The Tea Party crowd was friendly and lively, with an interesting array of witty and creative signs expressing dissatisfaction with our current national fiscal policies. As an eyewitness to this sizable gathering, I was surprised the way these groups have been portrayed by national media. There was no anti-government, anti-American, or anti-establishment attitude, as one cable news network described them. Taxpayers did want to be heard regarding their distaste for the current fiscal strategy. The tone was civil and friendly as I walked through snapping pictures with my Blackberry. Watching this group actually made me proud to live in a country where this type of civil communication is allowed. I haven’t seen official estimates, but my unofficial estimate puts 5,000 or more American patriots in attendance as our group walked through. By my estimation, this is an example for other protestors to follow.
That’s strikingly different from the report provided by his underlings in regard to Claremore’s event. It’s nice to see a reasoned head at the helm, and I am hopeful that he continues to improve the paper’s reporting and editorial pieces. His staffers should take a page from his book (or should that be paper?).
This is a good sign. I’ve been critical of the Progress many times, but I have to give credit where credit is due. At this rate, they may get me back as a subscriber.
In response to my (and others’) claims that the Claremore Progress’ audio report posted on their site was inaccurate (see original post below), whoever Twitters for the paper as WillRogersPaper just tweeted this:
Some RC folks upset as being characterized as being “angry” while at TEA Party and not in street. Todays Progress
And as proof that participants were demonstrating in the intersection, they offer a link to this twitpic (click for big):
Let’s do a little analysis, shall we? What you see here are not tea party demonstrators protesting in an intersection, though the Progress intends you to think that. You see one man (“Born Free – Taxed to Death”) standing off the curb, though not being a hindrance to traffic, holding his sign. The rest of the people in this picture, which the Progress obviously intends you to interpret as protesters in an intersection, are actually crossing the street at the designated point (i.e., the crosswalk). You see a couple young men transporting signs (obviously not waving them) crossing from east to west, and another group, appearing to be mostly women, crossing from west to east. Notice they all have a raised foot, caught by the camera in the action of walking across the street, at the legal place to do so (presumably after receiving the illuminated “Walk” indication). The woman in the red hoodie holding up her sign is on the sidewalk (notice her height). All in all, a weak attempt to substantiate a fabrication with a misleading picture. Seems the Progress continues to ratify everything people have been saying.
This goes perfectly to my previous point. One can report what actually happened, or because of bias, agenda, or just sloppy journalism, they can report what they want and offer up a clearly mischaracterized picture as support.
I reassert my previous points: protesters were not demonstrating in the intersection, the demonstrators were certainly not a disturbance to traffic, they were not angry, raving maniacs. It was an orderly demonstration by patriotic Americans, which–judging by the public response as it happened–has significant support. Guess it’s too much to ask that the Claremore Progress get it right, or at least correct the record when they are shown to be wrong.
Oh, and just one question for Progress reporter Krystal Carman, who received photo credit for previous Progress pictures and presumably this one: “Did you cross the street, and if so, where? If you were photographed doing so, would it be fair to accuse you of practicing the craft of alleged journalism (or photography) in the intersection?” Didn’t think so.
[End of Update]
[Original Post]
I was on the scene at yesterday’s Claremore tea party. Loyal readers will recall I provided audio reports from the scene throughout the morning demonstration. I did this using a nifty little program called AudioBoo. Lo and behold, today I see that the Claremore Progress has updated its report about the tea party by uploading an audio report using AudioBoo. I wonder where they got that idea? I don’t mind being a trendsetter. But, the Progress is missing the point. The beauty of technology is that it allows one (in this case, me) to do reports from the scene of the action as it happens. It’s a waste of the technology to use it as the Progress has.
Progress Managing Editor Randy Cowling and Staff Writer Krystal Carman talk about the event.
Click the play button below to listen to their commentary.
What a joke! Were these people even at the same event I was? Aside from seemingly missing the metaphorical meaning of a tea party, they seem to be awfully concerned with the distraction to traffic. I was at the 11 a.m. event the entire time, and I never once saw anyone in any intersection. There were ROCO sheriff’s deputies on scene who I witnessed showing demonstrators where they could and could not stand (from the sidewalk out). If there were ever anyone in an intersection, the deputies would no doubt have dealt with it. Demonstrators were lining the streets at intersections, but that is not being in an intersection, and they were certainly not a distraction to traffic. In fact, if you listen to my reports from the scene, you will hear lots of honks of support from the allegedly distracted passersby.
Further, I spoke with several people there, and no one was emotionally angry. Sure, people are passionate about where they stand. But it was no hateful crowd ranting and raving. It was a very collegial and good-spirited gathering. Again, if these were raving lunatics, you could have heard that in my reports. Judge for yourself. It’s also shocking to hear the surprise in their voices as they share that the public is allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights without a permit. Maybe the Progress should be required to get a permit to exercise theirs.
And finally, I would challenge the numbers quoted. There were far more than 50 at the 11 a.m. event, and if they’re off by that much once, how many other things are being slanted by this rag? I’ve alleged the Progress‘ bias for a long time, and these two hacks have proved my point. For too long, certain papers (which are rapidly dying) have reported the news after the fact and after it has passed through a less-than-objective filter. And in print, they can use certain verbiage that makes them seem fair. Audio is another thing. You can hear the bias in the Progress‘ audio report. Just give a listen and judge for yourself.
Over on the American Thinker Blog, Lance Fairchok reports what we already know. There is collusion between the political and media rails of our society. This, my friends and readers, is why we pitch a fit about the Big Liberal Media.
This is especially prescient because of the recent discussion here on the WynnBlog regarding Second Amendment rights. It has long been my position that First Amendment rights to free speech are as potentially dangerous—if not more so—than the Second Amendment right to possess weapons. Yet, we require no license from the government to exercise one’s right to free speech. Any schmuck former political operative can end up hosting a supposedly objective news program one one of the dinosaur media’s networks.
And just as some irresponsible idiots can abuse their Second Amendment freedoms and do great harm, even evil, some of the talking heads America relies on for news and information abuse the right of free speech and abandon all objectivity for the sake of politics.
From the column:
Every morning, a group of old friends have a nice chat. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, CNN’s James Carville, CNN commentator Paul Begala, and Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have a wide ranging conference call, usually starting just before dawn. Democrat Pollster Stan Greenberg is a frequent participant. They examine current events and how they fit into the new administrations policies. They determine how to best get their message to the public.
***
When they next appear on various programs as interviewers or interviewees, their comments do not conflict with each other. They have coordinated the broad themes and the topics, and after that early morning phone call they coordinate with their personal networks and associates, influencing and coaxing the comment and reportage on specific issues nationwide.
But why should this bother us? Shouldn’t we all just get along?
From an information consumer’s standpoint it is disturbing that several main networks are so tuned into White House message shaping. How can the citizen expect accurate analysis and reportage when the “journalists” that present it are so tied into the party in power? Obviously they cannot, as we have so clearly seen in the blatant bias and advocacy of last year’s campaign media coverage. The “prevailing political and media interpretation” is a nice way to say “political message.”
Those in the media should remember that it is the nature of those in power—from any party or political persuasion—to do everything possible to retain it. If you choose to be willing accomplices, there will be a price to pay, which we are already seeing with the mass downturn in traditional media viewership and readership. When you start doing your jobs—objectively—you might save the industry…and maybe the country. If you choose to stay in either party’s back pocket, you will feel the considerable heft of their backsides bearing down upon you eventually.
Oh, and there will be new permit program established to authorize you to exercise your First Amendment rights. You will be required to take an 8-hour training course at a cost of approximately $60, provide pictures and fingerprints to your local sheriff’s office (at a cost of approximately $35), undergo a background check, and pay a fee of $100 per five year period of licensure. The line forms to the right (or would you be more comfortable on the Left?).
Political cycles are cyclical. If one looks to the U.S. presidency, especially in modern times, we see a pendulum swing from left to right and back to left over and over again. Hoover to FDR, then Truman when FDR died, then to Eisenhower, to Kennedy and Johnson, who succeeded upon JFK’s death, to Nixon and Ford, who took over upon Nixon’s resignation, to Carter, to Reagan, then his VP, Bush 41, to Clinton, to Bush 43, and now Obama. It’s almost like a marching cadence (former band members yell with me), “Left, right, left, right!”
And while “change” is everyone’s new favorite word, I don’t see that we’re in for a change to anything new. Largely what I see being offered are repackaged things that didn’t work before, and many of which in fact led us into the morass that was the 1970s. That said, this post is not about politicians’ politics. They make their promises, we hold elections, and someone is ceded power for a time. We’ll see how it works out, though many of us are sure we have a good idea where it’s headed.
No, the change I crave, and the change that will save our civilization is a fundamental change in the news media. It was long understood that an objective and free press was essential to the success of our Republic. It was so important that it was protected in the First Amendment, along with freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
But we have just finished an election cycle when we have seen newsmen and -women weep on air for a candidate. The inauguration again brought tears to the eyes of supposedly professional members of the media. Does it not strike anyone else that when newspersons have become so invested in a person’s success they can no longer be looked at to report objectively and truthfully on that person and his administration? If Nixon had been this adored by the press, Watergate would still be just a hotel.
When the news bureaus have been co-opted as extensions of the White House press office, it is a very bad thing, regardless of who the president is. And, it is thoroughly disingenuous for the media to have nothing but criticism and rancor for Republicans and undying love and affection for Democrats, while expecting us to believe it has nothing to do with party. We’re smarter than that.
We need newspersons who will report the news and allow us to draw our conclusions. We need newspersons who are committed to asking hard questions of every president. We need newspersons who understand that while we grasp the historical significance of President Obama’s election, wish him well, and respect him as the leader of this nation, there are over 58 million Americans who did not vote for him, nearly half (22) of the 50 states are still “red,” and some of us our here are still clinging to God and our guns. The president is most certainly entitled to his inauguration, and he is entitled to the spoils of victory, but we are entitled to unbiased and un-spun information.
A media that is in a president’s back pocket (especially when it was largely responsible for the destruction of his predecessor) is bad for the president and the nation. It is allowing the fox to guard the henhouse. And President Obama needs to learn one huge lesson from John McCain: live by the press, die by the press. If they make you, they can destroy you.
And so there are really two solutions here. One, the mainstream media could demand and reward true, genuine objectivity (and punish its lack) from its correspondents and anchors. A just-the-facts reporting style would certainly be welcome by me. That’s probably too much to ask, so alternatively the press could just give up any semblance of objectivity and fully disclose their leanings. “Good evening and welcome to the CBS Evening News. I’m Katie Couric, I am a liberal Democrat who voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 elections, and here’s my version of the news.” Honesty goes a long way with me.
