Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

Analysis:

This Newhouse News Service article appeared in the “Your Life” section of the Grand Rapids Press, which is usually media and entertainment focused. After reading the story would you say that this story is about entertainment?

The article begins with a testimonial from a US soldier recently returned from Iraq, who talks about his experiences in combat. Then the article shifts to say that this soldier has been chosen to be part of the “Army’s Real Heroes program, which is trying to make the names of today’s heroes well known the way Sgt. Alvin York was known in World War I and Audie Murphy was known in World War II.” Do you think that this is part of the Pentagon’s larger strategy for promoting a positive image of the US military? Media analyst Robin Anderson says “Computer games have also become key training and recruiting tools. The characters that inhabit virtual game worlds locked in endless battles between good and evil, double as “warfighters” and kill targets for military training.” The article does admit that these video games are a recruiting tool, citing the featured US soldier who says “that while the “America’s Army” games are recruiting tools, he sees them more as educational tools to teach people about the Army.”

The only other sources in the article are two people who are with the America’s Army video project. Why does the story leave out voices of those who have a critical perspective on the use of video games as a recruiting tool of the US Military? There are no student, parent or counter-military recruiting voices, nor is there any information on the amount of money being spent on these videos games and who is paying for them.

Story:

For Sgt. Tommy Rieman, earning a place on the team that creates the “America’s Army” video games was no game at all.

On Dec. 3, 2003, he was a member of Echo Company, 51st Long Range Surveillance, in a three-vehicle convoy in Iraq.

“Just outside of Baghdad, we got hit with three RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades), three IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and a ton of small arms fire. I threw my body in front of my gunner, to use my body like a shield. I was shot in the arm, the chest, and took a bunch of shrapnel in my body.

“Then we were hit with another ambush about a mile south of that, and by that time we were all (angry) and ready to fight some more. There were three of us wounded, and we still fought through it. Then I called in a medevac and got us out of there. So I got the Silver Star and Purple Heart.”

After earning the Silver Star, Rieman was singled out for the Army’s Real Heroes program, which is trying to make the names of today’s heroes well known the way Sgt. Alvin York was known in World War I and Audie Murphy was known in World War II. A “Real Heroes” collectible action figure of Rieman will hit major retailers this fall, and he is featured in the “America’s Army” online game.

Through that contact with the “America’s Army” developers to put him in the game, he began working with them as a consultant.

“These guys have been around since ’02, the game has. They’re pretty good on what’s going on, but they’re not in the Army, so sometimes they stray away a little bit. Basically they’ll create a map, an area, scenario, new training, whatever, and they’ll call me up and say, `Hey, we want you to come check this out,”’ said Rieman, of Kernersville, N.C.

“I make sure it’s accurate. If it’s not accurate, I give them the input on what they can do to make it better, such as the weight of (a weapon), or the kickback. Just say, on the M-4 when they fire it, it needs to have some kind of kick. Or the delay, say, if it’s a Mark 19 trainer, and it’s shooting out rounds. On the video game it would impact immediately, but there needs to be a couple of seconds delay, because it doesn’t impact immediately. Little things like that to make it real.”

Rieman, 27, works on both the PC online game and a forthcoming “America’s Army” game for the Xbox 360. He travels around the country, and was recently at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, where “America’s Army” is managed, to test the new 360 game, “America’s Army: True Soldiers.”

To develop “True Soldiers,” the Army partnered with Ubisoft, publisher of the popular shooters “Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Vegas” and “Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter” series.

“I can’t tell you anything about the 360 game until the launch, unfortunately. I’m dying to show you,” said Rieman.

All the Army will say about the game is that it has extensive multiplayer features for play on Xbox Live.

Rieman gave only one more hint about “True Soldiers,” slated for release Sept. 25. Will its gameplay be more like “Rainbow Six Vegas” or “GRAW 2”?

“It’s a nice balance. Let’s just keep it that way. There’s some cool stuff in there. I can’t wait. I’m like a little kid at Christmas.”

Rieman said that while the “America’s Army” games are recruiting tools, he sees them more as educational tools to teach people about the Army. The Army, in turn, uses the games as a basis for new training simulations, which are sometimes worked back into the game.

“We share resources between the public game and the real training,” said Frank Blackwell, program manger of the “America’s Army” Project Office in Huntsville. For example, the “America’s Army” team developed training simulations for the Javelin shoulder-fired missile and the CROWS — the Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station, which is basically a remote-controlled machine gun turret on a Humvee, so the gunner can remain protected within the armored vehicle. The controls are, not surprisingly, like a video game. Those training systems were subsequently modeled in the game.

“Javelin and CROWS, in the last major release (of “America’s Army”), were both training applications first,” Blackwell said. “Some of these game maps we use for training. It’s a common repository. That’s one of the things that makes ‘America’s Army’ different from other games. We have these weapons systems, and they’re deployed properly.”

Scott Johnston, “America’s Army” project leader, spent 2004 in Iraq as a member of the 115th Signal Battalion of the Alabama National Guard. Johnston, who helped develop the CROWS trainer, said that young soldiers raised on video games take to the new systems like fish to water. With the CROWS trainer, he said, “It takes a while to get used to maneuvering this thing around. You have to be quick, because things pop up on you. But kids, young soldiers who try this thing, anybody from 15 to 25, they pick this thing up and in five minutes it’s like they’re an expert on it. They’re so game-oriented, it’s amazing.”

CROWS uses a control grip with a thumb joystick, but Johnston and Rieman said they hope to adopt a two-thumbstick controller similar to a PlayStation 2 controller for the system, because that would be even easier for soldiers to adapt to and use effectively.

“‘America’s Army’ is the foundation of all of this,” said Rieman, gesturing to CROWS training equipment on the table, and across the room at the Convoy Skills Engagement Trainer — a life-sized Humvee cab and gun turret sitting in front of three huge projection screens where a video game-like scene is displayed.

“We’re using the number one tools. There’s nothing better,” Rieman said. “Next to firing the real thing, that’s it.”

Analysis:

This article is based upon the efforts by the Iraq Summer Campaign, which has been in Grand Rapids since late June. Early in the article it states that the group is “hoping to persuade the Republican U.S. representative from Grand Rapids to drop his support for the war.” However, on the main page of the group’s website they don’t call for an end to the war, rather they “demand that members of Congress and the Senate take a stand with the vast majority of Americans who want a safe and responsible redeployment of American Forces from Iraq.”

The article then has Congressman Ehlers state that “We have gone into Iraq, whether rightly or wrongly, but we have messed up their country, and we have a moral obligation to stay,” but that statement which is not substantiated with any data or sources is then followed by an Iraq Summer organizer who says “the coalition is not demanding an immediate end to the war and is avoiding partisan politics.” Is it clear from this article what the Iraq Summer group is asking for? To the issue of avoiding partisan politics, if you look at their website there is only criticism of Republican positions on the war, whether they are elected officials or Presidential candidates. Does that seem non-partisan? An Iraq Summer organizer then claims that “The right-wing blogs are already calling us out-of-town troublemakers,” but doesn’t cite which blogs.

The article concludes with more information on what the campaign hopes to accomplish, which includes a town hall meeting and a separate meeting with Ehlers. Ehlers then responds by saying he will meet with “local war opponents, not out of town organizers.” The final statement is from Ehlers who says “I’m swayed by facts,” but he does not provide one single fact about his position on the war or the Press reporter fails to mention them.

Story:

They have been in town several weeks now, organizing meetings, attending demonstrations, handing out lawn signs, and writing letters, all aimed at changing one man’s mind.

“The only person around here who can do anything about this is Vern Ehlers,” said Bryan Finken, 46, a part-time philosophy professor from Denver, about the war in Iraq.

He arrived in June. Ben Thielemier, 22, came from Arkansas a couple of weeks later, hoping to persuade the Republican U.S. representative from Grand Rapids to drop his support for the war.

Their effort is part of a national campaign by a coalition of anti-war groups called Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. The effort is targeting 40 Republican members of Congress they believe may be wavering in their support for the war.

Those 40, if they change their minds, would give the war’s opponents a veto-proof majority in Congress, organizers said. They call their campaign Iraq Summer, modeled after the 1964 Freedom Summer, which registered black voters in the South, and the summer of 1967 protests against the Vietnam War.

Although he voted for a resolution allowing President Bush to launch the war, Ehlers since has called it a mistake based on faulty intelligence. Yet, he has voted to continue funding for the war.

“To continue to fund it, to continue to keep our troops in harm’s way doesn’t make sense,” Thielemier said. “It’s doublespeak.”

But Ehlers contended pulling out now would lead to a “bloodbath.”

“We’re several years past that initial decision,” he said. “We have gone into Iraq, whether rightly or wrongly, but we have messed up their country, and we have a moral obligation to stay.”

Finken said the coalition is not demanding an immediate end to the war and is avoiding partisan politics.

Soon after arriving, Finken contacted local peace activists and set up temporary quarters at the Institute for Global Education, 1118 Wealthy St. SE.

“The right-wing blogs are already calling us out-of-town troublemakers,” Finken said.

His goal, he said, is not to foment but to organize the opposition already here.

In a recent CBS-TV News/The New York Times poll, 69 percent of Americans said they disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war, and slightly more than half said the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq.

Locally, Finken and Thielemier sense similar opposition.

They have given out 900 lawn signs that read “Support the Troops; End the War,” circulated petitions, and every Monday afternoon, attended anti-war rallies on Fulton Street and Division Avenue.

They plan to end their efforts here Aug. 28 with a town hall meeting at Grand Valley State University’s Loosemore Auditorium downtown.

By then, they hope to arrange a meeting with Ehlers.

Ehlers said he is willing to meet with local war opponents, not out-of-town organizers. But he added he will not be influenced by public demonstrations.

“I’m swayed by facts,” he said. “If I’m not, then I’m too weak-kneed to be a member of Congress.”

Analysis:

This story appears to be based upon a GR Press phone poll. They provide the percentages for people likely to vote in the Mayoral race and state that the it was “a high rate of participation for this kind of canvass, experts say.” What experts are they referring to? The story then cites a Heritage Hill voter who is “undecided” and she mentions some recent city issues that she has concerns about – Garfield Park, development projects and the Indian Trails Golf Course. Next 3 of the 4 candidates are cited about the last minute Get Out the Vote efforts, with jackie Miller being the excluded candidate. The story then shifts to a discussion of how Heartwell and Tormala are courting the Democratic vote and also how they “differ.” The rest of the story continues to focus on Tormala and Heartwell. The last sentence provides readers with information on how much money Heartwell, Tormala and Rinck have spent so far, but no information on what they spent the money on. Readers should ask themselves if this story provided information for potential voters to make an informaed decision about the August 7 election. To date, we have not documented any local news coverage that would provide voters with a serious review of the voting records for incumbents or those candidates who have held elected office, nor any details on platforms and proposals if elected.

Story:

With only two days left before Tuesday’s citywide primary election, it appears undecided voters will determine whether there is an outright winner or a November runoff in the mayoral race.

A Press-sponsored telephone canvass last week of every likely voter household in the city indicated 20 percent are still undecided. Likely voters were identified from lists of those who voted in similar low-turnout elections in the recent past, such as school elections and off-year primaries.

Incumbent Mayor George Heartwell is favored by 44 percent of the likely voters, while 25 percent said they would vote for 2nd Ward City Commissioner Rick Tormala, and 8 percent said they would vote for Jim Rinck, a longtime member of the Grand Rapids Board of Education. Barely 2 percent of those participating said they would vote for a fourth candidate, retail clerk Jackie Miller.

More than 19 percent of people answering in 13,780 households, or 2,665, took the survey, a high rate of participation for this kind of canvass, experts say.

Heartwell, who is seeking a second term, can win outright Tuesday if a bulk of those undecided voters go his way and give him more than 50 percent of the overall vote.

Tormala’s challenge will be to land enough undecided voters to force a runoff election between himself and Heartwell in the Nov. 6 general election.

Heritage Hill resident Diana Barrett, 71, said she will vote but remains undecided.

“I’m just not thrilled with a lot of the secrecy,” Barrett said, echoing concerns of other undecided voters frustrated with Heartwell for a confidentiality agreement he signed for a development project and for his support of a failed proposal to use land at Garfield Park for a Salvation Army Center.

Some also cited a failed attempt to sell land at the Indian Trails Golf Course, a plan also supported by Tormala initially.

The high number of undecided voters means candidates will pump up get-out-the-vote efforts in the final two days.

“Getting out the vote has been a goal of our campaign from the get-go,” said Heartwell, who planned to deploy volunteers for “lit drops” from the West Side Complex and Garfield Park on Saturday morning.

Tormala said he is heartened by the fact Heartwell did not get an outright majority in the survey.

“The only poll that’s going to count is Tuesday, and I see the momentum shifting toward us,” Tormala said.

Rinck, who has been the top vote-getter in citywide school elections in the past, was incredulous at the numbers.

“It doesn’t track with what I’m hearing on the street,” he said.

He also dismissed any suggestion that he is a spoiler in the race, despite some similarities in reputation with Tormala. Both men strike populist chords and profess to speak for those without a voice.

Rinck said he thinks he pulls more votes from Heartwell than he does from Tormala and pointed out that he entered the race in January, four months before Tormala announced.

While the mayor and city commissioners are officially nonpartisan in Grand Rapids, Tormala and Heartwell rely on core support among Democrats in a city that has trended Democratic in the past several presidential, gubernatorial and U.S. Senate elections.

Still, the candidates represent disparate wings of the party, with Tormala, a former staffer for Democratic U.S. Senator Carl Levin, enjoying support among old-line Democrats in conservative Catholic, anti-abortion West Side precincts and union households across the city. The survey affirmed Heartwell’s appeal among younger progressives in Eastown and moderate Republicans on the Southeast Side and the city’s far eastern neighborhoods.

Heartwell’s biggest challenge will be to get people to the polls in the 3rd Ward, where the Press survey indicated he is favored by 56 percent of likely voters. The 3rd Ward is Heartwell’s political base. He served as a 3rd Ward commissioner for two terms in the 1990s.

Based on absentee voters returns, City Clerk Terri Hegarty anticipates more than 15 percent of the city’s 120,000 registered voters will turn out, which would be high for a city primary.

Hegarty predicted voter turnout will be higher in the 1st and 2nd wards, where signs proliferate on lawns and door-to-door campaigning has been heavy in high-profile races for two open City Commission seats.

Third Ward voters will not choose their city commissioner until November because incumbent Elias Lumpkins is unopposed.

Besides the mayor’s race, the only other issue on the ballot citywide is a millage request for Grand Rapids Community College.

Tormala’s support was weakest in the 3rd Ward, where 16 percent of the respondents chose him, according to the phone survey. He was stronger in the 1st and 2nd wards, getting 29 percent and 30 percent, respectively.

To get out his voters, Tormala is counting on help from unions representing the city’s police officers and firefighters. They will continue to work phone banks and pass out literature on his behalf.

In past City Commission elections, Tormala also has counted on telephone banks and literature drops by The Friends of Labor, a coalition of local unions.

This year, the unions that make up Friends of Labor are going their own way, according to their director, Buck Geno. Several are expected to make calls on Tormala’s behalf, he said.

The survey results also track with candidate spending, as filings showed Heartwell spending $46,000 through July 27 to Tormala’s $12,000 and Rinck’s $4,000.

Analysis:

This story was based upon the actions of various White Supremacists who came to Kalamazoo for a “Rally Against Black Gang Terrorism” and a counter-demonstration organized by Michigan Against White Supremacy and people from Kalamazoo. The story begins with “Police say Saturday’s rally was quiet compared to past rallies,” but the reporter never clarifies what they mean by “quiet” nor how this rally compares to others. The first person who is cited in the story was someone who was watching from a distance, not the White Supremacists nor the people who organized or participated in the counter-demonstration. The story then shifts to say that rally organizer Hal Turner said “The city of Kalamazoo has a problem with black gangs.” No other information is provided about Hal Turner or what he and the other White Supremacist Groups who came to Kalamazoo actually advocate. One thing that Turner had called for in Kalamazoo was the “lynching of Black people.” Does this seem like relevant information for channel 8 viewers?

The story then turns to another gathering in Kalamazoo by African Americans offering an alternative to the White Supremacist gathering, but no information is provided on this group or what they are for except “unity.” The story then cited the Kalamazoo police and that some people were arrested, even though the reasons for the arrest conflict with other reports.

Story:

Police say Saturday’s rally was quiet compared to past rallies.

Around 200 people came out, mostly protesters. That number not comparing to over 400 officers on duty.

It helped, they say, to let the rally take place in the parking lot of Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety where they could easily take control of any situation.

The tapes and gates were in place early Saturday morning.

Police officers filed in to man their stations. Many more located at street corners all over Kalamazoo.

A white supremacist group was set to rally at 1:00 p.m. Saturday.

Bashun Bransn told 24 Hour News 8 he came out to see what it was all about.

“I just look at the stupidity and go back and get on the track. This is just disgusting to me,” Bransn said.

He says he’ll use what he hears to try and teach a message about peace through music as Bransn is a rapper.

While others looked on, the words of radio talk show host Hal Turner, the man leading the rally, rang through a vacant parking lot.

“Behavior is the reason this rally has to occur,” Turner said. “The city of Kalamazoo has a problem with black gangs.”

It’s a message Turner has sent e-mails about trying to get publicity.

Saturday his words were only heard for an hour.

Some people, however, ignored those words completely. Across town a peace rally where families came together.

“The ones for unity in the community are out here,” Yolanda Neals told 24 Hour News 8.

The numbers cut down on the numbers in town at the rally, something police are thankful for.

“It couldn’t have gone any better as far as the number of people that showed up an the control we’ve seen so far,” said Captain Joe Taylor of Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety.

Two people were arrested. One for Resisting & Obstructing an officer and another for Interfering with an officer, in the aftermath of the event.

While they’re pleased with the low turn-out, they say this is not over yet. They will be following up in town all evening to make sure there are no problems between the white supremacist group and protesters.

Analysis:

This story was based upon the actions of various White Supremacists who came to Kalamazoo for a “Rally Against Black Gang Terrorism” and a counter-demonstration organized by Michigan Against White Supremacy and people from Kalamazoo. What does channel 13 mean by the headline to their online story “Kalamazoo Rally Ends Peacefully?” The second senetence in the story then says “But, thanks to a heavy police presence, it ended peacefully.” Does the story imply that the police prevented any violence at the White Supremacist rally? The first person cited in the story is with the Kalamazoo police, who is also cited responded to a claim by the White Supremacist rally organizer Hal Turner. The story then cites a White Supremacist and someone who participated in the counter-demonstration, but provided no details on what the White Suprecemacists were calling for nor any background information on those groups. The story ends with the claim that the City of Kalamazoo did not support the position of the White Supremacists but because of the First Amendment had to grant them a permit. There was no mention in the story of police intimidation nor the arrests of three counter-demonstrators.

Story:

Protestors clashed with White Supremists at a rally held in Kalamazoo. But, thanks to a heavy police presence, it ended peacefully.

The Kalamazoo Public Safety Department says it learned from other cities like Toledo, Ohio, where riots broke out in 2005. That when a Neo-Nazi group clashed with neighbors in a predominately black neighborhood.

Kalamazoo Public Safety Department Captain Joseph Taylor says, “We’ve learned, as did Toledo from their experience. Lansing had a similar police presence.”

In Kalamazoo, the rally was held in the parking lot of the Public Safety Department. The White Supremist group was led by talk show host Hal Turner. The group says the demonstration is in response to recent assaults in the city. The group called them hate crimes.

“Several of them were Minorities assaulting Caucasians, it was a mix. They’ve taken that and blown it into being a racist, ethnic intimidation case, which we have no evidence of”, says Capt. Taylor.

Dan Hill, a White Supremist who was not part of the group holding the event says, “We’re just here to support the message that Kalamazoo, the city, and police force have to put a stop to these hate crimes.”

One of the protestors, Walter Jones says, “I went to Vietnam. I got shot three times. Then I’m going to let these guys come into town. Nah, it’s not right.”

The White Supremist group finished their rally and left the city without any major problems.

The City of Kalamazoo says it does not support the message the group was trying to send, but they did have to issue the group a permit based on the First Amendment. The Right to Assemble and The Freedom of Speech.

Analysis:

This story appeared on the front page of the Grand Rapids Press and is based upon a new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the cost of the US occupation of Iraq. The article states that the cost include “the estimated cost to leave some US forces behind for at least several years to support the Iraqi government, but they also predict other long-term costs, such as extended medical care and disability compensation for wounded soldiers and survivor’s benefits for the families of the thousands of combat-zone fatalities.”

The article cites the assistant director of the Congressional Budget Office, deputy Defense Secretary and two Democratic Congressmen. Why didn’t the article provide a non-partisan perspective on this new study such as the National Priorities Project which has been documednting the cost of the war in Iraq from the very beginning? The story also does not raise questions about whether or not the US should continue to spend this amount of money.

The GR Press added their own sidebar on the front page that says “Here’s how much you could buy or pay for the minimum estimated cost of the war in Iraq.” They provide 13 examples, 5 of which are social cost comparisons like how many years you could provide health care for all uninsured Americans, but 8 examples that are other wealth comparisons like how many Cadillacs you could buy. The National Priorities Project provides numerous comparisons to social cost and even allows you to search the cost to each state and city in the country. As of August 2nd, the cost to Grand Rapids was $234,864,000 and counting.

Story:

The war in Iraq could ultimately cost well over a trillion dollars — at least double what has already been spent — including the long-term costs of replacing damaged equipment, caring for wounded troops, and aiding the Iraqi government, according to a new government analysis.

The United States has already allocated more than $500 billion on the day-to-day combat operations of what are now 190,000 troops and a variety of reconstruction efforts.

In a report to lawmakers yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that even under the rosiest scenario — an immediate and substantial reduction of troops — American taxpayers will feel the financial consequences of the war for at least a decade.

The calculations include the estimated cost to leave some US forces behind for at least several years to support the Iraqi government, but they also predict other long-term costs, such as extended medical care and disability compensation for wounded soldiers and survivor’s benefits for the families of the thousands of combat-zone fatalities.

The cost of the war in Iraq and other military operations has soared to the point where “we are now spending on these activities more than 10 percent of all the government’s annually appropriated funds,” said Robert A. Sunshine, the budget office’s assistant director for budget analysis.

Those costs — both to sustain the current mission in Iraq and to pay longer-term “hidden” expenses like troop healthcare and replacement equipment — are far more than US officials advertised when Congress gave President Bush the authority to launch the invasion in March 2003.

At the time, the White House and then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted a quick, decisive victory and counted on Iraqi oil revenues to pay for the war. And when Lawrence Lindsey, one of Bush’s top budget advisers, estimated in 2003 that the entire undertaking could cost as much as $200 billion, he was fired.

Even that estimate — which the Bush administration described at the time as far too high — was still well off the mark. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as of June, up to $500 billion has been spent on combat operations in Iraq.

In the coming years, the price tag will be substantially higher. Testifying before the House Budget Committee yesterday, Sunshine told lawmakers that he used two scenarios — an optimistic one in which most US troops are withdrawn, and another in which a sizable contingent remains for several years — to calculate anticipated costs.

If the United States gradually reduced its troop level in Iraq to 30,000 by 2010, the US Treasury would still have to provide up to $500 billion more to sustain those troops, as well as pay other expenses, he said in the report.

In the alternative scenario — in which 75,000 US troops remain stationed in Iraq over the next five years — the nation would have to pay an additional $900 billion, according to the analysis.

Members of Congress welcomed the report, noting that the Pentagon has requested only annual expenditures and has refused to provide long-term estimates.

When the committee yesterday asked Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, whether he agreed with the estimates, he maintained that “we don’t have that degree of certainty” about the future costs of the war.

Representative John Spratt a South Carolina Democrat and the Budget Committee chairman, responded that the budget office numbers are “an extrapolation from existing costs. And we’ve got five years of experience, so they’re . . . not building an assumption out of the air. They’re extrapolating from known costs to what future costs are likely to be at certain force levels.”

Some of the future costs will be incurred long after major combat operations end, according to the report.

The 16-page analysis estimated that the medical costs would be more than $9 billion if the United States stations 30,000 troops in Iraq, and would cost almost $13 billion if 75,000 troops remain there for the next several years.

The report estimates that training police and ground forces in Iraq and a relatively smaller number in Afghanistan over the next decade will require at least an additional $50 billion. Meanwhile, the government will have to spend at least $20 billion more for US diplomatic operations, to assist local governments, and to promote economic development in Iraq through 2017 — regardless of how many US troops remain in the country.

Lawmakers expressed concern that the White House is not adequately preparing the country for the financial burden.

Representative James P. McGovern, a Worcester Democrat and a member of the budget panel, said that England couldn’t give a firm answer when asked how much the Pentagon needed to pay for Bush’s decision to dispatch 30,000 more troops to secure Iraq earlier this year.

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

England said the costs the Pentagon anticipated a few months ago for military operations in fiscal year 2008 — about $142 billion — will no longer be enough.

The military will need more money because of the “surge” and the purchase of hundreds of armored vehicles capable of withstanding the roadside bombs responsible for most of the US combat deaths. England said the Pentagon will provide a revised 2008 cost estimate in September.

But McGovern said he is worried about the long-term financial impact of the war, adding that his primary concern is that the United States is borrowing money to pay for it. Some leading economists have predicted that, depending on how long troops remain in Iraq, the endeavor could reach several trillion dollars as a result of more “hidden” costs — including recruiting expenses to replenish the ranks and the lifelong benefits the government pays to veterans.

“It is being paid for on the national credit card,” McGovern said. “It is being put on their backs of our kids and grandkids. That is indefensible.”

McGovern said he is considering proposing that a “war tax” be levied on all Americans to cover the ballooning expenses.

“We should find a way to pay for it so that when this war is over we are not bankrupt,” he said.

Analysis:

This story is based upon the opening of a new community in Florida by Domino’s Pizza Founder Tom Monaghan. The story focuses on the fact that Monaghan wanted to have a heavily Catholic influence not on with the university, but also the town itself. The article does say that he had initially intended to not allow contraceptive items to be sold at stores in his town, but he backed down on those issues once lawsuits began. The story does cite the University president, a new resident in Ave Maria, and Monaghan. There are no critical voices cited in the story, nor much background information on Monaghan other than how he made his fortune.

Monaghan is the founder of the Ave Maria Foundation which finances a number of conservative catholic undertakings. Monaghan was also part of the Word of God group in Ann Arbor, Michigan in the 1980s, a group that was connected to the Catholic Charasmatic movement. According to author and investigative reporter Russ Bellant the Word of God communities practiced an extreme version of patriarchal Christianity. Monaghan and the Word of God community also established the Puebla Institute in Nicaragua in the 1908s to combat the Sandinista party. The Puebla Institute’s first book was financed by the CIA. Monaghan also provided substantial support to another CIA asset in Nicaragua, the catholic bishop Obanda y Bravo.

Readers of this article should ask themselves if it would be important for the reporter to have included more background information on Monaghan and his politics?

Story:

No, of course not, Ave Maria is not a Roman Catholic town, its builders say. Why would you think such a thing?

Yes, the streets have names like Annunciation Circle and John Paul II Boulevard. The town is laid out to catch the sunrise at a certain angle each March 25, the day Catholics celebrate the Feast of Annunciation. And the Catholic university whose towering 10-story church dominates the landscape bans the sale of condoms and warns that premarital sex can be grounds for expulsion.

But Ave Maria is open to everyone, said Blake Gable, project manager for the Barron Collier Cos., which is building the new town in partnership with Domino’s Pizza founder Thomas Monaghan, an ardent Catholic.

“When I lived in Washington, D.C., I looked out my window and I saw the National Cathedral. I didn’t feel like I was in a religious environment,” Gable said. “It’s never occurred to me that it’s a Catholic community.”

The builders of Ave Maria, whose name is Latin for Hail Mary, have been struggling to get the message out that anyone can live here ever since Monaghan’s headline-grabbing comments in 2005, when the site was still just a sod farm. Monaghan told a Catholic group at the time that the town would be governed by Roman Catholic principles. He said stores wouldn’t carry contraceptives or pornography, and cable TV would have no adult channels.

In response, a Wall Street Journal opinion column quoted a critic of Ave Maria as calling it a “Catholic Jonestown.” The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida threatened to sue. Critics called it un-American. And Monaghan backed off.

Monaghan now says that Ave Maria University, the school he is also bankrolling, will follow strict Catholic guidelines, but the town will be largely allowed to grow uninhibited _ except for no adult novelty stores or topless clubs. The developers say they will merely suggest that merchants not sell contraceptives or porn, and cable TV offerings will not be restricted.

Even with that, Monaghan seems disappointed. If he had his way, Ave Maria would be God’s town.

“I thought we owned the real estate, so we can lease to whoever we want and put things in the contract, but there are laws and there were lawsuits out there,” Monaghan said.

The developers say that they will allow any denomination to build a house of worship in Ave Maria, and that gays are welcome, too.

In fact, the Web site for the town and university makes no mention of Catholicism at all, not even noting that the school will be Catholic.

“Ave Maria reinvents hometown living with a flourishing new community complementing a new university,” the site says. “Ave Maria is an exciting place to live, work, play and learn for every family, every lifestyle and every dream.”

Monaghan has spent more than $200 million building the school, which opens next month and hopes to attract 5,500 students. It is the first Catholic university built in the United States in four decades. Gable and Monaghan repeatedly note that the university and town are two separate entities.

But the school’s 1,100-seat church will be the undisputed focal point of the community, with the town center wrapping around it like a pastel-colored Italian village with overhanging balconies, verandas and glass storefronts.

Ave Maria University President Nicholas Healy Jr. said the school would “encourage students to live a Catholic moral life.”

“At a number of schools, there’s a problem with binge drinking or recreational sex,” Healy said. “We don’t permit that. … It would be a very serious violation. We teach what the Catholic church teaches, and the Catholic church teaches that contraception is a grave moral evil and we accept that.”

Barron Collier has spent about $200 million constructing the town and aims to house more than 20,000 residents. Gable said sales have exceeded expectations, with about 250 homes sold since February, thougjust a few of those people have moved in.

As for whether Jews or others might be uncomfortable living in a town called Ave Maria, he said: “Do people who live in San Francisco feel offended? San Antonio?”

New York retirees Henry and Roseann Knetter moved into their home about a month ago. As Catholics, the religion aspect was a big draw.

“It just appeared to be a really nice concept with the church in town,” said Roseann Knetter, 64.

But they said it wasn’t just religion that attracted them.

“We wanted to be in a town that was going to grow up from its grass roots,” Knetter said.

Analysis:

This story is based upon a candidate forum for the Mayor of Grand Rapids race that was held at the Wealthy Theater on July 26. The forum was organized by the Neighborhood Business Alliance. All four candidates were present for the forum, but only three of them were cited in the story. Jackie Miller, who was referred to as a “political neophyte” was not cited in the story. The article begins with criticisms from both Tormala and Rinck that are directed at current Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell. Tormala says that Heartwell pledged he would not run again “if I don’t restore services and if I don’t bring the city back,” but the Press reporter does not report if Heartwell was held to that pledge during the forum. Rinck addresses Heartwell’s most recent campaign brochure, which he claims “says virtually nothing.” Heartwell’s response centered around the issue of public trust. Ask yourself if any of the information that was provided up to this point in the article provided voters with necessary information to make an informed vote?

The rest of the article provides a general summary and states that “The candidates spent most of the 90-minute forum agreeing with each other on business and economic development-related issues.” There were no real specifics about these issues only mentioning that they would all increase taxes as a last resort and that they would increase fire and police protection in neighborhoods. The article ends with a comment from one audience member who focused on how some of the candidates put Heartwell on the spot.

Story:

Mayor George Heartwell’s two main challengers put him on the defensive Thursday in a televised candidate forum.

“The warranty on my colleague is up,” said 2nd Ward City Commissioner Rick Tormala. He pledged he would not run again “if I don’t restore services and if I don’t bring the city back.”

Challenger Jim Rinck closed his remarks by holding up Heartwell’s newest campaign brochure.

“It says virtually nothing; there’s nothing specific in this,” Rinck said. “If this were the best I can do in four years, I’d retire.”

Both candidates criticized Heartwell for a confidentiality agreement he signed with the so-called “mystery developer” in the city’s failed attempt to sell its riverfront public works facility.

Rinck also took a shot at Tormala for drafting a policy that governs future confidentiality agreements.

Such agreements weren’t needed when the school board sold land, said Rinck, a 14-year Grand Rapids Public Schools board member.

Heartwell defended his first term in office, saying he has earned voters’ trust.

“Those who know me and those who have followed my career and know my heart know that I am one for whom trust is held carefully,” he said.

“I’ve worked hard as your mayor to build that trust … because when the day is done, it is only with trust that we can govern.”

The three men and political neophyte Jackie Miller will be on the Aug. 7 primary ballot. If none wins an outright majority, the top two vote-getters will face off in the November general election.

The candidates spent most of the 90-minute forum agreeing with each other on business and economic development-related issues. The forum at Wealthy Theatre was sponsored by the city’s Neighborhood Business Alliance and many questions dealt with neighborhood business issues.

Each candidate pledged to propose tax increases only as a last resort.

All of them said they wanted to strengthen police and fire protection in neighborhoods, and all of them supported neighborhood taxing districts that could fund neighborhood improvements.

Afterward, Southeast Side resident Fran Fritz said she learned more about the candidates and issues but remains undecided.

Fritz said she was glad the candidates addressed Heartwell’s involvement with the “mystery developer.”

“It put him on the spot, and I hate to see someone cornered, but I thought it was a valid question and it should be addressed,” Fritz said.

Analysis:

This story is based up a Democratic Party presidential candidate forum that was hosted by cable news network CNN and the online video site YouTube. The subheading says that “youtube questions shake up Democratic debate.” After reading the story do you think that this youtube question format “shook up” the debate? The first paragraph also states that the candidates were asked questions about Iraq, the military draft and “the candidate’s place in the political system.” There are some candidate responses to the first two questions, but not about where the candidates are in the political system.

The story then shifts to 3 video questions that have each have very short answers from some of the candidates. Ask yourself why the story has responses from only some of the candidates. The story does say that that CNN “screened” the questions posted on Youtube, but no details about the screening/selection process. Next there are questions posed about Darfur, health care, global warming and gun control, but no responses from candidates on each of these serious questions.

The bulk of the article is focused on questions and answers surrounding Iraq, but only responses from five of the eight candidates. Of the responses from candidates there is no verification or follow up by the Associated Press reporter. The article concludes with a few comments on videos that pick fun at the candidates, particularly Edwards and Clinton.

Story:

Young, Internet-savvy voters challenged Democratic presidential hopefuls on Iraq, the military draft and the candidates’ own place in a broken political system, playing starring roles in a provocative, video-driven debate Monday night.

“Wassup?” came the first question, from a voter named Zach, after another, named Chris, opened the CNN-YouTube debate with a barb aimed at the entire eight-candidate field: “Can you as politicians … actually answer questions rather than beat around the bush?”

The answer was a qualified yes. The candidates faced a slew of blunt questions – from earnest to the ridiculous – and, in many cases, responded in kind.

To Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois: Are you black enough? “You know, when I’m catching a cab in Manhattan … in the past, I think I’ve given my credentials,” he replied.

To Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York: Are you feminine enough? “I couldn’t run as anything other than a woman,” she said.

Her answer drew a challenge from former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who said he was the best advocate for women among the contenders. “I have the strongest, boldest ideas,” he said.

Posing a question that few, if any, of the candidates had fielded before, one voter asked whether young women should register with the Selective Service, as do young men in case the draft is reinstated. Clinton, Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut said yes.

The debate featured questions submitted to the online video community YouTube and screened by the all-news cable TV network. A talking snowman, two rednecks and a woman speaking from her bathroom were among the odd, Internet-age twists to the oldest forum in politics – a debate.

A Clio, Mich., man named Jered asked about gun control while brandishing an automatic weapon.

“He needs help,” Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware snapped.

When was the last time a presidential candidate was forced to promise to work at minimum wage? That is effectively what happened when a voter asked whether the candidates would serve four years at $5.85 an hour rather than the president’s annual $400,000 salary.

“Sure,” replied Clinton.

The gathering was held at the military college of The Citadel in South Carolina, site of one of the earliest primaries – Jan. 29. Fittingly, the Democrats skirmished over the Iraq war and other foreign policy issues.

Asked if Democrats are playing politics with the war, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio said yes. “The Democrats have failed the American people,” he said.

Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel said U.S. soldiers are dying in vain. No other candidate would go that far.

Obama took the opportunity to take a slap at his rivals who voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, including Clinton and Edwards. “The time to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in,” he said, without naming Clinton or Edwards.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said he’s the only candidate pledging to remove troops within six months. Biden said Richardson’s goal was unrealistic.

Sensing her position was under attack, Clinton bristled as she argued that U.S. troops must be removed from Iraq “safely and orderly and carefully.”

Obama said he would be willing to meet individually with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his presidency. “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous,” Obama said to applause.

Clinton immediately disagreed and said she would send envoys first to find out their intentions. “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” she said. Her campaign quickly posted the video on her Web site, trying to draw a distinction with her chief rival and show she has a different understanding of foreign policy.

On another foreign policy topic, Biden said he would send 2,500 U.S. troops to Darfur to try to end the civil war there. It took three tries to get Clinton to answer the same questions. She finally said U.S. ground troops don’t belong in the fight because they are overextended in Iraq.

She also refused to call herself a liberal. “I prefer the word progressive, which has a real American meaning …,” she said.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards lead in most polls of the Democratic field.

The opening question challenged Democrats to do better than the failed leadership in Congress and the White House. “How are you going to be any different?” the voter asked.

Obama, a freshmen lawmaker trying to appeal to the public’s thirst for change, replied, “One of the things I bring is a perspective … that says Washington has to change.”

Clinton claimed she has a 35-year-record as an agent of change. “The issue is which of us is to lead on Day One.”

The Democratic gathering marked a turning point in political communications. CNN, a landmark all-news cable network when founded 27 years ago, is now part of a media establishment coming to terms with upstarts like the 2½-year-old online video community.

The debate aside, YouTube has already left its mark on politics. Republican George Allen lost his Senate seat and a likely spot in the 2008 presidential race after a YouTube video caught him referring to a man of South Asian decent as “macaca” – an ethnic slur in some countries.

In the presidential campaign, buzz-worthy video clips have included Bill and Hillary Clinton’s spoof of “The Sopranos” finale, Edwards’ combing his hair to the tune “I Feel Pretty,” and a buxom model professing her crush on Obama.

In the spirit of the era, each candidate was asked to produce his or her own video.

Edwards’ video poked fun at the attention paid to his pricey haircuts at the expense of more serious issues. Set to the theme from the 1968 musical “Hair,” the video opens with several close-up of hairdos, giving way to less frivolous images including several from Iraq. It ends with a white-on-black slide: “What really matters? You Choose”

Clinton’s video-ad ended with the kicker, “Sometimes the best man for a job is a woman.”

Analysis:

This article is based upon recently declassified documents by the National Intelligence Estimate on the status of the US “War on Terror.” GR Press reporter asks Congressman Pete Hoekstra 8 questions on a variety of topics, even though the headline focuses on Pakistan. The first two questions are focused on Pakistan, but there are no details provided nor context of recent US/Pakistan relations.

Then the questions shift to Iraq, where the Congressman is asked exclusively about al-Qaida. No data or sources are provided to support Congressman Hoekstra’s position of al-Qaida in Iraq, nor does the reporter ask if the US Occupation has contributed to anti-US sentiment.

Question number seven is specific to Afghanistan and whether or not the country is headed back being under the control of the Taliban. Again, no analysis or other perspectives are presented on the situation in Afghanistan, nor does the reporter contest the Congressman’s statement or ask for any verification of his claims.

The last question posed to Congressman Hoekstra has to do with “rating” how well the US has done in the “War on Terrorism.” Ask yourself if what Hoekstra says makes any sense and if he says anything that can be backed up with data and analysis?

Story:

Declassified findings of the National Intelligence Estimate released last week said the United States will face a “persistent and evolving” terrorist threat over the next three years.

The report said al-Qaida is regenerating key elements in remote areas of Pakistan while building its alliance with al-Qaida in Iraq.

Press reporter Ted Roelofs spoke with U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, about these findings.

The NIE says that al-Qaida has regenerated itself in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Isn’t that a failure of the Bush administration to shut that operation down?

Obviously we are disappointed with the lack of progress that we would like to seen in Pakistan. Having a safe haven for al-Qaida is a very dangerous and disturbing development. We are limited as to what we can do in a country like Pakistan, which has been in many cases an ally in helping deal with this dangerous enemy.

Why haven’t we done more to pressure Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to deal with the tribal areas in Pakistan?

United States policy has been very, very consistent. We have done a tremendous amount to try to pressure Musharraf to do more. It’s been an ongoing effort. I have met with Musharraf. I have met with their intelligence folks. While I am disappointed with that President Musharraf has not done more, the final call as to what can and cannot be done in Pakistan is a decision that has to be made by the Pakistani government.

The report calls al-Qaida in Iraq the most “visible and capable affiliate” of al-Qaida. Given that al-Qaida in Iraq did not exist before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, what does that say about the consequence of this invasion?

It tells us that we have removed Saddam Hussein from power. Number two, it means that al-Qaida wants to engage us very aggressively and they want to make Iraq a battlefield and they have made Iraq a front in their efforts to carry radical jihadism throughout the Middle East and eventually other parts of the world.

Isn’t it a fallacy to think that we are making progress against al-Qaida if we kill a few leaders? Isn’t it an ideology we are fighting?

It’s clear that you need to be successful on a number of different fronts. One is a military front, where capturing or killing the leadership or the fighters in al-Qaida is one measurement of progress. In the long-term you need to effectively combat the ideology as well.

How do you combat the ideology?

It needs to be confronted most effectively by moderate Muslims. The West, whether it be the United States or Europe, is unlikely to have much success in reshaping radical jihadist ideology. Moderate Muslims need to be the ones that are most outspoken in regard to radical jihadism.

The report says the United States is in a “heightened” threat environment. What does that mean to you?

It doesn’t mean a whole lot to me. I work under the assumption that the United States and the West are at risk and with the knowledge and belief that al-Qaida and other radical jihadists want to attack the United States and want to attack Europe. The heightened threat level means to some there is an increase in activity that makes an attack more likely today than three or six months ago.

Do we have the resources we need to fight the growing influence of the Taliban in Afghanistan? Are you concerned the country is sliding back to the same conditions that provided refuge for Osama bin Laden before 9/11?

No. Not at all. We have been briefed pretty consistently over the last 12 to 18 months that the Taliban is not re-establishing itself in Afghanistan. I’ve met with NATO commanders in Afghanistan. It was only six months ago that there was concern the Taliban would launch a major spring or summer offensive. That has not happened.

What letter grade would you assign the U.S. response to global terrorism?

I would say a B-minus. I think the threat is so significant and so real that we have not put the focus and the attention against this threat that it needs. It’s clear that as policy makers we have done an ineffective job at communicating to the American people how significant this threat may be.