Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

Analysis:

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

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

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

Story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis:

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

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

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

Story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis:

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

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

Story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis:

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

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

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

Story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Sure,” replied Clinton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis:

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

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

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

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

Story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you combat the ideology?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis:

This article from the Cox News Service appeared in the “Your Life” section of the Grand Rapids Press. It appears to be in part based on a Press Release sent out by one of the sources cited in the story, Parks Associates, which is based in Dallas, Texas. The only other source cited in the story is that of Massive Inc., a subsidiary of Microsoft Corp. Massive Inc. markets itself as “your channel to the Gaming audience.” Both sources cited talk favorably about the increase of ads that are appearing in video games.

In addition to the sources cited, the story gives a few examples of how advertisers are working their ads into video games. Advertisers cited are Wrigley gum, the Discovery Channel and Burger King. While the story speaks positively about the increase of ads in video games and it’s relationship to gaming systems, there are no perspectives from people or organizations who are critical of this trend.

Story:

Gamers, get ready: Like it or not, advertising in video games is about to move to the next level.

Last year, advertisers spent $370 million placing their logos on billboards in virtual driving games, running ads on online gaming sites or reaching out to gamers in other ways.

Within five years, they’ll spend a dizzying $2 billion, Dallas-based technology research firm Parks Associates predicts.

“It’s definitely becoming a more established model for advertisers,” Yuanzhe Cai, the firm’s director of broadband and gaming, said. “How many more 30-second spots can you put on a TV show?”

As the $12.5 billion gaming industry opens its E3 Media & Business Summit in Santa Monica, Calif., today, advertising is likely to get as much attention as avatars and animation.

Along with becoming more commonplace, the ads are becoming more intriguing and integral to game play.

Yesterday’s in-game ads consisted of simple billboards pitching Dell computers or Nike shoes at a virtual ballpark. But tomorrow’s are likely to include video trailers for upcoming movies, virtual vending machines that dispense extra energy along with every Coke, and computer-generated Cadillacs or Nissans that players can win and use in racing games.

And then there are specialty “adver-games.” Last year, as part of a restaurant promotion, Burger King sold a series of goofy games for Xbox featuring its big-headed royal icon. The games, with names such as “Sneak King” and “Pocketbike Racer,” sold out and quickly became collector items.

Similarly, candy and gum maker Wrigley in February began offering free downloadable games exclusively for Nintendo Co.’s Wii console. Not surprisingly, the games come with names such as “The Great Flying Mintini,” which will be presented by Altoids, “Horse,” sponsored by Big Red, and “Out of Bounds,” brought to you by Juicy Fruit.

“Advertisers are all very excited,” said Cory Van Arsdale, CEO of Massive Inc., a Microsoft Corp. subsidiary that sells and develops ads exclusively for video games. “Business is very promising.”

Depending on complexity and reach, a video game advertising campaign can cost between $10,000 and $1 million, Van Arsdale said.

A game developer’s potential cut could be as much as $3 on every game it sells, he said.

Of course, just as too many commercials can turn viewers away from a TV show, too many in-game ads can turn away gamers.

Given the revenue potential, though, even game developers that previously shied away from selling ads in their games are starting to sell them.

Austin-based NCsoft North America, for instance, is planning for the first time to sell and insert ads into its popular online multiplayer games such as “Lineage,” “Guild Wars” and “City of Heroes,” as well as into its forthcoming fantasy game “Tabula Rasa.”

“We’re really intrigued by it,” said Dorothy Ferguson, NCsoft North America’s vice president of sales and marketing. “It has the potential to increase (revenue), but it’s really also about enhancing the game-playing experience.”

Advertising in video games makes virtual worlds more realistic, Ferguson said. She said NCsoft’s games will likely include various kinds of ads, from static billboards in virtual cities to interactive challenges that can let players win rewards.

In a recent — perhaps telltale — advertising campaign, Discovery Channel started advertising its TV shows across all sorts of media. One of its more successful ad campaigns recently was a tie-in with the “Gears of War” game on Xbox 360 that began in January. “Gears of War” players can download special maps to navigate virtual battlefields. When they do, they also get an ad for Discovery Channel’s “Future Weapons” TV program.

Discovery Channel “got a really positive response,” said Van Arsdale, whose company handled the campaign.

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

In one of the biggest commitments to video game advertising, carmaker Nissan Motor Co. last November inked a far-reaching agreement with Microsoft to put ads on Xbox and PC games, as well as on its mobile and handheld computer platforms. As part of the deal, Nissan became the official sponsor of Xbox’s popular “Forza Motorsport 2” racing game and also sponsored a global online tournament tied to the game.

Especially with its $200 million-plus purchase of Massive last year, Microsoft has been among the most aggressive of game and console makers when it comes to advertising.

But rival Sony Corp. is taking steps to catch up.

This month, Sony announced it was working with media measurer Nielsen Co. to develop new ways to track and collect data about users of its PlayStation 3 game console.

The underlying reason: To figure out how to sell more advertising in PlayStation 3 games and on its PlayStation online network.

Analysis:

This article from the Grand Rapids Press covers a protest held outside of Republican Representative Vern Ehlers’ office as part of a kick-off for a ten week sustained campaign targeting Ehlers for his support of the Iraq War. The article gives more space to Representative Ehlers’ dismissals of the protestors than it does to either the protestors or Ehlers’ voting record.

The Press failed to verify Ehlers’ claims, letting his comments stand despite the fact that Ehlers offers no support for his assertions. Representative Ehlers claims that pulling troops out of Iraq would be “a total disaster” and that the United States is “going to need a presence there at this time,” but Ehlers gives no evidence to support his claim. Moreover, the Press fails to challenge Ehlers on these assertions. There is no reference to other sources on the war, nor is there any discussion of what other politicians have said recently about Iraq, including former war supporters such as Republican Senator Pete Domenici who recently called for a new strategy involving a significant reduction in troop levels. The Press also failed to tell readers anything about Ehlers’ support for the war, allowing Ehlers to state “I’m no supporter of war,” despite the fact that he has consistently supported the war in Congress and in public statements.

Story:

GRAND RAPIDS — Carrying signs and anti-war literature, 10 protesters lined the street in front of U.S. Rep. Vernon Ehlers’ local office Thursday, hoping to sway his view on the war in Iraq.

Members of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a national group calling for an end to the war, and Institute for Global Education, a Grand Rapids-based group that preaches nonviolence, waved signs reading “Keep ‘Em Safe, Bring ‘Em Home” at passing traffic on Michigan Street NW. Some drivers honked and flashed peace signs.

“We’re targeting the more-moderate representatives we believe will switch their opinions,” said Matthew Arnold, deputy field director for AAEI in Michigan. The group also is targeting Reps. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph; Tim Walberg, R-Tipton; Mike Rogers, R-Howell; and Thaddeus McCotter, R-Livonia.

Ehlers, who had left the office for a meeting when protesters arrived, dismissed the idea of changing his views.

“I’ve learned not to let protesters sway my views on the issue,” the Grand Rapids Republican said. “But, what they are trying to address is real and should be addressed.”

While protesters favor pulling troops out of Iraq, Ehlers said the matter is “too complicated for a solution that simple.” Removing troops would spell “a total disaster” abroad when they are trying to stabilize the country, he added.

“I’m no supporter of war, but that’s over the hill now,” he said. “The question is what can we do from here … and we’re going to need a presence there at this time.”

Analysis:

This article announces organizational endorsements for candidates running for Grand Rapids Mayor and the first and second ward City Commission seats. Only 2 of the 4 second ward candidates are cited, none of the first ward candidates, and only 1 of the 3 Mayoral candidates. Two of the candidates mentioned in the story, Tormala and Koorndyke, have held elected office, but the story does not provide any information on their voting record. What readers do get in the story are claims from the Press reporter that “endorsements by special interest groups can give them a leg up in the nonpartisan race,” but the story provides no evidence that endorsements lead to votes.

The only other sources cited are a spokesperson from the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce and the United Auto Workers, but do the comments provided by either spokesperson assist readers/voters in making an informed decision about these upcoming elections? There is also no information as to whether the endorsing groups have donated money to any of the candidates or whether or not they will do any promotion of those they have endorsed before the August Primary.

Story:

City Commission candidate David LaGrand was jubilant Friday after hearing he is being endorsed by the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce’s Friends of West Michigan Business. “I have actually gotten a clean sweep or as close as you can get,” said LaGrand, who also received the endorsement of the city’s firefighters union later in the day.
As candidates prepare for weeks of door-to-door campaigning before the Aug. 7 primary election, endorsements by special interest groups can give them a leg up in the nonpartisan race.

LaGrand appeared to have the most to brag about Friday. The business lobby threw its sole support behind LaGrand despite the fact he ran as a Democrat for the state Senate last year. The chamber was expected to endorse Dan Koorndyk, a Republican and insurance agency owner who served on the Kent County Board of Commissioners for three terms.

LaGrand’s ideas and experience as the owner of a neighborhood bakery and downtown coffee shop impressed the chamber’s endorsement panel, President Jeanne Englehart said.
“All of the candidates had excellent ideas. David LaGrand meets the most important test. He truly understands business,” she said. “Dan Koorndyk is a fine candidate and is very well liked and has done a good job, but David LaGrand came through the interview in a way that was exemplary.”

While LaGrand declared the endorsements to be “incredibly important,” Koorndyk downplayed the news. “He did a good sales job, which is fine,” Koorndyk said. “Endorsements are good to have, but I don’t think people will vote for you over someone else because of a special group or person.”

In the mayoral race, the chamber endorsed incumbent Mayor George Heartwell over challengers Rick Tormala and James Rinck.

Tormala, who received a split endorsement from the chamber when he ran for the 2nd Ward City Commission seat four years ago, said he was puzzled by the endorsement.
“With me, they’ve got someone who will agree with them when they’re right. With George, they’ve got a rubber stamp,” he said.

The chamber split its 1st Ward endorsement between business owner Walt Gutowski Jr. and Tom Postmus, a former Kent County Commissioner. Candidate Ed Kettle has said he will not seek endorsements.

LaGrand said his “sweep” was completed by an endorsement from Right to Life of Michigan. The anti-abortion group’s choices often carry weight despite the fact City Hall politicians rarely deal with abortion issues.

The United Auto Workers Union’s local political action committee endorsed LaGrand and Gutowski in the City Commission races but decided to forego endorsements in the mayoral race, said Susan Levy, the group’s coordinator.

“There are a number of people in that race that we’ve endorsed in prior elections. At this point, we’re just going to step back and let the voters decide,” she said.

Analysis:

This story posted on WOOD Radio’s website has significantly different content than the Grand Rapids Press story. This story is brief but does mention Clinton’s comments about wars from the 20th Century. Clinton doesn’t mention any of the wars that he presided over as President – Somalia, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, and Iraq. The article also says that “The former President also highlighted the need for more humanitarian efforts at home and abroad to help build partnerships to make the world a more secure place.” Unfortunately the WOOD Radio reporter doesn’t bother to ask what sorts of humanitarian efforts Clinton engaged in while President, not what the Democratic Party is doing now to fulfill that need.

The story also mentions that Clinton visited the grave site of former President Ford and that “Before the black-tie event, about 10 people stood outside the entrance — protesting Clinton for his polices on Iraq and other military actions during his term in office.” The story does not mention if this protest was organized by a particular group or specific reasons why they were protesting.

Story:

Former President Clinton had several things on his mind but ultimately the could be summed up as the 21st century will be better than the 20th.

He stated that millions died during the two World Wars, the Holocaust, the Khmer Rouge and other wars and political atrocities — Clinton says it would take a lot of violence this century to even come close, but the change is that now people feel the war has come to them… that they could be the victim, totally unlike before.

The former President also highlighted the need for more humanitarian efforts at home and abroad to help build partnerships to make the world a more secure place.

Clinton gave the keynote for the 20th annual dinner of The Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Monday night.

Before heading in for the speech, Mr. Clinton took time to place red roses at the gravesite of former President Ford, just across the river from DeVos Place.

About 2,100 attendend the annual dinner.

Before the black-tie event, about 10 people stood outside the entrance — protesting Clinton for his polices on Iraq and other military actions during his term in office.