Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

The Grand Rapids Press coverage of the Obama administration continues to decline for the second week in a row. Week eight of the coverage is the lowest since we began our coverage of the first 100 days of the new administration, with only five stories for the entire week. There was one story about federal funding for stem cell research (3/9), and one story on partisan positioning (3/12), where the president sided with his party rather than support legislation proposed by his campaign challenger John McCain.

Wilderness and Greenhouse Gases

For the first time since the new administration took office, environmental stories dominated the coverage.
On March 12, The Press ran an Associated Press (AP) story headlined, “House defeats Wilderness bill.” The article states, “The House Wednesday defeated a bill to set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as protected wilderness.” The House voted 282-144 in favor of the Omnibus Lands Management Act, but it needed a two-thirds majority to pass and was two votes short.
The AP story tries to paint the issue in partisan terms, but there were several Republicans who voted in favor of the bill, like Michigan Representatives Fred Upton and Vern Ehlers. There were also some Democrats who voted against the bill.
The other environmental story for this past week was on Sunday, March 15, headlined, “House misses Green goal, but lightens carbon footprint.” The article was about a proposal by the House of Representative to make the Congressional building more energy efficient. The AP story said that the House was not able to guarantee that they could reduce carbon emissions 100% so they set aside money to invest in other green projects. This strategy follows the carbons credits system, where businesses can buy pollution or carbon credits if they invest in some other sustainable practice elsewhere in the world.

Drug Wars near the Border

The only other story during the week in The Grand Rapids Press that dealt with the new administration was a March 15 story about the difficult task that the new US Drug Czar will face. Just days after Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske was named head of the Office of National Drug Policy, questions were raised about the growing drug war problem in Mexico. About half of the original AP story was omitted in The Press version and there wasn’t much information on why Obama chose Kerlikowske. The story does quote the President who said, “We’ve got a very big border with Mexico. I’m not interested in militarizing the border.” This comment was part of the President’s response to a reporter at a press conference on March 14.
Interestingly enough, this AP story was featured right next to a longer piece from the AP with the headline, “Bodies from Mexico’s drug war cram morgues.” Two pictures–one with Mexican policy surrounding a suspect and another one with a car that has its front windshield shot out–accompany the Associated Press article. And while the violence has increased as a result of the drug war in Mexico, neither story provides any information on Plan Merida, a policy adopted by the US and Mexican government last summer.
Plan Merida is primarily a military solution to the drug trafficking that originates in Mexico, which is not what the new Drug Czar said in the March 15 article. He was quoted as saying he wanted to focus on reducing the demand, “And that starts with our youth.” The Washington Office on Latin America, a non-partisan group, said this of Plan Merida:

“The Merida Initiative is important in terms of bilateral cooperation to address drug trafficking and drug-related violence in Mexico, but effectively tackling these problems will require more emphasis on structural reform. Mexico’s civilian institutions, not the military, should be receiving support.”

Nominee Omissions

There have been numerous articles over the past seven weeks in The Grand Rapids Press about Obama administration nominees. Many of those stories have focused on nominees that have dropped out after some controversy, such as former Senator Tom Daschle. Last week, another nominee dropped out.
President Obama had named Charles Freeman to be part of the National Intelligence Council, but Freeman withdrew his name after accusations from pro-Israel groups and even some Democratic Senators. The New York Times on March 11 even acknowledged that pro-Israel groups were behind the effort to block Freeman from being the nominee.
The independent media has written a great deal about why Freeman not only pulled out of the nomination, but also why President Obama remained silent (http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20899) on the matter. Peter Lee–writing on CounterPunch–said that the pro-Israel lobby pressure to block the Freeman nomination had little to do with the traditional stance of defending Israel and more “to do with trying to disrupt Obama’s initiative to engage with Iran — an initiative that has the active encouragement of Russia, probably tacit support from China, and the active interest of Iran itself.”
Whatever the reason for the opposition to Freeman as Obama’s choice to be part of the National Intelligence Council, it is unfortunate that The Grand Rapids Press chose not to print any stories on this issue.

Week seven of the Grand Rapids Press’ coverage of the Obama administration saw the least amount of stories for a one-week period since inauguration day. There were a total of ten stories focusing on a variety of topics, with health care policy generating the most. Here is a breakdown of the coverage:

• 4 Stories on Health Care Policy
• 2 Stories on the Economy
• 1 Story on Foreign Policy, 1 Story on Energy Policy, 1 Story on the national GOP and 1 Story that reviewed Obama’s campaign promises with his policy decision to date.

Health Care Reform?

On March 6, the Press published a New York Times article entitled “Obama ready to negotiate on health reform.” President Obama was cited warning “lobbyists and special interests not to stand in the way of efforts to rein in costs and guarantee coverage for all Americans.” Most of the story was devoted to a partisan debate about the proposed health care plan, but the Times story does point out, “Mr. Obama provided no new details of how he would extend coverage to the 46 million people who have no health insurance.”
Indeed, there were no details of the plan, nor was there any information on the health care forum that was hosted by the new administration. Journalist John Nichols, writing for the Nation, pointed out that most of those in attendance were CEOs of the major health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. The representation of those in attendance was a reflection of whose interests would be protected as was pointed out in a recent Washington Post article. This should come as no surprise considering that President Obama was overwhelmingly the number one recipient of campaign money from the pharmaceutical industry and the health professionals sector.
The other health stories were a March 2nd story on the difficult task that will face the new Health Care and Human Services nominee, Kathleen Sebelius and two stories on the administration’s plan to end the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. The Press followed a March 7 story announcing the President’s plan on stem cell research with an article on March 8 that solicited local reactions.

The Economy and Energy

In a March 8 story that summarized the President’s weekly radio/video speech, Obama was quoted as saying, “people should be prudent and get back to fundamentals, with an eye on steady savings, reasonable returns and long-term investing.” He also admonished the American people to not “suddenly mistrust all of our financial institutions because the overwhelming majority of them actually have managed things reasonably well.” There was nothing in the Associated Press article or in the President’s speech about the need for corporations or Wall Street to be “prudent.”
On March 2nd, the Grand Rapids Press ran a story on local reactions to the President’s Energy policy proposal, headlined, “Obama energy proposal gets heat.” The article featured three Republican Congressman, all critical of the President’s “cap and trade” plan for reducing carbon emissions. Congressman Hoekstra said this plan would have a negative impact on Michigan manufacturers, Congressman Ehlers didn’t think it would work unless “other nations adopt similar systems” policies, and Congressman Camp felt the cap and trade policy would “tax middle America.”
The Press reporter challenged none of the claims made by the three GOP Congressmen, however they were juxtaposed with two favorable comments from the Executive Director of the West Michigan Environmental Action Council and a Lansing-based group, the Delta Institute. Both of these environmental groups support a cap and trade system, even though many global critics, such as Indian activist and author Vandana Shiva, argue that a cap and trade system is woefully inadequate to address the serious global warming problems the world faces.

Change?

The last article published in the Grand Rapids Press for week seven of the Obama administration was the first story we have seen that attempted to critique the larger claim that the new administration would be a significant departure from the Bush administration. The article begins by saying:

“For all the sweeping changes that President Obama has delivered, there also has been an ample helping of more-of-the-same. The Bush policy of imprisoning enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial? The Obama White House is OK with that.
The Bush tax cuts for the rich that candidate Obama promised to wipe out early? President Obama will let them run their course. The Bush team’s claim of a “state secrets” privilege to avoid releasing information? The Obama White House has agreed thrice over, even as it reviews the policy.”

This Associated Press story does a pretty good job of providing readers with an assessment of the new administration’s claims about change to date by looking at the policies already mentioned above, but also addressing continued immunity for telecom companies that allowed the government to spy on the public, the Iraq troop withdrawal plan, and the Obama administration’s continued support of Bush’s “faith-based initiative.” Unfortunately, for readers of the Grand Rapids Press, over half of the original AP story was omitted in the Press version and the story was buried on page A-17.

Week Six of the Grand Rapids Press coverage of the Obama administration took a departure from the previous week, with the focus shifting to the US occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There were a total of 17 stories for the week of February 23 through March 1st. President Barack Obama’s first speech before Congress on February 24 received the most single stories, but foreign policy dominated the coverage in week six with a total of seven stories. Here is a breakdown of what articles appeared on the new administration:

• 5 stories on Obama’s speech before Congress
• 3 stories on Iraq
• 3 stories on Afghanistan
• 3 stories on the economy

The Speech before Congress

There were three stories about the President’s upcoming speech, with the first story from the New York Times on February 23. This article relied heavily on White House spokespersons, like Rahm Emanuel, who said, “Everybody has to have the notion that to make the system better, you’re going to have to give a little,” when talking about the economy.
The second pre-speech story also used White House spokespersons, with the focus being on what the President would say in his speech about reducing the deficit. This story, from the Associated Press, was quite technical and also sourced experts from the Brookings Institute and Moody’s Economy.com.
The Grand Rapids Press used the President’s speech as an opportunity to write two articles with a local perspective. They spoke with people before and after the speech to get some impression of what people are thinking about what the President can realistically do about the economy. In the February 24 article, Press reporter Ted Roelofs spoke with an auto worker who last her job recently, a CEO of a local manufacturing company, and Congressman Pete Hoekstra. Hoekstra was given more space in the story and was critical of the Obama administration’s ability to stabilize the economy.
The main speech story ran on the front page of February 24 with the headline, “Balancing Hope with Urgency.” the Washington Post article was framed, like much of the news coverage in recent months, as a comparison between FDR and Barack Obama. The story says:

“Not since Franklin Roosevelt delivered his first fireside chat, eight days into his presidency, have Americans been more hungry — and more desperate — for economic leadership. And not since FDR has there been an economic agenda as bold or ambitious, or as likely to reshape American capitalism.”

However, there was no examination of the content of his speech, nor how it would “reshape American Capitalism.” The article mostly focused on how “well crafted” the speech was. The reporter also commented that the President’s speech “reinforced the image of a serious and purposeful leader.”

Obama on Iraq & Afghanistan

Week six of the new administration gave the public the first concrete comments from President Obama on the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan since he took office.
On February 26, the President laid out his plan for US troop withdrawal from Iraq. However, the story framed the plan as one of “ending the war in Iraq.” Even the headline for February 27 ran as “Obama sets date to end Iraq war.” The article never clarifies how it would “end the war in Iraq,” but it does mention that, “a sizable U.S. force of 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq under a new mission of training, civilian protection and counterterrorism.”
We have already provided a critique of the Iraq withdrawal plan and unlike our critique, the AP story that ran in the Press did not seek any responses from the national anti-war organizations, many of whom endorsed the President’s candidacy. Instead, the Press ran a follow up story from the Associated Press on February 28 that was written by the AP reporter while visiting a US military base in Iraq. While it is important to solicit the views of US troops on the new Iraq withdrawal plan, shouldn’t the anti-war organizations also be given an opportunity to comment on the new policy?
Afghanistan was also the focus of three stories than ran during the sixth week of the Press coverage of the new administration. The first was a February 27 article from the Washington Post that reported on a recent poll showing that most Americans support the increase of US troops to Afghanistan. The article said the Washington Post and ABC-News conducted the poll, but the story doesn’t provide much information on the poll results nor does it give readers a clear sense of the questions asked to those polled.
The other two articles that focused on Afghanistan were both run on March 1st, with one story focusing on an increase in US troop deaths and the other on Afghan civilian deaths. However, the two articles are framed in a completely different way. The AP story that focused on US troop deaths in Afghanistan was headlined, “US Deaths on rise in Afghanistan” while the story focused on civilian deaths was headlined as, “US airstrikes sometimes backfire in Afghanistan.”
The US troops deaths in Afghanistan, according to the AP story, are the result of “an increasingly violent insurgency,” while Afghan civilian deaths are because the Afghan insurgents “are wily.” the New York Times article, a story written by the reporter from a US aircraft carrier, only cites US military personnel who say the insurgents, “will meld themselves within the population. They will fire from areas that they know that if we put a bomb there, it’s going to look bad.” The whole article is framed to suggest that the US military campaign in Afghanistan only kills civilians by accident or because the Taliban insurgents hide amongst the population. This notion seems in conflict with a report from Human Rights Watch, which documents civilian deaths due to US/NATO air strikes.

The fifth week of the Grand Rapids Press coverage under the new administration continues to follow a pattern set in recent weeks, with the economy dominating coverage. There were 18 articles were run by the Press, with some coming from the Associated Press and others from the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Fourteen of those stories were related to the economy or budget issues:

• General Budget stories – 7
• Mortgage Crisis – 3
• Auto Industry – 3
• Bank Bailout – 1

The remaining stories were made up of two on the new administration’s troop increase in Afghanistan, one on Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Asia, and one on the Justice Department’s decision to keep some of Bush’s internal memos secret.

A Car Czar?

Early in the fifth week of coverage, there were three stories about the Obama administration’s dropping of a proposal to have someone oversee the revamping of the US auto industry. A February 16 article states that the President “is designating the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and the chairman of the National Economic Council, Lawrence H. Summers, to oversee a presidential panel on the auto industry. Mr. Geithner will also supervise the $17.4 billion in loan agreements already in place with G.M. and Chrysler, said the official, who insisted on anonymity.”
There was also mention that the administration has brought in Ron Bloom to advise the government on how to handle the revamping of the auto industry. The New York Times article states that Bloom is a “restructuring expert who has advised the labor unions in the troubled steel and airline industries.” Bloom has worked in the banking industry as well and helped to “revive and restructure 50 companies in bankruptcy,” according to a recent online statement from the AFL-CIO.
However, what seems to be missing from the articles on the auto industry loans from the government, is that these loans might be contingent on getting auto workers to make more concessions. According to Labor Notes, the UAW leadership is planning more concessions to the auto industry such as reducing more benefits, loss of holiday bonuses, and restructuring overtime pay. Unfortunately, the only labor voice included in the three stories was from the United Steel Workers, but that comment was only related to the appointment of Ron Bloom not what the government’s proposal means for auto workers.

Mortgage Relief?

Beginning with a February 18 article, there were three stories on the administration’s plan to deal with the mortgage crisis. The Washington Post article of February 18 stated:

“The plan will include several elements, including ones that focus on encouraging lenders to lower borrowers’ payments to affordable levels, perhaps by having the government subsidize lower interest rates, sources familiar with the proposal have said. It will also establish industry standards for modifying troubled loans. Those could include extending the terms of loans or giving borrowers a short-term break on payments.”

The other two articles continue along the same line of reporting by discussing what the administration’s proposed plan will do and whom it will help. A February 19 article cites an individual who has been affected by the mortgage crisis, but only as it related to the foreclosure assistance plan under the Bush administration. Nowhere in these three stories was there anything about the growing movement of people refusing to leave their foreclosed homes nor the groups that are organizing thousands across the country to fight foreclosures.

Other Economic News

The remaining stories that focused on the economy ranged included a February 16 story about the ongoing bank bailout, a 2/20 article on Obama saying he is putting NAFTA changes on hold, a 2/21 story focused on the President’s warning to US Mayors if they misspend stimulus money, and another 2/21 article where former President Clinton gives advice to Obama on “how to talk about the economy.” All of these articles were fairly short and lacking in substance. The only other economic story of interest was a February 22 piece that explored ways in which the Pentagon might find ways to cut spending during the economic crisis.
The 2/22 New York Times story discussed how the Pentagon and the Obama administration are “considering” cuts to the military budget. Defense Secretary Gates was quoted as saying, “One thing we have known for many months is the spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing.” However, there are no real details of where these cuts might come from.
William Hartung, with the New American Foundation, recently stated that the defense industry has been lobbying Congress and the new administration with the idea that an increase in defense spending is a great stimulus:

“The defense budget is not a jobs program, nor should it be. Decisions on how many Humvees to buy, or how many bases to refurbish, should rest on military necessity, not economic expedience subject to political chicanery. When military procurement becomes nothing more than a series of thinly veiled pork-barrel projects, it risks exposing our troops to unnecessary risks, and ultimately undermines our security.”

Onto Afghanistan

There were two stories about the administration’s plans to escalate the US/NATO war in Afghanistan. On February 17, an Associated Press article focused on a recent Rand Corporation study that “a game-changing strategy is urgently needed in Afghanistan to save the faltering international campaign.” The article only cites Rand Corp. researchers and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs who both are of the opinion that a new strategy is need to better win the war in Afghanistan.
The very next day (2/18), the Grand Rapids Press ran another story on the announcement that the Obama administration will be sending 17,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. President Obama was quoted as saying, “This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires.”
The article only cites the President and US military officials who are in agreement over the need for more US troops being deployed to Afghanistan. Missing from this coverage is an assessment of the current situation in Afghanistan, Afghani voices, or US opposition to the war.

The stimulus package dominated the fourth week of newspaper coverage of the new Obama administration. Like the second and third week of the Grand Rapids Press’ coverage, the stimulus plan dominated the coverage, but in week four it was the only story to that was covered.
The Press ran a total of 12 stories during the fourth week of the Obama administration and every one of them was related to the stimulus package. Some stories dealt with details of the plan, some on the partisan positions, some presented the long term cost of the stimulus, and one story touched on the issue of public trust and government spending.

Stimulus Details

On February 12, the Press ran a story from the Los Angeles Times that was one of the first articles to provide some information on how the public might benefit from the stimulus package. The story mentioned that first time home buyers would get a break, people making less than $100,000 would get a tax credit, those receiving unemployment would receive an additional $25 a week, and college students would receive additional benefits.
On February 10 and 11, there were consecutive articles about the “real” cost of the bailout and the stimulus package. The February 10 article cites Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner who claims that the total cost will come to roughly $1.5 trillion, while the February 11 article puts the total closer to $3 trillion. Naomi Klein, in a speech given at MSU on February 17 said that according to Bloomberg News the real cost of the bailout/stimulus is actually $10.5 trillion. The stories in the Press don’t really explore where all the cost has come from and how the government plans to pay this additional debt.
The Press did run an interesting article from the Washington Post on February 9 that stated that even though the stimulus plan has some oversight components built into it, it may be difficult to track “wasteful spending.” However, much of the original Washington Post story was omitted in the Press version, particularly examples of government waste that have been documented by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center.

Executive Pay and Nominee Rejection

On February 15, the Press ran an Associated Press story on the executive pay restrictions that the new administration has placed on companies that have benefited from the bailout. Obama “set a $500,000 cap on pay for top executives and limited bonuses or additional compensation to restricted stock that could only be claimed after the firm had paid the government back.” The AP story presented the executive pay restrictions as a victory for the new administration, but the reality was that the executive pay restrictions were not included in the final draft of the stimulus plan, as reported in the Huffington Post. The only restrictions that were included in the final draft were limitations of executive bonuses, not their salaries.
On February 13 the Press ran a New York Times article about the last Obama pick to run the Commerce Department and his rejection of that position. The Times story stated, “Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire abruptly withdrew Thursday as the nominee for commerce secretary, saying he had irresolvable conflicts with President Obama over his economic stimulus plan.” The Times article frames the Gregg rejection in purely partisan terms, but the Republican Senator may have been using the nomination for other purposes. Independent journalist Dave Lindorff argues that Gregg used the confrontation with Obama over his nomination as a way of getting the Democrats to water down the stimulus plan.
The remaining stories from the fourth week of coverage focused on the stimulus vote (February 12 & 14) and a story announcing when Obama would sign the stimulus legislation (February 15).