Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

Analysis:

This article was on the front page of the Grand Rapids Press for their “Earth Day” edition of the newspaper. The Press “presented 14 West Michigan state legislators with a “How Green Are You?” questionnaire to mark today’s observance of Earth Day. What we asked them, why it matters and what they had to say.” You can read the questions and the legislator responses online, but note that all of the questions had to do with personal behavior – kind of car you drive, do you compost, recycle, use mass transit and environmental groups they belong to.

The story provides readers with some of the reactions from 2 of the 14 legislators who responded to the survey. There are also comments from 3 non-legislators, De Steketee with the Center for Sustainability at Aquinas College, Bill Stough with Sustainable Research Group, and Rachel Hood with the West Michigan Environmental Action Council. Each of these three “environmental spokespersons” focused on the survey results and the personal behaviors of these 14 legislators. What is omitted from the story and would seem more relevant to readers and the public is what are the voting records of these state legislators? Other questions to consider would be who gives them money during re-election and which industry groups lobby them, particularly which ones that are notorious polluters? Ask yourself if how legislators vote or their personal choices make more of an impact on residents of Michigan?

Story:

State Rep. Dave Hildenbrand drives a Jeep Cherokee sports utility vehicle and uses herbicides to kill the crabgrass that infests the lawn at his 8-acre homestead.

The Lowell Township Republican doesn’t pay his trash hauler extra to collect his recyclables. Instead, he hauls recycled paper, cans and bottles to a Kent County transfer station near Rockford “a few times a year.”

Hildenbrand gave himself an “8” when asked to rate himself on a “green” scale of 1-10.

He was among 14 West Michigan state legislators who replied to a How Green Are You? questionnaire to mark today’s observance of Earth Day.

“Like any family, I think we can do a better job of being more diligent,” said Hildenbrand, who said he would consider replacing his SUV with a hybrid.

“Too often, if you’re an elected Republican, some will label you as not pro-environment. That’s certainly not the case with me,” said Hildenbrand, who belongs to a national group called Republicans for Environmental Protection.

Most of the legislators surveyed by The Press ranked themselves above average. Most recycle their trash, some compost and all say they buy locally grown fruits and vegetables whenever possible.

None have enrolled in Consumers Energy’s Green Generation program which charges its customers extra for power generated by Michigan-based renewable energy sources.

State Sen. Patty Birkholz, R-Saugatuck, gave herself a 7 or 8.

“It’s always there in the back of my mind,” said Birkholz, who chairs the Senate’s Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee. That’s why she composts leaves and uses eco-friendly cleaning products around the house.

As for the four-wheel-drive GMC Envoy in her driveway, “I live in the middle of the snowbelt,” she said.

‘We can set the bar higher’

State Rep. Arlan Meekhof, R-Olive Township, gave himself a “5.” Yet, his answers differed little from Hildenbrand and other legislators.

“Maybe I’m a little harder on myself than others because I’m in a district that relies heavily on tourism and agriculture,” said Meekhof, who sits on the House’s Great Lakes and Environmental Committee.

Deb Steketee, director of the Center for Sustainability at Aquinas College, said the self-ranking may indicate how aware the legislators are of environmental issues rather than their actual ranking in their overall community.

“Very few people wake up in the morning and think, ‘What can I do to destroy the environment?'” said Steketee, whose office promotes “sustainable” methods that lessen the “footprint” individuals leave on the environment. “But we can set the bar higher for ourselves.”

Environmental consultant Bill Stough, chief executive of the Sustainable Research Group, said he doesn’t see much leadership in the survey responses.

“They weren’t radical on one extreme or the other,” said Stough, whose company advises West Michigan businesses, local governments and nonprofit groups on sustainable methods.

“I think they are a perfect mirror image of our society right now,” he said. “I think if you took 12 people off the street and asked them the same questions, they’d come up with similar answers.”

Stough said environmentalists want to see more leadership from politicians because they can create incentives and new markets for sustainable products.

“I guess the learning moment I carry away from the survey is that we’ve got to get everyone of those legislators to understand the serious nature of the issues we’re dealing with,” he said.

The trick question

Shown the responses, Rachel Hood, executive director of the West Michigan Environmental Action Council, said she would not rank the legislators as highly as they did themselves.

“I would say this group is a little above average,” she said. “I think it’s fair to say every person who lives in America can do more.”

Hood said she regards the survey’s “Paper or Plastic?” query as a trick question. While paper bags are biodegradable, they are more costly to produce than plastic. “All of their answers should have been, ‘I keep a canvas bag in my car to bring my groceries home.’ ”

Yet, Hood admits that it took her a long time to get into the habit of carrying her own bag into the grocery store.

“I don’t think these folks are much different than the general population,” she said. “We are all responsible for making better choices.”

Analysis:

What do you think the Press means by “Peaceful protests?” and why is that the language used for the headline and not why people were protesting? This article is based upon comments from people who either participated in or witnessed the protests organized on April 20 in respond to Bush speaking in East Grand Rapids. There is mention that two separate demonstrations were organized, but no mention of the groups involved or comments from those that organized the protests, even though one of the groups ACTIVATE was handing out flyers with reasons why they were against the war. The only sources cited are 2 women who came to the East GR protest, but neither of those comments give reasons for being opposed to the war in Iraq. Two other women are cited in the story, both of whom commented on the list of dead Iraqis that were on signs at the protest in downtown Grand Rapids. The only real reference to the East Grand Rapids protest had to do with which streets people gathered at and this sentence “Gaslight Village took on a carnival atmosphere as protesters drummed out anti-war chants and slogans.” What does the Press mean by “carnival atmosphere?”

Story:

AnneMarie Bessette didn’t come to shop when she took her 15-year-old daughter, Coralie, to Gaslight Village.

Mother and daughter were there to join nearly 1,000 protesters who roamed the business district Friday, waving signs and shouting anti-war chants while President Bush delivered a speech half a block away at East Grand Rapids High School.

“I’m trying to educate my children and help them understand international affairs,” Bessette said. “I’m trying to help them understand what’s happening in our country, and especially the war in Iraq.”

It was one of two separate protests held during Bush’s brief visit to the Grand Rapids area. A smaller group of about 60 voiced their opposition to Bush and the war in Iraq at South Division Avenue and Fulton Street.

Prior to Bush’s arrival at the high school, most of the protesters lined the east side of Lakeside Drive SE in the belief the president’s motorcade would pass them. When the motorcade arrived from the other direction at 1 p.m., they streamed west along Wealthy Street SE and posted themselves at the intersection of Bagley Avenue SE.

Gaslight Village took on a carnival atmosphere as protesters drummed out anti-war chants and slogans.

Irene Bach, 83, basked in the sun and watched from a lawn chair that she and her husband, Sol, brought from their home on Breton Road.

“I guess I’m opposed to war, period,” she said. “I’m very much for peace.”

During the protest in downtown Grand Rapids, Amy Hamb, 38, of Rockford, stared at a 250-foot banner that carried the names and dates of death of more than 3,000 Americans killed during the war.

“Those are the dead?” whispered Hamb as she stood at a nearby bus stop. “I didn’t realize. You hear about one or two West Michigan deaths, but those are the number dead from this war. I never got that,” she said.

Plenty of cars beeped in recognition of the signs instructing “Honk if you want peace.”

The handmade messages even included a nod to former President Reagan’s words about the Berlin Wall: “Mr. President, tear down this war.”

Donna Harris left her downtown residence to see the crowd gathering on the corner. She walked past the signs and moved in closer to examine the banner listing the names of the U.S. war dead. A furrow creased her brow.

“Oh my God, there are 43-year-old women on here. This really makes you face our dead,” Harris said. “When I was younger, you used to be able to tell the president something and he would listen. That is not happening,” said the 64-year-old woman, who described herself as an artist.

Analysis:

This story is a “summary” of the speech that President Bush gave in East Grand Rapids. The story cites primarily President Bush, but also has comments from Congressman Hoekstra and Lt. General Robert Gard, who is sourced as a critic of the President’s policy. The story begins with a reference to the 2003 speech that Bush gave in Grand Rapids, but the reference made by the reporter has more to do with the audience than what Bush said. No where does the story mention that many of the claims made by Bush in 2003 have since been found to be false.

In regards to the April 20 speech, Bush is cited making numerous claims – “a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops will lead to bloody chaos across the Middle East,” “Iraqi and American forces are making incremental gains in Baghdad,” “U.S. efforts in Anbar province are beginning to convince Sunnis to resist the efforts of al-Quadi insurgents,” and that “Withdrawal would do nothing to prevent al-Qaida from using Iraq as a base to overthrow other moderate countries.” However, none of the claims made by the President are substantiated or investigated by the Press. The only critic that was cited is retired General Robert Gard, but the only comment attributed to Gard was “There is no military solution to the insurgency.” Again, this claim was not substantiated or verified by the Press. The Press reporter also said at one point that Bush “tries to face down rising doubts about the war and a Democratic Congress pressing for troop withdrawal.” Is it true that the Democratic Congress is pressing for troop withdrawal? The Press offers no information to substantiate such a claim.

Story:

The contrast between the two speeches could not be more striking.

President Bush roused a partisan crowd in Grand Rapids on the eve of war in 2003, drawing several standing ovations as he made the case for invasion. He spoke in January of that year at DeVos Performance Hall, a day after making his State of the Union speech.

He spoke again of war Friday, this time before a less partisan crowd at East Grand Rapids High School.

And it was a much more sober and serious Bush who spoke to an audience of about 500 assembled by the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan.

But it clearly was a message aimed for a broader audience, as Bush laid out in detail the tactics behind the “surge” of added troops he asserts will turn things around in Iraq after more than four years of war.

He delivered what amounted to a significant policy speech as he tries to face down rising doubts about the war and a Democratic Congress pressing for troop withdrawal.

Critics cite recent bombings across Iraq — killing more than 230 in just one day this week — as evidence the strategy is failing.

Bush said it will work, given time. And he repeated past warnings that a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops will lead to bloody chaos across the Middle East.

“It’s natural to wish there was an easy way out — that we could just pack up and bring our troops home and be safe,” Bush said. “Yet in Iraq, the easy road would be a disaster.”

U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, arrived on Air Force One with Bush, along with U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids.

Hoekstra called it a “major policy speech,” contrasting it with a speech Bush gave Thursday in Ohio.

“He was very serious today on the plane,” the congressman said Friday. “Today, he wanted to be very clear. He has not gone into this kind of detail since the surge efforts began.”

In his speech of about 40 minutes, Bush explained the strategy behind his decision to add more than 20,000 combat troops to Iraq, the bulk of them in Baghdad.

“The nature of a strategy aimed at securing the population is that the most important gains are often the least dramatic. Day by day, block by block, Iraqi and American forces are making incremental gains in Baghdad,” Bush said.

Referring to a projected image of Baghdad, Bush noted U.S. troops now are stationed at more than two dozen security stations throughout the city. Troops live and work beside the Iraqi troops, he said, in contrast to past operations where they retreated to bases at night.

Bush asserted that U.S. efforts in Anbar province are beginning to convince Sunnis to resist the efforts of al-Quadi insurgents.

Critics of Bush’s strategy see little or no hope it will work.

Lt. General Robert Gard called the surge strategy “too little” and “too late,” maintaining the majority of Iraqis have hardened against the presence of U.S. troops.

In comments from a conference call arranged by the Democratic National Committee, Gard called for a phased troop withdrawal.

“There is no military solution to the insurgency,” said Gard, who retired from the U.S. Army in 1981 after 31 years of service.

But in his speech, Bush warned of the consequences of withdrawal, saying it would embolden the extremists.

“Withdrawal would do nothing to prevent al-Qaida from using Iraq as a base to overthrow other moderate countries,” he said.

Analysis:

This story is based upon the response of those who were permitted to attend the Bush speech on April 20 in East Grand Rapids. There are eight different people who were cited other than Bush. Most of the sources cited supported President Bush and his plan to increase US troop presence in Iraq. There were a few people who “had concerns,” but only one person who was cited was clearly opposed to the Bush plan but non of her reasons were cited. The article did say that she was disappointed that the President didn’t really respond to her question, which was whether or not the recommendations from the Baker-Hamilton Commission would be part of the strategy. The story did not provide any context or explanation of what the Baker-Hamilton Commission recommended.

Those who spoke positively of the President’s comments used terms and statements like the President is “listening better,” “he is firmly committed to supporting the troops,” “that leaving Iraq too soon would create a base for al-Qaida,” ‘We can’t pull out. We’ve got to give Iraq time to be self-governing,” “The reality is we’re there now, and we have to work our way through it,” and “he has a deep, deep mastery of the subject matter.” The Press reporter does not ask follow up questions to the people who made such claims, claims which are quite remarkable. How does someone know the President is listening better? What do people base the claim that the US must stay or that leaving would create a base for al Qaida? Also, why is it that when the President or anyone else says they support the troops that this equates to supporting the continuation of the US occupation? The Press article basically just reported what people said, but did not verify any of the claims made. One other observation is that of those sourced in the story, 4 are politicians, one was a University President, 1 CEO, and 2 were identified as members of the World Affairs Council. Does this constitute a broad representation of those in attendance?

Story:

Whether they agreed with him or not, several audience members who heard President Bush lay out his rationale for continuing his Iraq war policy Friday said he made a compelling case.

“I heard a statement of staying the course, that he is firmly committed to supporting the troops, which is important from where I am with three of my children in the service right now,” said Grand Valley State University President Thomas Haas, a former Coast Guard officer.

“I would have liked to have heard more about a longer-term vision. He was really quite good about talking about the tactics, the operations going on right now. What I would like to have heard was, ‘OK, what about the next steps after that?’ “

The crowd of 500 or so in the East Grand Rapids High School Performing Arts Center listened intently, interrupting the president only a few times with applause. Each time, Bush raised his hand to restrain them.

“This is a sober forum,” he said at one point, then added, “or a forum of sober people, I hope.”

Those who already supported his war policy generally were pleased. Those who opposed it were disappointed.

Lynda Hoving, of Grand Rapids, was among the latter. After Bush’s speech, she asked if he intended to follow the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission and use more diplomacy to resolve the conflict. To scattered applause, Bush noted the commission said it might be necessary to increase troop levels, “and that’s what I did.”

“I was disappointed in his answer,” said Hoving, a member of the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan, which hosted the address. “I still think the attitude he has is more confrontational. He didn’t seem inclined or open to drawing people into the conversation.”

Others said they agreed with the president that leaving Iraq too soon would create a base for al-Qaida to mount future attacks. Some said that, while Bush made a strong case for continuing the troop surge, they still disagreed with him.

World Affairs Council board member Michael Hampton said he sensed Bush is more open to other opinions on the war.

“I’m convinced he’s listening better,” he said. “I think he made a good enough case that says, ‘We can’t pull out. We’ve got to give Iraq time to be self-governing.'”

Fred Keller, CEO of Cascade Engineering, said he had hoped the president would outline a change in direction, such as setting benchmarks for Iraqi forces to assume moe responsibility.

“I was anticipating it was going to be more of a shift in policy than a straight line,” he said. “We’re in Iraq, and we’ve got to find some effective way to extricate ourselves.”

U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, who arrived with Bush aboard Air Force One, said he urged the president to take questions from the audience. “I told him, ‘Be sure to save questions, because that’s when you’re at your best,'” Ehlers said. “He was speaking from the heart.”

U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra called the address “a wonderful opportunity for West Michigan.”

“We didn’t get into why Grand Rapids,” said the Holland Republican, who also arrived on Air Force One. “How often do you have the president speaking for an hour and a half and answering questions? Because most people see the president in sound bites.”

“I think they can see the president has a deep understanding of the issues,” Hoekstra said. “You may or may not agree with the strategies and the tactics he has employed, but he has a deep, deep mastery of the subject matter.”

Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell said he still favors removing troops from Iraq, but he was impressed at how Bush “made a compelling case for his plan.”

Heartwell — who did not applaud at points when others did — said the president struck a chord when he spoke about spreading democracy almost on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.

“The idea of democracy through the grassroots is an interesting one,” Heartwell said. “I’ve always been a firm believer in working at a neighborhood level. That’s what we’ve tried to do here in Grand Rapids.”

Another area mayor, Rob VerHeulen of Walker, said he was impressed with the complexity of the situation in Iraq, as described by Bush.

“I think my sense is things have not gone as well as the president had hoped,” VerHeulen said. “The reality is we’re there now, and we have to work our way through it.”

Analysis:

This channel 8 story is based upon the protest held on April 20 in East Grand Rapids during Bush’s speech on Iraq. The story begins with comments from the EGR police department who were surprised by the turnout and stated that the protesters were “not unruly.” What do you think the police meant by unruly? The story did mention that former CIA analyst Ray McGovern spoke at the demonstration and that the protest was organized by ACTIVATE GR. The story does not cite any of the comments made by McGovern or ACTIVATE, but do cite a high school student and another protester. Do the comments by both protesters help viewers understand why people chose to protest the President’s speech?

Story:

Between 1000 – 2000 people gathered in John Collins Park along Reeds Lake to protest the appearance of President George W. Bush, far more than police officials expected.

East Grand Rapids Director of Public Safety Mark Herald told 24 Hour News 8 the unusually large number or protesters was unexpected, but not unruly.

Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who once confronted Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference about the conduct of the war, was the main speaker at the protest, organized locally by the group Activate GR.

Many students from both East Grand Rapids High School and Aquinas College were at the protest, shouting their displeasure about the US war in Iraq. The crowd was loud, banging drums at one point.

High school students who spoke with 24 Hour News 8 said it was worth it to leave school and attend the protest. “There were way more people than I expected,” said Katie Lorenz. “It was an intelligent gathering. I’m really glad I did it.”

Security was very visible, but the demonstration was peaceful. Many of the crowd moved from the park to the front of the school in an effort to glimpse the president as he left. A scroll was unrolled with a list of Americans who died in Iraq.

“The number of people who died is dreadful and the fact that each one is the loss of a relative or a friend or a neighbor,” said protester Palmer Morrel-Samules. “That’s a really important issue to keep in mind.”

Analysis:

This Grand Rapids Press story is based upon a local school’s participation in a national campaign called Kick Butts, where students learn about the realities of smoking and tobacco use. What does the Press headline “Graffiti artists ‘Kick Butts'” imply? How do readers negotiate the word Graffiti? This first few sentences are connected to the headline, with a comment from one of the students and the mentioning of some of the slogans students created. Why did the Press writer chose to begin the story with this focus?

The rest of the story does provide an overview of what Horizon’s School did during the day. There was mention that “Horizons teachers incorporated the event into the day’s curriculum,” with 2 examples of what teachers did, although it failed to mention the classrooms that were dealing with health issues and historical examples of tobacco advertising. The story also mentions that a speaker was at the school and the story does cite the speaker. However, ask yourself is it clear from the article what the speaker presented that day and what the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy does? The article then closes with a mention that another student was video taping the day with plans to make a documentary. This student is also cited in the story and mentions that he is a smoker.

While the story does provide a fairly good overview of the day it does not provide any clear reasons as to why the school chose to participate in the Kick Butts event. The story also limited the responses of both students to a personal account of tobacco use as opposed to, or in addition to, what they thought about how tobacco companies target youth.

Story:

WYOMING — The so-called “smoking ward” at Horizons Community High School has a new look that might discourage students from lighting up.

As part of the 12th annual Kick Butts Day — a national event sponsored by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids — students at the alternative high school armed with spray paint left their mark Wednesday.

They sprayed anti-smoking messages, such as “Don’t Smoke” and “Quit Puffin’ ” on the concrete behind the school — an area where students often congregate to get their nicotine fix.

One graffiti artist, sophomore Jahan Trimble, said his grandmother’s smoking led to her need for an oxygen tank. He said he has never been a smoker and doesn’t plan on picking it up. “I want to be an athlete, and that’s bad for your lungs,” said Jahan, a basketball player and wrestler. “You get tired quick.”

More than 2,000 Kick Butts events were planned across the country.

Horizons teachers incorporated the event into the day’s curriculum. In Ed Arnold’s science class, students researched the effects of smoking on the environment, such as those produced by the pesticides used on tobacco crops.

And math teacher Sharon See presented statistics that alarmed students. For example, the American Heart Association claims 4,000 kids ages 12 to 17 start smoking each day in the U.S. Of those, 1,500 become lifelong smokers.

Jeff Smith of the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy told students that tobacco companies foster “brand loyalty” at an early age through strategic product placement in ads, movies and video games. “I wasn’t coming in to preach to them,” he said. “I was coming in to tell them how media targets them from very early on.”

Horizons senior and four-year smoker Joe Richards recorded footage of the day’s events and plans to create a documentary to be shown next month. “A lot of people say they can quit when they want, but I see a lot of them struggling when they try,” he said. “I know I did.”

Analysis:

This story appeared on the front page of the region section and is based upon the anti-war action planned by the group ACTIVATE. The article is framed in the first paragraph with a variety of statements that comes across with no focus. The early part of the article has comments from two people who attended the protest, but neither of their comments reflect why people were at the march. Instead, the comments are things like “there’s no question this war is a disaster.” The article also mentions that most motorists had positive responses to the demonstration. However, the only motorist cited was someone who had a negative comment.

The story then talks about the march moving to the house of Congressman Ehlers. There are no comments from any of the demonstrators or the organizers of the march, although they do cite a flyer that was distributed to residents of that neighborhood about Ehlers’ position on the war in Iraq. The only people who are sourced are Ehlers and a neighbor, both on their reaction to the protest. Both Ehlers and his neighbor make claims that are not verified by the GR Press. Ehlers says he based his initial vote on the war with “faulty evidence” and that “it was a mistake.” The point that the protestors were making based on the media release was that Ehlers has continued to support the war by voting for every funding legislation that has been presented to Congress since 2003. The Press also cites both Ehlers and his neighbor on their dislike for a statement on one of the signs they claim was “obscene.”

The last section of the story dealt with the arrests made and the Press frames this section by stating “The trouble started minutes later….” The police are cited with claims about what happened as well as comments from a witness who had a different point of view. The story then ends with a comment from one of the ACTIVATE organizers on the effects of the war on US troops. Readers should ask themselves if it was clear from the article what was the intention of the demonstration. There is also no mention in the story of the march that then took place down the East Beltline to 28th street and the confrontation between the mall security and demonstrators.

Story:

GRAND RAPIDS — As peace protests go, this one had everything: young and old calling for the end of the Iraq War; a rally outside of a U.S. congressman’s house, with signs — some vulgar — planted in his yard, calling him a war criminal; and arrests of four people, including a university professor who brought his 11-year-old daughter.

Demonstrators on Saturday took part in a nationwide protest to highlight the war’s fourth anniversary.

“There’s no question this war is a disaster,” East Grand Rapids resident Martha Hayes said, standing near East Beltline Avenue and Burton Street SE.

She said opposition to the war has gained mainstream acceptance. She and other protesters gathered at the busy intersection. They held signs and banners — “Citizens Against Iraq War,” “Troops Out Now,” “Stop U.S. Imperialism” — that drew mostly supportive honks, or thumbs up from passing motorists.

But not everyone supported their position. One driver yelled, “Morons,” while another said: “The insurgents are going to come after all of you.”

Ada resident Don Wilson said he hadn’t protested anything in his 75 years, but couldn’t ignore this effort to bring an end to the war. “It’s not a Democrat or Republican issue, the war. The groups should unite and bring this thing to an end.”

Before long, the 150 or so protesters took that message to the Grand Rapids home of U.S. Rep. Vernon Ehlers. They marched down his street, getting a thumbs-up from a neighbor down the street. One put fliers in doors that read, “CRIME ALERT! One of your neighbors has provided legal and financial support for the following crimes: The killing of more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers, approximately 650,000 Iraqi civilians torture of prisoners, and paying contracted mercenaries to prosecute the war in Iraq.”

Then, they put signs in his front yard, while others duct-taped a cardboard sign on the front of his house — which had a U.S. flag on the front — asking him to sign a pledge to end the war. As protesters gathered in his front yard, Grand Rapids police Capt. Curt VanderKooi, in plainclothes, told them to leave the private property. After they left, a 51-year-old neighbor took down the signs.

Police had advised Ehlers and his wife to stay inside. He didn’t oppose the protest, but did not appreciate the “profane” and “obscene” signs. The sign on his door took paint off.

Ehlers said he frequently meets with war opponents, and said such protests are part of the job. “That’s the right of the citizens, to (protest) the government,” he said. He was worried about his neighbors, and didn’t appreciate people going on his property. He also was concerned that some had apparently gone behind his house, but police later investigated and didn’t find any damage.

Although Ehlers voted four years ago to authorize President Bush to go to war, he has since said it was a mistake. He said he based his vote on what he now says was faulty evidence of Iraq’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, and said the U.S. should have been “more cautious.”

Concerned about his safety, Ehlers’ neighbor didn’t want to be identified. He said the protest on his quiet street was unusual, but he said demonstrators had a right to protest. He was disturbed by an expletive on one sign, and another sign that read: “War criminal lives here.” He said Ehlers is just a regular guy in the neighborhood. “Vern is an outstanding, Christian man. I know he votes his conscience.”

The trouble started minutes later, after protesters left and started marching along Burton toward East Beltline. VanderKooi, the police captain, said officers were trying to stop a man who violated the city’s noise ordinance by using a megaphone.

He said officers tried to warn the man, but he kept walking away. Police arrested him, and said others got in the way. “You can’t interfere with a police officer who’s trying to arrest somebody,” he said.

Hermann Kurthen, a Grand Valley State University sociology professor, was among those taken away. He was tackled to the ground, then handcuffed. Sheila McCarthy, 57, said the momentum of the crowd pushed Kurthen into the street but he didn’t try to interfere with police. “People were pushing behind him, and … he went into the street. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.” She hoped that the arrests wouldn’t overshadow the effort by anti-war protesters.

Chris Mills, a 20-year-old GVSU student, helped organize the rally for ACTIVATE of Grand Rapids. He said people are “tired of people coming home with (post-traumatic stress disorder), injuries, and men coming home in body bags.”

Analysis:

This story is based on an anti-war march that was held in Grand Rapids on March 17. Channel 17 based this story on an interview with Congressman Ehlers and an ACTIVATE spokesperson on Sunday, March 18. The story is limited to what both Ehlers has to say and a few responses by one of the march organizers. Is it clear to readers of this story what prompted people to go to the Congressman’s office? Does the reporter verify the claims made by the Congressman in the story? The reporter does cite a CNN poll and that the US House will vote soon on the war in Iraq. The ACTIVATE member also cites some statistics on what Iraqis think about the war, but the reporter does not verify the claim. The story ends with a mention about arrests made at the march, but no details are provided as to why arrests were made.

Story:

Reporter – The 4-year anniversary of the War in Iraq has spawned protests across the country, including several here in West Michigan. Saturday, the group “Activate” organized more than a hundred people to march to the home of Vern Ehlers in Grand Rapids. Ehlers has supported the war since the beginning. In 13 years as a congressman, this is the first time someone has protested in Ehlers’ neighborhood. He stayed inside, but the activists came right up to his door and even taped a sign to the wall.

Congressman Ehlers – Isn’t it great that people feel free to come and demonstrate in front of their congressman’s house.

Reporter – Activate is a grassroots group made up mostly of college students. Lara Parsons was one of the rally organizers.

ACTIVATE member – We have tried letter-writing campaigns and other more suggestive methods,” said Parsons. “And there hasn’t been any response.

Reporter – Protestors want to show Ehlers that his constituents are against the war in Iraq.

Congressman Ehlers – Obviously the war is not popular, Americans want instantaneous results. They’ve never been content with long drawn-out things, we’ve seen that before.

Reporter – But nationally it’s becoming more and more unpopular. According to a recent CNN poll, 21 percent said the U.S. should withdraw now, 37 percent said within a year and only 39 percent said we should stay as long as needed. The full House votes on its withdrawal plan next week.

Congressman Ehlers – A number of members of congress want us to pull out, which I think is stupid. We can’t just abandon the Iraqis after we totally mess up their lives and their world. We have a moral obligation to straighten out the mess before we leave.

Repoerter – Opponents say we should leave before more lives are lost.

ACTIVATE member – We’re not doing any better staying there, the longer it goes on the worse it gets, and 80 percent of Iraqis don’t want us there any more and we should get out for that reason.

Grand Rapids Police arrested four people in the protest. One was a GVSU sociology professor.