Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

Analysis:

This story is based upon a talk given by the President of Shell Oil who was in Grand Rapids as a guest of the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan. The Press story also says that this is part of a speaking tour to share an “upbeat view of the future of fuel and meeting with local elected officials and organizations” about gas prices and energy security. Does this seem like part of a public relations strategy on behalf of Shell Oil? The story mentions that the President of Shell did meet with the Grand Rapids Mayor and then spoke at a luncheon.

The Shell President is quoted three times in the story on the issue of gas prices after Katrina, supply and demand, and Shell’s commitment to conservation. None of the claims are verified and there are no alternative perspectives provided that address Shell’s environmental record.

Story:

When gas prices went sky-high last year, closely followed by incredible oil company profits, John Hofmeister and his team of 200 executives at Shell Oil Co. decided to hit the road.

In a 50-city sweep, dubbed the National Dialogue on Energy Security, the team members are hosting town-hall meetings, sharing an upbeat view of the future of fuel and meeting with local elected officials and organizations.

This week, Hofmeister, 59, is hitting Michigan. He began Thursday in Grand Rapids, meeting with Mayor George Heartwell and speaking to the World Affairs Council of West Michigan.

After lunch, Hofmeister was to stop in Lansing for a brief meeting with Gov. Jennifer Granholm, then head for Detroit for another round of meetings today, including one with General Motors Corp.

From his perspective, Hurricane Katrina swept in the latest round of rising fuel prices two years ago.

“We had 25 percent lower supply, but no let-up in demand,” Hofmeister said.

Today, prices are hinging on a delicate balance.

“We strive for just a bit more supply than demand, but we’re right at the edge of outages on the finished product,” said the oil company president, then explaining he was impressed with Heartwell’s enthusiasm for environmental issues.

“We don’t hear that in every city and from every mayor,” Hofmeister said. Corporatewide, Shell is on a mission to lower its “carbon footprint,” a measure of energy consumption vs. conservation.

Analysis:

This story is based on a visit by Shell Oil President John Hofmeister to Grand Rapids where he gave a talk at an event hosted by the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan. This interview conducted by WOOD TV 8 took place before the lecture. Most of the questions seemed to center around gas prices, consumer demand and the possibilities of bio-fuels. Why didn’t the reporter ask how much of a profit Shell and other oil companies have made since Katrina and the recent rise of gas prices? What about the claim that there is plenty of oil in the US ‘but environmental laws prevent it from coming to market.” Why didn’t the reporter ask the Shell executive to verify this claim?

Story:

Shell Oil Company president John Hofmeister sat down with 24 Hour News 8 for a one-on-one interview Thursday. Hofmeister, in town for an appearance at the World Affairs Council, answered questions on a wide range of energy-related issues.

PATRICK CENTER: The motoring public says, ‘Wait a minute it seems like there’s always an excuse, every week, to raise prices.’ what do you say to those people?

JOHN HOFMEISTER, Shell Oil Company president: The law of supply and demand is the driving law and people’s behavior is what addresses supply-demand issues. So, we don’t sit in Houston, for example, and decide what prices people in Grand Rapids are going to have to pay for Shell gasoline. That’s decided by local market conditions, by wholesalers who serve the retail market here and the customers in this region…

PC: Why have oil prices been rising at a rapid rate in recent years?

JH: It really is a basic supply and demand equilibrium. The relationship between the supply side and the demand side is such that we’re barely keeping up with the growth in demand.

PC: So it’s a refining issue at this point?

JH: Refining is the big balancing factor for meeting street demand. And the nation needs more refining capacity which was why Shell and our partners, Saudi Refining, decided two weeks ago to make a major addition to refining capacity in Port Arthur, Texas. We’ll go from 285,000 barrels a day to over 600,000 barrels a day in that one site…

PC: What is the breaking point as you see this down the line? When you look at the refining capacity, supply and demand, is there a break point?

JH: I think it depends on how we treat bio-fuels in the future. In other words, um, right now we’re very dependent upon petroleum-based products. Where ethanol is coming in at about a five to six percent of the supply chain. If bio-fuels continue to increase, let’s say to 10 or 15 percent, that relaxes some of the pressure on the petroleum supply side. But now it’s got new pressure on the ethanol supply side, or the bio-diesel supply side. Those economics and those supply chains really haven’t been worked out yet.

PC: You’re in the oil industry, isn’t it in your best interest though to protect oil and keep that going as long as possible?

JH: I’d, I’d rather say, really would say, we’re in the mobility industry. We like to keep people on the move. We do bring fuels to the market place. Most of those fuels are today, and will continue to be, petroleum-based fuels. But we don’t rule out bio-fuel as a major factor in the future.

Hofmeister said there’s more oil than we’ll ever use, and when it comes to US oil, Hofmeister said there’s plenty here, but environmental laws prevent it from coming to market.

Instead of transferring wealth to other parts of the world, he said, we should be developing oil supplies that would help lower prices.

Analysis:

This story is based on a recent incident where an employee of the private mercenary company Blackwater USA was accused of killing a civilian in Iraq. The story begins with a short description of how Blackwater grew into the largest private mercenary company in the world, then shifts to the incident. The story refers to “critics” several times, but only identifies one as the Iraqi Interior Ministry, but doesn’t quote that person. The article does quote a Blackwater spokesperson and author Robert Young Pelton who appears to defend Blackwater.

Next the story lists of the current contracts that Blackwater has in Iraq, which is followed by another source, former US Marine who is now an “independent military analyst and the co-chairman of WVC3 Group, a security consulting firm.” This source also defends Blackwater. The story does mention what happened to Blackwater employees in Fallujah in 2004 and then states “The U.S. military’s unsuccessful assault on the city in retaliation for the guards’ deaths left an estimated 27 Marines and an unknown number of civilians dead.” Why did the story only mention the amount of US soldiers killed and not Iraqi civilians, especially when there are numerous independent sources that have documented that hundreds were killed.

The story does provide another critical voice, that of one of the mothers of the Blackwater employees that was killed in Fallujah, but does her comment shed any light on Blackwater’s conduct? The article quickly shifts away from this criticism and moves to organizational information about Blackwater. The story then has a commment from Rep. Jan Schakowsky that questions whether or not Iraqi’s can prosecute private security firms, but doesn’t mention that the last order that Paul Bremer gave while in Iraq was Order 17, which gives immunity to private mercenary forces.

Story:

When a former Navy SEAL launched Blackwater USA in North Carolina’s swamplands a decade ago, he envisioned a world-class training facility for those in the business of providing security.

But since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the notoriously secretive company has found its niche in selling security directly. Blackwater has earned hundreds of millions of dollars fielding what critics contend is essentially a private army in Iraq and other hotspots, where it has often employed aggressive tactics that some call reckless and possibly criminal.

Those critics now include the Iraqi Interior Ministry, which said Monday it had revoked Blackwater’s license to operate following a chaotic weekend shootout that Iraqi authorities say left eight civilians dead and 13 injured.

“The ‘civilians’ reportedly fired upon by Blackwater professionals were in fact armed enemies and Blackwater personnel returned defensive fire,” company spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said late Monday. “Blackwater regrets any loss of life, but this convoy was violently attacked by armed insurgents, not civilians, and our people did their job to defend human life.”

Robert Young Pelton, an independent military analyst who spent a month with a Blackwater team in Baghdad while researching his book, “Licensed to Kill,” said Blackwater contractors No. 1 priority is keeping their high-value clients alive.

“The Blackwater guys are not fools,” Pelton said. “If they were gunning down people it was because they felt it was the beginning of an ambush.”

It wasn’t immediately clear if the Iraqi action against Blackwater was temporary or permanent. But if Blackwater is forced to leave Iraq, where it has at least $800 million in government contracts, the privately held company based at a 7,000-acre compound in tiny Moyock stands to lose a huge piece of its burgeoning business.

Among Blackwater’s clients in Iraq is the U.S. State Department, which hired the company to protect its staff as they travel through one of the world’s most dangerous places.

“It’s going to turn the world upside down,” said retired Marine Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, an independent military analyst and the co-chairman of WVC3 Group, a security consulting firm. “You can bet the U.S. embassy is doing backflips right now pressuring the Iraqis not to revoke their license.”

Blackwater burst into the public light in 2004 when a mob of insurgents ambushed a company security detail in Fallujah. Four Blackwater guards were killed and their bodies burned, the remains of two strung from a bridge.

The U.S. military’s unsuccessful assault on the city in retaliation for the guards’ deaths left an estimated 27 Marines and an unknown number of civilians dead.

Blackwater officials acknowledged earlier this year that one of their off-duty workers shot and killed a security guard for an Iraqi vice president last Christmas Eve. Company officials have said they fired the employee after flying him out of the country and are cooperating with federal investigators.

“There have been so many innocent people they’ve killed over there, and they just keep doing it,” said Katy Helvenston, the mother of Steve Helvenston, one of the Blackwater men killed in the ambush in Fallujah. “They have just a callous disregard for life.”

Blackwater has recently emphasized its humanitarian efforts and vision for “a safer world” on its Web site and in company literature.

Still, the firm sticks to a policy of secrecy that extends from chief executive Erik Prince, a former SEAL who founded Blackwater in 1997.

Vice chairman Cofer Black, a former director of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, declined to comment when reached at his Virginia home.

Blackwater is still in the business of security training. Civilians, law enforcement and military personnel can attend dozens of seminars at Blackwater headquarters, which includes a three-mile tactical driving course, a lake for maritime maneuvers and a private airfield. The company has also opened an 80-acre satellite campus in Mount Carroll, Ill., and is looking to open another training center east of San Diego.

As it has expanded its security operations, Blackwater has offered big salaries to lure experienced former soldiers, especially those with special forces and other advanced training. The company fields a force of about 1,000 across Iraq and has a database of more than 6,000 contractors it can tap to fulfill the requirements of its more than 50 security contracts worldwide.

“Under what law are these individuals operating, and do the Iraqis have the authority to prosecute people for the crimes they’re accused of committing?” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat and longtime Blackwater critic who is pushing Congress to regulate private security contractors. “It’s a very murky area.”

Analysis:

This story that the Grand Rapids Press ran is from the Los Angeles Times. The article is based in part on polls from early primary states and suggests that Hillary Clinton is in the lead for how anti-war voters would vote. The article sources two women early on in the article who said they would vote for Clinton because of “a gut feeling” and “the way Hillary Clinton handles herself.” The article cites a recent poll conducted by the Los Angeles times and Bloomberg but doesn’t provide any information on how people were polled or what the actually wording of the questions were.

The story then attempts to juxtapose Clinton with other Democratic candidates for President – Obama, Edwards, and Richardson on their positions on Iraq. The comparison is very broad and simplistic and doesn’t include the position of all Democratic candidates. There are no details about the candidate’s long-term strategies on Iraq and no discussion of their voting record other than the initial decision to back the war in 2002. The article ends with some comments by Democratic pollster Dave Beattie and several other sources that are listed as “critics” and “analysts.” The company that Dave Beattie works for states on its website that they “helped the Democratic leadership committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives take back control of Congress and guided with pinpoint accuracy a number of winning campaigns for the Senate, House, statewide constitutional offices and state legislative posts.” How does citing someone who works for a firm that is partisan help readers understand the issue of presidential candidate positions on Iraq? After reading the story does the headline accurately reflect the content of the story?

Story:

Gayle Moore, an Iowa nurse, wants U.S. troops “out, out, out” of Iraq as soon as possible. Darleen McCarthy of South Carolina fears that Iraq is turning into “another Vietnam.”

But when these two Democrats vote in January to help decide their party’s 2008 presidential nominee, neither plans to support the self-styled antiwar candidates. Instead, they are siding with the one top contender who voted to authorize the invasion and has refused to apologize for that — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“It’s just a gut feeling,” said Moore, 53, a mother of five. “It’s her experience.”

A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of voters in key early primary states reveals that Moore and McCarthy are hardly alone. They represent a paradox of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination: Although a plurality of Democratic voters considers the Iraq war to be the most pressing issue facing the candidates, the more hawkish Clinton has found a sweet spot in the debate.

Many of those voters who want an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops support her candidacy and consider her best able to end the war, as do many who back a more gradual drawdown.

“It’s just the way Hillary Clinton handles herself,” said McCarthy, 55, who lives near Myrtle Beach. “She says what she wants, and I think she’ll let the American people know exactly what’s going on.”

The findings help explain why the New York senator has built a strong lead over Democratic rivals who have made their opposition to the war the centerpiece of their campaigns — and who have laid out more-detailed plans for quicker troop reductions.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina began his campaign by declaring his 2002 authorization vote a “mistake.” Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois frequently notes that, though he was a state legislator at the time, he opposed the war from the beginning. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has called for an immediate troop withdrawal.

Obama tried again Wednesday to turn his war stance to his advantage, delivering a speech in Iowa that called for a troop drawdown to begin immediately and be completed next year. He did not mention Clinton’s name, but ridiculed “conventional thinking in Washington” that he said “lined up for war” and led Congress to support President Bush’s plans because lawmakers feared the political consequences of doing otherwise.

“I made a different judgment,” Obama said.

But the new survey results suggest that even if Obama’s views more closely match those of many primary and caucus voters, he is not necessarily going to benefit.

The poll, which surveyed registered voters who planned to turn out for the primaries or caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, found that a plurality of Democratic primary or caucus voters in each state thought Clinton would be “the best at ending the war in Iraq” — 33% in Iowa, 32% in New Hampshire and 36% in South Carolina. Clinton holds substantial leads even among voters who listed the war as the top priority facing the candidates.

Supervised by Times Poll director Susan Pinkus, the survey was conducted last Thursday through Monday, and has an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points; among the Iowa Democrats it was 4 percentage points.

Clinton won support from 36% of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters who said they wanted U.S. troops withdrawn “as soon as possible”; by contrast, 14% of those voters backed Obama and 12% favored Edwards. Clinton also led among those in that group who said they supported more-gradual withdrawal plans and who backed remaining in Iraq until the war is won.

The numbers were similar on that front in South Carolina. And in Iowa, where the overall race is tighter, Clinton was essentially tied with Edwards in support from Democratic voters wanting an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq. But among those same voters, 33% said Clinton was the best candidate to end the war, compared with just 6% for Edwards.

Democratic pollster Dave Beattie, who is not affiliated with a campaign, said Clinton’s rivals risked reaching a “point of diminishing returns” if they focused too heavily on differences between them and Clinton on Iraq.

Most voters, he said, are not concerned about the differences, given that each candidate is essentially critical of the war and promises to end it.

Critics have accused Clinton of failing to present a specific plan to end the war and of being slow to commit to a full pullout. She has said that as president she would end the war, and she used a speech this summer to pledge that if elected, she would consult her advisors and draw up a plan to begin drawing down troops within 60 days of her inauguration.

She reiterated that stance Wednesday, unleashing a stinging attack on Bush’s leadership before his prime-time address on the war set for tonight.

“None of the Democratic candidates has a position that is outside the realm of acceptable for what the Democratic electorate is looking for,” Beattie said, even though “it may not be their absolute favorite position.”

Harrison Hickman, Edwards’ campaign pollster, acknowledged that at least for now, voters were not seeing specific differences among the candidates on the war.

“If they don’t see a lot of differences, it’s hard to say those issues are driving the campaign,” he said.

Analysts said that Clinton’s strength even among war opponents resulted from a perception that, as a senator and a former first lady, she has the best experience to be president — a category she dominated in the three early states surveyed by the Times/Bloomberg poll.

Several respondents said Wednesday that they liked her for other reasons that trumped the war: her husband, the former president; and the idea of electing a woman to the White House.

Also, the survey reflects the Clinton campaign’s efforts over the last six months to refocus the Iraq debate on a future of troop reductions — an area of agreement among the candidates — rather than on her 2002 vote. As a result, the debate over the war has shifted from a potential disadvantage for Clinton to an asset, her advisors say.

“It’s an issue, and she’s winning the issue,” said Mark Penn, Clinton’s pollster.

Strategists for Clinton’s rivals dispute that notion, contending that the war continues to serve as a case against her. The campaign is early, they said, and her rivals still have time to paint her 2002 vote as indicative of poor judgment.

“Any suggestion that the Iraq war is a settled issue in this primary would be dangerously wrong,” said David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager.

But, like many voters in the early states, Jean Corson of Exeter, N.H., said she was far more focused on the future than on the past.

“I’m very disappointed that Clinton didn’t move more aggressively earlier on, but at this point, I believe that whoever gets elected will have to get the troops out of Iraq,” she said.

Explaining why she will back Clinton, Corson said: “She’s smart. She knows how the system works.”

Analysis:

This WXMI story, billed as “reaction” to Vice President Cheney’s speech, is heavily tilted towards those who supported Cheney’s position. Despite beginning with a few sentences explaining that reaction was “mixed” and that protestors were outside of Cheney’s speech, the story primarily quotes those in support of Cheney’s speech and policies. There were four statements from those “supporting” Cheney and from those “opposing” Cheney.

The story concludes with the reporter stating that the converstaion caused by the visit “was well worth it.” How is this claim made? The story cites a woman who presumably saw the speech, but how would viewers know if her comment accurately reflects the views of those who were there?

Story:

Analysis:

This WZZM 13 story on protests outside of Vice President Dick Cheney’s September 14, 2007 is split between covering the protests and “finding out” what public opinion on the Iraq War is in Grand Rapids.

Throughout the story, those interviewed make a variety of assertions that are never verified by the reporter. The protestor–Richard Hackler–makes claims about public opinion before the war and now, but the reporter never checks his claims. Similarly, the people interviewed on the street make a variety of claims about the consequences of leaving Iraq, but there is no investigation of those claims.

Moreover, viewers should think about the whether or not the methodology used–random encounters with people on the street–is really indicative of public opinion.

Story:

News Reader #1: Well almost every high profile political visit of course brings protestors.

News Reader #2: And the group ACTIVATE has been protesting for years saying they hope to make a difference. WZZM 13’s Nick Montecelli continues our team coverage with that part of the story.

Reporter: Well Julliette, There were only a handful of protestors on hand, they thought that the rain scared others away. But in reality, those people came shortly before the vice president arrived. So did over 100 protestors marching in with a very strong message.

Pastor: I am offended at our longterm commitment to an immoral war.

Reporter: Those there early were ecstatic to see support against the war.

Pastor: I think people of moral conscience ought to always be asking the question can we be doing better.

Reporter: And the message they brought…

Protestor: We need to be as mad as anybody.

Reporter: …was a unified one.

Protestor: It was all justifiable? I don’t think so.

Reporter: Among the over one-hundred protestors…

Protestor: US out of Iraq!

Reporter: Was the man behind it all.

Richard Hackler, Protestor: It’s atrocious, it’s genocide.

Reporter: Richard Hackler says the problems in Iraq are because of the war.

Richard Hackler: When the war started, the majority of Americans supported it. Public position has switched to a majority of Americans opposing and wanting a timetable of withdrawal. So clearly organizing like this does have something of an impact.

Reporter: But does this group–a fraction of the population–really mirror public opinion?

Person on the Street #1: I don’t believe we should have gone there in the first place.

Reporter: We walked through downtown Grand Rapids at lunchtime to find out.

Person on the Street #1: But now that we’re there, we can’t just pull out because there will be more adversity that will happen over there.

Person on the Street #2: We should not be there.

Reporter: Should the war end immediately?

Person on the Street #2: Uhhhh…. I don’t know.

Person on the Street #3: It’s a tremendous mess over there because those people’s country over there is in such disarray and I think we have some responsibility to fix that.

Protestor: We weren’t invited to be here to let Cheney see us.

Reporter: But those here say change needs to happen right now.

Protestor: The tip of the iceberg is George W. Bush’s speech last night which gave if anything, not a hopeful message, but a hopeless message.

Reporter: Now this group ACTIVATE is based in Grand Rapids and hopes their work will spread beyond the politicians, for instance, they hope to shed light on alternatives to military recruiting and build a larger community-based organization to voice there opinions right here in the city.

News Reader #2: Alright Nick, thank you.

Analysis:

This story from WOOD TV 8 covers protests outside of Vice President Cheney’s September 14, 2007 visit to Grand Rapids. The story is primarily “play-by-play” coverage of the protest, focusing on giving updates on where the protestors were throughout the speech. Does the fact that the protestors were forced to move back 25 steps by the police help WOOD TV 8’s viewers understand why people were holding a protest at Cheney’s speech?

The story contains one quote from a protestor explaining that they want the occupation to end immediately. Despite the fact that the protest had a clearly articulated message calling for an end to the occupation of Iraq, the WOOD TV reporter still says simply that the protestors carried “the usual signs.”

Finally the story includes a clip of an unidentified Cheney supporter saying that the protestors “wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for us. What the hell’s the matter with them?” The statement lacks context and it is unclear what the speaker is referencing. WOOD TV did not ask for further clarification from the man, nor did they attempt to clarify what he meant in the story.

Story:

WOOD TV Reporter: Some of that dissent actual remains an hour after the Vice President left, there is one protestor still standing outside here at the Ford Museum. He left at about 11 o’clock. That protestor was among dozens that showed up here this morning just as the Vice President was about to speak.

WOOD TV Reporter: They represented a number of groups against the war. They gathered at the front door of the museum. A couple of minutes later police moved them back, I counted off–it was about 25 steps to the sidewalk that runs between Ah Nab Awan Park and the museum steps. All of them carried the usual signs and they brought whistles to make a little noise as well. But the opposition wasn’t without opposition.

Cop: Is there somebody in charge?

Protestor: We just marched over from Rosa Parks Circle a few blocks over down to the Ford Museum where Dick Cheney is speaking today to let him know that we don’t support him in any way, that we don’t support this war, and we want the occupation to end immediately.

Cheney Supporter: They wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for us. What the hell’s the matter with them?

WOOD TV Reporter: The protestors then left this area in front of Ah Nab Awan Park and headed a couple of blocks north to the Michigan Street bridge to catch a glimpse of the motorcade. They wanted the Vice President to know they were here.

Analysis:

Like the WOOD TV 8 story, this story on a protest outside of Vice President Dick Cheney’s September 14, 2007 speech begins with a sort of “play-by-play” of the protest, talking about how there were few protestors outside of the Gerald R. Ford Museum until a group of them marched over from Rosa Parks Circle. From there, the reporter goes on to state that the Vice President never saw the protestors, although a video produced by Media Mouse shows that the motorcade did pass by the protestors at another location.

More important than that minor factual inaccuracy is the way in which the reporter frames the protest. He introduces the only protestor quoted in the story–who is with the group ACTIVATE/SDS–by stating that the protestors “knew their protest would not make an immediate impact.” The story then quotes the protestor using a statement that begins with the protestor saying “clearly an event like this isn’t going to end the war in and of itself.” While the protestor eventually does say that they are against the war and that the majority of Americans support a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq (a claim that is never verified), how do the reporter’s comments shape the viewers opinion of the effectiveness of antiwar protest?

Finally, the reporter explains that WZZM 13 will be talking to people on the streets to see what “the average person think[s]” about the war. Does this conclusion make viewers think that the “average person” disagrees with the protestors?

Story:

WZZM 13 Reporter: There were only a handful of protestors here until just moments before the Vice President’s arrival. In fact, they were actually at Rosa Parks Circle and then they marched over here to the museum with noisemakers, loud whistles, and a banner all to say that they oppose the war. The Vice President however, never saw them. Much like President Bush, he arrived and left through the backdoors avoiding the protestors completely, but that is really not unusual. The protestors say that they new that would happen and that they knew that their protest would not make an immediate impact.

Protestor: Clearly an event like this isn’t going to end the war in and of itself, but doing this stuff builds communities of like-minded people who can network together and follow this administration around, let them know anywhere they go they are opposed to their policy, they are opposed to this war. The majority of Americans support a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

WZZM 13 Reporter: Now obviously the 100+ people here all shared the same sentiment, an immediate end to the war in Iraq. But what does the average person think? We’re going to talk to a few people right off the streets. We’ll bring you their opinions on WZZM 13 news at 5:30.

Analysis:

This story is based on the visit by Vice President Cheney to the Ford Museum to promote the administration’s Iraq policy. The Press cites Cheney making claims such as “the United States and our coalition are getting things right in Iraq,” but provided no evidence or examples of how “things are right in Iraq.” Cheney also states that the consequences of a hasty departure from Iraq would result in “the ensuing carnage would further destabilize the Middle East,” but again there is no evidence to support such a claim. The article then mentions that Cheney’s visit is “part of a major push by the Bush administration to shore up support for the war,” and then mentions that polls reflect “public disillusion with the war.” However, no specific polls or polling information is provided to support the claim made by the Press writer.

The Press story then repeats the main message by the Bush administration about the so-called “troop reduction” put forth in general Patraeus’s recommendations. The story also says “Democratic leaders are faulting the plan outlined by Bush as a continuation of a failed strategy,” but does not mention any specifics about their objections nor what alternative plan they might have, if any.

The last part of the story mentions that there were protestors at the Ford Museum, quotes one of them, but doesn’t provide information or name the group that organized the demonstration. Does it seem clear from the quote from the GVSU student as to why people were protesting Cheney’s visit? The last three paragraphs has information about who from the area GOP was accompanying Cheney.

Story:

Echoing the words of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney said that retreat from Iraq is not an option. Speaking for about 30 minutes this morning to a selected audience of about 200 at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum, Cheney argued that the battle is part of the larger fight against global terrorism.

“Ladies and gentlemen, the United States and our coalition are getting things right in Iraq,” he said.

Like Bush, Cheney warned of the consequences of a hasty departure from Iraq, saying that “the ensuing carnage would further destabilize the Middle East.”

Cheney also proclaimed himself “confident in the outcome” of the war.

“We will press on in our mission and we will turn events toward victory,” he said.

Following the speech, he visited Ford’s tomb outside the museum.

Cheney’s stop here and later today at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., is part of a major push by the Bush administration to shore up support for the war. Polls continue to reflect public disillusion with the war, which is approaching its fifth year.

In his nationally televised speech Thursday night, Bush said that 5,700 troops would be brought home by Christmas.

He laid the prospect that five more combat brigades — or about 30,000 troops — would be withdrawn from Iraq next summer if conditions permit. That parallels the recommendation this week by Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.

That would leave 130,000 troops there, on the eve of a presidential campaign in which the war is expected to be the dominant issue. The president said troops could be reduced to 100,000 by the end of 2008.

Democratic leaders are faulting the plan outlined by Bush as a continuation of a failed strategy. Cheney’s visit marks the third time in less than a year that Bush or Cheney appeared in West Michigan to make the case for war.

In September 2006, Cheney urged commitment to the war before a gathering of Guard and Reserve troops and their families at Wyoming’s Grand Valley Armory. In April, President Bush spoke at East Grand Rapids High School as he delivered a policy speech laying out the tactics behind the “surge” strategy he asserts will turn the tide in Iraq.

As Cheney began his speech in Grand Rapids, some 75 anti-war protesters gathered nearby holding signs, blowing whistles, shaking rattles, and chanting “Cheney out of Grand Rapids,” and “U.S. out of Iraq”.

The crowd arrived outside the museum about 10:15 a.m., led by a banner that read “U.S. out of Iraq.” Many carried signs that said, “Support the troops, end the war.” The group initially marched toward the front entrance but police moved them back to sidewalk near Ah Nab Awen Park where they remained peaceful but noisy.

“Clearly the protest in of itself is not going to end the war,” said organizer and Grand Valley State University student Richard Hackler, 21. “It’s about letting this administration know they can’t go anywhere without attracting an angry mob. We need to let people know we don’t support the war.”

Cheney arrived at Gerald R. Ford International Airport just before 9:30 this morning.

Cheney, who served as chief of staff for President Ford, exited his plan carrying a big black umbrella to shield himself from the rain.

He was accompanied by his daughter Elizabeth Cheney and greeted by his old friend, Peter Secchia, a Grand Rapids businessman, former ambassador to Italy and Republican Party activist. Also on the tarmac were Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land of Byron Center, Kent County Commission Chair Roger Morgan, former Kent County Republican Party Chairwoman Libby Child and Kyle Olson, vice president of the nonprofit Education Action Group.