama. That double-teaming with Clinton was a reflection of Obama’s strong standing in the South Carolina primary Saturday in which at least half of the voters are expected to be black. Obama needs to protect his standing with that group to win South Carolina and maintain his strong position against Clinton, who came back to defeat him in New Hampshire after a big Obama victory in Iowa.

He cannot afford to ignore the criticisms coming from the Clinton campaign _ most prominently and aggressively from the former president. Even though Bill Clinton is beloved by many black voters, Obama accused both Clintons of playing loose with the facts and being willing to do anything to get elected.

“There’s a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton, as well as her husband, that are not factually accurate,” Obama said. “And I think that part of what the people are looking for right now is somebody who’s going to solve problems and not resort to the same typical politics that we’ve seen in Washington.”

“Your record and what you say does matter,” Clinton retorted. “And when it comes to a lot of the issues that are important in this race, it is sometimes difficult to understand what Senator Obama has said, because as soon as he is confronted on it, he says that’s not what he meant.”

Their debate only intensified from there, with the two candidates shouting over one another, jabbing fingers in the air and glaring at one another while Edwards struggled to get a word in.

When Clinton criticized Obama for complimenting Republicans in a recent newspaper interview, Obama responded by defending his comments about Ronald Reagan. Clinton said she wasn’t talking about Reagan.

“Your husband did,” Obama said.

“Well, I’m here. He’s not,” she snapped.

“Well, I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes,” Obama complained.

Obama said while he was working on the streets of Chicago, helping workers whose jobs were shipped overseas, Clinton was “a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.”

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

Moments later the former first lady responded that she was fighting for workers while Obama was representing a now-indicted political patron “in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.”

He said her current opposition to a bankruptcy bill that she previously voted for meant voters can’t trust what she says. Clinton suggested Obama did the bidding of the insurance companies and refuses to take responsibility for his votes.

And on it went.

Clinton criticized Obama for voting “present” 130 times while he was in the Illinois state Senate, refusing to take a yes or no position on bills that would keep sex shops away from schools and limit the rights of victims of sexual abuse, among other things. Edwards chimed in to press Obama on the issue.

“What if I had just not shown up to vote on things that really mattered to this country?” Edwards said. “It would have been the careful and cautious thing to do, but I have a responsibility to take a position even when it has political consequences for me.”

“Don’t question, John, the fact that on issue after issue that is important to the American people, I haven’t simply followed, I have led,” Obama responded.

The second half of the debate was less personal, and Obama even allowed that former President Clinton had earned his enormous affinity in the black community when he was asked if Clinton deserved his title as the “first black president.”

“I have to say that, I would have to investigate more of Bill’s dancing abilities and some of this other stuff before I accurately judge whether he was in fact a brother,” Obama said.

“Well, I’m sure that can be arranged,” Clinton responded.

Analysis:

This story appears on the federally recognized holiday for the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The theme of the story is that the complexity of who Dr. King was is not well known. The Associated Press writer investigates this claim by speaking with several historians and university professors. The first source is Henry Louis Taylor Jr., at the University of Buffalo. The second source is Harvard Sitkoff, a professor of history at the University of New Hampshire, whom the article mentions is the author of a new book on King. Three other professors are mentioned, Richard Greenwald, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, and Glenn McNair. All of the sources provide brief comments on why they think King’s legacy has been forgotten.

The article does mention briefly that “King was working on anti-poverty and anti-war issues at the time of his death. He had spoken out against the Vietnam War and was in Memphis when he was killed in April 1968 in support of striking sanitation workers.” There are no details on what King’s position on poverty or the was in Vietnam were, even though his speeches and writings are readily available at sources like the Martin Luther King Jr. Research and Education Institute. A good example of his stance against the war in Vietnam was his sppech entitled Beyond Vietnam, where he calls the US government the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.

The article ends with some references to how King has become part of the 2008 Presidential Election because Obama could be the first Black President and Clinton supposedly made a comment that credited former President Johnson with making the Civil Rights Act a reality. For a good analysis of Clinton’s comment and how Obama compares to Dr. King, see a recent article by radical historian Paul Street.

Story:

Nearly 40 years after the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., some say his legacy is being frozen in a moment in time that ignores the full complexity of the man and his message.
“Everyone knows — even the smallest kid knows about Martin Luther King — can say his most famous moment was that ‘I have a dream’ speech,” said Henry Louis Taylor Jr., professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Buffalo. “No one can go further than one sentence. All we know is that this guy had a dream. We don’t know what that dream was.”

King was working on anti-poverty and anti-war issues at the time of his death. He had spoken out against the Vietnam War and was in Memphis when he was killed in April 1968 in support of striking sanitation workers.

King had come a long way from the crowds who cheered him at the 1963 March on Washington, when he was introduced as “the moral leader of our nation” — and when he pronounced “I have a dream” on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

By taking on issues outside segregation, he had lost the support of many newspapers and magazines, and his relationship with the White House had suffered, said Harvard Sitkoff, a professor of history at the University of New Hampshire who has written a recently published book on King.

“He was considered by many to be a pariah,” Sitkoff said.

But he took on issues of poverty and militarism because he considered them vital “to make equality something real and not just racial brotherhood but equality in fact,” Sitkoff said.

Scholarly study of King hasn’t translated into the popular perception of him and the civil rights movement, said Richard Greenwald, professor of history at Drew University.

“We’re living increasingly in a culture of top 10 lists, of celebrity biopics which simplify the past as entertainment or mythology,” he said. “We lose a view on what real leadership is by compressing him down to one window.”

That does a disservice to both King and society, said Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University.

By freezing him at that point, by putting him on a pedestal of perfection that doesn’t acknowledge his complex views, “it makes it impossible both for us to find new leaders and for us to aspire to leadership,” Harris-Lacewell said.

She believes it’s important for Americans in 2008 to remember how disliked King was before his death in April 1968.

“If we forget that, then it seems like the only people we can get behind must be popular,” Harris-Lacewell said. “Following King meant following the unpopular road, not the popular one.”

In becoming an icon, King’s legacy has been used by people all over the political spectrum, said Glenn McNair, associate professor of history at Kenyon College.

He’s been part of the 2008 presidential race, in which Barack Obama could be the country’s first black president. Obama has invoked King, and Sen. John Kerry endorsed Obama by saying “Martin Luther King said that the time is always right to do what is right.”

Not all the references have been received well. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton came under fire when she was quoted as saying King’s dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

King has “slipped into the realm of symbol that people use and manipulate for their own purposes,” McNair said.

Harris-Lacewell said that is something people need to push back against.

“It’s not OK to slip into flat memory of who Dr. King was, it does no justice to us and makes him to easy to appropriate,” she said. “Every time he gets appropriated, we have to come out and say that’s not OK. We do have the ability to speak back.”

Analysis:

This story is based upon a lecture by Michael Mandelbaum, who was the opening speaker at the annual Calvin College January Series. This very short article only includes a response to questions that came after the talk, according to the Press reporter and little information on Mandelbaum’s credentials. Accroding to the Calvin College online content “Mandelbaum writes a regular column for Newsday. His analyses of global challenges are informed by his experience with the U.S. government. He served in the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, working on national security issues. For 22 years he has served as Associate Director of the Aspen Institute Congressional Project, working with leaders of Congress and exposing them to the latest thinking on American foreign policy.” The Aspen Institute is made up of a who’s who list in the foreign policy field, with board of trustee members like Madaline Albright, Brent Scowcroft, William Perry and Dennis Ross.

There is no information or summary of what the speaker’s talk consisted of, but the title of his talk was “Democracy’s Good Name.” Mandelbaum is saying that one way to pressure undemocratic governments, especially those with oil wealthy, is to raise taxes to force the price up so that they will not make as much money. The speaker was referencing Iran and Venezuela as undemocratic governments, yet the Press reporter provides no information that would support the claims of the speaker and the only quote fromMandelbaum is “That would certainly shut up Mr. (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chavez.” The end of the article states that “The comments came in response to audience questions following his lecture, “Democracy’s Good Name,” which focused on increasing democratic governments in the world despite the failure of the U.S. to foster democracies abroad. However, there is nothing in the story that provides readers with what Mandelbaum means when he says that the US has failed to foster democracies abroad.

Story:

Foreign policy guru Michael Mandelbaum said he believes there’s one thing the U.S. government could do to help foster democracy among oil-rich governments with authoritarian tendencies: impose European-like, sky-high oil taxes.

The hike would lead to a decline in demand and in oil prices, leaving those leaders with less wealth to attain.

“That would certainly shut up Mr. (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chavez,” Mandelbaum told this year’s inaugural January Series lecture at Calvin College. Mandelbaum is professor of American foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and has written extensively about foreign policy in 10 books and is a columnist for the Long Island, N.Y., newspaper Newsday.

While economic liberty is essential for democracy, he said, leading a country rich in natural resources also can be tempting for leaders willing to stuff their own pockets.

Reducing oil revenues to countries such as Iran and Venezuela would help foster democracies there, he said.

The comments came in response to audience questions following his lecture, “Democracy’s Good Name,” which focused on increasing democratic governments in the world despite the failure of the U.S. to foster democracies abroad.

Analysis:

This story is based upon an interview done by a GR Press reporter with two different people who called themselves “Evangelical Christians.” Does interviewing just two people seem representative of all Evangelicals? The article mentions early on that Huckabee “Considered the longest of long shots a few months ago, the Baptist minister has rocketed up in the polls as Christian conservatives flocked his way.” There is no verification of which polls the Press article is talking about. Two sentences later it says, “Many analysts doubt his ability to sustain a campaign through the Feb. 5 “super primary” in which 23 states will hold contests,” but the article never referes to which analysts. The only analyst cited in the story is Bill Ballenger from Inside Michigan Politics.

The article then goes on to sum up the evangelical credentials of the GOP candidates. Issues that are mentioned include abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, and McCain’s military service. The reporter does not source any of the claims made about where candidates stand on these issues. For instance, the article says that Rudy Giuliani “supports abortion and gay rights,” but there is no mention of how Giuliani supported these as Mayor of New York. In fact, one could draw the opposite conclusion from Giuliani’s website. The article also fails to mention that a major Evangelical, Pat Robertson, has endorsed Giuliani. When looking online I could find evangelicals endorsing Mitt Romney, even though the two that are interviewed for the GR Press article don’t like Romney. The story mentions most of the GOP candidates, but only glosses over their position on issues. Is it clear from reading this story what Evangelicals consider to be core values? Does this story provide useful information for those wanting to make an informed vote?

Story:

Hudsonville resident Lambert Schut is like a lot of other West Michigan evangelical Republicans.

He wants a presidential candidate who fits his core beliefs on issues such as abortion and family values. But he also wants one who can win.

“We don’t really have a candidate that is standing out,” said Schut, 58, a member of Beaverdam Christian Reformed Church in Hudsonville.

“It’s going to be hard for the Republicans.”

With Michigan’s Jan. 15 GOP primary two weeks off, Schut leans toward former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — who could turn the GOP field upside down if he can pull an upset in Thursday’s Iowa caucuses.

Considered the longest of long shots a few months ago, the Baptist minister has rocketed up in the polls as Christian conservatives flocked his way.

But the Huckabee campaign is not well-funded, and he has virtually no organization in Michigan. He is just now getting the scrutiny of a top-tier candidate, leading to a stumble or two on foreign policy.

That leaves a field whose credentials still look shaky to a voting bloc that was critical to the 2000 and 2004 elections of President Bush. Which way Christian conservatives go will sway results not only in Michigan but could decide which party seizes the White House.

“They (Christian conservatives) are very important to whoever wins in Michigan,” said Lansing political analyst Bill Ballenger.

“It’s anybody’s ballgame at this point.”

The remaining major Republican candidates have their work cut out if they are to gain the faith of this key constituency.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is thrice married, carried on a messy public affair as mayor and supports abortion and gay rights. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney remains suspect because he backed abortion rights in his 2002 campaign for governor, also, perhaps, because of his Mormon faith. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson — once thought to be this constituency’s likely choice — has been criticized as uninspired in debates and wooden on the stump.

That could leave an unexpected path for Arizona Sen. John McCain. Given up for dead this summer, McCain has forged a comeback and could be poised to challenge Romney in New Hampshire.

If he pulls off another primary win here like his 2000 upset of Bush, McCain’s campaign could be off and running. A loss here could be crippling to Romney, who touts his Michigan roots and kicked off his campaign here.

But McCain has never been a favorite of evangelicals, despite a lengthy record opposing abortion and military service that includes 5 1/2 years captivity in North Vietnam.

He recently courted this group with a TV ad in which McCain recounted the time a guard at the POW camp where he was being held drew a cross in the dirt and he remembered “the true light of Christmas.”

In Michigan, McCain and Romney boast the deepest campaign organizations. Romney carries endorsements from U.S. Reps. Vernon Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, and Peter Hoekstra, R-Holland, and has begun airing a TV spot in Michigan that links him with his father, George Romney, who was Michigan governor from 1963 to 1969.

McCain boasts the backing of Republican National Committee members Chuck Yob and Holly Hughes and plans a Jan. 9 rally at Gerald R. Ford International Airport.

Sandwiched between Iowa and New Hampshire and the Feb. 5 multi-state slugfest, Michigan could have a lot to say about which Republican marches on.

Michigan’s Democratic primary is much less likely to have an impact on the nomination. Because the date is earlier than national party rules allow, Democratic officials last month voted to strip Michigan of its delegates to the national convention. State party leaders expect that to be reversed, but former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama still are boycotting the contest.

With no real race on the Democratic side, independents and perhaps some Democrats could be induced to cast a vote in the GOP primary. “The question is, how many Democrats cross over?” Ballenger said.

In the meantime, Republicans such as Beaverdam Christian Reformed Church member Mark Bussis and his wife, Debra, hold certain principles for which they will not compromise. The passion of these beliefs typifies many in this church, whose steeple rises in one of the most conservative corners in Ottawa County, arguably Michigan’s most conservative county.

“We would like to believe that the person voted into office is a person of strong convictions and faith, and would truly seek God’s will as they govern,” said Mark Bussis, a Hudsonville resident.

That leaves him leaning toward Huckabee. Giuliani, he says, is “too liberal” in his social principles. Romney “seems too slick.”

He calls Thompson “a possibility” but said he would not support McCain.

Things were much more settled the last two election cycles, when high turnout by Christian conservatives was pivotal to narrow wins by Bush in 2000 and 2004.

If disillusioned evangelicals sit this one out, the GOP is in trouble.

The Rev. Tyler Wagonmaker, pastor of Beaverdam Christian Reformed, wonders just how many of his parishioners will be engaged this time around.

A few months ago, Wagonmaker said: “None of the candidates excited me.”

He’s warming up to Huckabee. He’s “concerned” about McCain’s support for embryonic stem cell research but called him an “honorable man” that he could support.

But Giuliani and Romney?

Calling Giuliani’s support for abortion rights a “deal breaker,” Wagonmaker said he would probably not vote if he were the nominee.

As for Romney, “He seems like a man without a conscience. I simply can’t trust him.”

Analysis:

This Associated Press story is based upon Israel’s response to the killing of two Israelis who were hiking in the Weat Bank. The story frames much of the “ongoing conflict” between Israeli and the Palestinians in the wake of President Bush’s scheduled trip to the Middle East in a few days. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated “As long as the Palestinian Authority doesn’t take the necessary steps and act with the necessary vigor against terror organizations, Israel won’t be able to carry out any change that would expose it to any jeopardy or endanger Israel’s security.” The AP reporter doesn’t verify if the recent killings were done by any terrorist group as is suggested by the Israeli Prime Minister. Another Israeli spokesperson tries to connect the killing of these two Israelis to activities and operations by al-Qaida in the region. Again there is no verification of these claims. By not investigating these claims are readers more likely to assume that “terrorist organizations” are responsible? Even the headline uses the term militants as those responsible for acts of violence against Israel.

The response from the Palestinian negotiator focused more on the need for the two governments to continue peace talks. The Palestinian statement is straddled by comments aout the peace process and the conference that took place last month in the US. There is also a sentence in the middle of the story that says “The number of people killed in Israeli-Palestinian violence dropped dramatically in 2007, according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem.” This statement almost seems out of place and there is no connection to the rest of the article. The GR Press did add an information box with the data that is included at the end of the article, but provides no commentary or details about the B’Tselem human rights report. The report was released on December 31 and also included the following summary of human rights abuses:

“In 2007, there was an increase of 13 percent in the number of Palestinians held in administrative detention without trial, which averaged 830 people. Sixty-six staffed checkpoints and 459 physical roadblocks on average controlled movement inside the West Bank. There was little improvement in Palestinians’ freedom of movement, despite the promised easing of restrictions. Israeli settlement population grew by 4.5 percent (compared with 1.5 percent population growth inside Israel), a more moderate increase than the previous year. Israel continues the freeze policy on family unification, denying tens of thousands of Palestinians the right to a family life. However, in what was termed a one-time gesture, Israel approved family unification for some 3,500 Palestinian families. The number of houses demolished in East Jerusalem rose by 38 percent, to 69 homes. Palestinians continue to face severe discrimination in the allocation of water in the West Bank, causing serious hardship in the summer. The number of Palestinians killed in intra-Palestinian clashes was the highest throughout the intifada.”

Had any of this information been included in the story would readers have a different understanding of who is primarily responsible for the violence between Israelis and Palestinians?

Story:

Furious over the killing of two Israelis hiking in the West Bank, Israel’s prime minister said Sunday that no peace will come until Palestinians crack down on militants, a declaration that clouds a coming visit by President Bush.

To clear the way for Bush to push for progress, the two sides had just agreed to paper over another spat: Israel’s plan to build 307 new apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in east Jerusalem, the section claimed by the Palestinians.

But that was before the shooting of two off-duty Israeli soldiers Friday by Palestinian attackers, in a valley near the West Bank city of Hebron. There were two claims of responsibility: one from Hamas and Islamic Jihad; the other from Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, which has ties to Abbas’ Fatah movement.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, speaking before the weekly meeting of Israel’s Cabinet, denounced the hikers’ shooting deaths.

“As long as the Palestinian Authority doesn’t take the necessary steps and act with the necessary vigor against terror organizations, Israel won’t be able to carry out any change that would expose it to any jeopardy or endanger Israel’s security,” he said.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, however, saw the talks as an answer to violence. “To address this issue between Palestinians and Israelis, we need the resumption of a meaningful peace process,” Erekat said.

Israel’s demand for a crackdown on Palestinian militants derives from the internationally backed “road map” peace plan, the agreed basis for the talks.

The road map requires dismantling militant groups and Israel has long demanded that such a crackdown precede implementation of any peace accords.

The number of people killed in Israeli-Palestinian violence dropped dramatically in 2007, according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem.

Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had pledged to restart peace talks at Bush’s Mideast conference last month in Annapolis, Md., aiming for a peace agreement by the end of 2008. But periodic crises are already hampering the efforts.

There have been two meetings of negotiating teams and one Olmert-Abbas summit since the Annapolis conference. After debating Israeli settlement policy and Jerusalem construction, the two sides have agreed to start tackling the main issues—the status of Jerusalem, fate of Palestinian refugees and final borders, disputes that have stymied years of peace efforts.

Abed Rabbo said a Palestinian delegation would head to Washington this week for talks to prepare for Bush’s visit, set to begin Jan. 8. Bush is hoping for significant progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians as a mark of success for his foreign policy.

Death tolls
373: Number of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in 2007.
13: Number of Israelis killed by Palestinians in 2007.
Since September 2000: More than 4,500 Palestinians and 1,100 Israelis killed.

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

Yasser Abed Rabbo, an aide to Abbas, said Sunday the Palestinians decided to gloss over the dispute about Jerusalem construction to keep the Israelis from blaming them for a stalemate.

“We will not give the Israelis a pretext to claim that the peace process has failed due to the Palestinian boycott, not due to their settlement activities,” he told a meeting of West Bank intellectuals in Ramallah.

In keeping with the road map, the Palestinians demand a complete halt to construction in Israel’s West Bank settlements. Israel claims the right to build inside the settlements without expanding them and does not accept a building ban in Jerusalem.

The Friday killings brought a call from Israeli Cabinet Minister Eli Yishai to halt the peace talks altogether. Yishai’s hawkish Shas Party represents Orthodox Jews of Mideast origin.

While pursuing peace with Abbas’ government, Israel has stepped up military pressure on militants in the Gaza Strip.

On Sunday, Israeli troops opened fire militants planting explosives near the Israeli border in southern Gaza, the army said. Hamas said one member was killed.

But the number of deaths in Israel-Palestinians violence dropped dramatically overall in 2007, according to a report released Monday by the Israel-Human rights group B’Tselem.

Israeli forces killed 373 Palestinians this year, a 45 percent drop from the previous year, the group said. Palestinians killed 13 Israelis in the same period, the lowest number of Israeli fatalities since the renewed outbreak of fighting between the sides seven years ago. B’Tselem said its numbers covered the year until Dec. 29.

Israel also said it was taking the threats of Osama bin Laden seriously a day after the al-Qaida leader vowed to expand his terror group’s holy war to Israel.
Most of the 56-minute audiotape tape released Saturday dealt with Iraq, but bin Laden also offered an unusually direct attack on Israel, threatening “blood for blood, destruction for destruction.”

Olmert’s spokesman, Mark Regev, said al-Qaida operatives have been inching closer to Israel in recent years, and Israel is aware of the danger.

“Israel takes bin Laden’s threats seriously. We have seen al-Qaida activity to the north of Israel, in Lebanon, to the east of Israel, in Jordan, and to the south of Israel, in Sinai,” he said. “There is also evidence of al-Qaida activities in the Palestinian territories. As a result, we will be irresponsible not to take this rhetoric seriously.”

Palestinians deny that al-Qaida operatives operate in their territories.