Inside Today's 6 News; The News Director's Blog

My Last Blog (Honest!)

I've been racking my brain trying to come up with a topic for my last blog.  This is my very last blog because I'm transferring to our sister station, KMTV in Omaha, NE effective Monday, December 8th.  It's a promotion of sorts, but it is bittersweet. 

A viewer e-mail reminded me of why.  His comments showed up in my 'inbox' this morning.  He wrote:

"Dear Sir,

Just wanted to thank you for such a great news team.  Your news is always accurate and timely. Your news crew are very personable and make us feel like we're part of the team. Again, THANK YOU, and keep up the great work.

Sincerely,"

(Name Withheld)

Now, I'm guessing most of you are thinking that's high praise, but I was put off by what he what he didn't write.  

Please note did not write, "Just wanted to thank you for being the obviously extremely talented leader of such a great news team.  Your news is always accurate and timely because you clearly have your hand in everything they do and micromanage them day and night. Your news crew are very personable because you demand it and make us feel like we're part of the team because you've threatened with their jobs daily if they don't. Again, THANK YOU, and keep up the great work because there is no way in hell they could do it without you!"

Then I remembered a phone conversation I had not too long ago with a news director colleague of mine at a station in another city.  He talked of some great ratings success he had in a previous job, moved to another station in another city, failed miserably, and it occurred to him when he left with his tail between his legs that it wasn't 'all about him.'  Somehow, he had gotten it into his mind that he was the main catalyst for the newsroom's success.  Now I suspect he understands it is the really other way around ... that it was the news team that was the main reason for his success.

That's one lesson I won't forget, and as I look one last time around the newsroom at KIVI-TV, I realize how much we have all grown together and am truly thankful and grateful for the success this news team has given me.  They put themselves out there on the line every day while faceless suits like me get to hide behind the scenes and sometimes even take the credit for their hard work.

And I'll do that too!  I'm not above that!  Years from now, I'll brag about how the development and growth of the KIVI-TV news team under my leadership was one of my greatest accomplishments.  I'll tell stories about being awarded two best newscasts Emmys in the same year for the first time in Boise TV history, dominating every TV news award competition we entered in the past year, gaining in the ratings, helping local charities like 'Komen Race for the Cure' and 'Toys for Tots' grow almost beyond belief, and overcoming so many obstacles along the way!  "I did this!  I did that!"  I'll take credit for all of it!

But the honest truth is I'm just a very small part of a great success story.  Not just a member of the news team, but an entire station full of overachievers and our great partners over at Journal radio who have been the builders of our progress to date and are primed to accomplish much, much more ... all to keep earning your attention and trust.  That's the most valuable reward of all!

So thank you so much for watching ... and reading my last blog.

Sincerely,

Scott Picken

Former News Director, KIVI-TV

The Great City ... of Garden City?

Ah, Garden City, Idaho!  Home to wide, picturesque Chinden Boulevard, scores of parks ... well, trailer parks ... and of course, the infamous Greenbelt bicycle path to nowhere!  Let's be frank.  Garden City doesn't have the best reputation in the Treasure Valley, falling on a desirability scale below Boise, Eagle, Meridian, Nampa, Caldwell, Kuna, Star, Middleton, ah ... let's just say it is probably at the bottom of most lists.

And in a blog many months ago which examined Garden City's short-sighted refusal to pave a portion of the greenbelt, even going so far as to force bicyclists to dismount, I poked a little easy fun at Garden City.  I came up with a short quiz that included questions like:

Q:  Two tourists on bicycles decide to meet up at Garden City's greenbelt dismount zone.  Tourist A will ride from Ann Morrison Park and travel at an average speed of 5 miles per hour.  Tourist B will ride from Warm Springs Golf Course at a speed of 10 miles per hour.  Which of the following is most true?

1. Tourist A will arrive ahead of tourist B.
2. Tourist B will arrive ahead of tourist A.
3. Both tourists will arrive together.
4. What tourist in their right mind visits Garden City?

A Garden City councilman named Jeff Sousa read the blog and invited me to take a tour with him of Garden City.  I'm an open-minded kind of guy, so I said 'yes.'  I even took a video camera along to tape it ... only to have my video files accidentally erased a few days later.

Too bad, because I learned a lot and could show you the side of Garden City I didn't know even existed.  That's because up to about five years ago, it didn't exist.  Garden City it would seem really was the area's most abysmal example of poor urban development.  Its infrastructure was crumbling, the city was nearly bankrupt, and land use planning was pretty much non-existent.  Sousa confessed city leaders were on the verge of handing over the keys to Boise, convinced there was no way to run it themselves.

But then something happened.  I'm not quite sure what.  Sousa thinks it began with voters' approval to build a new city hall.  He believes that created some new momentum of civic pride.  It helped convince him to run for city council, and with new leadership came a noticeable changing of the guard.  It was evident as Sousa showed me around.

There was the public works director detailing how Garden City is attacking a water and sewer system badly neglected for decades.  A planning and zoning administrator telling me all about Garden City's new comprehensive plan, the first in two decades.  A police officer relaying how a new approach to law enforcement is leading to a dramatic reduction in crime.  The library director excitedly recounting stories about Garden City's outreach into its poorer neighborhoods ... "Old Town" they euphemistically call it ... successfully getting disadvantaged kids to read.

And every energetically told story seemed to have the same plot line.  Yes, the city was adrift up to five years ago, but look at what we're doing now!  In fact, most every person I met (with the exception of the police officer) had been in their position for less than five years.

This past week, Garden City dedicated a new park.  A real park.  The kinds with trees and paths and a nice playground.  It is only the city's second (which is a sign of how far Garden City has come, but also how far it has to go).  It's not far from a new, impressive waterfront condo development right on the Boise River.  Sousa looks at it as the future of development in a geographically well placed Garden City.

But this is not gentrification.  City leaders take great pains to work with the citizenry of "Old Town" to create positive outcomes for all.  They are urging landowners to consider affordable housing in place of trailers, reworking land use to encourage more 'brick and mortar' development, and using what influence they can to encourage more diverse business development along Chinden.  Sousa even has a dream of taking over the fairgrounds and turning into a state-of-the-art commercial center.  A new downtown Garden City!

As I heard all this, I couldn't help but notice the enthusiasm and zeal for making Garden City a better place for all.  Often in Idaho, we condemn government as something we would really rather not have at all, but government asleep at the switch is what created the mess called Garden City.  The government there now believes in time they can fix it.  They are true believers that a civic minded government can bring positive change, and I wouldn't bet against them.

Politics ... and the Politics of College Football

Idaho's Democratic Congressman-elect Walt Minnick should not be allowed to take office.  After all, he's a Democrat in one of the reddest states in the union who was pitted against an extremely conservative and loyal Republican incumbant Congressman.

Oh sure, Minnick may have won the election by some 5000 votes or so, but it is a contest that should have never been held.  The odds against a Democrat taking the very conservative 1st District were just too long to put an underdog politically inexperienced businessman in that position.  Even if incumbant Rep. Bill Sali lost that election, it doesn't really matter because we all know Sali should have won.

Ridiculous?  Perhaps, but what I have just laid out for you is the logic of the College Football Bowl Championship Series that appears determined to keep an undefeated Boise State out of a major bowl game.  Instead, football fans will be graced with an easily forgettable Orange Bowl on New Year's Day which appears likely to pit a 2-loss 16th ranked Cinncinati team against whichever ACC team can avoid a 4-loss season.  Over in the Pac-10, 3-loss Oregon State is 'win and their in' the Rose Bowl.  Ridiculous indeed!

Sports is supposed to be a 'Meritocracy.'  "May the best team win" ... but in the BCS, it is a 'Moneytocracy' which puts undeserving teams in the big bowl spotlight while undefeated top 10 Boise State goes overlooked.

It wasn't supposed to be like this.  The BCS was supposed to be a alliance of college football's power conferences that would vastly increase the value of 4 major bowl games plus produce a national champion.  The money has flowed, but the ACC and Big East conferences have been very weak links in the BCS.  The non-BCS Mountain West conference is better than either of them, and you could argue BSU has a better football team than the teams that will emerge as champions of the ACC, Big East, and possibly even the PAC-10.

Respect is also an issue.  Despite Boise State's impressive win two years ago against Oklahoma in the BCS Fiesta Bowl, like a Democrat in Idaho, the Broncos in 'Blue' still don't get much respect in the 'Red' world of the Oklahomas and Alabamas.  Some in the BCS conferences say they could go undefeated as well if they played Boise State's schedule.  I'm not so sure.  At the very least, Top-25 ranked Oregon on the road is a tough game, and would that really be true if that schedule included a game against Boise State?

Two years ago after Idaho Statesman columnist Dan Popkey infamously said the Broncos wouldn't win the Fiesta Bowl against a stacked Oklahoma team that included running back Adrian Peterson, he later explained he had bought into the illusion of the 'BCS mystique.'  Well, I never did buy into it and still don't.  If they can beat Fresno State at home, Boise State will have earned the right to compete in a major bowl game, but when it comes to the BCS, it's not about the merit, it's about the money.

Idaho Republicans Two Distinct Choices for the Future

Ten days after election day, I'm still thinking about it.  Whether you agreed or not with the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency (and most here did not), there is no denying the historic nature of it when it comes to the progress we've made in race relations in this country.

Whether you agreed with the election of Democrat Walt Minnick to Congress (and most here did), something also struck me about that race.  It's that the Democrat Minnick is more similar in his political views, style and temperament to Mike Simpson, Mike Crapo and Jim Risch than Rep. Bill Sali ever was.  It's probably why Sali's claims that Minnick isa 'Washington Liberal' didn't stick.  He clearly is not.  Minnick is 'center-right,' and it was the center part of that equation that propelled him to victory.

In two years, Idaho Republicans will fight hard to win the seat back while fighting back other Democratic challenges to its political dominance, but in doing so, the party itself faces two distinct choices.  It can be the party that produces candidates who win primaries, or it can be the party that produces candidates who win elections.

The party that produces candidates that win primaries (but not necessarily elections) is the party that's seeking to close ranks by closing its primary.  I've blogged before how that's a bad idea.  In retrospect, it looks like an even worse one when you see who is behind it.  It isthe forces of men like Bill Sali and Rod Beck.

Beck was a big loser too.  He ran for ... of all things ... an Ada County Highway District Seat ... and lost by a considerable margin.  Mind you, this was the same Ada County where voters ousted its only Democratic County Commissioner in favor of Sharon Ullman while also deciding a sitting Republican Commissioner who faced a strong Democratic challenge should stay.  In other words, Beck lost in a county where Republicans did well.  He should probably be grateful Ada County doesn't elect its dog catcher.  It's one less seat he has the potential to lose.

But Beck has been successful in one very important political area.  He was one of the forces behind state Republican's ouster of a more moderate party chairman in favor of the more conservative Norm Semanko.  It is a considerable step towards moving the party in the direction of a closed primary Beck and others believe will lead to the nomination of more conservative Republican candidates.

Beck and other party conservatives believe the Republican brand in Idaho is so strong that the Republican Primary is really election day ... because on the real election day, Idahoans will just mindlessly vote for whichever candidate has the (R) by his or her name.  In some parts of the state, that's true, but as the Minnick/Sali race reveals, Republicans can lose big races in conservative districts.

That's why the strongest challenge Minnick would face are from Republicans with reputations for being more moderate like John McGee or Lawrence Wasden.  If Republicans do succeed in closing their primary, however, a rematch against Sali or perhaps even Semanko himself seems more plausible.  That would give Minnick, who has studied carefully the success of Utah Rep. Jim Matheson (a 'Blue Dog' Democrat who keeps winning in a very red state because Republicans made the mistake of taking his defeat for granted), an easier path to re-election.

And Minnick's hardly the only 'Blue Dog' Democrat in Idaho.  The state's Republican brand remains strong, but if you look at other states across the intermountain west such as Montana, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona, Democrats are making gains by claiming the center.  If Idaho Republicans abandon it by putting forward candidates who are far-right vs. center-right, they may find themselves in a position one day where they cannot take any Idahoans vote for granted.

Are We the 'Puniest Generation?'

As I write this, it's election eve, an election of historic importance for a nation in dire straights.  If the ideal is 'Peace and Prosperity,' we are no where close, our economy in turmoil and our soldiers in harm's way. 

That's not to exaggerate the situation.  We've faced far worse.  There was a time when we asked children of the greatest economic downturn in U.S. history, The Great Depression, to go off to war to fight fascist tyranny and liberate a foreign land ... while those who stayed home dealt with rationing, chronic shortages, and taxes that went as high as 97% for the wealthiest Americans.  Their sacrifice and ultimate triumph built the foundation of the America we enjoy today and earned them the moniker "The Greatest Generation" because they were asked to sacrifice and did so willingly.

I commend both John McCain and Barack Obama for an excellent Presidential campaign, but there is one thing I'm not hearing from either of them.  Neither is asking us to sacrifice very much. 

Obama believes we can finance our government by simply raising taxes on the rich.  McCain preaches that lowering taxes across the board will bring us the kind of prosperity that can overcome massive deficits supersized by the government bailout.  Neither vision is realistic, especially since neither is talking seriously about cutting government.

This is the 'you can eat your cake, skip the vegetables and not get fat' campaign.  No tough decisions, no sacrifices.  We'll cut taxes and keep all the spending, even expand it whether it be on health care reform or in Iraq.

But honestly, who can blame either of them?  There are times when I fear we have morphed into the 'Puniest Generation,' too willing to ask someone else to sacrifice for the greater good and obscenely passing on our debts to our children.  Two recent articles I read did nothing to allay my fears.

The first was a "My Turn" article in 'Newsweek' written by the mayor of Ketchikan, Alaska, the town that stood to benefit from the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere.'  He defends it, saying, "Our town in Alaska sorely needed a bridge to its airport."  My response is 'fine!'  Then get your people together, pass a bond issue and build you own @*%#! bridge.  It's not like this is a bridge on an interstate over the Mississippi that a high percentage of Americans might actually use.

The second article was in 'Fortune' profiling the hard-luck people who make more than $250,000 a year who may get their taxes raised under Obama.  One had the temerity to explain how she wasn't rich while then boasting how she puts away $4000 a month.  Most Americans don't make $4000 a month!

While 'Fortune' didn't lay out the math, most of the $250,000+ club profiled appeared to be paying between 25% and 28% tax rates.  Their parents if they made similar wages probably paid closer to 70%.  Yes, 70% is too high, but considering this group now pays what I'm pretty sure are the lowest taxes in the modern free industrialized world for their income group, there is a case to be made that their taxes are too low.

I'm sorry, but the sob stories of how they don't own a Porsche (although they could afford one) or can't retire at 50 (they could, but not at the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed) or how they have to spend $2K a month on day care (huh?) don't move me.  These are the people ... financial planners ... executives ... doctors ... who benefit the most when the economy is vibrant, the middle class is strong, and our nation is safe.  They can afford to pay a little more to achieve these goals.

This is not a defense of Obama's tax plan.  This is a defense of true fiscal conservatism.  We have to stop borrowing to fund government, and they only way we accomplish that is by shared sacrifice.  Some will have to pay a little more.  Others will need to give back some of their government largess to help shrink its size.  Only both will get us back to balanced budgets.

And as for me, while I live very modestly and make no where near $250K, I have said in a previous blog I will support paying more in taxes if it helps restore the financial viability of the nation I love.  It would be a small sacrifice by someone who refuses to be a part of the 'Puniest Generation.'

Frankly, I don't believe we are the 'Puniest Generation.'  I think we haven't sacrificed much because our leaders haven't had the courage to ask.  Given the current state of our nation, now would be a good time to start.

The Power of the People on Politicians

Something strange happened last week.  A House committee held an oversight hearing on the financial meltdown ... and Rep. Bill Sali showed up! 

Sali, you may recall, skipped similar committee hearings a couple of weeks ago.  He derided them as 'political theater,' and one of his aides accused Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) of 'grandstanding' by calling AIG execs in front of his committee after the government bailed the insurance company out to the tune of $85 billion.

As I blogged then, if that was 'grandstanding,' I wanted more!  That's because at the hearings, we learned that AIG execs spent $440,000 on a spa retreat the week after it was bailed out.  And Bill Sali missed it!

We also learned AIG fired one exec who lost billions of dollars, then retained him as a consultant for $1 million/month.  It was eye-popping, newsworthy, and an example of the kind of oversight we need from Congress, and Bill Sali wasn't there!  As I blogged at the time, I wasn't too concerned about Sali's absence, but I also wasn't too keen on how insulting he was to those who did show up.

So when 'Waxman the Grandstander' decided to call former Fed. Chief Alan Greenspan to add to the 'political theater' with his testimony last week, imagine my surprise to find Bill Sali WAS there!

So why did he show up this time?  I'm guessing he was feeling some political pressure after the media (including 'Today's 6) reported on the hearings and Sali's decision to skip it.

But if you think this blog is about the power of the media, you're wrong.  It's about the power of something much bigger.

You see, as with the AIG hearings, these latest hearings did produce news.  Greenspan testified he did not anticipate the reckless behavior of financial institutions, thinking execs would have self-regulated more to protect shareholders.  Sali even got Greenspan to admit that he believes 40% percent of regulation tends to miss the mark, but probably to Sali's dismay, the normally libertarian Greenspan appeared to be implying more regulation of the financial sector is needed.  And this time, Bill Sali was there to hear it!

But why would Sali show up for the grandstanding, political theater if he thought it was grandstanding political theater?  It wasn't because of the power of the media in a tight race.  It's because of the power of the people.

The media is just the messenger.  It is the response of everyday people that has impact, and it was clear Sali skipping the AIG hearing touched a nerve with ordinary Idaho voters who want Wall Street held accountable for this financial mess.  We in the media can report all we want on certain issues, but if people don't care, the issue will not gain traction. 

That's one reason why I think some of John McCain's attacks on Barack Obama have fallen flat, like the Bill Ayers controversy.  Ayers is a former member of the 60's radical domestic terrorist group 'The Weathermen' who later became a college professor and served on a board with Obama early in his political career.  While McCain and his Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin have talked a lot about the association and it has been reported extensively, it is clear many Americans who aren't already voting for McCain just don't care.  Frustrating for the Republicans, so they and their supporters lash out at the media.  It's easy to blame the messenger when it is the message itself that isn't resonating.

How Obama has outflanked McCain in the PR wars is by talking almost exclusively about the one thing most Americans do care about, the troubled state of our economy.  McCain's finally focusing on it more as well, and lo' and behold, polls show the race is tightening.

6 Economic Myths Exposed by This Financial Crisis

To use an old sports analogy, winning is great, but you learn more from the losses.  With our economy on its biggest losing streak since the Great Depression, it is time we look at some economic 'truisms' that have turned out to be complete myths.

Myth #1:  Lower taxes always spur economic growth.  Taxes are lower now than they've been in decades and have done nothing to prevent this economic meltdown.  That's not to say higher taxes are better, but if 100% taxation is socialism, 0% taxation is anarchy.  We need to strike a balance that actually pays for government services, something we haven't done for too long.  Want to keep social security, medicare, farm subsidies, or want to start a war in Iraq?  Fine!  Figure out a way to pay for them.

Myth #2:  Free trade is the key to worldwide economic growth.  The economies of scale you get from free trade are the reason that what was once a $3000 flat screen costs you less than $1000 today.  But 'free trade' comes with a cost, because much of free trade is unfair trade.  Whether it be massive currency manipulation by countries like China to makes exports cheaper or foreign government subsidies that prop up their otherwise uncompetitive industries, many American companies find themselves fighting the free trade battle with one hand tied behind their back.  The result is they are forced to export jobs overseas, and that's not healthy for our economy.

Myth #3:  The markets can make up for our nation's financial shortcomings.  Remember when the idea of allowing people to invest part of their social security benefits in the stock market was hot?  Can we now conclude once and for all what a monumentally bad idea that was!  You think we're big into bailouts now, just imagine what we would be doing to bailout social security had some of it been invested in stocks!  It's just one of many ideas politicians who know we have a problem came up with to avoid making tough decisions (ie, raise taxes or cut benefits).

Myth #4:  China, India and the EU are marginalizing America as the engine of the world economy.  It's an idea called 'de-coupling.'  That the consumer economies of the world make them less dependent on the United States.  Well, throw that out the window.  China especially is hurting.  Exports are way down and thousands of jobs are being lost everyday.  Half of its booming toy industry as been wiped out virtually overnight, and with a weak social safety net, it is not unthinkable that China could see a starvation crisis if things don't turn around.  The American economy has caught a very bad cold, and it risks giving the world financial pneumonia.

Myth #5:  Deregulation is always better.  This one is so obviously a myth, I don't even have to say much about it.  Even former Fed Chief Alan Greenspan admits he was wrong on this one, believing the financial markets were better self-regulated.  Regulation is like the umpires in a baseball game.  It helps assure the playing field is level, and that teams like the Rays and Phillies can still get to the World Series over the fat cat Yankess and Red Sox.  Markets only grow if ordinary investors (you and me) can be confident the game isn't rigged against us.  It's a balance.  You don't want 18 umpires on the field, but you certainly don't want too few either.

Myth #6:  Help the rich, and riches will 'trickle down:'  Before this crisis hit, we had the greatest disparity of wealth in America since the time just before the Great Depression hit.  That's not a coincidence.  What we could use right now is the wisdom of Henry Ford, who many credit with jump starting our modern middle class economy a century ago when he began paying workers the then astounding sum of $5/day.  His logic ... it doesn't make sense for me to mass produce cars if there aren't people out there who can afford them.  Middle class wealth is the key to a thriving economy.

The American middle class economy is a modern miracle that has helped create wealth not only here but worldwide.  If we want to preserve it, we need to be smarter about how we manage it and stop clutching to myths that don't serve us.

The Campaign Ad John McCain Should Make

CNN had this interesting gimmick when they broadcast the debates.  They gave undecided Ohio voters a dial they could turn up when they liked what they heard and down when they didn't.  The choice of the state was interesting because no Republican has won a Presidential election without winning Ohio, yet if the CNN graph is to be believed, undecided Ohio voters ... especially women ... hate it when one guy attacks the other.  The meter plummets, and during the debates, that was especially true of John McCain's attacks on Barack Obama.

An article in the conservative Wall Street Journal last week made the case that McCain's attack strategy on television is also turning many voters off.  Here's the link.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122411284505038359.html

McCain is even resorting to a tactic he publicly denounced when he ran for President eight years ago.  'Robo-calling.'  Highly negative phone calls made by computers to likely voters in swing states, but far from earning more voters, the feedback indicates it has horrified them instead.  Suddenly, McCain finds himself having to defend once 'safe' states like North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.

It looks like desperate tactics by a desperate man, and that isn't the real John McCain.  If he wants to mount the most historic comeback in Presidential politics, he needs to change tactics just like he pushed for with the surge to turn the war in Iraq.  I think he should 'go positive.'

There's some evidence it can work.  In Minnesota, Republican Senator Norm Coleman was dropping like a rock in the polls against Democrat Al Franken (yes, the same Al Franken who was a former comedian on Saturday Night Live and wrote the best selling political book "Lies and the Liars That Tell Them" ... THAT Al Franken).  Coleman saw his one-time double-digit lead turn into a 5 point deficit, but the feeling now is that his campaign is regaining momentum.  What did he do?  He pulled every negative campaign ad off the air and asked his opponents (there's an independent in the race as well) to do the same.  Will it be enough to save his seat?  We'll find out November 4th, but Coleman realized not changing his tactics would have led to certain defeat.

So how could John McCain do the same?  By using ads to point out his biggest strengths and differences with Obama in a positive way.  It might go like this.

"I'm John McCain, and on November 4th, I know you face an important choice.  I have nothing but respect for my opponent , but if elected, he would face enormous pressure from a Democratic Congress to spend more and raise taxes.  In this time of crisis, we can't afford it.  I'll work with Congress, but pledge to veto any bill that spends more and takes us deeper into debt.  My support of the surge in Iraq also shows I have the judgment to lead America in dangerous times.  Yes, America needs change, but we need the right kind of change, and that is why I'm working so hard to earn your trust and your vote."

What does he have to lose?

Owning Up to a Big Mistake

On Saturday night, October 12th, we reported on our late news that the former President of Idaho State University had been shot and killed by a gunman in Colorado.  That was not true.  Former ISU President Michael Gallagher's wife Floyce was shot and killed along with his good friend Dr. Terry Fine.  Through my investigation of this mistake, I suspect what happened is a news employee inadvertantly confused Fine with Gallagher. 

That's an explanation.  It is not an excuse.  There is no excuse.

And so to anyone we misinformed out there, I offer a sincere apology and want you to know the person who made the mistake will be held accountable for it.

Sometimes, I think news organizations can come across as arrogant for somehow projecting the image that we don't make mistakes, and for refusing to own up to them when we do.  Not at 'Today's 6 News.'  Like all news organizations, we are made of human beings and as such, we will make mistakes from time-to-time.  We have processes to prevent them, but they are not going to be 100% failsafe.  When a serious mistake does go on the air, we at 'Today's 6 News' feel we have three obligations.

1. To correct the record so that you the viewer are not left with a misimpression.
2. To acknowledge the error publicly so that you know we hold ourselves accountable to you.
3. To hold those who make such mistakes accountable to help insure they are not repeated.

There are those out there who like to use the fact we will publicly admit our mistakes against us, and that's fair game.  My personal philosophy is you the viewer will give your trust to a news organization that is willing to admit when it makes a mistake rather than one that isn't.

Micron ... Steve Appleton ... and the $700B Bailout

Let's start this blog with a 'what if.'  Let's say you own a large company worth billions and you hire someone to run it.  He seems like a nice, knowledgeable guy, but things start going very wrong.  Before you know it, your company is losing $4 million every day!  What's worse, the company has admitted to criminal price fixing under your guy's watch, leaving you on the hook for millions in legal fees and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements.  How long do you let him keep his job?  Months?  Years?  Until he bankrupts you and your company?

While you are pondering that, let's look at how local politicians are using Micron's current financial woes that have led to thousands more layoffs to justify their votes on the $700B bailout bill (I'm sorry ... financial rescue plan ... my bad).

Sen. Larry Craig, who voted for the bailout ... errr ... rescue bill sent this statement.  "It is obvious today with the Micron announcement that Idaho producers who sell in world markets are not immune.  These were the kinds of concerns I looked at over two weeks ago when I decided it was time for Congress to act, hopefully to forestall a credit meltdown."  Rep. Bill Sali, who voted against it, said this.  "Clearly the Micron job losses and today’s continued global stock selloff are evidence that the $700 billion bailout passed by Congress is not the right medicine to solve our economic problems."

Two Republican politicians making connections.  Two exactly opposite views.  So what is the connection between Micron's money-losing ways at the $700 billion 'whatever you want to call it' bill?  There isn't one.  My point is that both Craig and Sali are ignoring an important connection that does tie Micron to our current economic crisis.  America has a 'corporation crisis.'

This was clear during the AIG hearings that Rep. Bill Sali skipped out on.  Congressional investigators revealed that not only had AIG execs arranged for a $440,000 retreat the week after the government bailed the company out ... they also reported that a high ranking exec within AIG they allege caused a majority of the losses was given a big 'golden parachute' when he was fired, then was retained on a consulting contract for $1 million a month!  The CEO reportedly even publicly and illegally lied about AIG's financial health.  Talk about CEO incompetence!  So where was the Board of Directors, the people who are supposed to represent AIG shareholders (who ended up losing most everything)?  What in the world was the Board of Directors doing during this entire mess?  The answer ... nothing! ... betraying the very stockholders whose investments in AIG they were supposed to be defending.

American corporations are in so much trouble today because we have created a system whereby many CEO's are held accountable to no one.  Boards of Directors at several U.S. companies have become rubber stamps for Chief Executive Officers no matter how incompetent they may be.

Micron is a clear example of this.  Despite how dismal CEO Steve Appleton's performance has been or how close to bankruptcy he takes Micron, his millions in compensation remains secure.  In fact, the one board member who dared to say that perhaps Appleton should be removed for his poor performance was forced to step down.  The message?  Lose billions of dollars running Micron Technology = keep your job.  Question the wisdom of keeping CEO losing billions of dollars running Micron Technology = lose your job.  The message could not be any clearer.

The system worked better back in the days when large investors in corporations routinely sat on their boards.  J.R. Simplot was on Micron's board when he had a large stake in the company.  It was his way of defending and growing all the money he had put into it.

That's a rarity nowadays.  The proliferation for 401K's and large pension funds that invest in public companies leaves few large individual stakeholders.  What's worse, these funds are heavily diversified.  They typically don't invest large percentages of their money in one company, giving them less of a say in their performance.  If a CEO does poorly, these funds simply move their money somewhere else, but the CEO often gets to stay.  In this vacuum, the CEO can even get a big say in who sits on the Board of Directors, in essense picking his own bosses.  What a sweet deal!

If the American economy is to thrive in the cutthroat international business world, we need a system that rewards smart people who are held accoutable running our companies, not dumb, greedy ones who are not held accountable running them into the ground.

Should Appleton have been held accountable for his poor performance and fired a long time ago?  Of course!  But in Micron's case, I get the feeling he'll be there to the bitter end.  I'm hoping there isn't a 'bitter end,' but the way Micron has performed under Appleton's leadership to date, it is probably prudent that we fear the worst.