Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

Analysis:

This story first appeared in the New York Times. The Grand Rapids Press’ version is slightly shorter and is based on recent research by the Minnesota School of Public Health. The sub-heading in the GR Press version says “Study shows families who dine near TV are well-fed, have good diets.” The research was printed in The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior in October, but looking at the abstract of the article it says in the conclusions and recommendations section that “Watching television during family meals was associated with poorer dietary quality among adolescents. Health care providers should work with families and adolescents to promote family meals, emphasizing turning the TV off at meals.”

The article also states, “One study, published in The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in 2004, found that even after controlling for family connectedness, kids who had seven or more family meals a week were far less likely to smoke, drink alcohol or use marijuana than those who had just one or none.” Why do you think that this aspect of the story is not highlighted in the headline? The Press version of the article concludes with a comment about how TV viewing during meals might not be that bad for teenagers, but the original story ends with the importance of family meals and how parents can be good role models.

Story:

Television viewing has long been linked with poor eating habits. So when University of Minnesota researchers embarked on a study of family meals, they fully expected that having the TV on at dinner would take a toll on children’s diets.

But to their surprise, it didn’t make much difference. Families who watched TV at dinner ate just about as healthfully as families who dined without it. The biggest factor wasn’t whether the TV was on or off, but whether the family was eating the meal together.

“Obviously, we want people eating family meals, and we want them to turn the TV off,” said Shira Feldman, public health specialist at the university’s School of Public Health and lead author of the research. “But just the act of eating together is on some level very beneficial, even if the TV is on.”

The research, published this month in The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, is the latest testament to the power of the family meal. While many parents worry about what their kids are eating — vegetables versus junk — a voluminous body of research suggests that the best strategy for improving a child’s diet is simply putting food on the table and sitting down together to eat it.

The importance of the family meal has been shown mainly in studies from the University of Minnesota, Harvard and Rutgers that have looked at family eating habits of nearly 40,000 middle-school students and teenagers. The research has shown that those who regularly have meals with their parents eat more fruits, vegetables and calcium-rich foods, ingest more vitamins and nutrients, and consume less junk food. Some of the research has shown that kids who regularly sit down to a family meal are at lower risk for behaviors like smoking and drug and alcohol use.

But as is the case with all studies that observe people over time, the big question is whether the family meal really leads to healthier habits. Could it be that kids from happier, more health-conscious families are simply more likely to sit down to a family meal?

University of Minnesota researchers have sought to answer that question by looking at “family connectedness,” which essentially measures the psychological health of a family. Children from highly connected families have been shown to eat healthier foods, get better grades and have lower risk for smoking and drug and alcohol use. But in the Minnesota research, whether the family was connected or troubled was less important than whether they regularly dined together. One study, published in The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in 2004, found that even after controlling for family connectedness, kids who had seven or more family meals a week were far less likely to smoke, drink alcohol or use marijuana than those who had just one or none.

In the latest study measuring the effects of television, researchers surveyed the eating habits of about 5,000 middle and high school students in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The data were collected during the 1998-99 school year but analyzed only recently. About two-thirds of the students reported that they ate dinner with their parents at least three times a week. But about half of that group said they also watched television during the family meal.

Over all, the children ate healthier foods if the television was turned off, but the differences weren’t as big as researchers expected.

The biggest effect was seen among the kids who didn’t eat regular family meals at all. Girls who dined alone ate fewer fruits, vegetables and calcium-rich foods and more soft drinks and snack foods than girls who ate with their parents. And girls who ate with their parents ate more calories — up to 14 percent more, suggesting that dining alone puts girls at higher risk for eating disorders. Boys who didn’t eat with their parents had fewer vegetables and calcium-rich foods than family diners.

The lesson for parents, say the study authors, is that being together at dinner is what counts. Having the TV on during the meal, while not desirable, can also serve a purpose if it helps bring sullen teenagers and families to the table.

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

Why a family meal can make such a difference isn’t entirely clear. It may be that parents simply put better food on the table when everyone gets together. People dining alone tend to eat pizza, for instance, while families who order pizza together tend to put vegetables or a salad on the table, Ms. Feldman noted.

It may also be that dining together allows parents to set a better eating example for their kids. And mealtime is often the only chance parents have to actually look over their busy teenagers, catch up on their lives and visually assess behavioral or physical changes that might signal problems.

Dr. Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, who has led much of the Minnesota research, says that when parents hear the data about the importance of the family meal, they often feel guilty if work schedules and teenagers’ extracurricular activities keep them from dining together.

The key, she said, is togetherness, not timing. A family that is scattered at the dinner hour might be able to meet regularly for breakfast instead. And even adding one or two more family meals to the week is better than nothing. “I would put the emphasis on just looking at where your family is now and seeing what you can do to improve,” Dr. Neumark-Sztainer said. “I think many people just don’t realize how important the family meal really is.”

Analysis:

This article is based upon an event held in Grand Rapids by a local chapter of the One Campaign, a campaign which aims to eliminate poverty. Grand Rapids Press religion editor, Charles Honey, wrote the story which includes comments from local people involved in the campaign. There are four people who are sourced in this article, all of which are part of the One Campaign. Some of them quote Nelson Mandela, while others cite U2 singer Bono as the inspiration for their involvement. One of the sources does cite the United Nations Milllennium Goals as a plan to end extreme poverty world wide, but nowhere in this story do any of the sources, nor the Press write bother to ask why there are so many people living in poverty around the globe. The only information on what actions the group will take is on an attempt by the group to get the US Congress to restore “$2.2 billion in US foreign aid.”

This story is the feature story in the religion section, so why do you think the journalist never bothered to ask people who are involved in the One Campaign how they are going to end poverty? Why do you think there were no perspectives presented that were critical of this campaign?

Story:

As a boy growing up in Senegal, Africa, Mark Terpstra saw the face of poverty in his friends.

They were the ones he played soccer and hunted rabbits with, and who constantly asked him for stuff: a shirt, shorts, soccer shoes.

Terpstra, the son of missionaries, sometimes obliged. But he always felt the gap between him and them.

“I’m well-fed and well-clothed,” Terpstra, 31, recalled of those days in the 1980s. “I’m running with friends that probably didn’t have a great meal that day, wearing the same clothes every day and playing soccer barefoot. I was aware of their situation, but I didn’t feel like I could do much about it.”

Now, Terpstra knows he can do something, and he is doing it.

It’s called the ONE Campaign — the effort talked up by Bono, lead singer of U2 and global anti-poverty activist. Its name has become increasingly visible on white wristbands.
But what is ONE, exactly? To Terpstra and others in West Michigan, it just may be the way to change the world.

“It’s very possible to end extreme poverty,” said Terpstra, a soft-spoken marketing strategist for the Cull Group of Grand Rapids. “It’s not just some pie-in-the-sky objective the U.N. threw out there.”

He referred to the Millennium Development Goals, a pledge by 189 countries to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015.

Terpstra believes in that goal and more. Thus, he has organized a small West Michigan contingent of ONE supporters he hopes will spread to campuses, churches and corporations.

He led a gathering this week at the Urban Mill coffeehouse, where supporters joined in a global Stand Up and Speak Out against poverty event. Last year, a world-record 23.5 million stood up for the cause in more than 100 countries, organizers say.

The event drew a mix of college students, members from churches such as Mars Hill and Ada Community Reformed, and workers from corporations such as Alticor and Spectrum Health.

They listened attentively as Terpstra rattled off poverty statistics and quoted Nelson Mandela: “Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural.”

Then, they stood as Terpstra read, “We stand here proudly. We are the generation that intends to defeat extreme poverty.”

Among those standing was Cathy Dopp, a single mother from Allegan. Although the ONE Campaign is populated with movie stars such as Ben Affleck and Gwyneth Paltrow, Dopp said you don’t have to be a Hollywood celeb to make a difference.

“Even though I don’t have much time, I don’t have much money, (I) can still make a big impact,” said Dopp, 46, a member of the Without Walls Vineyard church in Holland. She calls the campaign “one of the most exciting things I’ve ever been a part of.

“I have no idea how to sell somebody Christianity, but I do know how to roll up my sleeves and say, ‘We can help people,'” Dopp said.

From her home, where she runs a software development company, Dopp spreads the word about ONE and takes action as she can. Last spring, she called U.S. Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow to urge a restoration of $2.2 billion in U.S. foreign aid.

She firmly believes ONE can change the world one phone call, one person at a time.

“It’s not just a warm, fuzzy, we-can-save-people plan,” she said. “It’s so ridiculously feasible. We’ve got to tell more people.”

Add her voice to the chorus calling for an end to poverty, hunger and disease. In this choir, Bono has become the lead singer.

The charismatic rock star brought his clarion call to the Economic Club of Grand Rapids in 2006. He challenged listeners to halt the “completely avoidable catastrophe” of 150,000 African lives lost each month to AIDS and poverty.

Five years ago, Bono teamed with Bobby Shriver, nephew of John F. Kennedy, and other activists to form DATA, an advocacy group fighting poverty and AIDS in Africa. From that grew related efforts including (RED), a partnership with corporations that earmarks a portion of purchases for poverty relief, and the EDUN high-fashion clothing line produced in developing countries.

With support from DATA and other anti-poverty groups, ONE was born in 2004. The campaign Web site calls on “Americans of all beliefs and every walk of life — united as ONE — to help make poverty history.”

ONE aims to do that through old-fashioned grassroots lobbying. It urges supporters to push legislators for an additional 1 percent of the federal budget allocated to foreign aid. ONE wrist bands and T-shirts are sold as walking fashion statements for the cause.

Getting with the program

In West Michigan, the cause attracts everyone from a diehard Bono fan to the head of an international relief agency.

Andrew Ryskamp sports a ONE wrist band in his offices at the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee, a partner in the ONE campaign. Ryskamp’s church, Madison Square CRC, also took part in Wednesday night’s stand-up event.

He recently returned from meetings in Asia as U.S. representative of the Micah Challenge, a Christian corollary to the ONE Campaign. The Micah Challenge urges churches worldwide to pressure their governments to meet the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals.

Ryskamp said if the U.S. spent more on overseas development it wouldn’t need to spend as much on the military.

For Christians, fighting poverty is “a matter of biblical justice,” he added.

“As long as we have the kind of wealth that we do, and there are more than 1 billion people living on less than a dollar a day, there’s a screaming need for us to be part of setting those captives free,” Ryskamp said.

U2’s influence

Bill Bode sees the need, and he credits Bono for helping him believe he can make a difference.

The former radio executive turned children’s minister at Wesley Park United Methodist Church responded to Bono’s challenge to join ONE at a U2 concert in Detroit.

“He just puts it out there: ‘We’re looking at the generation that could put (poverty) away,’ ” said Bode, 51.

“Just that statement makes you think, ‘Yeah, why not?’ “

Bode does his part by organizing U2charist, a Eucharist service using U2 songs. He organized one in May at Wesley Park and sent a portion of the offering to Bread for the World, a ONE partner.

Future events will be posted at u2charistgr.org.

Back at the Urban Mill, where Mark Terpstra often does ONE tasks before work, the U2 song “Where the Streets Have No Name” played as Terpstra recalled his father bringing truckloads of rice to their hungry Senegal village.

That kind of generosity taught Terpstra how his Christian faith should guide his actions.

“You can’t just go in and say Jesus is the answer when they’re not eating, they don’t have medicine, and the baby is sick,” said Terpstra, of Whitehall, a member of Whitehall Covenant Church.

He spent his first 15 years in the West African country, where his parents, Jim and Jan, were missionaries for New Tribes Mission.

The Wyoming natives translated biblical verses into the Balanta language as they formed a church in a small farming village.

Terpstra remembers villagers coming to the house for tin cans. He also remembers enduring yearly bouts of malaria, delirious with fever but saved by medicine from a disease that kills 3 million children a year.

The contrast with America sickens him.

“Extreme poverty is ridiculous,” he said. “You have children dying of preventable diseases.

“If you talked about that in the context of West Michigan, that would be laughable.”

After coming to the U.S. and studying at DePaul University, Terpstra returned to Senegal to help villagers set up used-clothing shops.

He got some businesses going but lacked the capital to continue. But he never forgot the poverty of his boyhood home. When he found out about ONE, he knew it was his chance to do something about it.

“They’re not trying to raise money from you,” he stressed. “They just want your voice.”

He has taken the lead in pushing West Michigan to get involved in ONE activities, such as this week’s Global Day of Action Against Poverty. Members were urged to lobby Congress to support new debt-forgiveness legislation.

It starts small: a Yahoo group of 70-some supporters, a stand-up rally in a coffeehouse.

But Terpstra believes area residents can do their part to make poverty history.

“Everyone knows extreme poverty is an issue,” he said. “That’s the challenge — how to engage anyone and everyone to care about it.”

Analysis:

This story is based upon recent data on campaign contributions to GOP and Democratic Presidential candidates from residents of West Michigan. The only person cited in the story is a woman from East Grand Rapids who gave the maximum allowed for an individial to the Obama campaign. The story does provide numbers for donations to both major parties, but does it appear to give more details on the people who donated to GOP candidates? The story ends with a short comparison to how candidates have raised money nationally. There is nothing in the story about candidate platforms or voting records and no mention of candidates who haven’t received much money from West Michigan. Should the media only report on candidates when they have raised a certain amount of money?

Story:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to lead national polls for the Republican presidential race.

But in the West Michigan Republican fundraising contest, he is a poor third to Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

McCain leads in the race for cash, having raised $108,350 through Aug. 30 in Grand Rapids-area ZIP codes. That compares with $41,425 for Romney and $22,800 for Giuliani in the same area, according to federal totals reported this week.

On the Democratic side, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama tromped Hillary Clinton in local fundraising, raising more than $86,000 in the Grand Rapids area, compared to $9,600 for the New York senator.

The total is all the more surprising because it looks as if Michigan will not have a Democratic primary Jan. 15. Obama and several other candidates heeded threats from the national party that the contest would not count because its early date violates party rules.

East Grand Rapids resident Beverly Verdier, 46, was among more than 100 contributors to the Obama campaign in the Grand Rapids area, donating the maximum individual contribution of $2,300.

“This is my first time ever,” Verdier said. “I am just so passionate about Barack Obama that I felt I wanted to contribute to this. I think he is one of the few candidates that can bring both parties together.”

Statewide, Romney leads GOP fundraising with nearly $1.9 million, compared to nearly $950,000 for McCain and nearly $455,000 for Giuliani. The bulk of Romney’s cash comes from donors in southeast Michigan.

Clinton raised more than $608,000 in Michigan, to $514,000 for Obama and $294,000 for former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Upstart GOP hopeful Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee, raised just less than $38,000 from the state, and $1,000 from the same West Michigan ZIP codes.
McCain’s campaign has been struggling financially, as he tries to recover from a stumbling start.

Romney’s local donors include Van Andel Research Institute executive Steven Heacock, who donated $1,000; charter school magnate J.C. Huizenga, who gave $2,300; and David Frey, co-chairman of Grand Action, who contributed $2,100.

Giuliani’s local contributors include businessman Peter Renucci, who gave $500; Jeanne Englehart, president of the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce, who gave $250; and Mark Bissell, president of Bissell Inc., who gave $250.

The national picture tells a different story.

Clinton had a total of $50.5 million in the bank as of Sept. 30, with Obama second with $36.1 million. Giuliani had $16.6 million, Romney $9.2 million and McCain $3.5 million.
But McCain had only $1.6 million in cash for the primaries and $1.7 million in debts, putting his campaign in the red.

Analysis:

This Associated Press story in the Grand Rapids Press is the most recent in the ongoing “peace talks” news coverage. If the story is about the possibilities of peace between Israel and Palestine, why does the headline refer only to an Israeli leader? In the second paragraph it states that “Everyone remembers the steep price paid for the failure of the last round of peacemaking in 2001: thousands killed in years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting that broke out months after the talks fell apart.” This statement suggests that there has been similar numbers of deaths between Israelis and Palestinians. According to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, there have been many more Palestinians killed since 2001 than Israelis. In the third paragraph the article refers to the Israeli war in Lebanon last year as a “debacle” and the US war in Iraq as Bush’s “troubles.” Do these terms honestly reflect was happened and is happening in those two countries?

The only sources cited in the story are those of a Palestinian negotiator and US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Rice is cited the longest and is presented as the “peace broker” and presents a negotiation betwwen Israel and Palestine as good for “American interests.” The article never clarifies what American interests in this case might be. Does this article provide enough context for readers to make sense of what is at issue? After reading the section of the original AP story that was omitted in the GR Press version, would readers have a better understanding of what both the Israelis and the Palestinians are asking for in the current “peace talks?”

Story:

Israel keeps building settlements, Islamic militants are in control in Gaza and both the Israelis and the Palestinians have politically vulnerable leaders. All that will make it difficult to implement an agreement even if the two sides agree on a path to peace at a summit next month.

Weighing heavily on the U.S.-brokered summit is memory. Everyone remembers the steep price paid for the failure of the last round of peacemaking in 2001: thousands killed in years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting that broke out months after the talks fell apart.

This time, all the key players are eager to find something to show for themselves: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in his showdown with the militants of Hamas, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to save himself from the debacle of last year’s war in Lebanon and President Bush to offset his troubles in Iraq.

Olmert told a parliamentary committee last week that if Israel can’t make peace with the Palestinians’ current moderate leadership _ President Abbas and U.S.-educated Prime Minister Salam Fayyad _ it won’t be able to do it with anyone.

The Israeli leader said missing this opportunity will lead to killing for many years to come.

The sense of urgency was evident Monday during a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Shortly after she met with Abbas in the West Bank, Palestinian negotiators rushed to Jerusalem for an impromptu round of talks with their Israeli counterparts. Then Olmert, in a speech, suggested for the first time that Israel might give up some Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Ahmed Qureia, had set an upbeat tone last week, telling The Associated Press: “I feel that there is a kind of new page that has been opened. There is trust building again.”

But the challenges are enormous, topped as ever by the same two issues: violence and settlements.

Israel is unlikely to undertake the gargantuan task of uprooting tens of thousands of settlers from the West Bank unless Palestinian leaders guarantee the vacated territory won’t become a launching ground for attacks _ as happened after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

Palestinians say Israel is jeopardizing the chances by expanding West Bank settlements, seizing more land for a West Bank road project and building a massive separation barrier that juts into territory Palestinians want for a future state.

Rice didn’t mention those moves specifically during a news conference Monday, but clearly this is what she was talking about when she called on the parties to “avoid any steps that would undermine confidence.”

In some of her most forceful comments to date, Rice said “it’s time for the creation of a Palestinian state,” and that the U.S. sees this “as essential for the future, not just of Palestinians and Israelis but also for the Middle East and indeed to American interests.”

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

Rice is attempting to bridge wide divisions that have emerged over drafting a joint declaration ahead of November’s conference in Annapolis, Md. The Palestinians want a fairly specific framework agreement addressing the so-called “core” issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the borders of a future Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees. Palestinian leaders fear that a lack of substance will be exploited by the Hamas militants who seized violent control of the Gaza Strip four months ago and refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Olmert, on the other hand, is pushing for a vague statement that will leave the big questions open. Aides say he has no interest in having Abbas go home empty-handed, but at the same time fears conceding too much too soon could drown the whole process in domestic opposition.

Olmert’s problems are worsened by multiple investigations of alleged corruption _ the latest announced on Sunday to probe allegations he did political favors for friends while serving as trade minister.

The Palestinians want the joint declaration to set a timetable for creating a Palestinian state. The Israelis want no deadline _ a position supported by the U.S.

It’s far from clear whether a peace deal could be forged with Hamas ruling Gaza and Abbas’ forces in control of only the West Bank. But moderates on both sides have been through enough negotiations to know what a peace deal would look like, including land swaps and a delicate power-sharing arrangement for Jerusalem.

What they don’t know is how the rest of the Arab world will react _ particularly Saudi Arabia, whose wealth and political clout could do much to buttress a peace deal, especially if it chooses to attend the Annapolis summit.

Analysis:

This article is based upon a talk given by former Secretary of State James Baker, who was the featured speaker at the Annual meeting of the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan. Baker’s talked focused on Iraq. Does the first sentence of the Press story imply that Baker was critical of the current US war in Iraq? The only thing in the story that support a critical position by Baker was that he wrote an op-ed in 2002 in the New York Times “issuing caution about a military attack against Iraq.”

The story also mentions that Baker “co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that in December 2006 called for withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008.” The Press writer does not substantiate this claim that the study called for a withdrawal of most US combat troops by 2008. The Iraq Study Group report does advocate for an ongoing US occupation of Iraq and says nothing about dismantling the US military bases that are throughout Iraq. The Press story also does not mention James Baker’s role with the Carlyle Group, which Baker had to cut ties with in order to be on the Iraq Study Group. The Carlyle group was representing the government of Kuwait, which was seeking payments from Iraq from the 1990 invasion, and Baker was a lawyer with the Carlyle Group at the time. This conflict of interest was only discovered after journalist Naomi Klein’s story in the Nation magazine.

The article ends with Baker responding to how Bush would be judged as a President and Baker says “it could be a good one, provided Iraq turns out OK. And it still can.” What do you think baker means by Iraq turning out OK?

Story:

If not a direct critique of the Iraq War, former Secretary of State James Baker’s message sounded suspiciously like a cautionary tale of foreign policy gone wrong.

Baker repeatedly warned Monday against reliance on military solutions to complex foreign policy problems and the dangers of going it alone abroad. They have been central criticisms of the handling of the Iraq war by President Bush.

“Iraq is a very good example of the limits of military strength,” Baker said in his appearance in DeVos Place before the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan.

Baker co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that in December 2006 called for withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008. It also advocated direct talks with Iraq and Syria as part of a “diplomatic offensive.”

Baker noted that World War I, World War II and the Cold War were won by coalitions. The 1991 Gulf War was fought by a broad coalition that included the United Kingdom, France and many Arab nations with significant financial contributions from the Persian Gulf states, Baker said.

The vast majority of troops in Iraq — once called the “coalition of the willing” — are American, with the United Kingdom on track to reduce its force there to 2,500.

Noting the threats from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, Baker again said: “It is evident that military action alone cannot be the sole solution.”

As he laid out a series of maxims that combine idealism and pragmatism, Baker added that policy makers have to be willing to shift course when it becomes clear a strategy is not working.

“When events change, we must be prepared to change with them,” he said.

Baker, 77, served as chief of staff and treasury secretary for President Ronald Reagan. He was secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush from 1989 through 1992, earning credit for helping forge coalition of nations fighting Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

In 2002, Baker warned President George W. Bush not to “go it alone” against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Writing on the op-ed page of the New York Times, Baker joined another member of the first Bush administration, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft in issuing caution about a military attack against Iraq.

In Monday’s speech, Baker said domestic support is “vital” to success in foreign wars, without noting that nearly 60 percent of Americans now believe the Iraq war is not worth fighting.

Still, Baker said it would be a mistake to assume Bush will be judged a failure by history.

Asked what Bush’s legacy might be, Baker said it could be a good one, “provided Iraq turns out OK. And it still can.”

Analysis:

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

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

Story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, prices are hinging on a delicate balance.

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

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

Analysis:

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

Story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis:

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

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

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

Story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis:

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

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

Story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I made a different judgment,” Obama said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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