Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Rearranging the deck chairs...


Well, the Democrats had a “major announcement” today. Was it news about the president? No. Maybe they dug up some dirt on a GOP official? Nope. A plan to revive the economy? Nuh-uh. The big news? A new logo! Only this one isn’t all that inspiring – especially since it looks like they’re giving themselves a “D” (which some folks think is being generous).


Meanwhile in the well of the Senate: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday predicted to The Hill that Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons will safely win the Nov. 2 general election against GOP nominee Christine O'Donnell. But Reid said Coons would have won even if Rep. Mike Castle (R) had prevailed over O'Donnell. 'I'm going to be very honest with you — Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He's my pet. He's my favorite candidate,' Reid said." (The Hill) My pet? Really? The senate majority leader said that? On the other hand, it is Harry Reid...

From our lips to God's ear...

Whistling through the graveyard? According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Pelosi Island), recent Tea Party primary victories were "very positive" for Democrats. Pelosi also listed as "positives" - tax audits, water boarding and root canal surgery (without anesthesia)...

Nancy Pelosi and the power of "positive" thinking...

"Elizabeth Warren To Be Appointed to Help Create Consumer Finance Protection Bureau" - because, you know, it's good to put added regulations and other burdens on the backs of businesses during times of economic woe...

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire: "Former President Bill Clinton said the Republican Party is embracing 'ideology over evidence' and even questioned whether former President George W. Bush would fit in among the party's candidates this year, the AP reports. Said Clinton: 'A lot of their candidates today, they make him look like a liberal.'" This from the guy who ran left and snapped back to the right so quick he gave his base whiplash...

If at first you don't succeed (at bludgeoning the electorate) with ObamaCare™, try, try again...

"Recovery Summer" or "Summer of George?" - 'nuf said...


The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Faces of Debt
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party

Hey, big spender...

Meg Whitman... (via smartvstupid.com)


According to the Los Angeles Times, "Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman gave her campaign another $15 million Tuesday. The latest contribution brings Whitman's personal spending in the race to $119 million, shattering the record for most money ever spent by one political candidate on a single election in American history. Whitman's latest cash infusion comes just one month after writing a $13-million check to her campaign last month. Whitman has now surpassed New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as the most prolific spender on any one campaign. Bloomberg spent $109 million on his 2009 reelection as mayor of New York.”

Ms. Whitman should pay attention. History - and recent events - have not been kind to big self-funders...

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire - "How Did the Wealthy Candidates Fare? With the primary season nearly complete, the Wall Street Journal notes that 'of the 10 top self-funders who competed for the House, only three made it through the primaries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group. It's the same story in the race for the Senate: Of the 10 biggest self-donors, only three are still running.'"

Whitman has a slight lead in most polls over former governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown (D), but for $119 million most people (especially CEOs) would expect the dial to move a bit more than it has...

Airwaves alert...

It’s turning out to be a busy week here at Broadcast Central®…


Carly Fiorina...

Tonight, it’s a special edition of the John Batchelor Show’s “Hotel California” as we interview Carly Fiorina (R), U.S. Senate candidate, from 6-6:30 p.m. PDT. The “we” includes John Batchelor, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA 21) and me. I’ll be broadcasting out of KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco (so if you’re outside the reach of its powerful antennas and catapults, you can listen to the show via its website).


At 6:35 p.m., I’ll shift over to the Central Coast’s favorite station, KVEC 920 AM, to chat with host Dave Congalton about the surging Tea Party movement and the results of recent elections (including last night’s surprising results in Delaware and New York). If you’re not in the broadcast area, you can listen online via KVEC’s website.


After Dave’s show, it’s back to the John Batchelor Show – beginning at 7 p.m. PDT – to talk about California gubernatorial Democratic candidate Jerry Brown's latest gaffe concerning Bill Clinton as well as his newest anti-Meg Whitman (R) attack ads. And we’ll likely discuss the latest news surrounding the recent pipeline disaster/recovery in nearby San Bruno.

San Bruno last Friday...

And tomorrow morning (Thursday), I'll join Brian Sussman, Officer Vic and Sheri Yee for another "adventure" on the KSFO-AM 560 morning show beginning around 8 a.m. PDT. If you’re in the Bay Area, you can tune in (it’s still a free country…I think) or listen anywhere in the world via the web.


Happy listening!


Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Sighting the (Young) Guns...


Tonight, as Tea Party candidates surge to victories in New York and Delaware, it increasingly looks like pollsters, pundits and other insiders who are betting on the GOP taking back the House will have guessed correctly.

A new book, "Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders," has hit the shelves - and airwaves (a la PR tours) - and it's making a lot of noise for its authors: Congressmen Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) and Kevin McCarthy (R-California).

The authors have positioned themselves as the rightful heirs to the Reagan Revolution and their friends in the media on the right side of the aisle are doing their best to reinforce that for them.

Below is an interesting take on the phenomenon by my friend, colleague and host of the John Batchelor Show, John Batchelor...


One thing is for sure - this coming election isn't going to be just a historic event...it's also going to be very, very interesting...

Yet more bumper sticker politics...

If only we knew how this person felt about things...


And it's on a Prius, no less...

(via the Internet)

Sunday, September 12, 2010

They give their blessing...

Now that's news!

From our It's About Time Department:

A recent edition of The Next Web notes the following Big Deal: "In a letter to its members last week, Associated Press made the announcement that bloggers should be cited as a news source. This is a significant move from the AP, given that they have a history of not exactly ‘getting on’ with bloggers."

It's about time...


09/01/2010

AP Advisory

AP announces editorial guidelines for credit and attribution

Associated Press Senior Managing Editor Michael Oreskes has announced a new set of guidelines for credit and attribution to the AP staff. His policy document is below.

Colleagues,


In the age of the Web, the sourcing and reliability of information has become ever more crucial. So it is more important than ever that we be consistent and transparent in our handling of information that originated elsewhere than our own reporting.

Therefore, here is our policy for crediting other news organizations in our reporting. This policy is aimed at introducing consistency to our practices around the world, and applies to our print, broadcast and online news reports.

The policy addresses two kinds of situations:

-- Attributing to other organizations information that we haven’t independently reported.
-- Giving credit to another organization that broke a story first, even when we match it -- or advance it -- through our own reporting.

Attributing facts we haven’t gathered or confirmed on our own:

We should provide attribution whether the other organization is a newspaper, website, broadcaster or blog; whether or not it’s U.S. based; and whether or not it's an AP member or subscriber.

This policy applies to all reports in all media, from short pieces, such as NewsNows and initial broadcast reports, to longer pieces aimed at print publication.

It applies once we have decided that we need to pick up the material – and for those decisions, the usual judgments still apply.

The attribution doesn't always have to be at the start of a story or script; it can sometimes be two or three graphs down. But we do need to say where the information came from.

If some information comes from another organization and some is ours, we should credit ourselves for what's ours and the other organization for what's theirs. (If the material from the other source turns out to be wrong, we'll cite them in any corrective we do later.)

It’s important to note that we shouldn’t use facts from a non-member news organization, even with credit, so frequently that we appear to be systematically and continuously free riding on that organization’s work.

Crediting other organizations when they break a story and we match or further develop it:

If organization X breaks a story and we then match it through our own original reporting, we should say something like this: “The secret meeting in Paris was initially reported by X.”

This policy applies to spot stories as well as enterprise and investigative pieces.

Sometimes our reporting goes so far beyond the other organization’s report that AP’s story is substantially our work. In such a case, we should still credit the other organization, though the credit can be farther down in the story. Suppose Blog Y reports that the government has compiled a secret report on something, but we’re the first to find out what it says. We should still say, lower in the story, that “The existence of the report was first reported by Blog Y.”

If there are many elements to a story, we don't have to catalog who reported each element first. The goal is simply to give credit to whoever got the story started or added some significant new angle.

As always, our standards editor, Tom Kent, is available to help think through the application of these broad policies.

The points above raise some special questions for operations in the United States, so here’s a Q&A on these:

Q. In the United States, we’ve long given attribution to members on true scoops and enterprise. But often we haven't included such attribution on spot news, on the theory that AP and its members are a cooperative and therefore a single publishing source. What's changed?

A. While it’s true that AP has the right to use spot news from our members, as journalists we should tell our readers where the information originated. Members in many states have also been asking for this change as they seek to drive traffic to their websites.

Q. We already use "Information from" lines with URLs at the end of stories. Isn't that enough?

A. No. The attribution should be in the body of the story. We will also continue to use "Information from" lines with URLs in cases where we do now.

Q. What if information in a story comes from several organizations?

A. If several organizations are reporting different things -- for instance, in a fast-breaking news situation -- we should definitely make clear where each fact comes from. This is important for clarity and for the credibility of the story. If reports from several organizations on something match, we can give attribution to the first source we relied on for the information.

Q. Does this policy apply to U.S. broadcast as well as newspaper/online copy?

A. Yes.

Mike Oreskes

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Remembering...

...that horrible day.



I guess it was too much to hope for:Obama Calls for Tolerance - President Obama, marking the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, says U.S. is at war with al Qaeda but 'never will be at war with Islam.'” (Wall Street Journal)...

Rather than shrink from our righteous anger (not to mention grief) and our responses to the attacks of 9/11, we should remember it.

Boldly.


Until this “war” with al Qaeda and its supporters/sympathizers is won – regardless of how long it takes – we should revisit that horrible day and recall that thousands of our innocent fellow countrymen were slaughtered that day by thugs who hope to impose their views and will on the rest of the world.

Rather than taking a day of remembrance and turning it into another “teachable moment,” our leaders should join each other, shoulder to shoulder, to proclaim that while we are divided on many political matters here at home, we stand together to remember what happened on 9/11 and pledge the battle to destroy the evildoers.


What should be on the mind – and lips – of everyone bearing witness to that day, is neatly encapsulated in this excerpt from the New York Post:

“Beyond mourning (Posted: 12:30 AM, September 11, 2010) - For the ninth time, Americans today will gather at Ground Zero, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pa., for the now familiar -- but achingly painful -- commemorations of 9/11.

The nation will mourn its loss -- nearly 3,000 innocent lives, snuffed out on a Tuesday morning that seems at once so long ago, and as if it were yesterday.

And America will commemorate the heroism of the first responders who unhesitatingly rushed to the maelstrom to do their jobs -- even at the cost of many of their own lives.

But it would be a mistake to sentimentalize what happened on that brilliantly sunlit late-summer morning -- just as it would be wrong to lose sight of the true nature of the event.

The attacks were acts of mass murder, committed to advance political goals that were -- and remain -- antithetical to civilization itself.

Lenin wrote that the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize, and he was right. In this case, the object was to weaken the will of the established order to resist murderous medievalists who meant to drag the West back to the 9th century.

Who still mean to.”

Let us not forget the firefighters, police and other first responders who – when the world was burning and falling around them – rushed into harm’s way to save as many civilians as possible.

Let us not forget the selfless people inside the towers, the Pentagon and on United Flight 93 who gave their lives so that others might live.

Let us not forget those who toiled on the Pile, in the Pit and throughout the Pentagon in the hours, days, weeks and months after the attacks to recover the living and the remains of the dead.

Let us not forget the countless thousands who offered assistance at the WTC, Pentagon and in Shanksville on 9/11 and in the days following.

Let us not forget our allies who reached out to us in our time of need.

Let us not forget those who survived and carry with them – forever – memories of that day and friends, colleagues and loved ones lost.

Let us not forget those who died at Ground Zero, at the Pentagon and on United Flight 93.

Let us not forget those left behind. Let us never forget those who, in the years since 9/11, have given their all in an effort to destroy al Qaeda and others who would do us harm.

September 11, 2001: We will always remember.


Add: By no means is the following list comprehensive. It is merely a suggested "reading list" -