Tag Archives: venta

Income Still Hasn’t Come Close to Recovering From the Great Recession

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Today’s announcement that incomes increased 5 percent in 2015 was genuinely good news. But it’s also worthwhile to put it in perspective. As most of you know, income growth was very high in the 50s and 60s but slowed down after that. However, it didn’t flatline. Income continued to grow, only at a slower rate. However, since 2007 we’ve fallen far behind even that anemic growth rate:

Even with last year’s spike, the effects of the Great Recession are still with us. If we’d continued growing at the rate of 1980-2007, median household income would be $4,500 higher than it is. That’s a big hit. There’s still plenty of work to do.

More: 

Income Still Hasn’t Come Close to Recovering From the Great Recession

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Income Still Hasn’t Come Close to Recovering From the Great Recession

The Supreme Court Just Dealt a Blow to Voting Rights Advocates

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Ohio’s Golden Week—a period when voters can register and cast ballots early at the same time—will not be in place for the November election. The US Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously affirmed an appeals court panel decision and stonewalled a last-ditch effort by Ohio Democrats to restore the extra week during the state’s early voting period.

The saga began in February 2014, after the state’s Republican-led Legislature passed a series of voting restrictions that included eliminating Golden Week and same-day voter registration. The Ohio branch of the NAACP filed a lawsuit in May 2014, alleging the changes disproportionately affected minority voters. That September, a federal district judge granted an injunction halting the state’s early voting restrictions. The state appealed, and a panel on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision. But later that month, the Supreme Court put the order on hold, which kept the state’s initial restrictions in place for the midterm election.

After the election, the state’s NAACP reached a settlement with Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted that resulted in additional evening hours and another Sunday added to the early voting period, but the settlement may not have gone far enough. The Ohio Democratic Party, along with two other county Democratic organizations, later joined a lawsuit on behalf of several individuals to challenge the measures, arguing that they were discriminatory and disproportionately affected minority voters. (The Ohio Organizing Collaborative filed the initial suit in May 2015, but later withdrew.)

They claimed the rollbacks violated the 14th Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits discriminatory voting practices or procedures on the basis of race, color, or language. In May, a federal district judge ruled that the reductions disproportionately burdened African American voters and resulted “in less opportunity for African Americans to participate in the political process than other voters.” But a federal appeals court panel disagreed and reversed the lower court’s ruling in August. “This case presents yet another appeal…asking the federal courts to become entangled, as overseers and micromanagers, in the minutiae of state election processes,” wrote Judge David McKeague in the majority opinion. “The undisputed factual record shows that it’s easy to vote in Ohio. Very easy, actually,” he added later. The Supreme Court today agreed.

Some experts, such as University of California-Irvine professor and election law expert Rick Hasen, still consider the state’s 29-day early voting period “exceedingly generous.” In a blog post after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, he wrote, “While I might support Golden Week as good policy, I worry when courts are used in this way to prevent every cutback in voting, especially after voting rights proponents had settled a suit with Ohio on favorable terms.”

Link to article:

The Supreme Court Just Dealt a Blow to Voting Rights Advocates

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court Just Dealt a Blow to Voting Rights Advocates

This Is How We Know Congress Isn’t Really Serious About Election Fraud

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The debate over possible Russian meddling in US elections was a major theme in a US House hearing Tuesday on protecting the 2016 elections from cyberattacks and machine-voting attacks. Even though election preparations have been underway for months around the country and early voting in many states begins soon, committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the hearing was to review the security of the election system.

“This discussion is timely as many concerns have been raised in recent months about the vulnerabilities of electronic voting machines, voting over the internet, and online voter registration,” Smith said.

Concerns about the security of the US voting system have been heightened after the recent hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and some high-profile Democratic politicians. The DNC, along with several US government officials and security research firms, have fingered Russian intelligence as responsible for the hacks of Democratic targets. Add to that the recent revelation that state election databases in Arizona and Illinois had been hacked, although the degree of success in each attack, and the ultimate purpose, remains unclear. Even though the Russian government has denied being involved, Democrats within Congress have called on the Obama administration to publicly accuse Russia of trying to interfere with US elections.

None of the witnesses—Dr. Charles Romine of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler, David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, and Dr. Dan Wallach of the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University—suggested Russians were attempting to hack election infrastructure, only that they, too, had received this information specific to the DNC and the DCCC from press accounts.

“The nature of the threat is that they don’t want you to see them there,” said Wallach. “So we can’t assume that if we haven’t seen them that they’re absent. What we do know is that we’ve established motive. The attack on the DNC’s email server is motive—it shows that they did it for explicit partisan purposes.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said the Russians’ goal might not necessarily be to manipulate vote counts or tamper with voter registration databases, but to create chaos in the system and undermine confidence. “The focus of this hearing is on the voting systems, but really the question is about the election,” she said. “It’s pretty clear that the Russians have attacked, have engaged, in a cyberattack on the DNC and the DCCC.”

For Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.), Russian involvement in trying to hack or access actual election systems around the country lacked any evidence. “We have seen article after article after article about how Russia is compromising the integrity of our election system, and Mr. Chairman, the panelists are just saying that is false,” Rohrbacher said. “We want our country to be safe, but we also don’t want to just continually vilify Russia and turning them into the bad guys. If we’re going to have integrity of our system, I think we have to look at home for real threats to the integrity of our voting system.”

Lofgren disagreed. “To downplay the role that the Russians have had in this is a huge mistake, when you take a look at what they did to the DNC and the DCCC,” Lofgren said, urging members to avoid making the discussion about hacking partisan. “If you attack one of the major parties, somehow that’s okay if it could be to your advantage,” she said. “I like to think if the Russians had attacked the Republican National Committee, Democrats would be as outraged as Republicans. It’s an attack on America. It’s not an attack on a party.”

The hearing came the same day that Guccifer 2.0, the hacker or hackers who have publicly taken credit for the hack of the DNC, issued a rambling statement about information security at a London cybersecurity conference where he was supposed to appear (he didn’t), according to Motherboard. Guccifer did release roughly 600 megabytes of documents containing information about DNC fundraising efforts and other Democratic planning documents at the conference, according to Politico.*

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the documents released today by the hacker Guccifer 2.0 came from a Democratic contracting firm. We regret the error.

Source: 

This Is How We Know Congress Isn’t Really Serious About Election Fraud

Posted in alo, Cyber, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Prepara, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Is How We Know Congress Isn’t Really Serious About Election Fraud

The Trump Files: Donald Weighs In on "Ghetto Supastar"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Donald Trump doesn’t listen to hip-hop. “The problem is my life is so wild I just don’t have time,” he told Vibe in 1999. But that didn’t stop him from making cameos on two hip-hop albums in the 1990s: Method Man’s Tical 2000: Judgment Day, and Pras’ 1998 classic Ghetto Supastar.

Trump’s appearances on both albums were limited to short voicemail messages that play during interludes.

“Hey Method Man, this is Donald Trump and I’m in Palm Beach and we’re all waiting for your album,” he said on Tical 2000. “Let’s get going, man, everybody’s waiting for this album!”

On Pras’ album, the singer’s first solo effort after the Fugees broke up, he lavished praise and made a bold prediction. “Hi, this is Donald Trump and I have no doubt that you’re going to be a big success,” he said. “Now after knowing you, I know that you’re going to be right up there, and I hope very soon you’re going to be in the leagues with me. So good luck.”

Trump’s prediction was off. While fellow ex-Fugees Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean went on to big things, Pras would not release a second album for seven years, the disappointing Win Lose or Draw. Trump confessed to Vibe afterward that he had never listened to Ghetto Supastar and had no idea who Pras was.

Pras, for his part, appears to have soured on Trump. In May, he told the TV network Showtime that its “corporate bullying” was responsible for Donald Trump’s lead in the polls:

Originally posted here:

The Trump Files: Donald Weighs In on "Ghetto Supastar"

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Trump Files: Donald Weighs In on "Ghetto Supastar"

Hillary Clinton Is Sick and the New York Times Is ON IT

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The LA Times has two front-page stories related to Hillary Clinton’s pneumonia. Ditto for the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post has three. But the New York Times is flooding the zone! Huzzah for the Gray Lady!

Visit link:

Hillary Clinton Is Sick and the New York Times Is ON IT

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Is Sick and the New York Times Is ON IT

These Athletes Have Joined Colin Kaepernick in Protesting Racial Inequality and Police Brutality

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Sunday night, before their NFL season opener against the Arizona Cardinals, New England Patriots players Martellus Bennett and Devin McCourty raised their fists after the playing of the national anthem—just as three Tennessee Titans players had earlier in the day. In doing so, they became the latest athletes to join San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick in calling attention to racial inequality and police brutality in America.

So far, at least 15 athletes have sat, knelt, or raised fists during or right after the national anthem since Kaepernick sat before a preseason game on August 26. (Sports Illustrated‘s MMQB site reported that more than 70 NFL players had discussed what to do in light of Kaepernick’s protest leading up to opening night.) These athletes include:

Brandon Marshall, Denver Broncos (NFL): When Marshall knelt before last Thursday’s matchup against the Carolina Panthers, he said he was prepared for the backlash that might ensue. And it came for his wallet: The Air Academy Federal Credit Union and CenturyLink broke off partnerships with Marshall over the act. Despite this, Marshall says he plans to continue protesting. “I’m not against the police. I’m not against the military. I’m not against America. I’m against social injustice,” Marshall told MMQB on Friday.
Jeremy Lane, Seattle Seahawks (NFL): Lane sat on the bench during the national anthem before a preseason game against the Oakland Raiders on September 1. (On Sunday, his teammates joined him, standing and linking arms together. The team’s “demonstration of unity” didn’t exactly go as far as it could have, though, as Jezebel notes.)
Eric Reid, San Francisco 49ers (NFL): A week after his teammate first opened the door to demonstrations, Reid joined Kaepernick in kneeling during the national anthem on the San Diego Chargers’ “Salute to the Military” night. It came after the two met with free-agent long snapper and former Army Green Beret Nate Boyer, who recently wrote an open letter in the Army Times about the demonstrations.
Marcus Peters, Kansas City Chiefs (NFL): Before Sunday’s game against San Diego, Peters stood arm in arm with teammates in a sign of solidarity with Kaepernick. He took it one step further, raising his black-gloved right hand in the air during the anthem. “I come from a majority black community from Oakland, California…so the struggle, I seen it,” he told the Associated Press after the Chiefs’ win.
Arian Foster, Miami Dolphins (NFL): Foster knelt beside three teammates along the sideline before Sunday’s loss to the Seattle Seahawks. “That’s the beautiful thing about this country,” Foster told reporters afterward. “If somebody feels it’s not good enough, they have that right. That’s all we’re doing, exercising that right.”
Kenny Stills, Miami Dolphins (NFL)
Michael Thomas, Miami Dolphins (NFL)
Jelani Jenkins, Miami Dolphins (NFL)
Jurrell Casey, Tennessee Titans (NFL): Casey raised his fist along with two other teammates after the national anthem at Sunday’s game against the Minnesota Vikings. “A lot of times, a lot of people don’t want to address the issues, and they want us to sit back and be quiet about it,” Casey told reporters. “And I think to bring fairness and (equality) to all races and everything, I thought it was the right thing to do.”
Jason McCourty, Tennessee Titans (NFL)
Wesley Woodyard, Tennessee Titans (NFL)
Martellus Bennett, New England Patriots (NFL): The Patriots tight end and his teammate waited until the end of the anthem to raise their fists—Bennett wearing a black glove, McCourty a white one.
Devin McCourty, New England Patriots (NFL)
Megan Rapinoe, Seattle Reign (National Women’s Soccer League): On September 4, the national team standout knelt during a match against the Chicago Red Stars as a “nod to Kaepernick.” When the Reign played its next game against the Washington Spirit, Spirit team officials decided to preempt the action, playing the anthem before players trotted out to the field. (Before Sunday’s rematch against the Spirit, Rapinoe stood and linked arms with teammates.)
Michael Oppong, Doherty High School (Worcester, Massachusetts): Oppong, a high school junior, dropped to a knee during the national anthem on Friday. He claimed on Twitter afterward that his coaches and school officials had suspended him for one game. On Monday, school district superintendent Maureen Binienda told the Worcester Telegram & Gazette that Oppong’s action did not violate any school rules and that he would not be punished.

Though the 49ers acknowledged Kaepernick’s right to decline to participate in the anthem, the quarterback’s actions were met with outcry from former players, pundits, and celebrities alike. The Santa Clara Police Officers Association threatened to pull officers from working 49ers games if the protests continued. (The union eventually backed off.) NFL commissioner Roger Gooddell told the Associated Press last week that he didn’t “necessarily agree” with Kaepernick’s actions; he added that while he supported players who wanted “to see change in society,” the league believed “very strongly in patriotism in the NFL.”

“To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way,” Kaepernick told NFL.com on August 27. “There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” He continued a week later, kneeling alongside his teammate Eric Reid before “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

Following his initial demonstration, Kaepernick’s jersey sales soared; he announced recently that the proceeds will go to charity. (Both Kaepernick and the 49ers organization have pledged to each send $1 million to Bay Area charities toward “the cause of improving racial and economic inequality.”) Kaepernick’s protest is expected to continue Monday night, when the 49ers face the Los Angeles Rams.

See more here: 

These Athletes Have Joined Colin Kaepernick in Protesting Racial Inequality and Police Brutality

Posted in alo, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These Athletes Have Joined Colin Kaepernick in Protesting Racial Inequality and Police Brutality

Bombs and Backbiting: The Syrian Cease-fire Is Off to a Great Start

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Saturday, just hours after Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov announced an imminent cease-fire in Syria, government planes bombed a crowded marketplace killing 61 and wounding 100 more. By weekend’s end, at least 90 people had died in regime airstrikes, including 28 children. Today, President Bashar al-Assad publicly vowed to “recover every inch of Syria from the terrorists” and decried those in the opposition who “were betting on promises from foreign powers, which will result in nothing.”

In other words, the long-awaited Syrian cease-fire appears to be off to a great start.

The agreement, which was announced early Saturday morning in Geneva, officially began at sundown today. It comes after 10 months of failed attempts to reach a political settlement to a conflict that’s killed nearly half a million people and spawned the largest refugee crisis since World War II. While some observers argue that the cease-fire is the best opportunity to bring a pause to the violence, the plan has been greeted mostly with skepticism.

If the truce endures for a week and humanitarian aid begins to flow into besieged areas, the United States and Russia say they will put aside their differences over the legitimacy of the Assad regime and work to target two jihadist groups, ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, the former Al Qaeda-affiliate that recently rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS).

In theory, the cease-fire deal prohibits the Syrian Air Force from flying raids over opposition-held areas, except for those controlled by ISIS or JFS. Kerry called this “the bedrock of the agreement,” labeling the Syrian Air Force the “main driver of civilian casualties.” But as Michael Weiss of The Daily Beast writes, outside of excluding ISIS and JFS, the deal does not clearly define the ideologically mixed groups that make up the Syrian opposition forces.

As part of the agreement, more moderate rebel groups must distance themselves from JFS or risk being targeted. But Syria’s mainstream armed opposition forces, as Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, puts it, “are extensively ‘marbled’ or ‘coupled’ with JFS forces…This is not a reflection of ideological affinity as much as it is merely a military necessity.” Lister wrote on Saturday that “not a single one has suggested any willingness to withdraw from the frontlines on which JFS is present. To them, doing so means effectively ceding territory to the regime, as they have little faith in a long-term cessation of hostilities holding.”

Under the new deal, the Syrian government is only banned from striking areas agreed to by both Russia and the United States, and the Assad regime and Russia are permitted to strike JFS (the group formerly known as Nusra) without prior American consent if it’s in response to “imminent threats.” Weiss asks, “What is to stop Damascus and Moscow from suddenly finding ‘imminent threats’ everywhere against parties they insist are Nusra or Nusra-affiliated before Washington can concur?”

Bloomberg columnist Eli Lake points out that the Pentagon and the US intelligence community are deeply skeptical about sharing intelligence with the Russians on Syria. Even if the first week’s truce holds, he writes, “is it even desirable for US intelligence officers to be sharing the locations of US-backed rebels in Syria with a Russian Air Force that has been bombing them for nearly a year?”

On Sunday, rebel groups sent a letter to the United States agreeing to “cooperate positively” with the cease-fire. But they added that they have deep concerns “linked to our survival and continuation as a revolution.” Among their top concerns: The agreement neglects many besieged areas outside of Aleppo, lacks guarantees or sanctions against violations, and doesn’t ban Syrian jets from flying for up to nine days following the beginning of the cease-fire. It also called the exclusion of JFS, but not Iranian-backed Shiite militias, a double standard. One American-backed rebel faction has already called the deal a “trap.”

Perhaps to no one’s surprise, reports of alleged cease-fire violations emerged within one hour of its official start on Monday night, as the Assad regime launched artillery strikes on Al-Hara and dropped a barrel bomb on Aleppo.

See the original post – 

Bombs and Backbiting: The Syrian Cease-fire Is Off to a Great Start

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bombs and Backbiting: The Syrian Cease-fire Is Off to a Great Start

A Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Has the moon turned blue? Has Hell frozen over? Could there actually be a bipartisan campaign finance reform bill in this of all years?

OK, it’s far from the kind of sweeping change that backers of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United want. And it’s a long way from public financing for congressional elections. But supporters of Rep. Paul Gosar’s Stop Foreign Donations Affecting Our Elections Act are billing it as an important sign that Democrats and Republicans can find ways to work together on an issue that has long been hyper-partisan.

Gosar, an Arizonan who belongs to the staunchly conservative House Freedom Caucus, has rounded up 81 co-sponsors for his bill, including 30 Democrats. They run the political gamut from political giant-killer Dave Brat, who defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) by running to his right in a primary, to Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), whom the nonpartisan GovTrack ranks among the most liberal members of the US House. Two Democrats who are running for Senate in their respective states, Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, also have signed on.

The bill is also supported by all nine members of the House Administration Committee, which is charged with clearing the legislation for floor action. “I work it,”grins Gosar, a loose-limbed 57-year-old with a boyish fetlock, explaining how a lawmaker of his strong ideological bent (he made headlines for boycotting Pope Francis’ speech to Congress) managed to put together such a diverse coalition. He’s hoping for a House vote soon.

What Gosar describes as a “commonsense bill”would require federal candidates who accept political donations by credit card to verify the donor’s identity by obtaining the credit card verification code (the three- or four-digit number that most commercial vendors already insist on having with a purchase), as well as the card’s billing address.

Because that information currently is not required, “it leaves the door wide open”to violations of campaign law, including illegal contributions from foreign donors, according to John Pudner, a former Republican political consultant whose last gig was managing the Brat campaign that unseated Cantor. He has since started a conservative campaign finance reform group called Take Back Our Republic.

At a forum this summer sponsored by Federal Election Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, Pudner described a scenario that would enable donors to violate both the federal limits on campaign donations and the prohibition on foreign donors by using the same credit card over and over to make contributions under the $200 limit above which the FEC requires names and addresses of the donors.

“If I was an unscrupulous political consultant and didn’t care about foreign law, I’d set up a room full of people, retype over and over the credit card number, $200 a pop,”Pudner said. “That avenue is there and so easy.”Does Pudner actually believe it’s happening? “The longer you have a loophole like this, the more likely it is to be abused,”he said.

Part of the appeal of Gosar’s bill for some Republicans is that it can be cast as a poke at President Barack Obama, whose 2008 and 2012 campaigns pulled in millions in small donations, some from unverified credit cards. Pudner, who says he has spoken with Obama campaign veterans about the measure, doesn’t think the president’s team was trying to violate the law, calling the loophole an “unintended consequence”of Obama’s aggressive fundraising strategy.

This year, Pudner said, both Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s campaigns are verifying the identities of credit card donors but Bernie Sanders — whose spokesman scoffed at Gosar’s bill as “a solution in search of a problem”— did not. A 2012 report by the conservative Government Accountability Institute found nearly half the members of Congress are not verifying credit card donations.

Longtime campaign finance advocates have pointed out that there are many other ways for illegal foreign contributions to find their ways into the political system, either through the “dark money”groups that, because of their 501(c)4 status, don’t report donors, or legally, through the US subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies.

But Pudner — who says his group gets financial backing from both conservative activists and foundations, such as the Stuart Family Fund, as well as more traditional campaign finance reform funders such as the Rockefeller Brothers and the Democracy Fund — argues that the Gosar measure represents an important first step to recognizing that, as he said at the FEC forum, “there’s real grounds for agreement”between conservatives and liberals on some campaign finance reform measures.

Though Gosar hardly sounds ready to jump aboard the get-big-money-out-of-politics bandwagon (“a well-educated electorate is very important,”he said), the congressman doesn’t disagree.

“Who knows? I mean start on the things you agree on and go from there,”he said. “To be honest, you take baby steps. You crawl before you walk and you walk before you run.”

Continued here – 

A Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill?

Posted in Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill?

New York Times Public Editor Shrugs Off Charges of False Equivalency

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Liz Spayd, the New York Times public editor, writes today about charges of “false equivalence.” She basically blows it off:

As we enter the final sprint of an extraordinary presidential campaign, the use of this term is accelerating, and it typically is used to attack news outlets accused of unfairly equating a minor failing of Hillary Clinton’s to a major failing of Donald Trump’s.

….The problem with false balance doctrine is that it masquerades as rational thinking. What the critics really want is for journalists to apply their own moral and ideological judgments to the candidates….I can’t help wondering about the ideological motives of those crying false balance, given that they are using the argument mostly in support of liberal causes and candidates.

Spayd is getting plenty of flak for this on social media, and I think it’s partially deserved. There’s no question that charges of false equivalence are often partisan, but her job should be to figure out if they’re correct anyway. She doesn’t even really try to do that.

At the same time, Spayd also makes a valuable point that gets too little attention. Some of the Times’ reporting on the Clinton Foundation has been important, she says:

On the other hand, some foundation stories revealed relatively little bad behavior, yet were written as if they did. That’s not good journalism. But I suspect the explanation lies less with making matchy-matchy comparisons of the two candidates’ records than with journalists losing perspective on a line of reporting they’re heavily invested in.

Yep. I frequently read stories that should have been spiked because they don’t really say much of anything. The problem is that after spending days or weeks reporting something, no reporter wants to leave empty-handed. So they write something, even if it’s little more than narrative or innuendo. Editors should be more aggressive about killing stuff like this.

There’s an additional point that Spayd doesn’t make: some stories naturally lend themselves to continual coverage, while others don’t. The Clinton email story is an obvious example of the former. Donald Trump’s tax returns are an example of the latter. These are probably equally important stories, but the email story gets dozens of front-page hits simply because new information drips out steadily. Trump’s tax returns get only one or two because there’s nothing new to report once Trump has made it clear he has no plans to release them.

So editors need to ask themselves if a story is getting overcovered solely because of the nature of the information drip, rather than because of its intrinsic importance. I may be partisan, as Spayd says, but I’d say that both the email story and the Clinton Foundation story have been overcovered for this reason. I don’t quite know what the answer is—the whole point of news is to report stuff that’s new, after all—but at the very least political editors should probably retain more perspective about how much attention to give to individual drips in long-running stories.

See the original article here:

New York Times Public Editor Shrugs Off Charges of False Equivalency

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New York Times Public Editor Shrugs Off Charges of False Equivalency

In New Poll, Clinton Leads Trump In Every Single Category

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The latest WaPo/ABC News poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 51-43 percent in a two-way race. That’s good news for Clinton, but the rest of the poll is even better news. Asked who they believe will win, Clinton leads by a whopping 58-29 percent. Historically, this is a pretty predictive indicator. President Obama’s approval rating is up to 58 percent, which is good news for the candidate of the same party. Clinton also leads on all four questions about character and all five questions about issues.

But here’s my favorite result. Although 43 percent of respondents say they support Trump, only 36 percent say he’s qualified to serve. This means that 7 percent of the population plans to vote for him even though they think he’s unqualified to be president. Boo yah!

Anyway, margin of error, question wording, blah blah blah. This probably doesn’t really mean much. But it’s amusing nonetheless.

View original post here: 

In New Poll, Clinton Leads Trump In Every Single Category

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In New Poll, Clinton Leads Trump In Every Single Category