I'll start by saying that anyone who uses the sentence that "MSNBC is the only counterpart to FOX and the right wing noise machine" has their head completely up their ass. Two hours per day (Olbermann and Maddow) do not make up for the countless hours of "fair and balanced programming" that Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough or much of the daytime programming comprises - certainly, this is a mixed bag at best and nothing near the ridiculously and blatantly skewed programming on FOX - or even worse, the "supposedly neutral" but SO NOT neutral CNN.
But I digress....
A couple of weeks back, Chris Matthews had two Congressmen on Hardball to discuss health care reform and how the issue could be moved forward in a bipartisan manner. The Republican Congressman appearing was New Jersey's own Scott Garrett. At the end of the segment, Chris heaped effusive praise on Garrett, calling him his type of Northeastern Republican, which I guess means the most radically rightwing kind. He even invoked the word "moderate" to describe Garrett (at which mention Garrett visibly cringed).
To grasp the abject stupidity of Matthews' misplaced admiration, you have to understand who Scott Garrett is and what he stands for. As we have documented here time and time again, Garrett is arguably THE most radical right-wing member of Congress. His illustrious legislative record includes, among many other things:
Voting against aid for victims of Katrina,
Voting against extending unemployment benefits for American families,
Voting against extending the Voting Rights Act,
Voting against providing health care to poor children,
Voting against anti-price gouging legislation holding big oil accountable,
Voting against taxing bonuses for Wall Street execs (he actually argued that they "deserved" them),
Voting for every bloated Bush budget, and
Voting for every dime spent in Iraq.
Oh, and by the way Chris - He's also catering to the birthers - if not necessarily an outward one himself, having said at a public meeting that he wanted to see Obama's birth certificate. Garrett further distinguished himself following the earthquake in Haiti. His message on his Congressional web site said the he was praying for those constituents of his affected by the quake. No mention of the thousands of Haitians who were dead or injured. Garrett also opposed abortion even in the case of rape or incest - allowing a rapist to choose the mother of his child or a molesting father to force his daughter to bear his own grandchild. And he referred dismissively to the push to eliminate DADT as a "side issue" not worthy of his consideration. That's Chris Matthews' kind of Republican.
As Jason notes below, Garrett also recently appeared on MSNBC's The Dylan Ratigan Show with guest host Ed Schultz. Once again he performed his one man show designed to portray himself as the sincere moderate that truly wants to work across party lines for the good of the American people. I can't blame Ed because he was filling in at the last moment. But I can blame the show's staff for not doing even a modicum of homework on their guest. Like Matthews, Schultz - someone who should know better - bought the well rehearsed charade hook, line and sinker.
By giving Garrett this kind of forum without challenging him on his record, MSNBC has aided and abetted an insidious political fraud. It is incumbent upon MSNBC to make sure this journalistic incontinence doesn't happen again. First, try to actually do some research on your guests. You know, like Rachel Maddow does so well. Second, next time you extend an invitation for Congressman Garrett to appear on one of your infotainment shows, ask him why he voted time and time again to deprive Americans of their most basic civil rights. Then ask him how we can buy into his fairy tale of working toward a bipartisan utopia when he questions the very legitimacy of our President to serve in office based on debunked crackpot theories.
Maybe then MSNBC can begin to regain some semblance of journalistic integrity.
Bloggers are often criticized as parasites on the mainstream media (some in the newspaper business even blame the internet for the demise of the industry), so I try to produce original content and generally avoid writing about or criticizing stories that run in the mainstream press.
Seeking a wider audience, instead, I try to get the stories I write and documents I disclose reported in the mainstream press. I also like to defy journalistic conventions by intentionally avoiding red meat soundbites, burying the lede, and rambling on for hundreds of words before I provide the good stuff in links at the end of the post.
But, for several important reasons, this particularly story is different. Lets break that down.
To their credit, the Philadelphia Inquirer today is the first to begin to connect the dots on the Christie environmental policy and shine some light on the arcane arena of regulatory policy. Most DEP regulations generally remain under the media radar. Previously, the Bergen Record and the Asbury Park Press reported on the Transition Report - both stories were strongly critical of Christie's policy.
But the "in the weeds" details of regulatory policy are where the rubber meets the road in environmental protection. The process and standards for developing rules and the fine print in the rules themselves determine outcomes - and rules impact the entire state. Thus, the stakes in regulatory policy debates are huge (literally life and death (see this).
Business groups understand this and they pay big money to high powered law firms, technical experts, and lobbyists to work on regulatory issues that effect them. Christie too understands how the game is played, which explains why he made the existing rules - which already are really bad - worse by his institutional attack on DEP and structural changes to DEP regulatory policy via Executive Orders. This is why I spend most of my time working on regulatory policy issues and DEP implementation.
Given the stakes, it has always amazed and frustrated me at how few resources and little attention regulatory policies tend to get by both environmental groups and the media.
The regulatory arena demands the expertise of policy wonks and lawyers. Because rules are complex and the regulatory process is not transparent, the public is at a huge disadvantage. Thus, there is a crucial need for expert advocates to analyze rules and translate their implications to the public via media. But unfortunately, most reporters and environmental groups are ill-suited for the job and therefore tend to avoid the fine print of regulatory analysis in favor of media spin (press releases), legislative lobbying, or activism on local projects.
NJ philanthropic foundations/funders and client environmental groups like defined campaigns that tend to be local "place based" ("Stop X" "Save Y", "Preserve Z") or single issue focused ("Clean [Energy,Water, Air] Now!). Even those groups that work at the state level and in Trenton put first priority on legislative lobbying and media. A focus on lobbying tends to lead to certain compromises in terms of withholding criticisms in exchange for inside access. Similarly, most reporters roll their eyes when pitched a complicated regulatory story that requires investigative work. So environmentalists who depend on the media to promote their issues tend to avoid regulatory stories they know have little chance of being published because reporters and editors simply won't write them. And the activist leaning NJ enviro groups typically narrowly focus activism and pour huge legal resources into individual development battles, projects, or sites, not the underlying regulations that govern outcomes.
Time and time again, in the wake of hugely popular legislative initiatives (e.g. Clean Water Enforcement Act, Pollution Prevention Act, Global Warming Response Act, California Car, et al) after the environmental groups declare victory and move on to the next sexy campaign, the industry lobbyists remain engaged and work behind the scenes at DEP to eviscerate legislative wins through the back door of regulatory fine print.
Invariably, when local activists get down into the details of a particular project they oppose, they find that the DEP and the program regulations are working against them and real environmental protection. Yet despite discovery of this flawed regulatory reality, not one percent those advocacy resources are investing in work on fixing the underlying regulations that effect hundreds of similar projects across the entire state.
And when DEP regulations do mange to get media attention, it is not unusual for policy issues to be spun beyond recognition, or missed entirely, or reported as "he said/she said" debates, with no attempt by the reporter to read the rules and discern fact from fiction.
I am tired of watching this train wreck repeat itself.
I have been blogging on these issues in hopes of changing these dynamics.
So I am hopeful that today's Inquirer story will spur other media outlets, editors, and reporters to cover these issues. After all, the Bergen Record won The John B. Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism for their "Open for Business" series on the Whitman environmental rollbacks.
I also hope to alter the currently totally unacceptable stance within the environmental community. As discussed below, lack of consensus and the political cover provided by the NJ Environmental Federation are serious impediments to playing strong defense against the Christie onslaught.
Adrienne Lu of the Inquirer reported on business and environmental group reactions to the Christie DEP Transition Report, and a series of sweeping Executive Orders. The story's mixed headline flags the lack of consensus in the environmental community on the Christie agenda:
Kudos and caution greet Christie's business boost - Backers cheer changes that let firms weigh in early on new rules. Some environmentalists worry
"Some environmentalists" could have been written more accurately as "all but Dave Pringle of the NJ Environmental Federation".
Hal Bozarth, lobbyists for the NJ Chemsitry Council, has been called the godfather of toxics
Hal Bozarth, lobbyists for the NJ Chemistry Council, has been called the Godfather of toxics
Again, shockingly, Pringle/NJEF defies all his environmental colleagues and is the sole enviro on the same page in supporting Christie's policy as the NJ chemical industry and business groups. Hal Bozarth and Dave Pringle - perfect together! Here's how the Inquirer story tells it:
True to promise, in his first few weeks on the job, Gov. Christie has tilted the playing field in favor of business in New Jersey.
Through executive orders, he has upended the way regulations are created, giving his administration broad power to block rules it doesn't like and allowing businesses to weigh in early in the process.
The business community is thrilled, while environmental advocates worry the economy will be used as a cover to dismantle longtime protections.
Christie is "saying that the state has to reform and redo its regulatory process so that it's no longer a disincentive for new investment," said Hal Bozarth, executive director of the Chemistry Council of New Jersey. "That's frankly the first time in my long tenure that I've heard those things." [...]
Dave Pringle, campaign director of the New Jersey Environmental Foundation, which endorsed Christie, was the sole representative of environmental advocacy groups on the DEP transition team. While he disagreed with the tone of the report, Pringle said it contained many ideas his group supported, including prioritizing science over political considerations.
Respectfully, what we are dealing with here is far more than the "tone" of the Transition Report. And as far as I know, Pringle represented only NJEF on that Transition Team - he was NOT the representative of other advocacy groups.
And on the substance, Pringle is again dead wrong and provides more misleading spin to the press and the public. The last time, he got caught spinning about the Transition Report and Todd Bates of the Asbury Park Press again called him out. In a February 6, 2010 story "DEP rules under review, agency's fate uncertain" Bates reported:
But Karrow wrote and takes full responsibility for the report, according to David Pringle, a member of the panel that issued the report. He is campaign director for the New Jersey Environmental Federation, a coalition of 100 groups and 100,000 individual members.
However, Steve Wilson, a spokesman for the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, said a colleague - David Brogan, vice president for environmental policy - helped write the report.
And prior to that, in a November 23 story "Eco-Lobby frets over rules freeze", Bates caught Pringle spinning about the impact of Christie's moratorium on environmental rules. Pringle denied that the moratorium in EO #1 would harm the environment. But directly after Pringle's quote the APP story listed several major DEP rules it blocked. In a November 24 post, I pointed that out that contradiction, by quoting the following text from the APP story:
David Pringle, campaign director for the New Jersey Environmental Federation, said "the state has a lot of inefficiencies and overlapping and conflicting rules, and there's plenty of things that have absolutely no impact on environmental and public health protection."
But flat out contradicting Pringle's spin, the APP reports on just some of the DEP environmental rules that would be impacted (for a full list, see this post)
The Department of Environmental Protection, for example, has 18 proposed rules, including one that would cover wind turbines and solar panels in the coastal zone. ...
In a letter last week, Christie asked Corzine to freeze all pending regulations that would result in additional spending.
Pending DEP proposals would readopt safe drinking water and water pollution control rules; require lower-sulfur, less-polluting fuel oil; set standards for wind and solar facilities in the coastal zone; and set a limit for perchlorate, a rocket fuel chemical, in drinking water.
It is unusual for a journalist to print a quote from a source, directly followed by another source or facts that directly contradict it. This shows how low Pringle's credibility is.
Pringle's position in today's Inquirer story (about prioritizing science over politics) is more discredited spin that is in direct contradiction with facts on the public record, because:
1) the process for developing rules in EO 2 requires "advance notice". This increases the ability for industry/developers to use politics against science to kill rules.
2) Of course, the industry lobbyists also have a back door unaccountable option to kill rules based on political considerations in the Lt. Gov Regulatory Czar created under EO 1. I believe that this violates the NJ Administrative Procedures Act;
3) the legal standards in EO 2 elevate costs to at least an equal stature as science, thus undermining the science. I believe this violates underlying federal and state environmental laws that do not authorize DEP to consider costs;
4) In a Star Ledger interview, DEP Commissioner nominee Bob Martin said he supports "cost/benefit analysis", a tool often used by industry expressly to trump science. Martin also supported industry reps on the Science Advisory Board - 3 Dupont scientists have been nominated, as well as 3 other private sector consultants - of 12. So much for objective science.
5) there is no money to improve DEP information systems
More to follow as this story develops.
[Update - I just read this and want to make one ignored point clear - this has nothing to do with an expert/top down approach versus local/grassroots organizing. The regulatory analysis, blogging, and media coverage I work on is designed to provide the ammunition to initially outrage citizens, to catalyze activism, to sustain media engagement, and then to focus and feed citizen campaigns that leads to real progress. I have successfully engaged this model many places.
It's not exactly the most reassuring time to be an employee at the Star Ledger. According to the Editor & Publisher in Exile blog, the paper had said they would lift a long-held "no-layoffs" pledge for non-union employees and on February 5, that change will become permanent:
A memo to staffers Monday from Publisher Richard Vezza, who took over at the beginning of 2010, states that the pledge would be lifted as of that date. Former Publisher George Arwady, who left in December to take the publisher post at The Republican in Springfield, Mass., announced last August that the pledge would be lifted.
"They had announced it to give everyone time to be aware of it," Vezza said. "Nothing is going to happen at the Ledger on Feb. 5." But Vezza did not rule out further job cuts later in the year: "I don't know, I have been there a week and I have to go in and get a look at the budget, and do my own budget. But right now there are no plans to lay people off."
They've already had furloughs and buyouts that we have talked about on Blue Jersey even cutting 40% of the newsroom. I'll put the full memo to employees below the fold. You just keep wondering who will be left to cover the news when all the cuts and changes are done in the future, even if they don't have further plans for right now.
A native of Union City, the 61-year-old Vezza began his journalism career in 1974 as a night police reporter for The Hudson Dispatch in Hudson County. After working as an editor and publisher at several New Jersey papers, he joined The Star-Ledger's sister company, Penn Jersey Advance, in 2000 as its president.
These have been difficult times for print media and the Star Ledger has not been able to dodge the trend. They have cut back on staff, consolidated departments and changed the paper itself in order to save money, but Vezza said he's not planning further major changes:
Vezza told The Star-Ledger Tuesday that he envisioned it remaining as a daily newspaper and is not planning any major changes, despite continuing troubles in the newspaper industry.
Vezza will assume his new role on Jan. 1.
Vezza replaces the former publisher, George Arwady who served in that position since 2004. Arwady will will become publisher of The Republican of Springfield, Mass.
On Tuesday morning, Monmouth University released a poll for Gannett newspapers on media consumption habits in New Jersey.
Selected toplines follow, with analysis below the fold.
Where do you get most of your information about politics and public affairs in New Jersey - from newspapers, television, radio, the Internet, or somewhere else?
Newspapers:
28%
Television:
41%
Radio:
6%
Internet:
19%
Percent of respondents using different media
Activity
4+ days per week
1+ days per week
Read newspaper
42%
71%
Visit website for national/international news
29%
44%
Visit website for state/local news
12%
28%
Watch local NY/Philly TV news
43%
62%
Listen to talk radio
22%
34%
Other than sports and features, what type of news coverage do you most look for in newspapers - national, state, or local community news?
Shepard Smith apologized during the campaign for Governor after they had a segment featuring Chris Christie, with nothing on Jon Corzine. But after first regretting the lack of balance in coverage, he now regrets his apology for that lack of balance:
"I came off looking condescending," he told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz. "I handled it poorly."
Smith told Kurtz that he didn't know Bream had unexpectedly gained the interview with Christie.
The host of "Studio B" and "Fox Report" also said that, while he often calls out the conservative opinion-makers on his network, he is grateful that they are on his team as they add to the bottom line.
"Our newscast is better because our opinion programs are successful," he told Kurtz.
So he's sorry he came off looking bad? But it's all ok because their conservative opinion makers "add to the bottom line." It's a good thing they are a NEWS organization though.
Shepard Smith apologized during the campaign for Governor after they had a segment featuring Chris Christie, with nothing on Jon Corzine. But after first regretting the lack of balance in coverage, he now regrets his apology for that lack of balance:
"I came off looking condescending," he told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz. "I handled it poorly."
Smith told Kurtz that he didn't know Bream had unexpectedly gained the interview with Christie.
The host of "Studio B" and "Fox Report" also said that, while he often calls out the conservative opinion-makers on his network, he is grateful that they are on his team as they add to the bottom line.
"Our newscast is better because our opinion programs are successful," he told Kurtz.
So he's sorry he came off looking bad? But it's all ok because their conservative opinion makers "add to the bottom line." It's a good thing they are a NEWS organization though.
Daily at The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J., dropped 22.2% to 246,006 and 18.5% on Sunday to 371,060.
Ouch, those are tough numbers and those are figures for the six months ending in September 2009. While that drop looks bad, it's even worse when you compare those numbers to the 2004 statistics, which saw a daily circulation of 401,192 and 598,029 on Sunday. It's a continuation of a terrible trend with no end in sight.
"This race is about me...it's about the record I've had for seven years as the U.S. Attorney. And so, I am willing to run on my record if the Governor is willing to run on his."
Despite some of the best investigative reporting on Christie's tenure as US Attorney by our own huntsu, there was very little interest by the NJ media in following her lead when it came time to finding out exactly what "Christie's record" was. He wanted to run on a reputation that he built and carefully crafted as US Attorney - one of "ethics, responsibility, blah blah blah" - all things that we have found over the past few months apply to everyone but him.
And even as things came out about Christie, whether it was about his discussions with Karl Rove while still US Attorney, his abuse of power in shouting down officers when it came to traffic violations, the attempted bribery of Assemblyman Merkt during the primary, the no-bid contracts and his brother's non-indictment for securities fraud, his getting on and off the list of US Attorneys to be fired, his very "timely" subpoenas of Menendez, his warrantless monitoring program, his relationship with Michele Brown and conflicts of interest - the list goes on and on - much of the real solid in depth reporting was done by folks like Marcy Wheeler, TalkingPointsMemo, the ACLU and of course, us here at Blue Jersey.
Sure, the Star Ledger and other media reported what was already out there - whether it came from the AP wire or the Corzine campaign - but more attention was paid to the "Christie said this and Corzine said that" or side issues when it came to Christie's abuse of power.
It has become well known that Christie's office stonewalled and was sued when it came to FOIA requests on the warrantless monitoring program, and stonewalled on a number of other requests as well. And back in late July, 2009, the Corzine campaign made a request (see here for the requests: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4) under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") for all FOIA requests made of Chris Christie's office during his tenure as US Attorney (from January 2002 through July 2009). FOIA requests are very simple - usually a one or 2 page letter tops, and while there were 40 pages of FOIA requests released (some were partially withheld), only one was from the Star-Ledger, was actually made after the date of the Corzine request, and related to Michele Brown's salary and promotions (see the request here). What is more incredible is that this request was made AFTER news broke of the loan from Chris Christie, and wasn't even made by the political reporters.
Now, it was hardly a secret that Christie's tenure was controversial - I noted a number of things above. And through all of this time, NJ's largest paper had absolutely no interest in looking into any of this. Not during his time as US Attorney, despite all of the questions that were there for anyone to see. Not during his run in the primary. And not at all in the general election, with the ridiculous exception noted above.
If the Star-Ledger ended up endorsing Christie over Daggett, you'd really think they were in the bag for him. Now, it just makes you wonder why they weren't interested in breaking some very powerful stories - even more so when the entire news industry is in trouble.
As a tax guy, I tend to gravitate towards analyses of tax issues, and there certainly hasn't been a shortage of them. And while the first 2 parts of this series focused on the Governor's race, this part will focus on the APP and it's recent attempt to act as teabaggers.
It is true that NJ property taxes are very high. It is also true that it is a result of a very complex and convoluted system that requires major overhaul - and while Chris Daggett's plan is interesting, it doesn't address some of the very large and fundamental issues.
That being said, the APP has gone "all in" when it comes to taxes - but on any level of analysis, it is less substance and more cheerleading for protests and feeding off of the bordering-on-violent hysteria that we all saw this past summer. I'll highlight three things in this post that at best, show irresponsible journalism and at worst, can be classified as an "in-kind donation" to the Republican party.
The "Tax Crush Series"
While I won't go into all of the issues noted in each of the 8 days, there are a couple that I want to highlight. On Day 1 of the 8 Day "Tax Crush Series", there was a link to "How to Fix New Jersey". Sounding noble, it lists a number of "solutions", however they range from far fetched to outrageous. Things like Convene a Constitutional Convention (not ever going to happen) to Cutting Expenses (which the APP admits won't do anything to cure any property tax costs) to Shuffle the Tax Structure (which Daggett's plan does but takes from the property tax and higher wage income tax and shifts to a higher sales tax base) to Leaving the State (way to support NJ) are the proposed "solutions" - none of which do much other than stir up more angst and frustration.
On Day 3, the top story puts blame on unions - a favorite target of FOX News and the Republican party, and also cites the much debunked "people are leaving the state" argument. Both of which are tried and true "blame game" actions and not much else - even more since a basic google search will debunk both of these claims.
The "Action Plan"
Short of actually sponsoring and organizing teabagging parties, the APP posted its "Action Plan for Citizens as an OpEd shortly after its 8 days of riling up its readers. Ironically, after the 8 day "Tax Crush Series" finger pointed and complained, the article started with the following:
Are you ready to stop complaining about your taxes and start doing something about them? Here are some ways to fight back
Search the online comments section for other outraged people to make yourself more angry. That's responsible. It's quite clear they're pushing a partisan agenda, which while not surprising is still disappointing, because now more than ever we need real reporting to inform the readers of the complex issues facing our state.
Some of the "action items"?
Make noise. Let your elected officials know you are out there, that you're angry and that you want them to lower your tax bills.
So the first action item after "ready to stop complaining" is to complain and complain loudly. Others noted include:
On Tuesday's editorial page, we will publish a survey we will provide each of the candidates for state office in November. It will ask them to state their three most important ideas for reducing taxes and government spending, and which of the 20 points in the Asbury Park Press/Gannett New Jersey tax relief plan they would push for if elected. The candidates' responses to the surveys will be posted at APP.com. If you don't see their response, badger them until they have completed the survey.
Organize. Join together with neighbors and friends who feel the same way you do about unaffordable taxes. Plan letter-writing campaigns, protests, rallies and other actions that will demonstrate to your elected officials that you will not go away until things change.
So....you should stop complaining and (1) complain loudly, (2) "badger" your local office candidates and (3) organize protests, which is complaining loudly together with others who are angry.
How responsible of the APP.
After the jump, I'll get into APP's call for "A Citizens' Army".
Speaker Roberts unloaded on Asbury Park Press Columnist Bob Ingle with an Editorial published in the paper yesterday. Here's how he began:
For the past two weeks, Gannett New Jersey's Trenton bureau chief, Bob Ingle, has devoted his Sunday column to the kind of rumor-mill nonsense one generally associates with celebrity gossip rags - not some of New Jersey's largest newspapers. His latest doses of nonsense (Sept. 13 and Sept. 20) would have been laughable if there wasn't a chance someone would take them seriously.
Like most people, I generally ignore Ingle's inconsequential diatribes. But his latest assertions are so over-the-top inaccurate that a response is warranted.
Ingle professed to have "word on the street" knowledge of my motivations for stepping down as Assembly speaker. I'm not a journalism scholar, but I'm certain "word on the street" isn't solid sourcing. I'm surprised the editors of the Gannett newspapers would allow such irresponsibility.
To Gannett's credit, at least they printed that shot Roberts took at the paper's editorial staff itself. Follow me below the fold as Roberts continues to lay the smack down on Ingle.
Part Two: This diary is Part Two of the opening salvo in Blue Jersey's NJ Media Watchdog Series, examining how the news media New Jerseyans are turning to for information are doing in presenting the news we all depend on to make our decisions. Star Ledger is New Jersey's largest circulation newspaper, and its largest online newspaper as well. You can read Part One here, if you missed it.
In Part One yesterday, we took a look at two issues in the Governor's race that the Star-Ledger handled with "kid gloves", or at a minimum, didn't do the full story justice. Below, we will look at two other issues in a similar vein.
Before we do, I want to address a general issue that will certainly come up again as we continue to examine other traditional media outlets. There were a few comments asking whether we were succumbing to the same "bias" as we are noting that the Star-Ledger had exhibited. While this is a valid question, I feel the answer is "no" for a few reason. For starters, I am not sure there are many (if any) people in NJ who think that Governor Corzine is being treated as a "media darling", or has gotten a pass on his stances. With Corzine, there are generally few who (if they are truly being unbiased) think he is either corrupt or hypocritical. He may not have been as effective as he would have liked to have been - some his fault and some not. But here ,we are not talking about minor issues that are blown up into something bigger. Those are things I don't care about - regardless of whether they are against Corzine or Christie (in fact, I have been critical of Democrats both here and at Daily Kos on numerous occasions). What we are talking about here is the overall central theme of Christie's campaign and gaping holes in his stories, conflicts of interests on an ethical level and things that he has prosecuted others for, while explaining away when it happens to him. If he were to come out with any policy points, those could be debated on the merits, but sadly, he has yet to offer anything up that isn't the same old slogans that trumpet failed Bush era policies.
************************
As I said yesterday:
There is one huge pet peeve that I have when it comes to the traditional media, and it is traced directly back to FOX News and its nonsensical "fair and balanced" meme. This falsely presents a story as "one side against the other" as opposed to actually, you know, reporting the facts as is without having it become a "he said/she said" partisan matter.
Yes, some things are truly partisan matters, and having each "side" give their story or quote give the story "balance" but usually it is at the expense of actual and true events. There may be 2 "sides" to a story, but generally to me, the 2 sides are "facts" and "not facts". The facts can be spun or presented as partisan, but oftentimes that is just one side trying to explain away or cloud the actual truths and events as something that has 2 equal cases for.
The Star-Ledger is NJ's biggest newspaper. It is the go-to paper for politics, and every other aspect of daily life in New Jersey. We depend on them in all parts of the state. It has columnists with wide readership. It is, in short, THE paper in NJ, and that is why we decided to focus on them first.
Christie's loan to Brown
Similar to the two items noted yesterday, when it came to the $46,000 loan that Christie made to a subordinate, without reporting it in numerous places, nor reporting the interest, the initial story noted it as such, while the subsequent headline noted that he failed to report the interest. However, failing to report that Christie investigated and prosecuted those who did the same thing, as well as not noting how Christie had a "zero tolerance" for this when it came to others, the subsequent articles took it as a "he said/she said" story - even drawing a false comparison to Carla Katz and her non working relationship with Governor Corzine. Other headlines indicated Gov. Corzine, NJ Dems continue to attack Chris Christie over unreported $46K loan (August 19) and NJ governor candidate Chris Christie fires back at Democrats over $46,000 loan criticism (August 24) - noting that the criticism is at issue, not Christie's behavior.
In closing, and as I said yesterday, I don't know if this is because the reporters are overwhelmed, if this is a directive from their bosses or if it is the basic state of mainstream journalism now (I hope it isn't this one). But it does show that the facts get blurred, obscured and buried time and time again for a story of "partisan bickering".
No wonder NJ voters are sick of partisan bickering - that is how every story is presented, in a dumbed down version that leaves out the most important information.
I try to emulate his approach in holding NJ media accountable.
So here's a story I'd like to share.
After publishing my Op-Ed piece "No Teeth In 'Tough" Pollution Law" in October 2006, (see: http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/07... ) Star Ledger editors invited me to blog at their site, NJ Voices.
I published scores of stories there that focused on environmental issues. Several posts were critical of media coverage of environmental issues, particularly for failure to cover policy stories out of Trenton and hold DEP accountable. (see: http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wo... ).
So you could say I stepped on a lot of toes.
But my NJ Voices blog was terminated by Star Ledger editors without warning in June 2009 after posting about the debate on the Lieberman bill and Obama efforts to suppress the torture photo's. Editors agreed that I had not violated the user agreement, copyright laws, or posted inappropriate material. They explained the termination as related to trust and my failure to seek the pre-publication review of controversial material - even though pre-publication review was not even mentioned in the user agreement. This was obviously a pretext, so I think much more was going on, and that this controversial post was the last straw.
Well yesterday, after posting the below comment, I was banned from even posting comments there.
As you can see, all I was trying to do was emulate Greenwald's approach in holding media accountable - ironically, my post was on a column about searching for voices of reason in the health care debate:
Posted by nohesitation on 08/25/09 at 8:06PM
Perhaps the media has a responsibility and a role to evaluate the various "claims" against facts in search of truth. Oh, but this might take some real work and anger powerful interests (insurance, big Pharma, et al).
Instead, seeking "balance", the media portrays the debate" as a "he said she said". The "intelligent design" advocates and global warming denial "science" claims fit this dynamic - they manufacture false debates - e.g. claiming there is a valid scientific debate on evolution.
The media has abdicated its responsiblity. This enables lies and propaganda to flourish.
The swiftboat operation of the anti-health care forces is a sophisticated campaign - Town Hells. There are plenty of facts already in the public record to support the fact that organized economic forces are inhtentionally poisoning and polarizing the debate to scare and manipulate well meaning but poorly informed people (e.g. the death panels, et al)
Yet, media can't seem to call them out for it.
This column is a perfect illustration of this failure.
The public is losing its window into their own government. And that is a trend that should scare everybody. Pretty soon the only people who will succeed in New Jersey politics are those politicians that can out-spend everyone and dominate and manipulate the last place voters still get their information - paid media.
There are still many good reporters trying to get the job done, but he points to the statehouse media being a shadow of its former self, an issue that we have touched on regularly on Blue Jersey as cuts have been made. He acknowledged how sites like www.newjerseynewsroom.com and www.hardnewsnj.com have grown from the failures of the print media, but also recognizes that they can't replace what readers used to have.
We've seen cuts throughout the newspaper industry and despite the dwindling staff remaining for local coverage, it was the cutting of comics that prompted the reader backlash. From Editor and Publisher:
A week after cutting six comic strips and moving a half-page of the daily funnies to another location -- which drew some 1,200 complaints -- The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. has returned two of the strips to print.
"Virtually no one liked the change," Editor Jim Willse told E&P. "We were not surprised by that.
Those 1200 complaints prompted this response:
But in an editors note on the front page of the feature section yesterday, the paper revealed the angry backlash and announced the two comics would return. "Most of you thought the moves were dumb, to put it mildly," the note stated. "Dismayed. Unhappy. Disappointed. Upset. These were some of the feelings you expressed in your comments."
The note added that some e-mails were signed by entire families.
I guess we know where the breaking point is. Maybe people just need a good laugh that much more to help them through the tough times?
The Corzine campaign came out with their new television ad today, Pioneer, which ties Chris Christie to George Bush. Here's what the campaign had to say about the 30 second ad that will run on cable and network TV across the state.:
Pioneer clarifies the connections between Chris Christie, his massive political contributions to George Bush, and his subsequently being named as U.S. Attorney - a classic example of pay to play. Once he purchased his office, Christie brazenly awarded his political allies and fellow Bush cronies millions in no bid contracts.
The commercial shows Christie clapping as they run through the laundry list of things he has done, while standing in front of a picture of George Bush. The ad concludes saying "Bush's friend, Bush's policies, Bad for New Jersey." Here's the video:This ad follows up on the positive spot featuring President Obama at the Holmdel rally released this past Monday. I've also still been seeing the Christie just walked out ad.
Is this all New Jersey cares about? I know times are beyond tite, but it is all you here about as an issue in campaigns the budget this or that. What about other issues? Do children in NJ mean nothing? I don't know now more than ever I feel as though trying for reform is a lost cause. Because now do people not only believe DYFS is a broken monster we could never fix, but now it would cost too much to even look at. The other day Nj 101.5 was interviewing Senators and congress men asking for our questions. The problem was the only ones they would allow were those on the budget. When I raised the question of DYFS reform the screener said well, it would cost too much anyway. So we just go on letting kids lives get flushed away because we are too concerned about money?
Newspaper publisher Gannett Co. plans to cut 1,400 jobs in the next few weeks, about 3 percent of the work force, as it faces a prolonged slump in advertising revenue.
Bob Dickey, head of the company's U.S. community publishing division, informed staff of the layoffs in a letter Wednesday. He told employees that "there have been some promising signs of a recovery, but the reality is the improvements are not broad-based and the economy continues to be fragile."
The majority of layoffs will come by July 9, he said.
The move follows a 10 percent cut at Gannett in 2008, which left the company with about 41,500 employees.
Talk about putting a damper on the holiday weekend for your employees. I'll put the full memo they sent to employees below the fold. In New Jersey, Gannett papers include the Asbury Park Press, Courier News, Courier-Post, Home News Tribune, the Daily Record and the Vineland Daily Journal. It remains to be seen how many of those cuts will hit these NJ outlets.
A glimpse into what might happen has been offered up by a new study out of Princeton University. Assistant Professor of economics and public affairs Sam Schulhofer-Wohl and Miguel Garrido looked at communities affected by the closing of the Cincinnati Post at the end of 2007, and it's not an attractive view.
The study is very small in scope, since the Post had a total of only 27,000 subscribers in Cincinnati and northern Kentucky. And it measures only the outcomes in northern Kentucky, since Ohio has not had municipal elections since the Post's closure. But even with those limitations, a few trends seemed to emerge: in towns the Post regularly covered, voter turnout dropped, fewer people ran for office and more incumbents were reelected. That is, when there were fewer stories about a given town, its inhabitants seemed to care less about how they're being governed.
In the only possible hint of a bright spot, it seemed that smaller towns were much less affected by newspaper closures than larger ones. Voter turnout in the smaller communities did not change.
You can view a pdf of the full study. While it was only a limited look, the results may indicate what we could see happen on a larger scale when papers close:
While the study only looked at one newspaper, if the larger findings hold true, it?s not just areas in which a newspaper folds that will be affected. Municipalities covered by newspapers that have sharply scaled-back newsrooms, such as the Newark Star-Ledger, may also see similar trends emerging, because the papers simply cannot cover as much local news as they had previously.
the latest setback for the Star-Ledger newsroom, which has already seen the cutback of 131 staffers through buyouts last fall; threats of closure; and the merging of its statehouse bureau with longtime rival The Record of Hackensack.
In the Princeton study, they started with the quote, "Give light and the people will find their own way." That light certainly isn't as bright anymore making it much harder for people to see.
The editors said the new arrangement made sense in an age when budget cuts, even before the current recession, have forced newspapers around the country to dramatically reduce reporting staffs. In December, several Star-Ledger reporters left the Trenton bureau as part of a sweeping buyout program.
"At a time when newspapers have had to cut back news staffs, this cooperation allows us to pool resources and better serve all our readers," said Jim Willse, the editor of The Star-Ledger, in a prepared statement.
Frank Scandale, editor of The Record, said, "Sharing coverage while maintaining two distinct news operations is a common-sense response to the changing media landscape."
While the move creates the largest Statehouse bureau in the nation, it further reduces the competition on Press Row that once drove coverage of state government news.
The Ledger and The Trenton Times, both owned by the Newhouse family, had previously combined their Statehouse bureaus. The New York Times recently shut its three-person bureau. Gannett, which owns the Asbury Park Press, The Courier Post, The Home News Tribune and The Courier News, reduced its Statehouse bureau to two from six.
Both of the papers were already doing with less. I hope they are able to continue the coverage they still provide without even more cuts in the future. This is an unfortunate reality that readers don't have much choice but to accept. I wish the new combined operation luck. It's kind of important that the people are able to know what their government is doing.
![s-SHEP-SMITH-large[1]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2577/4110850107_d70af0688a_m.jpg)
Shepard Smith apologized during the campaign for Governor after they had a segment featuring Chris Christie, with nothing on Jon Corzine. But after first regretting the lack of balance in coverage, 
