News on 6’s Tara Vreeland did a story on RSU’s Bit by Bit issues on tonight’s 6 p.m. broadcast. Here’s the video.

Here’s KOTV’s web story.

Your opinion?

OK, I guess the talking point is that Letterman’s comments about the Palin family were “in bad taste.” I could describe it very differently. But what just blows my head off is how Matt Lauer on Today could not resist coming at Palin and asking her if it wasn’t in bad taste that her spokesperson said they intend to keep 14-year-old Willow Palin away from David Letterman. You have to be kidding me! What kind of moral eqivilization is this? I know some places here in Oklahoma where Letterman’s comments would have gotten him, at least, an arse-whoopin’ that even the Sheriff and D.A. would consider justified. I used to be a Letterman fan, but I—like most viewers—have abandoned him in recent years. Anyone who has not the sense to just admit his horrible mistake and truly apologize deserves a public uprising and channel-changing. And, as for Matt Lauer, I am appalled that his own political views and obvious disdain for Palin can allow him to make such an utter fool of himself. Neither of these two hacks would have ever behaved this way if Michelle Obama were substitued for Sarah Palin, and you know it.

Previously in this space, I have shared that I have been in a dialogue with Bailey Dabney, publisher of the Claremore Progress, regarding Claremore’s tea party last week and the Progress‘ coverage of it. What I did not share was that Mr. Dabney was gracious enough to invite me to respond on the pages of his paper as a guest columnist, rather than in a letter to the editor. He certainly did not have to do so. And when he received my column, he didn’t have to print it, but he did. You’ll find it on the Op-Ed page of today’s (April 21, 2009) Progress and also online here.

Since my reports on the Claremore tea party and subsequent responses to the Claremore Progress‘ coverage of it, I have had occasion to be in communication with Bailey Dabney, the still relatively new publisher of the paper. I won’t be sharing many of the details of our dialogue, other than to saw it has been cordial, fair, and friendly. I find him a reasonable man. I am also impressed with his level coverage of what he say when he was in attendance at the Oklahoma City tea party. It’s as if he actually got out of his car and walked among those about which he intended to report.

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.

[UPDATE—April 17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.]

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.

What did they do? Well, according to the Progress website:

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.

Back when the Republican-controlled Senate talked about giving President Bush’s judicial nominees a straight up-or-down, simple majority consent vote rather than requiring the typical 60 votes needed for cloture, it was called the NUCLEAR OPTION. Ohhhh, scary!

That’s when that Gang of 14 swooped in to save the day and the nation. Seven Dems and 7 RINOs came together to preserve some Sentaorial dignity (oxymoronic, I know). The Dems are very noisy when in the minority, and they suddenly came to understand how important the rights of the minority are. Then they became the majority again. And now it’s not the nuclear option. It’s “a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation.”

Specifically,

Reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the 100-seat Senate to a simple majority rather than the 60 required to overcome resistance to major bills. The tactic also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments.

We’ll see how those seven Dems who felt it so imprtant to preserve the traditions and dignity of the chamber when they were in the minority vote when they are in the majority. And we’ll also see how the media never mentions the term “Nuclear Option.”

Consent for the nomination power of presidents is very different from the legislative process. We’ll see where the chips fall.