My Thanks to Bill O'Reilly

In the wake of the earthquake-induced crisis in Japan, O'Reilly let Ann Coulter demonstrate her willingness to talk about radiation and nuclear fallout - she has no apparent understanding of the risks inherent in either - thus further clarifying for his audience that Ms. Coulter is more interested in sensationalism for the sake of ratings and readers than she is in reality. (At least, reality as most people understand it.)

“There is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says is actually good for you and actually reduces cancer,” she told a very skeptical O’Reilly, citing her latest column on her website as filled with evidence of this being true.

From Ann Coulter On The O’Reilly Factor: ‘Radiation Is Actually Good For You’

Parts of the plume of radioactive ash may hit parts of the U.S. west coast very soon, and naturally enough concern and interest are running high. O'Reilly, who is not averse to taking provocative stands for the sake of exploring an issue himself, was earnest in trying to get her to back off, making references to sunbathing, and yet Ms. Coulter remained firm and basically said "it's the media's fault" (evidently she's not part of the media despite how she earns her living) for not covering the positive health benefits of radiation.

I'd love to see her sources if it didn't mean giving her even more time to mislead the public. I admit I understand that anybody who worries about the impact of energy production on climate has to at least give a nod to the nuclear industry in terms of greenhouse gas production -- but the argument against it has always been the risks from radiation, both at the plant and wherever the waste is stored. I'm a proponent of lower-risk solutions, which largely means wind, solar, geo-thermal, and so on, so I suppose you should consider my take on this might be less-than-perfectly objective.

Still, I'm up front about where I stand; unlike Ms. Coulter I'm admitting my personal ideology may temper my view. No pundit or journalist can be utterly objective, but when their income clearly benefits from sensationalism you have to be very, very careful to examine and think critically to sort what's truthful versus what's possibly self-serving, ratings-chasing nonsense.

“There is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says is actually good for you and actually reduces cancer...”

Ann Coulter On "The O’Reilly Factor"

Bill O'Reilly has just exposed a flagrant example of the ratings-chasing behavior that undermines access to reliable, trusted information. Unfortunately, it's hard to point such behaviors out without shedding even more attention on the culprit(s).

Thomas Hayes is a Irish-American Entrepreneur-Journalist, and former Congressional Campaign Manager; he's a follow-the-money communications strategist-consultant, photo-videographer, over-hyphenated union-supporter, and computer-geek (recovering) who writes on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

You can follow Tom as @kabiu on twitter. Tweet

Too Rich to Fail?

Budget shortfalls in many states have helped shine the spotlight on fiscal responsibility, but as we've seen in Wisconsin when there are political careers on the line rhetoric tries to muscle its way into the spotlight, too. There is no guarantee of objectivity left in commercial "mainstream" media in the U.S. anymore; the chase after "bottom line" success has also chased truth and journalistic standards into full retreat.

Now elected so-called leaders want to chase education into full retreat, too. With the full complicity of ratings-driven networks who will present any side of an issue if they make a buck today, the folks who can afford to pay as much for their kid to attend an elite private academy every year as the rest of us can justify for a graduate school have decided public schools and the people who teach them are no longer a priority.

"...in the derivatives market alone, $600 trillion is in play. That’s why the players, and the Chamber of Commerce, are lobbying so hard to be left alone..."

from "$6 Trillion in play: derivatives markets"
18 February 2011 at realitytax

We bailed out Wall Street bankers after the 2008 crash caused by years of risky business put our economy in a tail-spin, supporting their lavish lifestyles, sky-high salaries, and jaw-dropping year-end bonuses; in exchange they demand we reduce taxes on the ultra-rich while our bridges crumble, potholes proliferate, and we're reducing the modest paychecks and threatening the retirement benefits of public school teachers? In the land of opportunity? Seriously?


We've let corporations and lobbyists build a system where the rule is that some are not only being asked to pay less than their fair share, but they're also too rich to fail. What's next, taking away the collective bargaining rights that made this country great by building the middle class into the engine of the world's greatest economy? We can do better than this; on behalf of our children we must do better than this.

In 2009, "America’s top 25 hedge fund managers earned an average of $1 billion each — enough to pay for 20,000 teachers." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich 3 May 2010

Political Correspondent Thomas Hayes is a former Congressional Campaign Manager; he's a journalist, photo/videographer, entrepreneur, and communications consultant who contributes regularly on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community, who incidentally stands in solidarity with the citizens and workers in Wisconsin refusing to let their Governor's self-created budget "crisis" and new spending priorities be re-cast as a reason to undermine contractual obligations and collective bargaining agreements.

You can follow Tom as @kabiu on twitter. Tweet

Beck admits he lied to the rally August 28th: it was easier than telling the truth.

As Steve Krakauer of Mediaite explains, Keith Olberman caught Glenn Beck's "white lie" told to the crowd at the August 28th rally:

...he didn’t actually hold George Washington’s first inaugural address. He just had it held in front of him.

Beck's discussion on his show, admitting the lie, seeks to make light of it because the full explanation is "clumsy" in a speech. So, he says, "They caught me."  He recounted a trip to the Archives, but...

"...you can’t touch them..."

Glenn Beck

Keith Olbermann caught him telling a lie. He wants people to laugh it off; Beck says it's no big deal in his quasi-retraction, the equivalent of artistic license.

At a certain level, Beck's doubters are unsurprised by the irony that he'd stoop to fabrication to maintain his credibility with his audience. The problem remains that Beck followers are unlikely to even hear the correction, let alone to believe it if and when they do. We'd all like to think that presented with a truth, logic will dictate what most people believe - but Beck's realized that oldest truth: that a lie can run around the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on.

"Tell the truth," Glenn Beck exhorted the crowd on the National Mall, "and then expect it from others." But not, for heaven's sake, from a Fox Network entertainer in pursuit of ratings. But he probably did at least go to see the Archives building, I suppose. He wouldn't lie about that, would he?

Thomas Hayes is a political strategist, entrepreneur, and journalist currently working for the Madore for Congress campaign in Minnesota's Second Congressional District. He contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Pawlenty's "red hot smoking wife" a calculated tittilation

A topless First Lady?

While it’s arguably inappropriate, sexist objectification of his spouse to bolster his career when lame-duck MN Governor Pawlenty describes her as his “red-hot smoking wife,” I disagree with Wonkette’s characterization that it’s “two years early.” If Obama hadn’t started early he might not be President, and remember Pawlenty isn't exactly breaking new ground: Senator McCain tried to woo votes from Harley riders by suggesting his wife enter the topless Miss Buffalo Chip contest in Sturgis in 2008.

If voters made their choices rationally the political calculus of candidates and campaigns would be very different. Pawlenty used his wife to further his personal goals. Voters often rationalize when interviewed, but research proves the decisions are more often based on emotion than intellectual evaluation.

Campaigns get longer and more costly all the time because mainstream media producers see candidate spending as helping their own bottom lines. In other words, it’s also arguably a conflict of interest to base so much of the determination of a campaign’s viability on successful fund-raising. True, in many cases advertising is a crucial factor, and we all accept that one of the keys to advertising success is repetition across a wide range of media to generate the maximum number of impressions. Yet wouldn’t it be refreshing for a network or newspaper to cap the dollar amount on political ads they’d take at some reasonable level?

Voters report they’re actually annoyed by the saturation of TV as elections approach; in some cases the result seems to be tuning out altogether. Meanwhile where are the balancing stories about what the candidates have actually accomplished, how a candidate runs an efficient and fiscally restrained campaign focused on issues instead of fund-raising, or which ads are to distract from facts or obscure their votes while echoing slogans and talking points in much the same way Budweiser hammers away with their “King of Beer” message.

Pawlenty knows “earned” media coverage is less costly than buying ads, and he’s got the recent examples of Palin and Bachmann proving the press loves provocative statements more than substantive discussion. Any “news” outlet is reliant on ad revenues, which are in turn driven by ratings.

Look how quickly most mainstream media companies jumped on the Shirley Sherrod story – a hint of controversy and the race for viewers/readers was on without what we used to think of as journalistic integrity, all in pursuit of the mighty dollar. Pawlenty certainly doesn’t want the national press talking to disgruntled Minnesotans or economists about how his “no new taxes” mythology has driven down quality of life and scuttled the state budget.

Look for conflicts of interest in coverage, and follow the money if you want to understand Pawlenty — but don’t underestimate either his political savvy or the impact his “red-hot smoking wife” may have on voters and donors.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

R.T. Rybak: How money warps politics, and campaigns.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision freeing up corporations to spend freely on political advertising campaigns one can only imagine the slander, innuendo, and deliberate misinformation will be getting worse -- more diverse and numerous -- right through Election Day in November. In Minnesota, it's already begun as a shadowy smear campaign evidently intended to convince Minnesotans to stay home on caucus night, February 2, 2010 -- especially if they’re thinking of supporting Minneapolis Mayor Raymond "R.T." Rybak in his bid to secure the party endorsement to run for Governor of Minnesota in November.

The facts are chasing the lies in Minnesota, and nobody's quite certain who paid to send the misinformation - yet.

In brief: For years Minneapolis taxpayers had been overcharged by two pension funds that have been closed to new members for almost 30 years. No police officer or firefighter hired since 1980 draws any benefit from these funds — but all Minneapolis taxpayers contribute to it.

Follow the money

Mayor Rybak and other city leaders stepped up to put a stop to the overcharging by the pension funds after the State Auditor alerted them to the problem. They approached the fund managers and the MN Legislature, but ended up taking the pension funds to court — and they won.

One can only infer that high-priced lawyers and lobbyists who represent those who've been overcharging Minneapolis taxpayers are smear-mongering to get revenge for the money they lost.

To read more, and get links to Star-Tribune investigative reports, visit: Rybak Targeted for Recovering Taxpayer Money!

And remember, it's all about following the money.

The problem with polls, and the media (including the blogosphere.)

Polling can always tell us whatever the person who constructs/conducts the poll was investigating - if we're given the raw data and a good description of the sampling procedure. But in practice even the data is usually glossed over in favor of a sound-bite summary tending to support the interests of the person and/or network doing the reporting on it.

Unless you know about how the sample of people was selected you really can't know anything more than what's reported about a poll. You can't know, for instance, if its findings are useful in any logical sense, because you don't know who the sample represents.  I can ask 21 people a question, and come back with really convincing looking numbers, but if I select who 15-20 of those people are it will darn sure tell you what I want you to think I learned.

An example of shaping a poll

Imagine I go to a GOP Town Hall meeting, and survey 15 people wearing shirts or carrying signs that say either "Nobama," or, "Joe Wilson was right!" I'll ask them one simple question:

Are you a) "for" Obama's government takeover of our health care system that he's pushing through the congress under the name of "reform" or b) "against reform" that will make changes that undermine the free market system that has given us the best health care in the world and cost the tax payers even more money?

OK, I've plausibly got 15 "b) against reform" responses now in my hypothetical example.  I'll ask 6 additional people, more or less randomly selected, and let's say they most of them magically favor reform (not likely, is it? But for the sake of argument, I'm getting 4 out of 6 favorable replies.)  I didn't even tack on the line about paying for illegal immigrants.

Now I'll report back for you based on that (fake) survey:

"In a [hypothetical] survey conducted Wednesday, only 19% of those responding favor the proposed reforms to health care, while  nearly 81% said they were 'against change.' That's more than 4 out of 5 in our survey who are hoping their representatives in Congress will stop the President's take-over of business."

If you believe what anybody in the media tells you without understanding both the sample and the data, all you know is what the reporter's boss wants you to believe. If you choose to believe on that basis - which you just might if it agrees with your political leanings - rather than examining the poll itself, then you're gullible indeed.  The good news is: the politicians on your side and the ratings-hungry networks (who are on the side of earning a living from ad revenues) both love you. They'll go out of their way to validate your "wisdom and insight" into the issue.

If the poll isn't conducted on a random sample, but merely open to those who respond...? Well, my friends, that will tell you a bit about the people who responded, of course, but one must be wary of extrapolating to draw any useful conclusions about a larger population. We call it spin. But knowing that they're gaming us doesn't stop the echoes.

How the media deliberately spreads misinformation

In fact, it won't surprise me to find this utterly fake survey example quoted elsewhere within days, if not hours.  Can't you see it, at DIGG maybe, or on another blog, or even on Fox?

A post at a prominent, liberal-leaning blog on Wednesday described a survey which concluded that, quote, "only 19% of those responding favor the proposed reforms to health care, while nearly 81% said they were 'against change.'" In other words, that's more than 4 out of 5 who want their representatives in Congress to stop the President's assault on insurance providers and let capitalism work.  

There you go, it's been lifted carefully out of context, and the quote is nearly character for character what I made up in the "report" above, and then the media echoes will persist even though the numbers are clearly unreal.  You see, now they're not reporting on the survey, they're reporting on the reporting, which is just an excuse to keep repeating the misleading numbers.

Misinformation mars the debate. I could easily have made the example go the opposite way, of course, but I don't want somebody to echo a story that falsely represents support for reform.  In fact, worded carefully surveys do reveal that over 90% favor "at least some reform."  But then, who wouldn't favor "at least some" unless they were making money from the insurance industry? It's like asking who wants lower taxes without considering how you'd pay for those government services you realize you benefit from.

You know that commercial media outlets rely on advertising revenues. So, do you follow the money? Better yet, why do you trust who you always have to report on things you care about?

Memo to America: MONEY TALKS (Cinco de B.O.!)

Memo to the Media:

Follow the money!

Nearly 1,500,000 Obama supporters have given to his campaign for the nomination of the Democratic party. The established media spins the question of "whether Obama is electable" because of his "loss" in PA though he closed the gap (which had been huge.) Let's note: Clinton's campaign is in serious debt while Obama's supporters continue to send in small donations - like the "$5 on 5/5, Cinco de Mayo, Cinco de B.O." concept.

Obama's Grassroots Fundraisers are hard at work, and money is coming from individual donors in small amounts - people who never donated before are stepping into the game. The unprecedented numbers tell the tale: more people are actively supporting this candidate than any other in history.

Memo to Obama: they get it.

learn more about Obama * follow the money * digg story