Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

Analysis:

This article is based upon a recent debate between GOP candidates for President on the Spanish language cable station Univision. The article says in the second paragraph “The first Republican presidential forum to be conducted in Spanish took place at a time when opinion polls are showing Hispanic voters moving away from the party,” but there is no information in the story to verify that claim. This is the case in the Grand Rapids Press version of this Washington Post article, but the original version does say “Hispanic voters have shifted their allegiance away from Republicans, according to a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Center.” The very next sentence says “Some observers have blamed anti-Hispanic rhetoric within the GOP,” but never cite who the “some” are.

The GR Press version of the article only mentions three of the GOP candidates, Huckabee, Romney and Senator John McCain, but the original article mentions that most of the other GOP candidates were also part of the debate. The GR Press version of the article quotes Huckabee, Romney, and McCain. Do readers have a clearer understanding of their position on immigration based on these quotes? In the case of Senator McCain, the reporter could have investigated his voting record on immigration policy. No where in this article does the reporter provide any information on what the position of Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Paul, and Hunter. Tom Tancredo refused to participate in the debate. His website states the following on his boycott of the debate, “It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language. So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate?”

Story:

Contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, who have taken a tough stance on immigration issues affecting many Hispanics, were called upon Sunday night to defend their positions in front of viewers of the nation’s largest Spanish-language television network.

The first Republican presidential forum to be conducted in Spanish took place at a time when opinion polls are showing Hispanic voters moving away from the party. Some observers have blamed anti-Hispanic rhetoric within the GOP, especially comments regarding illegal immigration, for the disaffection.

Accordingly, the first half of the 90-minute forum, broadcast on Univision, focused on immigration-related issues — whether English should be the official language, whether illegal immigrants should be offered a path to citizenship, and what each candidate might do to calm an anti-Hispanic fervor.

The candidates sought to emphasize their enthusiasm for legal immigration as a source of the nation’s vitality, even as they underscored their strong stances against illegal immigration.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee cited such immigration as fanning the flames of anti-Hispanic bias. Calling such attitudes “un-American,” Huckabee added, “Quite frankly, when we fix the situation and make the border secure and people are here legally, a lot of the sentiment goes away.”

At the forum, held at the University of Miami, questions were asked in Spanish, translated for the candidates, who answered in English, and then translated into Spanish for the television audience.

The questions came from Univision news anchors Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas, who tried, with mixed success, to get the candidates to directly answer tough questions.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who earlier this month fired his landscaping company because it had hired undocumented workers, side-stepped a question about whether he reported the violation to immigration authorities.

Romney described the owner of the company as an “old friend” and added, “He did his best, but he made a mistake.” He went on to note that it is difficult for employers to verify immigration status.

Throughout the forum, the candidates repeatedly affirmed their respect for the role of Hispanics in society and highlighted their affiliations, if any, with them.

“We will be enriched by their music, their culture, their food. Hispanics will love this country and defend it,” Sen. John McCain of Arizona said in answer to a question about the future of Hispanics in the nation.

As a group, the candidates characterized Hispanic voters as natural constituents of the Republican Party.

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

“Hispanic Americans serve in the military. We salute them. Hispanic Americans are entrepreneurs and businesspeople. Hispanic Americans are family-oriented and people of faith,” Romney said.

Hispanic voters “know that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Thompson said.

In the Republican field, McCain stands alone for his support of controversial immigration legislation that would have given illegal workers a pathway to legal residency. The proposal has been derided by other candidates as “amnesty.”

“We have to address this issue with compassion and love because these are human beings,” McCain said. “Of course there can’t be amnesty.”

Noting the role of Hispanic soldiers in Vietnam and Iraq, McCain said, “Some of their parents came here illegally.”

Also taking part in Sunday’s forum were former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Rep. Duncan Hunter of California. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado skipped the debate.

In a similar forum for Democratic candidates held here in September, all eight participants supported changes that would allow illegal immigrants now in the country to stay and eventually receive U.S. citizenship. All also criticized anti-immigrant attitudes, and nearly all committed to overhauling immigration laws in their first year in office.

As the Democrats and Republicans have divided over how to deal with the millions of undocumented workers in the United States, Hispanic voters have shifted their allegiance away from Republicans, according to a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Center.

About 57 percent of Hispanic registered voters now call themselves Democrats or lean toward the Democrats; 23 percent favor Republicans, according to the study, a 34 percentage point gap. Just last year, the gap was only 21 points, the report said.

Early on in the debate, Ramos and Salinas asked whether the candidates risked alienating conservatives by even appearing on Univision.

“The far greater risk is if we didn’t,” Huckabee said.

Analysis:

This Associated Press article that ran in the Grand Rapids Press is based on the recent meeting of the United Nations Climate Conference in Bali, Indonesia. As you can see, most of the original version of the article was excluded from the GR Press version. The GR Press version only includes comments from a US State Department spokesperson, but the original version had comments from a representative from Micronesia and the UN Climate Chief. The article does mention that the Bush administration has initiated a different set of meetings with “16 other major economies” but there is no mention of how that process will work or if there is any accountability to the global community.

The article also states that “Environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of using those parallel talks to subvert the long-running U.N. negotiations and the spirit of the binding Kyoto Protocol, which requires 36 industrial nations to make relatively modest cuts in “greenhouse” gases.” However, no environmental groups are mentioned by name, nor are any of the details of what the Kyoto Protocol requires of countries. The last sentence states that there were some demonstrations worldwide, but only mentions one in London with “skiers, fire-eaters and an ice sculptor.” There is no mention of other protests or positions that these groups were taking against the current round of talks on Global Warming. A good example of one group protesting was the Gloabl Forest Coalition.

Story:

The United States will come up with its own plan to cut global-warming gases by mid-2008, and won’t commit to mandatory caps at the U.N. climate conference here, the chief U.S. negotiator said Saturday.

“We’re not ready to do that here,” said Harlan Watson, the State Department’s senior climate negotiator and special representative. “We’re working on that, what our domestic contribution would be, and again we expect that sometime before the end of the Major Economies process.”

That process of U.S.-led talks was inaugurated last September by President Bush, who invited 16 other “major economies” such as the Europeans, Japan, China and India, to Washington to discuss a future international program of cutbacks in carbon dioxide and other emissions blamed for global warming.

Environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of using those parallel talks to subvert the long-running U.N. negotiations and the spirit of the binding Kyoto Protocol, which requires 36 industrial nations to make relatively modest cuts in “greenhouse” gases.

The United States is the only major industrial country to have rejected Kyoto and its obligatory targets.

In London, skiers, fire-eaters and an ice sculptor joined in worldwide demonstrations Saturday to draw attention to climate change and push governments to take stronger action.

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

The U.S. leadership instead favors a more voluntary approach, in which individual nations determine what they can contribute to a global effort, without taking on obligations under the U.N. climate treaty.

Watson’s comments reaffirmed that the Bush administration views its own talks as the main event in discussions over climate change.

The European Union, on the other hand, has committed to binding emissions reductions of 20 percent by 2020. Midway through the two-week Bali conference, many of the more than 180 assembled nations were demanding such firm commitments from Washington as well, as the world talks about a framework to follow Kyoto when it expires in 2012.

“It would be useful for Annex I, non-Kyoto countries” — code for the U.S. — “to indicate what level of effort” they’ll make, said M.J. Mace, a delegate from the Pacific nation of Micronesia, whose islands are threatened by seas rising from global warming.

The conference’s main negotiating text, tabled for debate on Saturday and obtained by The Associated Press, mentions targets, but in a nonbinding way.

Its preamble notes the widely accepted view that industrial nations’ emissions should be cut by 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to help head off climate change’s worst impacts — expanding oceans, spreading droughts, dying species, extreme weather and other effects.

Even mentioning such numbers in the conference’s key document may set off renewed debate next week, when environment ministers and other ranking leaders join the talks, which are meant to launch a two-year negotiation for a post-Kyoto deal.

Delegates here made progress in the first week on such secondary matters as establishing a system for compensating tropical forest nations for reducing deforestation, a major source of carbon emissions. They’re expected to approve work on measuring forest cover, emissions and related factors.

“I’ve observed a strong willingness on the part of countries to get a successful outcome in Bali,” the U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, told reporters in assessing the first week.

American negotiator Watson said the Bush administration is planning probably four more meetings in the Major Economies series before a “leaders’ meeting” in mid-2008 presents a final outcome.

Asked how the U.S.-organized process would complement the U.N. treaty talks, he said, “We think if we could get agreement among these 17 economies, or a good portion of them anyway, that would certainly contribute to that discussion in terms of any sort of interim goals or targets that might be discussed.”

But he acknowledged it remained unclear how the two “tracks” would merge.

For one thing, there’s no guarantee the Europeans, for example, would fully join in what is likely to be a voluntary emissions regime. And as Bush’s White House term nears its end, the rest of the world may be looking instead for a fresh start under a new president less resistant to binding international cooperation. Democratic and some Republican presidential hopefuls favor mandatory reductions.

The U.N.’s De Boer, in fact, implied that the world ought to wait before debating binding targets.

“I really hope that that is a discussion that will be taken up toward the end of that two years rather than here,” he told reporters.

The talks to follow Bali would also attempt to draw China, Brazil and other fast-developing economies — all exempted from binding reductions under Kyoto — into some arrangement whereby they would slow growth in their emissions.

Analysis:

This Associated Press article is based op the recent House of Representatives vote on legislation called the Energy and Independence Security Act. The article mentions several of the bill’s provision, particularly the requirement of energy companies to produce a percentage of renewable energy, an end in some tax breaks to oil companies, and new fuel efficiency standards. There are numerous other aspects of the legislation that were not included in this article. The story begins by say, “It surprised even some environmentalists,” but never mentions which environmentalists or environmental groups who were “surprised.” Therefore, how does the reporter know that environmentalists are surprised? Several environmental groups did take a clear position on this issue, like the Friends of the Earth, yet no environmental perspectives are provided.

This AP article spends a great deal of time discussing how the White House may veto the legislation and even quotes a White House spokesperson who says “Their proposal would raise taxes and increase energy prices for Americans.” The reporter provides no verification of this claim or any indication that the White House Press Secretary was questioned on the matter. Other sources cited in the story are Rep. Pelosi & Boehner and Senators Reid and McConnell. There was mention that Michigan Representative John Dingell worked out a deal with Rep. Pelosi, since Dingell is “a longtime staunch protector of the auto industry.” The article doesn’t mention how much money the auto industry has given Dingell in campaign contributions, nor does the article address the amount of money that oil companies have given to candidates and elected officials over the years.

Story:

It surprised even some environmentalists when a $21 billion tax package, much of it new taxes on oil companies, emerged in the House Democrats’ energy bill. A requirement on utilities to use renewable fuels was expected to be abandoned as well.

They could cause problems in the Senate, prompt a presidential veto and jeopardize a historic push for the first major increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years, some lawmakers worried.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pressed ahead with the entire package, taxes and all. “We have to pay for the bill,” she told reporters.

And for the time being, Pelosi’s instincts appeared to have been rewarded.

The House passed the energy legislation by a solid — though not veto-proof — 235-181 margin, sending it to the Senate for likely action next week.

“I don’t think anybody can predict what will happen in the Senate,” Pelosi conceded after the vote, but added confidently – and with a hint of possible further compromise: “We will have a bill.”

The House-passed legislation would roll back $13.5 billion in tax breaks enjoyed by the five largest U.S. oil companies with the money to be used for tax incentives for development of renewable energy sources like ethanol from grasses and wood chips and biodiesel and for energy efficiency programs and conservation.

It also would impose new efficiency standards for appliances, building construction and require expansion of the use of ethanol sevenfold to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 with 21 billion gallons coming from cellulosic feedstock such as wood chips and prairie grass.

But the centerpiece of the bill is a requirement to boost automobile fuel economy by 40 percent to an industry average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the first such action since 1975, when Congress first enacted the federal auto fuel economy requirements.

Pelosi garnered enough support to assure passage in the House by working out a deal with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime staunch protector of the auto industry. Dingell more than a year ago warned auto executives the tide had turned on fuel economy and it was inevitable that stricter requirements were in the offing. He got some concessions to help the industry in return for his support of the bill.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino called the House-passed bill “misguided” and unacceptable, and said President Bush would veto it if the bill is not changed.

“Their proposal would raise taxes and increase energy prices for Americans. That is a misguided approach and if it made it to the president’s desk, he would veto it,” said Perino.
The White House in an earlier statement called the proposed taxes on the oil companies unfairly “punitive” to a single industry and said the requirement for electric utilities nationwide to use renewable fuels such as wind and solar to generate 15 percent of their electricity would be harmful to some regions where there is little wind or solar energy potential, resulting in higher electricity costs.

But Democrats characterized the legislation as “a new direction” in U.S. energy policy away from dependence on fossil fuels.

“We will send our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East,” declared Pelosi. “The point of this is, are we about the past or are we about the future.”

But Republicans said the actions amount to government mandates that would lead to higher energy prices while doing little to spur production of more domestic oil or natural gas – fuels they say will remain essential for decades to come.

“There’s nothing in here that’s going to lower gas prices in America … nothing that is going to help American families deal with heating costs this winter … nothing to increase production,” complained Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said an energy bill could pass the Senate, but without the “twin millstones of tax hikes and utility bill increases around its neck.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters he will move quickly to take up the bill. When asked about its prospects, Reid said, “I don’t know. We’re going to try very hard.”

Analysis:

This Washington Post story ran in the Grand Rapids Press as 2 separate stories on Iraq. The story begins by focusing on the Iraqi refugee crisis and quotes an Iraqi official who says that Iraq can not handle a hug influx of refugees at the present. The way the Press restructured the article in then states that the Iraqi government just signed an agreement that “called a final one-year extension of authorization for U.S.-led forces to stay in Iraq.” The story then jumps to an announcement that there was a US soldier killed, then back to a program “to assist about 30,000 refugees and internally displaced people” in Baghdad that was being led by the United nations.

The second story in the Press that was part of the original single Washington Post story is about a new video message from one of the insurgent groups in Iraq, the Shiite Islamic Resistance. The story states that they are holding hostage a man with a British accent and will “kill the captive in 10 days unless British troops withdrew from Iraq, apologized to the Iraqi people and ended the presence of “fake companies and organizations” that “devour the body of Iraq and Iraqis.”

Why did the Press break this Washington Post article into two separate stories? In the section about the refugees not much information is provided as to the current situation of Iraqi refugees that the United Nations Refugee Agency has been monitoring. Would it have been useful for readers to have information about the scope of the Iraqi refugee crisis, the numbers and where they are located? The story sources an Iraqi official who says that they can not handle Iraqis who want to return, but what the article doesn’t report is that despite the Iraq governments unwillingness to accept returnees, Iraqis are coming back by the hundreds, especially from Syria.

Then there is the section about the new Iraqi insurgent group who has taken a hostage and sent a new video message. The article does quote the insurgent groups’ motives for the hostage taking, but there is no additional information that would provide some context for this action. In many ways this story, even though begins with the focus being Iraqi refugees, quickly shifts to and only personalizes a US soldier killed and a British hostage. This kind of news reporting is continuing what unembedded reporter in Iraq, Dahr Jamal, has noted in a recent column that “Iraq Has Only Militants, No Civilians.” Why is it that the Iraqi refugees, which are civilians, not humanized in this news story, but a British hostage is?

Story:

The Iraqi government on Tuesday urged some refugees not to go back to their homes yet, saying the country was unprepared to accommodate their return.

“The reality is that we cannot handle a huge influx of people,” Abdul Samad al-Sultan, the minister of displacement and migration, said at a news conference to announce a joint plan with the United Nations to help returning Iraqis. “The refugees in some countries, we ask them to wait.”

The acknowledgment came as the Iraqi cabinet asked the United Nations for what the government called a final one-year extension of authorization for U.S.-led forces to stay in Iraq. But in a newly released video, insurgents threatened to kill a British hostage unless the United Kingdom withdrew its forces.

The U.S. military announced that a U.S. soldier was killed by an explosion Monday in Anbar province. Two other service members were reported wounded.

Meanwhile in Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone, Iraqi and U.N. officials launched a program to assist about 30,000 refugees and internally displaced people, or IDPs, by giving them support packages and repair kits. The aid will be delivered by the United Nations, which will support the program with an initial contribution of $11 million.

The world body estimates that 40,000 refugees and 10,000 internally displaced people have returned to their homes, primarily in the Baghdad area. But it said it was “not encouraging or promoting the return of refugees or IDPs.”

Second Story in the Grand Rapids Press

In the video, aired Tuesday on al-Arabiya television, masked men holding assault rifles flanked one of five British citizens kidnapped from the Finance Ministry in Baghdad in May.

“Hello, my name is Jason and today is the 18th of November,” said a man with a British accent who was seated on the ground wearing a tan jumpsuit. “I have been here now held for 173 days and I feel we have been forgotten.”

The group, called the Shiite Islamic Resistance in Iraq, said it would kill the captive in 10 days unless British troops withdrew from Iraq, apologized to the Iraqi people and ended the presence of “fake companies and organizations” that “devour the body of Iraq and Iraqis.”

British officials declined to identify the men, a computer instructor and four bodyguards, or comment further about the kidnapping, saying further publicity would jeopardize behind-the-scenes work to secure their release.

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

“We condemn the publication of the video and we regard it as extremely unhelpful and distressing to the families,” said Mark Bell, a spokesman for the British Embassy in Baghdad.

But Iraqi officials said U.S. and British troops needed to remain in Iraq, and the cabinet voted to ask the United Nations to authorize the U.S.-led forces to remain in the country until the end of next year, according to government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh.

“The renewal of this mandate will protect Iraq,” said Dabbagh, who added that the cabinet vote did not need ratification by parliament. “There was really almost no discussion about it by the cabinet.”

Also Tuesday, in the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk, an Arab political bloc ended its year-long boycott of the provincial council, a step toward reconciliation sought by U.S. officials. Members of the Iraqi Republican Gathering agreed to return to the council in exchange for Arabs receiving nearly a third of the positions in local government.

“This is a big achievement for Kirkuk and brotherhood and peaceful living together,” said Razgar ali Hamajan, a Kurd who is head of the Kirkuk provincial council.

Sultan, the minister of displacement and migration, said the Iraqi government has allocated $100 million to help returning families and an additional $10 million to provide food for them.

Analysis:

This New York Times article that appeared in the Grand Rapids Press is based on President Bush’s response to the finding of a new National Intelligence Estimate report on Iran’s nuclear program. Bush is sourced as saying that despite the report’s findings Iran is still a threat, but nothing that the President says in the story, nor anything the reporter writes provides an evidence that Iran is still a threat. The President says “Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous, if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” A reasonable question for reporters to ask at this point would be, “Iran is dangerous based on what evidence?”

The only other source cited in the Grand Rapids Press version of the New York Times story in Iranian President Ahmadinejad. In the original version of the Times story we read the comments by a Democratic Congresswoman, a Republican Senator, Secretary of State Rice, an unnamed European diplomat, Presidential candidate Joseph Biden, and a “Middle East expert” named Flynt Leverett, who is with the New America Foundation.

Story:

President Bush warned on Tuesday that Iran remained a threat despite an intelligence assessment that it had halted a covert program to develop nuclear weapons four years ago, as the administration struggled to save a diplomatic process now in disarray.

Once again facing criticism over the handling — and meaning — of intelligence reports, Mr. Bush said the new assessment underscored the need to intensify international efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

He said Iran could not be entrusted with acquiring even the scientific knowledge to enrich uranium for peaceful civilian use, explicitly declaring for the first time what has been an underlying premise of the administration’s policy. He also appeared to rule out any new diplomatic initiative with the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous, if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Bush said during a news conference dominated by questions about the fallout of the assessment, known as a National Intelligence Estimate. “What’s to say they couldn’t start another covert nuclear weapons program?”

The assessment reversed one in 2005 that asserted that Iran was “determined to develop nuclear weapons,” with American intelligence agencies now saying that they do not know whether Iran intends to take that step.

Mr. Bush said the reversal was based on “a great discovery” by American intelligence agencies, but neither he nor other officials would elaborate. Current and former American and foreign officials said the new findings were based on intercepted communications and accounts provided by individuals with access to information about Iran’s nuclear program.
Ahmandinejad today called the report a “declaration of victory” for Iran’s nuclear program.

“This was a final shot to those who, in the past several years, spread a sense of threat and concern in the world through lies of nuclear weapons,” he told thousands of people during a visit to Ilam province in western Iran.

“Thanks to your resistance, a fatal shot was fired at the dreams of ill-wishers and the truthfulness of the Iranian nation was once again proved by the ill-wishers themselves,” he said, drawing celebratory whistles from the crowd.

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

Representative Jane Harman, a Democrat of California, said she read the classified version of the report on Tuesday and described the intelligence agencies’ work as “a sea change” from the 2005 assessment in the quality of its analysis and presentation of facts. Asked about the basis for the new findings, she said: “I think we have some better sourcing. That’s all I can say.”

Mr. Bush’s remarks did little to silence critics, who have accused him of hyping the case for confronting Iran. Nor did it ease concerns of some allies.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican, said he was perplexed by the new assessment and suspicious of the new evidence. “We should all look under the hood of these intelligence reports,” he said.

Mr. Bush and his senior aides spent the day trying to hold together the already fragile coalition of world powers seeking to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mr. Bush telephoned President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has voiced skepticism about an aggressive American effort to punish and isolate Iran.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also telephoned her counterparts from the five other countries that have been pursuing United Nations sanctions against Iran to urge that the coalition continue work on a new round of increasingly tighter sanctions.

“This report is not an ‘O.K., everybody needs to relax and quit’ report,” Mr. Bush said. “This is a report that says what has happened in the past could be repeated and that the policies used to cause the regime to halt are effective policies. And let’s keep them up. Let’s continue to work together.”

There were already signs that that effort had been complicated by the new report. R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, held a teleconference call Tuesday morning with his counterparts from France, Germany, China, Britain and Russia.

“We’re all flabbergasted,” one European diplomat said of the report generally. “You get such a surprise, and then you sit together and consider how to move forward. To be on safe ground, we decided to keep moving forward” with the effort to press for further sanctions.

A senior administration official said the intelligence assessment on Iran was a setback in the effort to persuade China to endorse a new round of sanctions at the United Nations Security Council. While there had been indications over the weekend that the Chinese might drop their opposition to such a move, it appeared on Tuesday that they were reconsidering again, the official said.

The new intelligence assessment, the official said, “gives the Chinese an opportunity to get off the hook.”

Mr. Bush opened himself to new criticism over his credibility when he said that the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, alerted him about new intelligence about Iran’s weapons program in August but did not explain what it was in detail.

As recently as October, Mr. Bush continued to warn darkly of Iran’s nuclear weapons threat, invoking World War III, despite the new information. He responded to a question about that on Tuesday by saying he had received the final assessment, with its drastically altered findings, only last week.

“That’s not believable,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the Democrat who is chairman of the foreign relations committee and a candidate for president. “I refuse to believe that. If that’s true, he has the most incompetent staff in American, modern American history and he’s one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history.”
While many officials, lawmakers and diplomats focused on the halting of Iran’s weapons program, Mr. Bush emphasized the report’s finding that “a growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity” from the late 1980s until the freezing of that effort in 2003. Mr. Bush’s senior aides describe that as the first evidence of what many officials had only suspected.

“And so I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program,” Mr. Bush said. “They halted the program. And the reason why it’s a warning signal is that they could restart it.”

Critics, though, blamed the administration’s hard line and harsh language for compounding Iran’s determination and undermining diplomatic efforts. They called on the administration to make a more concerted diplomatic effort to persuade Iran’s government to abide by its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“Their actions have been totally self-defeating,” Mr. Biden said of the Bush administration. “Every time they rattle the saber, what happens is the security premium for oil goes up. It raises the price of oil. It puts more money in the pocket of Ahmadinejad and the very people we think are the bad guys.”

Mr. Bush maintained that the administration had made offers to Iran as part of the European Union’s diplomatic efforts as long ago as 2003, including promising American support for membership in the World Trade Organization and an easing of sanctions to allow the sale of spare airplane parts.

“What changed was the change of leadership in Iran,” he said, referring to the elections in Iran in 2005. “We had a diplomatic track going, and Ahmadinejad came along and took a different tone. And the Iranian people must understand that the tone and actions of their government are that which is isolating them.”

Flynt Leverett, a Middle East expert at the New America Foundation who served on the National Security Council under Mr. Bush, said the president had consistently ruled out any real entreaty to Iran that could resolve the international deadlock over its nuclear ambitions.

“The really uncomfortable part for the administration, aside from the embarrassment, is the policy implication,” Mr. Leverett said of the assessment. “The dirty secret is the administration has never put on the table an offer to negotiate with Iran the issues that would really matter: their own security, the legitimacy of the Islamic republic and Iran’s place in the regional order.”

Analysis:

This New York Times article is based on a new study from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program. What does the headline “World War III can wait” imply? The first few paragraphs of the story are framed in such a way as to make readers think that what the Bush administration has been saying on Iran was true and that a war with Iran was all but certain. Some of the words and phrases used were “so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate,” “It will certainly weaken international support for tougher sanctions against Iran,” and “The biggest change, though, could be its effect on President Bush’s last year in office, as well as on the campaign to replace him. Until Monday, 2008 seemed to be a year destined to be consumed, at least when it comes to foreign policy, by the prospects of confrontation with Iran.” It is as if the reporter is just as surprised by the intelligence study as the Bush administration. This pro-administration position by the mainstream news media on Iran is not new. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) noted that the major media adopted much of the Bush administration’s claims about Iran in 2005 and more recently in 2007.

The article does cite a Republican Senator and an administration national security advisor. No Democratic Party, Iranian or independent voices are cited in the GR Press version of the story. In the omitted sections of the New York Times article there are other sources, such as a spokesperson from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Kurt M. Campbell, chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security, and John R. Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations. None of these sources could be considered independent of the current or former US government administrations.

Story:

Rarely, if ever, has a single intelligence report so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here.

An administration that had cited Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as the rationale for an aggressive foreign policy — as an attempt to head off World War III, as President Bush himself put it only weeks ago — now has in its hands a classified document that undercuts much of the foundation for that approach.

The impact of the National Intelligence Estimate’s conclusion — that Iran had halted a military program in 2003, though it continues to enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful uses — will be felt in endless ways at home and abroad.

It will certainly weaken international support for tougher sanctions against Iran, as a senior administration official grudgingly acknowledged. And it will raise questions, again, about the integrity of America’s beleaguered intelligence agencies, including whether what are now acknowledged to have been overstatements about Iran’s intentions in a 2005 assessment reflected poor tradecraft or political pressure.

Seldom do those agencies vindicate irascible foreign leaders like President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who several weeks ago said there was “no evidence” that Iran was building a nuclear weapon, dismissing the American claims as exaggerated.

The biggest change, though, could be its effect on President Bush’s last year in office, as well as on the campaign to replace him. Until Monday, 2008 seemed to be a year destined to be consumed, at least when it comes to foreign policy, by the prospects of confrontation with Iran.

There are still hawks in the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney chief among them, who view Iran with deep suspicion. But for now at least, the main argument for a military conflict with Iran — widely rumored and feared, judging by antiwar protesters that often greet Mr. Bush during his travels — is off the table for the foreseeable future.

As Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, put it, the intelligence finding removes, “if nothing else, the urgency that we have to attack Iran, or knock out facilities.” He added: “I don’t think you can overstate the importance of this.”

The White House struggled to portray the estimate as a validation of Mr. Bush’s strategy, a contention that required swimming against the tide of Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Cheney’s occasionally apocalyptic language.

The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said the estimate showed that suspicions about Iran’s intentions were warranted, given that it had a weapons program in the first place.

“On balance, the estimate is good news,” Mr. Hadley said, appearing at the White House. “On one hand, it confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it tells us that we have made some progress in trying to ensure that that does not happen. But it also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”

Mr. Hadley insisted, as he and others have, that the administration had hoped and still hoped to resolve the outstanding questions about Iran’s nuclear programs using diplomacy, not force. But the nuances of his on-this-hand-on-the-other argument will probably make it much harder to persuade American allies to accept the administration’s harder line.

One official pointed out that the chief American diplomat on the Iran question, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, had just met with counterparts from Europe, Russia and China, and had seemed to make some headway on winning support for a third round of sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. The official said Mr. Burns could not divulge the intelligence findings at that meeting on Friday because Congress had not been briefed.

The immediate task for Mr. Burns and other administration officials is to untangle the confusion caused by its own statements and findings and to persuade skeptics that this time, the United States has it right about what Iran was doing before 2003 and what that means for what it might do in the future.

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

“The way this will play is that the intelligence community has admitted it was wrong,” said Jon B. Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “So why should we believe them now?”

Mr. Hadley said the drastic reversal in the intelligence agencies’ knowledge about Iran’s weapons programs was based “on new intelligence, some of which has been received in the last few months.”

He also said that he and other senior officials, including Mr. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, had reviewed it and debated it two weeks ago.

With some of the administration’s most prominent hawks having departed and not taking part in the review of findings like these, it is possible that the zeal for another military conflict has diminished. After all, the first two wars on Mr. Bush’s watch remain unresolved at best.

Senator Hagel said he hoped that the administration might in its final year in office show the kind of diplomatic flexibility it did with North Korea over its nuclear weapons or with the conference in Annapolis, Md., last week on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has previously called for the United States to open direct and unconditional talks with Iran to end the state of enmity that has existed since 1979.

He said Iran’s halt of weapons activity had created an opening for such talks, indicating, as the assessment does, that Iran’s government may be more rational than the one that Mr. Bush said in August had threatened to put the entire region “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.”

“If we’re wise here, if we’re careful, I think we have some opportunities,” Mr. Hagel said.

The findings, though, remain open for interpretation, as they always do, even in documents meant to reflect the consensus of the intelligence community. When it comes to Iran, at odds with the United States on many fronts beyond the nuclear question, hawks remain.

“Those who are suspicious of diplomacy are well dug in in this administration,” said Kurt M. Campbell, chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security.

John R. Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations, who recently left the administration and began to criticize it, sounded very much like Mr. Hadley on Monday, saying the assessment underscored the need for American toughness. He said Iran’s intentions would always remain a concern as long as it continued to enrich uranium.

“The decision to weaponize and at what point is a judgment in the hands of the Iranians,” he said. He added that the finding that Iran halted a weapons program could just mean that it was better hidden now.

Analysis:

This Associated Press story is based on the outcome of the election that took place in Venezuela on December 2. The first paragraph in the story says,”President Hugo Chavez suffered a stunning defeat Monday in a referendum that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely and impose a socialist system in this major U.S. oil supplier.” What does the reporter mean by using the word “stunning” and the statement “and impose a socialist system in this major US oil supplier?” The reporter never qualifies by the term socialist and or explains what Venezuela’s supply of oil to the US have to do with that country’s outcome? It is hard to answer these questions based on the article, since the next pieces of information in the article are the vote percentages, a quote from an anti-Chavez voter, and a few comments from Chavez himself.

The rest of the story does provide readers with some aspects of the reforms that were in the referendum, although the referendum text is actually 31 pages long. The original version of the AP story had more comments from pro and anti-Chavez supporters, made reference to Chavez’s relationship with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, and that “Chavez had warned opponents ahead of the vote he would not tolerate attempts to incite violence, and threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. if Washington interfered.” There was no mention in this AP story that there was a leaked US government memo on plans for a political coup in Venezuela.

Story:

President Hugo Chavez suffered a stunning defeat Monday in a referendum that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely and impose a socialist system in this major U.S. oil supplier.

Voters rejected the sweeping measures Sunday by a vote of 51% to 49%, said Tibisay Lucena, chief of the National Electoral Council. She said that with 88% of the votes counted, the trend was irreversible.

Opposition supporters shouted with joy as Lucena announced the results on national television early Monday, their first victory against Chavez after nine years of electoral defeats.

Some broke down in tears. Others began chanting: “And now he’s going away!”

“This was a photo finish,” Chavez told reporters at the presidential palace, adding that he has “heard the voice of the people and will always continue to hear it.”

Chavez said his respect for the outcome should vindicate his standing as a democratic leader.

“From this moment on, let’s be calm,” he declared. “There is no dictatorship here.”

Critics — including Roman Catholic leaders, press freedom groups, human rights groups and prominent business leaders — feared the constitutional reforms would have granted Chavez unchecked power and threatened basic rights.

“Don’t feel sad,” Chavez urged supporters, who gave him a re-election victory with 63% of the vote exactly a year ago. He blamed the loss by “microscopic margins” on low turnout among his supporters. Voter participation was 56% overall.

The defeated reforms would have created new forms of communal property, let Chavez handpick local leaders under a redrawn political map, lengthened presidential terms from six to seven years and let Chavez seek re-election indefinitely. Now, Chavez will be barred from running again in 2012.

Other changes would have shortened the workday from eight hours to six, created a social security fund for millions of informal laborers and promoted communal councils where residents decide how to spend government funds.

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

Along with several hundred other dejected Chavez supporters, Nelly Hernandez, a 37-year-old street vendor, cried as she wandered outside the presidential palace amid broken beer bottles while government employees dismantled a stage that had been prepared for a possible victory.

“It’s difficult to accept this, but Chavez has not abandoned us, he’ll still be there for us,” she said between sobs.

Chavez urged calm and restraint. “To those who voted against my proposal, I thank them and congratulate them,” he said.

“I ask all of you to go home, know how to handle your victory,” the 53-year-old president said. “You won it. I wouldn’t have wanted that Pyrrhic victory.”

Tensions had surged in recent weeks as university students led protests and occasionally clashed with police and Chavista groups.

Chavez made it clear, though, that he has no intention of abandoning his petrodollar-fueled attempt to turn Venezuela into a socialist state. He has progressively steamrolled the opposition, with his allies now controlling the National Assembly and most other elected posts.

And he suggested he hasn’t given up on his vision of permanently leaving his mark. Echoing words he spoke when as an army officer he was captured leading a failed 1992 coup, he said: “For now, we couldn’t.”

At opposition headquarters in an affluent east Caracas district, jubilant Chavez foes sang the national anthem.

“We’ve put a stop to the socialist authoritarian project,” said one leader, Leopoldo Lopez. “Now we’re opening the way to democracy.”

Chavez had warned opponents ahead of the vote he would not tolerate attempts to incite violence, and threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. if Washington interfered.

Chavez, who was briefly ousted in a failed 2002 coup, said of his opponents: “I hope they forget about shortcuts, leaps into the dark — violence.”

A close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, Chavez is seen by many supporters as a champion of the poor and has redistributed more oil wealth than any other leader in memory.

All was reported calm during Sunday’s voting but 45 people were detained, most for committing ballot-related crimes like “destroying electoral materials,” said Gen. Jesus Gonzalez, chief of a military command overseeing security.

Lucena called the vote “the calmest we’ve had in the last 10 years.”

Analysis:

This article from the Washington Post is based on a new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The version of the story that appeared in the Grand Rapids Press emphasizes that of those polled are “finding the public more positive about the military effort in Iraq than at any point in 14 months as a surge of optimism follows the rapid decline in violence.” What the article failed to mention was that on the issue of U.S. troop withdrawal the same poll stated: “By 54%-41%, more Americans favor bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq as soon as possible rather than keeping troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized. The balance of opinion on this measure has not changed significantly all year.”

The other issues that are emphasized in this article are the shift in the public’s view as to the importance of the war in Iraq. The GR Press version of the story states “While Bush and Congress are still fighting over the war, the debate has moved to the back burner as Iran, spending, health care, the economy and other issues generate more political energy.” However, the Pew poll said: “The survey finds that the war in Iraq continues to be viewed as the most important problem facing the nation, though it is not nearly as dominant a concern as it was early this year.” Why did the reporter say that Iraq is taking a back burner, when the poll says just the opposite? The only other aspect in the article is a short reference to what the upcoming Presidential Election will play in regards to the War in Iraq. No one is quoted in this article, but the original version does have comments from the anti-war group Win Without War, a former Congressman, the pro-war group Freedom’s Watch, an academic from Duke University and someone from the Center for American Progress. After reading the original version of this Washington Post story how different was your understanding of the issue compared to the GR Press version?

Story:

The debate at home over the Iraq war has shifted significantly in the two months since Gen. David H. Petraeus testified to Congress and President Bush ordered the first troop withdrawals, with more Americans now concluding that the situation on the ground is improving.

A new poll released yesterday underscored the changing political environment, finding the public more positive about the military effort in Iraq than at any point in 14 months as a surge of optimism follows the rapid decline in violence. Yet Bush remains as unpopular as ever in the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, and the public remains just as committed to bringing U.S. troops home.

The evolving public attitudes reflect, or perhaps explain, a turn in Washington as well. While Bush and Congress are still fighting over the war, the debate has moved to the back burner as Iran, spending, health care, the economy and other issues generate more political energy. The focus of the presidential campaign, especially on the Democratic side, has broadened as well. Even antiwar groups that once denied that security has gotten better have recalibrated their arguments to focus on the failed efforts to reach political conciliation among Iraqi factions or the risk of war with Iran.

The shift has strategists in both parties reevaluating their assumptions about how the final year of the Bush presidency and the election to succeed him will play out. If current trends continue, Iraq may still be a defining issue but perhaps not the only one, as it once seemed, according to partisan strategists and independent analysts, particularly if the economy heads south as some economists fear.

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

“What this reinforces is that Iraq is not as much of a pressure point as it was through much of the year — which is not to say that it goes away as an issue,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew center. “If Iraq were to either go away or have a much lower profile in the coming election, it would certainly be good for the Republicans and could be a transforming factor. But it’s real important to get ‘could be’ in that sentence.”

The Pew poll highlighted the dichotomy in public views. Nearly half of Americans, or 48 percent, believe that the military effort in Iraq is going well, up from 30 percent in February, and 43 percent agree that U.S. forces are making progress in defeating insurgents, also up from 30 percent. The last time Americans felt as positively about the military effort was in September 2006.

Still, the proportion of Americans who want to bring troops home has remained essentially unchanged at 54 percent, as has the share who think the effort in Iraq will ultimately fail, at 46 percent. Bush’s job approval rating has actually slipped by three points to 30 percent. (The survey was based on a sample of 1,399 adults interviewed from Nov. 20 to 26 and has a three percentage point margin of sampling error.)

Antiwar groups dismissed the importance of the poll. “The bottom line is the bottom line, and that is that people want out,” said former congressman Tom Andrews (D-Maine), national director of a coalition called Win Without War. “That hasn’t changed and that isn’t going to change.”

Former congressman Vin Weber (R-Minn.), a war supporter and top adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, said it may be too late to change the public’s mind when it comes to the fundamental issue. “The central question is not: Are we winning or losing?” he said. “The central question is: Was it worth it? And that was resolved a long time ago.”

And yet, at least to an extent, the Washington debate has moved on. Congress made only a faint effort to pass legislation mandating a troop withdrawal as part of a $50 billion war spending bill this month and then quickly shelved it. Not counting the Turkish conflict with Kurdish rebels, Bush at his most recent news conference last month was not asked about the Iraq war until the 10th question. Not a single Iraq question came up at four of White House press secretary Dana Perino’s seven full-fledged briefings this month.

Similarly, the Democratic presidential candidates who seemed to talk about little other than Iraq early in the year have spent more time quarreling about other issues lately. At their Oct. 30 debate in Philadelphia, the word “Iraq” was used 44 times, but the word “Iran” came up 69 times. Even Andrews’s antiwar group plans to launch a new campaign, including television and print ads, focused on Iran, not Iraq. The message to Democrats, he said, will be: “If you can’t act to stop the war in Iraq, can you a least act to stop a war in Iran?”

War supporters are adjusting strategy as well. Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who co-founded a group called Freedom’s Watch to press Republicans to stick with Bush’s war policy, sees an opening to expand the message. “The campaign we launched in August was really to make sure Republicans didn’t defect,” he said. “Now it’s fair to say, because facts have changed on the ground, that we have the opportunity to bring back on board independents who had been lost.”

While the Iraq debate has faded for the moment, it promises to resume as funding needs become an issue. In pushing their case to deny Bush further money for the war, opponents have dropped the argument that violence really has not fallen and point instead to the fact that the troop “surge” earlier this year has not yielded the political accord it was supposed to.

“The White House tends to focus on the military situation and ignore the political situation,” said P.J. Crowley, a Clinton White House national security aide now at the Center for American Progress. “Remember, the surge is a tactic, and while a discrete tactic may be working better than expected, the overall strategic position has not fundamentally changed.”
Even so, it has changed some political calculations. If the violence remains down, it may enable Petraeus when he returns to Washington in March to recommend pulling out more than the 30,000 troops now scheduled to leave by July. If so, the fall general election could be played out against the backdrop of troops coming home.

“Now everybody says they’re for pulling out troops,” said Christopher F. Gelpi, a Duke University scholar who has studied wartime public opinion. “The question is just how fast. That fuzzes the issue. If violence is still down, if the cost of the mission goes down, that makes it easier to stay there even if there’s no progress.”

Analysis:

This Associated Press article which appeared in the Grand Rapids Press is based upon the conference in Annapolis, Maryland between the US, Israel and Palestine. What role does the headline give to President Bush? In the first paragraph is states that Bush is stepping into the role of peacemaker for this conference. What does the title peacemaker suggest and what evidence does the article provide other than these heads of state met that would suggest that Bush will actually be a peacemaker? The shortened version of the original AP story only sources Bush and provides a summary of the dinner meeting with leaders from Israel and Palestine.

The original version of the AP story does quote both Israeli and Palestinian leaders, but does what they say clarify what is at issue in this conference? There is one sentence in the original AP story that provides some context the the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, “American and Israeli officials are resisting Palestinian efforts to include language about “ending the occupation that started in 1967,” a reference to disputed Jewish settlements in the West Bank.” For Palestinian’s this is the fundamental issue that gets to the heart of the Israeli occupation. If US news would provide adequate historical context to this issue, people might read a story about this summit in an entirely different way. Professor Stephen Zunes, in a recent article, provides some context to the so-called Israeli/Palestinian dispute when he says, “ever since direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks began in the early 1990s, U.S. policy has been based on the assumption that both sides need to work out a solution among themselves and both sides need to accept territorial compromise. As reasonable as that may seem on the surface, it ignores the fact that, even if one assumes that both Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights to peace, freedom and security, there is a grossly unequal balance of power between the occupied Palestinians and the occupying Israelis. It also avoids acknowledging the fact that the Palestinians, through the Oslo agreement, have recognized the state of Israel on a full 78% of Palestine and what Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is asking for is simply the remaining 22% of Palestine that was seized by Israel in the 1967 war and is recognized by the international community as being under belligerent occupation.”

Story:

President Bush stepped cautiously into the most direct Mideast peacemaking of his administration on Monday, meeting separately with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to explore whether peace is possible.

“Difficult compromises” will be required but the Israeli and Palestinian leaders are committed to making them, he said.

A day ahead of a major Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Md., Bush said he was optimistic. The gathering is to launch the first direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians of Bush’s nearly seven years in office, and has attracted Arab and other outside backing.

Israeli and Palestinian leaders have already said they want to conclude a bargain within the 14 months that Bush has left in office. The two sides were unable to frame a blueprint for the talks before they came to the United States, and negotiations over the text were expected to continue into Tuesday.

At an evening dinner at the State Department for members of some 50 delegations invited to the talks, Bush toasted the effort and told the guests: “We’ve come together this week because we share a common goal: two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. Achieving this goal requires difficult compromises, and the Israelis and Palestinians have elected leaders committed to making them.”

Bush earlier emerged from an Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and told him: “I’m looking forward to continuing our serious dialogue with you and the president of the Palestinian Authority to see whether or not peace is possible. I’m optimistic. I know that you’re optimistic.”

Next, he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who stressed the need to address issues of Palestinian statehood, sticking points that have doomed previous peace efforts.

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

“We have a great deal of hope that this conference will produce permanent status negotiations, expanded negotiations, over all permanent status issues that would lead to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian people,” he said. “This is a great initiative and we need his (Bush’s) continuing effort to achieve this objective.”

At the dinner, host Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, sat between Olmert and Abbas. Bush stopped by briefly to share a toast with the participants, and clinked glasses with Abbas and Olmert. They raised their iced tea; for Bush, it was water. No alcohol was served out of respect for Muslim tradition.

Earlier, Olmert said international support — from Bush and also, presumably, from the Arab nations that will attend the conference — could make this effort succeed where others failed.

“This time, it’s different because we are going to have a lot of participation in what I hope will launch a serious process negotiation between us and the Palestinians,” Olmert said. He was referring to the talks expected to begin in earnest after this week’s U.S.-hosted meetings.

“We and the Palestinians will sit together in Jerusalem and work out something that will be very good,” Olmert said. As to timing, he added later: “We definitely will have to sit down very soon.”

The agreement that was shaping up, as Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo described it, is a starting point for negotiations and sketches only vague bargaining terms. The big questions that have doomed previous peace efforts would come later.

The document was to include a formal announcement of the renewal of peace talks, Abed Rabbo said. It will set a target of concluding negotiations before Bush leaves office in January 2009. And it commits the two sides to resolving the key issues that divide them.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia said after an afternoon meeting with Rice, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and others that details of the document had not been made final. “Our efforts are still going on to reach this document.”

A member of the Palestinian delegation, speaking on condition on anonymity because talks are still going on, said three main obstacles have emerged:

All sides have agreed that two states should be established, but the Palestinians have objected to referring to Israel as a “Jewish state.” The Palestinians and their Arab backers are concerned that a specific reference to a Jewish state would prejudice the right of Palestinians who claim a right to return to land they once owned inside Israel.

American and Israeli officials are resisting Palestinian efforts to include language about “ending the occupation that started in 1967,” a reference to disputed Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The West Bank would form the bulk of an eventual Palestinian state and the two sides must decide which settlements would remain a part of Israel.

The Palestinians want the document to set a one-year timetable for reaching a resolution. The Israelis do not want this, and the Americans are open to the idea.

Bush’s tempered outlook suggested he has his own misgivings about the success of the talks, although administration spokesmen said the United States will remain closely involved after the talks close.

The Palestinian question underlies numerous other conflicts and grievances in the Middle East, and has scattered hundreds of thousands of Palestinians across several Arab states.

The Palestinians are unlikely to strike any bargain that their Arab backers and neighbors do not support, so the Annapolis conference is meant to make Arabs what one administration official called “ground-floor investors” in the new round of talks.

Analysis:

This article from the Grand Rapids Press primarily focuses area meteorologists and their predictions for winter snowfall. Aside from this, the article attempts to connect snowfall patterns with global warming. Does the Press make a convincing case that there is a connection? Do they provide any scientific sources to make this connection?

Beyond the snowfall predictions, the Press also reports on the positions of five West Michigan meteorologists with regard to global warming. Of the four, three believe that global warming is “real.” They differ over whether or not global warming will have an effect this winter, with most arguing that its effect is more long-term and will not have an effect on this winter. Despite this, the most space is given to WOOD TV 8 meteorologist Craig James, who according to the Press, “remains skeptical about global warming.”

The Press gives James’ space to make the claim that “the science is anything but settled whether carbon dioxide is to blame.” However, the Press never investigates this claim despite the fact that four other meteorologists and significant portions of the scientific community disagree with James’ opinion. Would readers have benefited from an investigation of this claim?

The Press reporter also apparently asked James about Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth film, to which James says “There were many, many errors in his movie. There are some gross oversimplifications.” Again, the Press failed to investigate James’ claim that there were errors in the movie. Since it was released, there has been a concentrated attack on Gore’s film, including ads aired on television by the oil industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute. In addition, an online ad that was designed to be “amateur” was in reality produced by a lobbying and public relations firm that has represented Exxon. In a lawsuit brought to court by global warming skeptics in England, a judge ruled that there were nine “errors” in An Inconvenient Truth–most of which centered on interpretations of data–although the film was “broadly accurate” in its claim that global warming is a fact and is happening because of human action. Would readers have been better served by an investigation of James’ claim that An Inconvenient truth had “many, many errors?”

Moreover, it is also worth noting that on his blog at WOODTV.COM, Craig James has referenced numerous entities connected to the oil industry. The industry has funded a number of groups to create “confusion” over the science pertaining to global warming. Would it have been beneficial if James’ previous statements–including his membership in ICECAP (a website and organization promoting “skepticism” over global warming)–were disclosed in the Press article? Does his relationship to these entities shape his opinion?

Story:

by Ted Roelofs

Global warming?

Most of our local weather experts say, yes, it’s real. Glaciers are melting. Greenland is greening.

But don’t expect agreement on whether that means more or less snow this winter, as they serve up their annual forecasts for The Press. Predictions are about as consistent as the Detroit Lions.

WZZM-TV meteorologist George Lessens looks north to the polar ice cap, noting that sea ice “melted to unprecedented levels” over the summer. He thinks this winter “might be influenced by global warming.”

For Lessens, it adds up to snowfall of 65 inches, about 7 inches below average, and warmer-than-normal temperatures.

National Weather Service meteorologist Bill Marino peers at the same set of observations and comes to a different conclusion.

Marino agrees that global warming is real. He says evidence is mounting that humans are causing it by dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

But Marino expects 80 inches of snow, mostly based on a pattern of cooling Pacific Ocean waters known as La Nina. Weather, says Marino, is far too complex to squeeze into a tidy little prediction box.

Global warming hardly means every winter in Michigan will be warm.

“It’s more complicated than anyone can figure out,” he said.

“They use supercomputers, and they still don’t have enough information to figure it all correctly.”

WOOD-TV meteorologist Craig James remains skeptical about global warming.

“We are certainly in a warmer period than we were in the 1960s and 1970s,” James said. “But the science is anything but settled whether carbon dioxide is to blame.”

As for former Vice President Al Gore — who made global warming a household word with his film “An Inconvenient Truth” — James is not exactly a fan.

“There were many, many errors in his movie. There are some gross oversimplifications.”

That said, James foresees a warm, with the same 65 inches of snow as Lessens predicted.

At WWMT-TV, meteorologist Keith Thompson offers no cold comfort for winter enthusiasts.

He predicts just 61 inches of snow, 11 inches below normal.

“Not a good year for the ski hills and snowmobilers,” he says.

As for global warming, Thompson says: “I believe it is real.”

But Thompson says his forecast has little to do with that, adding that effects of global warming “are marked over several years or even decades, not one or two years.”