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

Rep. Bill Sali and 'Political Theater' of the Absurd

Walt Minnick's campaign is blasting opponent Rep. Bill Sali for not attending a House committee hearing investigating the $85 billion dollar bailout of insurance giant AIG.  Sali spokesman Wayne Hoffman said Sali skipped the hearing because Democratic Chairman Henry Waxman has a reputation for 'grandstanding,' and later Sali himself characterized the hearings as 'Political Theater' where no legislation was being considered.

I don't agree, especially after we learned that AIG execs went on a $440,000 retreat to an upscale California resort the week after the government bailed the company out.  That's 'grandstanding?'

Or how about the revelation that AIG's top executives publicly said the company was on sound financial footing when auditors were telling them the exact opposite behind the scenes.  As ABC Investigative Reporter Brian Ross noted, that's the exact thing that put Enron executives in prison.  'Political Theater?'  Really? 

Oh, and we also learned the employee who apparently caused most of AIG's losses was given a golden parachute and a million dollar a month consulting contract.  If Congress sold tickets to this kind of 'Political Theater,' we would balance the budget in weeks.

This is indicative of the sort of things that gets Sali into trouble.  A new Walt Minnick ad where local Republicans state publicly why they are voting for the Democrat features a retired General who says of Sali, "He's too confrontational."  I think that resonates with a lot of people.  One conservative Republican even told me she's voting for Minnick just to get Sali out of office so she can vote for a less of a ... well ... 'confrontational' (she used a different, less flattering adjective) Republican two years from now.  Governor Otter has also criticized Sali during an interview with 'Today's 6 News' about his lack of pragmatism, sentiments Rep. Mike Simpson seemed to echo during the bailout bill debate.

Sali's political posture is pretty clear.  If put to a vote, Sali would have never approved of the bailout of AIG.  Sali is a firm believer in 'sink or swim' capitalism and I suspect believes these AIG executives earned every bad thing they have coming to them.  But because he is ideologically opposed to government interference in private commerce, he also sees no need for Congress to aggressively question the heads of private companies.

Sali's pragmatic problem is the government did go ahead and bail out AIG ... even adding $35 billion more to the package ... and now has a responsibility to practice strong oversight to protect taxpayer dollars.  Just because Sali lost the argument doesn't mean he as our representative has no responsibility to Idaho taxpayers who are now on the hook.

Sali also doesn't serve his cause by insulting rather than saying nice things about Democrats when they do good work.  After all, knowledge is power, and what we learned from the AIG hearing will help us repair this awful mess we find ourselves in.  That's not 'grandstanding' or 'political theater.'  That's public service that could one day lead to important legislation.  I'm not saying Sali should apologize, but would a nice note be too much to ask?  "Dear Henry.  Great work on the AIG hearing!  Wish I could have been there to see you make those greedy bastard CEOs squirm.  Bill."

Minnick's camp is making some mischief because it is a big issue, but also in part because in a tight race, they would prefer Sali stay in Washington then campaign for re-election here.  There were a lot of empty seats at the AIG hearing from Republican and Democratic Congressmen alike who are locked in tight election fights.  Sali being there probably would not have really added much and I don't think him skipping the hearings is that big a deal. 

Sali's rhetoric, however, is a big deal.  Confrontational statements that belittles Congressional oversight of private companies that are being bailed out in the billions sends the wrong message.  Whether he agrees with what's going on or not, taxpayers can't afford representatives in Congress who aren't willing to closely watch every penny our government now has at stake.

Grading Idaho's Politicians on the $700B Bailout

The most insightful analogy I heard about the big bailout bill was by a financial expert on one of the cable channels.  He criticized those who voted against the bill because they were afraid it would reward Wall Street mismanagement, saying, "When your 3-year-old lights the curtains on fire, the first thing you do isn't scold him for his terrible mistake.  There's plenty of time for that later.  You have to worry about getting the fire out first."  I would add that you also don't micromanage the firemen.  You trust at that moment they have the expertise to get the job done.  There's plenty of time to review performance later.

Virtually anyone you talk to with any real knowledge of the situation says our financial system is on fire.  We either choose to fight the fire or we don't, but decisions had to be made and a bailout bill was passed.  So how did Idaho's politicians rate in fighting this blaze?  Here are my grades, starting with the House.

Rep. Mike Simpson, (R) 2nd District.  Grade, 'A':  Simpson voted for the bill twice.  His political courage and leadership reflects why he is the most influential Idahoan in the current Congress.  Simpson knows this proposal is unpopular back home, but to his credit, he made his decision publicly based on what he thought was best for the nation.

Debbie Holmes, (D) Running against Simpson.  Grade, 'A+':  Holmes is running a doomed campaign against Simpson.  Her fundraising is minimal and is her visibility, but when Simpson cast his first vote, she publicly thanked him for having the courage to cast his vote for what he believed was best for the country instead of what was politically popular.  A+ indeed!

Rep. Bill Sali, (R) 1st District.  Grade, 'A':  Sali voted against the bill twice, earning criticism from Rep. Simpson and reflecting what Gov. Butch Otter lamented in a recent 'Today's 6 News' interview is Sali's overall lack of pragmatism.  I would contend Sali was never elected to be pragmatic.  He sells himself to voters as a politically conservative  ideologue and was true to his ideals with his vote.  Sali is right to say this has the potential to be a huge expansion of government.  He's probably also correct that this may fundamentally change our American capitalist system.  Sali held firm to his principles with his vote.

Walt Minnick, (D) Running against Sali.  Grade, 'F':  Minnick also opposed the bill, then criticized Sali anyway, saying he as a former businessman understood the flaws in the bill better than Sali.  Yet during the bailout debate, Minnick also praised his friend Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as someone he trusted, saying, "Paulson's approach has won the support of Democrats and Republicans alike. If we can do it on this issue, we can do it on others."  That's great except Minnick's friend's proposal didn't win his support, and unlike Holmes, Minnick refused to praise Sali for casting a vote he agreed with.  This was a chance to stand tall, but in a tight race, it appears Minnick chose to take the politically popular position instead while also refusing to credit his opponent who did the same.  If Minnick admires bi-partisanship, he didn't walk that walk.

Sen. Larry Craig, (R):  Grade, 'A':  Craig was a man of few words and bold action in this debate.  He gave straightforward reasoning that invoked an image of the most powerful politician in Idaho before a sex scandal stained his legacy and crippled his clout.

Sen. Mike Crapo, (R):  Grade, 'C':  Crapo voted against the bill because he felt it didn't contain enough taxpayer protections.  Crapo gets a 'C' because I believe he is truly concerned about taxpayer exposure, but then cast a vote that hurt most taxpaying Americans even more.  His vote came after the House had rejected a $700B bailout and saw $1.1 trillion in market wealth evaporate.  Taxpayers with 401K's working for publicly held companies lost in that deal and would have likely lost a lot more had Crapo prevailed.  His reasoning seemed flawed because it didn't take the bigger picture into account.

Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, (R).  Seeking Craig's Seat:  Grade, 'F':  Risch said he would not have voted for the bailout after putting out a press release hailing the Senate's version as a better bill.  It reminded me of an argument I once had with a Risch campaign staffer about elections and leadership.  The staffer told me the Risch campaign's philosophy was that "Governing is about leading but campaigns are about winning."  My retort was "Governing is about leading and campaigns are supposed to be about convincing voters you are ready to lead."  Risch went to D.C. to attend the bailout hearings for PR reasons, then sat on his hands until the Senate vote was over.  It fits his "playing not to lose" campaign.  Risch will win, but his campaign performance to date is not reflective of a man who is ready for this very big job in very important times.

Larry LaRocco (D), Running against Risch:  Grade, 'B':  I'll give LaRocco credit for supporting a politically unpopular bill he appears to genuinely feel is right for America, but I'm downgrading him for grandstanding.  During the crisis, LaRocco held a news conference entitled, "LaRocco to announce America's path back to prosperity" in a news release that went on to say, "LaRocco has a comprehensive plan that solves the immediate crisis, ensures improved oversight, and promises new growth in Idaho." It is naive to think anyone is going to look to a Democratic Senate Candidate from Idaho to solve this crisis.  There was one question before the nation.  'Yea' or 'Nay.'  Craig understood that. LaRocco didn't.

Thoughts of an Undecided Voter

One month to election day, and I just cannot get off the fence.  Last night's Vice-Presidential debate didn't help much.  If anything, it made me more undecided.  I was leaning McCain until last night.  Joe Biden's remarkable performance wowed me.

Many in our conservative, Republican state rooting for the native Idahoan may disagree, but the debate last night was a Democratic blowout.  Biden had better command of his facts and showed the kind of passion and discipline I cannot recall seeing from him before.  He also seemed way more personable at times than the hockey mom.  His demeanor more confident, his smile more relaxed.  Every time I thought Sarah Palin was going to score points, like when she talked about sitting around the table talking about the issues that have impacted her and her family, Biden would give an even more compelling response, talking about losing his wife, raising his kids as a single parent and the financial struggles of his own parents.

Biden also showed remarkable restraint.  When Palin butchered the name of the commanding general in Afghanistan, Biden gave a knowing smile but did not correct her.  When Palin attacked his record, Biden protested she had it all wrong and dared her to look it up.  She instead backed off by saying the TV pundits would do it for her, the same TV pundits she derides most every day.  Weak.

When Obama picked Biden, I condemned the pick as too safe and not very visionary.  My image of Biden was of the long-winded all-too-communicative long-time Senator who said lots but couldn't make a point.  My thinking was if this was an example the kind of decisions Obama was going to make, maybe he isn't ready to lead.  By contrast, I thought McCain's pick was bold, sort of like a football coach taking a chance on the up-and-comer he can build upon rather than the grizzled veteran who looks back with more enthusiasm than he looks forward.  During the V.P. debate, Joe Biden took my entire theory and put it on its ear.

Pundits praised Palin for her lack of serious slip-ups.  No 'deer in the headlights' moments for her.  True, but that's a very low standard for the person who would sit a heartbeat from the Presidency.

Of course, no matter what I decide, it won't matter.  Idaho's 4 electoral votes will go to McCain.  It's a lock, so why blog about my 'undecided-ness?'

It's because it is reflective of why I think McCain is in a lot more trouble than people realize.  He just pulled his campaign out of Michigan, a state political experts were at one time saying could be to 2008 what Florida was to 2000 ... the key state for victory.  Suddenly, the McCain electoral math is looking very daunting, with Obama now appearing to have locked up as many as 250 of the 270 electoral votes he needs for victory.

A month is a lifetime in politics and McCain can certainly come back.  But if he has trouble closing the deal with someone like me ... someone who has never voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate in his lifetime, but who now feels the country is most certainly on the wrong track and does need change ... he won't win this election.

McCain has two debates left.  Outside of some unfathomable Obama meltdown, they represent his two last, best chances to win.  Political ads won't do it.  Political rallies won't do it.  He has to land decisive hay-makers in the debates.  I know I'll be watching ... closely.

A Mythical Debate Between Mike Simpson and Bill Sali on The Mother of All Bailouts

It's been interesting to see the political reactions to what's becoming known as "The Mother of All Bailouts."  The Bush Administration's proposal to spend what many believe will be at minimum a $1,000,000,000,000 bailout of the nation's financial sector has split Idaho's Congressional delegation.  Rep. Mike Simpson's for it, Rep. Bill Sali's against it, and the other night, I had a dream about a confrontation between the two in the halls of Congress (a clear indication I need to stop having a nightcap before I go to bed).  With apologies for my lame attempts at comedic license, it went something like this.

(Sali):  Mike, I cannot believe you are for this.  A $1 trillion dollar social welfare program for corporations?  This program alone will destroy any chance of a Republican ideal of smaller government and lower taxes.  Instead, we are witnessing the biggest expansion of government in history.  $3K for every man, woman and child in America, even illegal immigrants!, all because some corporate executives got greedy and now they're whining to government for help.  More spending, higher taxes.  If you are going to support this, Mike, then at least be honest with your constituents and put a 'D' by your name.

(Simpson):  Bill, only an idiot's idiot would stand firm to his conservative ideals while the economy is in meltdown.  Remember Herbert Hoover?  Okay, I don't either, but I've read the Republican President and his Republican Congress did virtually nothing as the stock market crashed, bringing about an economic catastrophe called "The Great Depression."  Hoover and the Republicans stood by their principles and watched as the nation's economy crumbled, bringing us 80% unemployment in some cities, soup lines, plunging hemlines and people on Wall Street jumping out of buildings.  Okay, maybe that last one wouldn't be so bad, but it also swept the Democrats into office for decades.  This crisis has the potential to be even worse, and I don't want to see long unemployment lines that include you and me, especially me!

(Sali):  Mike, I've studied history too in between memorizing Bible verses, and I can tell you this economy is in far better shape than the 1920's!  Back then, we were protectionists.  Now we're free traders.  We also have monetary systems in place now to keep America's economy resilient through peaks and valleys without bailing out fat cats someone in government thinks are "too fat ... errrr ... too big to fail."  I have nothing against fat cats, although if you look at my campaign finance reports, they're not contributing to my campaign either!  But bailing them out is just morally and financially wrong.  Mike, I'm amazed that you have less faith in American capitalism than you do in my chances of being re-elected.

(Simpson):  Look around Bill.  Who gets the blame for this economic meltdown?  Nancy Pelosi?  Hillary Clinton?  The guy who keeps e-mailing me claiming Sarah Palin is really a man?  No, it's us Republicans.  We pushed deregulation.  We allowed lax oversight.  Capitalism only works when people are willing to play by the rules, but instead, we created a game of 'financial football' then took all the officials off the field!  The result is a system where greedy cheaters and the biggest risk takers won massive profits until they drove our financial system into the ground.  We can't pin this tale of financial excess and poor oversight on the Democrat's donkey.  If we don't try to fix this and the economy goes down in flames, there won't be a red state left outside of Utah.  Yes, Idahoans will pay a big price for our mistakes, but the price if we do nothing is far worse.

All 'tongue-in-cheek-ness' aside, both men in reality have good points.  Sali like other conservatives doesn't believe in rewarding bad behavior by the greedy with an incredibly expensive taxpayer bailout that not everyone agrees is necessary and has no guarantee of success.  A bailout also virtually destroys any Republican push for smaller government and less taxes.  Simpson has been convinced a financial meltdown is on the horizon and believes government has no choice but to act despite the cost because the consequences of inaction are potentially far more disastrous.  I hope you'll take a moment to vote on our online poll and let us know who you think is right.

Can America Really Afford a President Who Doesn't Understand Economics?

As flip-flops go, John McCain's latest may set an all time speed record.  This past Tuesday morning on the 'Today' show, he said this about the possibility of a federal bailout for insurance giant AIG.  "We cannot have the taxpayers bail out AIG or anybody else, this is something that we're going to have to work through."  Just 24-hours later, as the Bush Administration effectively bought 80% ownership of AIG at taxpayers expense, McCain said this on 'Good Morning America.'  "I don't think anybody I know wanted to do that. But there are literally millions of people whose retirement, whose investments, whose insurance were at risk here and they were going to have their lives destroyed."

That's about as complete a 180 degree turn as you can do on an issue, and it took him just one day to completely change his mind.  It exposes McCain's biggest Achilles' heel.  In these difficult economic times, the man who said just days ago that "the fundamentals of the American economy are strong" clearly does not have a good grasp of economic issues.

McCain's even admitted as much himself.  In a meeting with the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, McCain admitted he "really doesn't understand economics."  It shows, and that's why McCain's economic statements are so much more political than practical.  For instance, as the financial sector went into meltdown this week, McCain's answer was that he would "fire the head of the SEC."  Is he really naive enough to believe the head of the SEC caused this mess?

McCain's policy views are also problematic.  McCain favors keeping the Bush tax cuts on the rich while giving smaller tax cuts to those in the middle class.  Obama wants to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and give larger tax cuts to the middle class.  On this one issue, Obama's plan is better because he clearly understands a fundamental maxim of our economy.  It's not just 'It's the economy stupid' but 'It's the MIDDLE CLASS economy stupid.'

To prove my point, you need look no further than the economy we have right now.  The Bush tax cuts are still in place.  How are they working?  As the latest Fortune ranking of the richest Americans shows, even the rich are a lot less rich.  Why?  It's because middle class Americans, the people who actually buy stuff, are bearing the brunt of this recession and have suffered economically during the Bush administration.

President Bush's plan for economic growth involved more than just massive tax cuts tilted towards the wealthy.  He also pushed the so-called 'ownership society' plan that has put us on the verge of the most massive bailout of the financial industry ever.  Bush wanted to raise home ownership to all time highs by relaxing loan requirements and backing them with help from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.  His thinking was that not only would a greater level of home ownership create better communities, but Bush also understood most Americans achieve wealth through the equity they build in owning a home.  There were also side benefits.  More demand for homes raised their value which created more home equity from which homeowners could borrow at dirt cheap interest rates.  Middle class homeowners spent money.  The economy flourished.

But there was a problem.  Statistics show real wages for the middle class continued to decline, meaning more and more people were buying costlier homes their wages could no longer support.  Once they started defaulting, it created an economic 'death spiral' which has put our financial system in crisis.

The lesson?  When the middle class does well, they buy things and the American economy booms.  When they don't, it flops.  Understand that, and then deciding a simple issue like who should pay more taxes and who should pay less taxes is a no-brainer.

In 1992, George H.W. Bush was beaten by Bill Clinton in part because he couldn't articulate a good vision for reviving a faltering economy while Clinton could.  McCain could be headed down the same path as Bush Sr. if he doesn't bone up on economics and adjust his views accordingly because this economy is no longer 'fundamentally strong,' and we cannot afford a President who doesn't understand that.

Another Brilliant Masterstroke by the McCain Campaign

We got some negative feedback on the ABC News Charlie Gibson interview of Sarah Palin.  Some thought the questioning was too harsh, one viewer even writing he felt it indicated some sort of 'liberal bias' by Gibson against Palin.  It made me wonder where he was when Gibson was criticized for his aggressive questioning of Barack Obama during a Democratic debate a few months ago.

Gibson was tough, but I get the feeling the McCain camp wanted it that way ... just another masterstroke it what's been a series of them lately beginning with the Palin pick itself.

First, there was the choice of Gibson to interview Palin in the first place.  The McCain people clearly thought Palin's first post-convention interview had to be with one of the big three network anchors.  Gibson, who had moderated several debates during the campaign season, was the obvious choice.  He has a reputation as a veteran journalist who isn't afraid to ask biting questions even if he knows they may anger some who are watching.  If you are looking for the biggest 'heavyweight' interviewer, Gibson was the clear pick.

Then, there was the amount of time alloted and the lack of pre-conditions.  Gibson was granted three in-depth interviews over two days and he could ask whatever he wanted.  Talk about pressure!

Why would the McCain campaign put such a national newcomer in front of ABC's Charlie Gibson for two full days?  One word ... 'confidence.'  The McCain camp knows that for the relatively inexperienced Palin to impress, she has to show confidence and they have to show their confidence in her.  It worked.

Palin did trip up a few times.  There is no way you can cram on U.S. foreign policy for a week and come up with all the right answers.  She was at times unsteady and had a habit of repeating certain 'talking point' phrases over and over again, but overall, Palin was poised, energetic, very real and ... confident!  I'm not sure she won any new fans, but that wasn't the point.  The point was she proved she does belong on the national stage.

The analogy I used with one viewer was the Boise State Bronco football team.  BSU had good seasons before the Fiesta Bowl year and went undefeated in the season leading up to that amazing bowl game, but it wasn't until they defeated a nationally known powerhouse in Oklahoma that the Broncos captured the nation's imagination and earned its respect.  BSU is now regarded as amongst the top football programs in the country because they confidentally took on a tough test in the Sooners and suceeded.

Palin's willingness to take on a tough test in her Charlie Gibson interview is no different.  Had she shied away from such an exchange or done her first interview with more of 'lightweight,' it wouldn't have mattered what she said.  People would view the choice itself as that of someone who herself is not confident she is ready for the tremendous challenge of being a heartbeat from the Presidency.  Palin's ability to take Gibson's questions head-on showed the kind of mental toughness and confidence needed for her to succeed.

In past blogs, I have lamented how others who found themselves in the glare of controversy have tried to manipulate the process rather than take on tough questions.  Larry Craig comes to mind after his arrest in a Minneapolis Airport bathrooom sex sting.  From the staging of the first post-arrest interview in his home (family pictures strategically placed behind him) to the use of soft camera filters to the positioning of his wife beside him to the choice of the interviewers themselves, Craig appeared to be trying more to push an image rather than answer tough questions.  It backfired, doing little to change his tarnished image here in Idaho or nationwide because people saw it for what it was.

Palin on the other hand took on the most aggressive national questioner she could find and passed her first big test.  There will be more tests, but after what she endured with Charlie Gibson, it is easy to see why national confidence in her continues to grow.

Bryan Fischer's One-Sided View of American Justice

Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance came out with an angry press release after we reported Monday night the books 'The Joy of Sex' and 'The Joy of Gay Sex' are going back on the Nampa library's shelves.  Geez, didn't see that coming ... but in one sense I agree with Fischer.  I don't see why either book should be in a public library, just as I don't like the idea of putting the burden of sex education on our public schools outside of basic biology classes.  I don't think teaching us or our kids about sex is a proper role for government when we're having a hard enough time teaching kids math and science.

Of course, I don't get to make that call.  I'm one individual whose personal opinion will apparently not prevail and I can accept that.

Fischer apparently cannot accept these books are going back on the shelves, and there are parts of Fischer's news release on the topic that just don't add up.  Here's an excerpt (you can read his entire letter here .... http://www.idahovaluesalliance.com/news.asp?id=890 ).  "Said Bryan Fischer, IVA Executive Director in a letter entitled ACLU BULLIES NAMPA WITH LAWSUIT THREAT, 'This is just another pathetic example of the use of bullying tactics by the ACLU to trash community values with threats of an expensive lawsuit.'"

Mind you, this is the same Bryan Fischer who sued the City of Boise to keep the Ten Commandments monument in Julia Davis Park.  The same man who went to the courts to impose his values when elected officials made a decision he personally did not like.  The exact same Bryan Fischer who then publicly complained when the City of Boise went after him for legal fees after he lost in court (and then later wisely paid up with help from donations).

How is it somehow 'pathetic' and 'bullying' when the American Civil Liberties threatens to sue a government body but somehow 'not pathetic' and 'not bullying' when Bryan Fischer decides to do the same thing?  That's pretty much the library book definition of a 'double standard' (some would say hypocrisy).  One set of rules for Bryan Fischer, a second set for everyone else.  Fortunately, we live in a nation that strives to give everyone equal treatment under the law.  That includes the exact same access to the courts for both Bryan Fischer and the ACLU no matter how wrong Fischer may think that is.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot Fischer says in his letter with which I agree.  Like him, I believe the community plays an important role in the operation of any public library and citizen input is an essential ingredient.  I also applaud the father who made such a determined effort to remove these books.  Agree or disagree, it is the kind of citizen activism that makes America a stronger nation.

At the same time, the library board has made a unanimous decision that the burden of fighting this in court isn't worth it to keep these books off the shelves.  In the 'Ten Commandments' case, the City of Boise decided it was worth the burden, they fought, they won, and eventually got Fischer and religious activist Brandi Swindell to pay the legal bill.

The Nampa case is a tougher call.  How do you defend removing books from the shelves librarians put there in the first place?  No matter what Fischer may believe, I have a hard time accepting the idea that local librarians are secretly plotting to feed porn to our kids.  The books must be in some way instructional and informative and that's where the 1st Amendment comes into play.  Six figures in legal fees later, it seems likely Nampa would lose this one.

Some here in Idaho like to demonize the ACLU.  Others write me demonizing Bryan Fischer.  I see both as parts of the great American debate, and would only be concerned if we lived in a nation where one had fewer or more legal rights than the other.  Clearly, both are being treated equally under the law, and if Bryan Fischer wants to find a legal avenue to challenge this decision, that is his right.

The Difference Between an Opinion and an Informed Opinion

Occasionally, I like to share my correspondence with viewers (or in this case, a former viewer) regarding their questions or complaints about our newscasts, but first, I have some questions for you, the reader of this blog.  Please take a moment to answer them.

You go to a restaurant you've never been to before.  There are several entrees that catch your interest and you have questions.  Which waiter would you prefer?  The waiter who hasn't sampled a wide variety of the menu and can really talk about only a few dishes ... or the one who has tried much of the menu and can give you feedback on several possible choices, even those he personally may not like so much?

You are looking to buy a car and have several models in mind so you do some research online.  Which web page is going to be more helpful to you?  A webpage that has only tested minivans because they think everyone should drive minivans ... or one that has reviews on pretty much every car you might consider buying?

You need some information for your fantasy football team and are having a particularly difficult time picking a defense.  Which expert analyst would be better to help you make the best choice?  The one who has analyzed only a few defenses and rated those ... or the one that has surveyed a wide variety of NFL defenses including some you might not have considered?

Now let's move onto political news.  Which of the following is going to allow you to make a truly informed opinion?  The TV station that attempts to pander to your current political beliefs by presenting certain viewpoints over others ... or the TV station presents you with various viewpoints including some that might challenge your beliefs so you yourself can judge each on their merits?

As you are considering that question, let me share with you a letter I recently received and my response.

The author of the letter writes, "... we will no longer continue to watch Channel 6 News because of your continued bias to the left, and against the Right (capitalized by author).  I guess you forget that you're in Boise, Idaho not Portland, Oregon."

To which I replied.

"Thank you for your note.  I will tell you that it inspired me to write a blog about news and news bias and you can read my 'News Director's Blog' on our webpage, kivitv.com.  Let me begin my response with this concept for you. 

The covering of political issues by a TV news station and the weight given various viewpoints should be virtually the same whether it be broadcast in more conservative Boise or more liberal Portland. 

Our goal should not be to pander to either the left or the right but present news and various viewpoints as equally and objectively as we can.  I confess that is going to have the effect of making our news station appear a bit more liberal than the Boise populace as a whole ... Idaho is a very conservative state ... but our hope is that in hearing these various liberal and conservative and moderate viewpoints and Democrat, Republican and Independent viewpoints ... that our viewers can make truly "informed" decisions by considering a spectrum of ideas, not just those ideas that reinforce opinions they already have.

Yes, there are news outlets that choose a different path, the most notable being 'Fox News Channel.'  They have a more conservative, more Republican agenda and I respect that, but we have chosen not to adopt an editorial slant locally.  My feeling is Idahoans can make up their own minds without being pandered to by us.  At the end of the day, I don't care if viewers agree or disagree with the various viewpoints presented in our newscasts.  I do care if they walk away feeling the opinion they have is not an informed one."

The Importance of Reporting Disturbing Information in the Duncan Death Penalty Case

Inevitably, whenever we put disturbing information of some sort in a newscast, I get calls and e-mails, and nothing I can remember has been more disturbing than the details in the Joseph Duncan death sentencing hearing.  One particularly articulate woman called me giving her reasons why, "You don't have to air this type of information."  Well, yes we do ... within reason ... and here's why.

The federal government is pursuing this case because they want to commit the most serious act they can outside of warfare.  The government that represents you and me wants to take a man's life.  This is a very serious matter on an issue that is very controversial in our society.  There are probably people you know who oppose the death penalty in all forms.  They believe society should lock up certain people for life, but does not have the moral justification to take a life in a planned, pre-meditated matter.  Maybe you agree, maybe you disagree, but the point is that if we do not objectively communicate information the government believes justifies putting Joseph Duncan to death, we are misleading you.  We are distorting what's really going on and not reporting the truth on a matter of great controversy and importance.

We can't do that.  Here's an example as to why.  Years ago, I was getting frequent complaints about coverage of the Iraqi war when things were going very badly.  Viewers told me the media, including us, was giving a negatively distorted picture.  As it turned out, the facts were dead on.  What followed was a change in tactics and a dramatic drop in U.S. casualties.  It's an example of how the truth can help Americans make sound decisions that bring positive change and even save lives.

Difficult stories like the Duncan case impact us too.  Many on our staff were deeply troubled after the revelations.  Some had to endure things we would never report on TV.  One staff member made a point of going home at the end of the day and hugging her child.  Personally, there's a part of me that wishes the federal charges against Joseph Duncan had never been pursued.  That prosecutors would have just let things be knowing Duncan would spend the rest of his life behind bars.  I don't object to the federal death penalty in deserving cases (like Timothy McVeigh), but this all seems so unnecessary simply to put a man to death (who I think wants to be put to death) who would otherwise spend the rest of his life in a maximum security prison.

But that wasn't my call.  The decision to use the disturbing video as evidence wasn't my call.  Once those decisions were made, we at 'Today's 6 News' had only one option ... to tell you the truth about it as best we can so you can know what's really happening and can make an informed decision as to whether your government is acting appropriately.  Sure, we use discretion, but we cannot simply ignore facts that the government believes are critical to their argument for death.

I understand some people disagree with that decision.  Some say we shouldn't be covering it at all.  The woman I spoke about earlier believes our coverage will cost us viewers.  Perhaps, but what's the alternative?  To 'sugarcoat' the information to the point of being misleading?  To ignore critical information that is the very heart of a death penalty case?  To avoid stories or certain important information because some viewers might find it offensive?

That's not journalism, that is the very definition of 'ignorance' ... as in to willingly 'ignor.'  People can make personal decisions to ignore certain important events like a death penalty trial because they find it too distasteful, but a free press in America exists for those who want the freedom of choice to choose a different course.

How 'Big Oil' Companies are the New 'Big Tobacco' Companies

Big Oil is just like Big Tobacco in one important way.  An oil company, like a tobacco company and other businesses exists to make money ... as much money as possible off (in this case) the limited product it provides.  It is not built to be sympathetic, moral, caring or patriotic.  An oil company is a capitalist entity focused on ways to maximize profits.  So the last people we should be asking about how to solve our current energy crisis are oil company executives.  They won't give us the answers that makes the most sense ... they will give us the answers that makes them the most money.

I watched with great interest Jacqueline Bennett's recent interview with the Chief Marketing Executive of the American Petroleum Institute.  He says oil companies have done a poor job getting their message out, then proceeded to give every predictable answer you would expect from an oil executive.  (You can find a link to one of her stories at the end of this blog).  Here's why his answers on three controversial topics are good for oil company executives and not so good for the rest of us.

Domestic drilling:  Oil companies' hope that today's high prices will put political pressure on Democrats open more domestic oil fields to them and make them lots more money.  The problem is this would have virtually no impact on prices right now because the actual drilling couldn't take place for years.  Oil companies want access to U.S. offshore oil because it eventually means more money for them, not less pain at the pump for you right now.

Why no new refineries?:  A new gas refinery hasn't been built in the U.S. since the 1970's (although ABC reports one is being built now).  The oil expert we spoke with blames environmental laws, but there's something else going on.  The profits for big oil are in drilling it, not refining it.  If an energy company builds a refinery, it is laying out a lot of cost for not a whole lot of return.  What's worse, more refined fuel would increase the supply of gasoline, potentially sending gas prices lower.  For an oil company, that's a lose-lose.

Investing in Stock Buybacks vs. Drilling:  ABC News made the point the other day that oil companies are using more of their record profits to buy back their own stock than they are to expand drilling.  That's because oil company executives are not paid based on how much they drill but by how much their stock goes up.  By buying back stock, they are using their profits to enrich their stockholders and themselves even if it does nothing to help you their customer.

And finally, like tobacco companies, oil companies have no interest in supporting positions that might cost them money.  That's why oil companies have bankrolled scientists who question whether fuel emissions are contributing to global warming and contributed to political candidates who support greater fossil fuel use no matter what the cost to our air quality.

Oil companies are not the solution to our energy problems.  The good news is there are two other forces that could be.

The first is our capitalist system itself.  $4 gas has billions now being pumped into alternative energy sources like wind, solar, hydrogen and nuclear power by companies and venture capitalists who hope finding cheap, clean energy will pay them back several times over.  Some oil companies (the smart ones) are even looking to transform themselves into 'energy' companies that can provide many different forms of cheaper, cleaner power.

The second is government.  Just as the government broke up the infamous Standard Oil trust nearly 100 years ago and later mandated lead be removed from gasoline for health reasons, government can play an important role in creating a national energy policy and aiding in the development of new clean fuel technologies.

But right now, too many in government are focused on propping up what we've done in the past rather than investing in the future.  Just like the telegraph gave way to the telephone and VCR's and tape were replaced by DVR's and DVD's, Big Oil will give way to new energy companies employing new energy technologies whether politicians like it or not.  Those new technologies that can end our 'addiction to oil' is where our government's efforts need to be focused, but of course, the oil companies aren't going to tell us that.

http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8845566