Mass Media

Thanks Mike.

Salon did a pretty extensive profile of the role of Democratic commentators on Fox News.  Obviously, I'm on the "freeze out Fox News completely" side of the debate.  The article covers most of the "anti Fox News" ground, but I just wanted to add a few observations:

• Alan Colmes essentially argues that progressives should take what we can get on Fox, including his involvement with the network. Unfortunately, Colmes legitimizes Fox News by being the "liberal" presence on the show, and makes us appear worse by doing a weak job of representing our side. As far as I'm concerned, Colmes enables Fox's propaganda and is just as bad as hacks like Hannity and Gibson.

• Unlike what Kirsten Powers would have us believe, the 50 state strategy is totally different than participating in Fox News. Of course, progressives should strive to have their views represented everywhere and stop ignoring conservative districts. However, that's a little different than willfully legitimizing a system that exists solely to push a partisan agenda.

Yesterday, LiberalLucy raised an interesting point on the role of bloggers vs. the MSM.

Regardless of how good or shoddy news reporting by the MSM is, it is undeniable that bloggers need the MSM in order to blog effectively. The MSM does the "dirty work" that creates real content, such as making phone calls and traveling places.

It's punditry in the MSM that is completely vapid. Pundits are paid to have opinions and defend them with rational argument. They're supposed to be able to articulate to us why they believe in what they believe better than the average person could. Unfortunately, professional opinionmakers simply aren't doing the job that they could be. There's nothing special about Joe Klein or George Bullard that makes them more qualified than the average political observer. With blogs, we can finally create competing messages and call them out.

I'm not making an accusation here -- this is just "gut feeling" stuff.  But, I watch "Off The Record" regularly, and I can't help but notice that there is sometimes an ideological bias in favor or opposed to certain issue positions.  Most recently, Tim Skubick seemed to be opposed to a revenue increase before one was even proposed.  If you watch some of the shows from before the State of the State, you'll know what I'm talking about.

This is interesting because one of the show's sponsors is the Michigan Business and Professional Association.  Upon closer examination, their position on tax issues indicates that they would be opposed to any kind of revenue increase.

So, one of the main sponsors of a show closely watched by politicians has an interest in the political outcome of topics discussed on the show.  Regardless of whether OTR's hosts consider that or not, doesn't that seem a little improper?  Would the MB&PA cut OTR's funding if they didn't like the slant of the coverage?  If not, what exactly does the MB&PA expect in return for its sponsorship of the show?

Again, especially because so much of this is subjective, this isn't an accusation.  But it's something to think about when watching the show:  How does the agenda of the show's sponsors play into the reporting and discussion of the show?

In any case, OTR certainly deserves some closer scrutiny.

Wait, that's not a surprise. Nevermind.

You've probably heard about the decision by Comerica Inc. to move their headquarters from Detroit to Dallas. The Detroit News Editorial staff wasted no time in blaming Governor Granholm for the move, politicizing Michigan's loss and proving once again that they are an obedient subsidiary of the Michigan Republican Party. From their editorial:

Even taking Michigan's bizarre tax system out of the equation, the state's regulatory and legal climate is not business friendly and is becoming even less so under Granholm's leadership. Her bureaucracy seems to have job destruction as its primary mission.

That would be a convincing talking point -- if it were true. Michigan is business friendly, thanks to the leadership of the Granholm administration and the MEDC. According to the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Michigan was the fifth friendliest state for small businesses in terms of its tax burden and regulatory climate in 2005. Furthermore, Michigan has shown the most improvement in its "preparedness for the new global economy," according to the Kauffman Foundation.

Despite what the Detroit News would have us think, Comerica didn't blame the Granholm administration, or the proposed excise tax, for their move. In fact, Comerica's CEO explicitly refuted the idea that taxes were the reason for the move.

Babb cited Michigan's slipping economy, and Texas' growing one -- not taxes -- as the reason to move.

The move is about a new location that is more central to their growing markets -- not any tax proposal.

The Detroit company said the move will allow it to be closer to the bank's high-growth markets in Texas, Arizona, California and Florida.

Even the Detroit News' own news piece on "Why Comerica Checked out" doesn't have anyone blaming the Granholm administration for the company's move. The Detroit News editorial staff is clearly alone in making this accusation.

Although taxes are relevant (and we are competitive in that area), they are far from the only factor that has an impact on the economic well-being of a state. The Detroit News claims that because Texas lacks a state income tax and "is a right-to-work state with just 5 percent of employees unionized," it is preferable to Michigan. If that were truly the case, why is our median family income higher than Texas?

The reality is that no one person or even government entity is responsible for the fate of a state's economy. To claim otherwise is just dishonest. Regrettably, that's what we've come to expect from the folks at Detroit News Editorial.

Yesterday, Eric B. completely deconstructed a recent column by the Detroit News' Nolan Finley -- Finley's column attacked environmentalists for holding the auto industry accountable on climate change. His argument is that the "enviro-facists" want to take away meat because they "believe eating, like driving, should have nothing to do with pleasure."

Who are these mysterious activists that he refers to? Finley doesn't identify them, because they don't actually exist. Obviously, the argument that environmentalists advocate sustainable policy because they want to take away all our fun stuff completely misreads their intentions.

Although Finley's column fails to provide real insight on the motivations of environmental activists, it does shed light on why Finley so strongly wants to believe that climate change isn't real:

Finley ultimately rejects the notion of climate change because it is inconvenient to him.

People don't want to change their behavior or lifestyle to adapt to the climate change crisis because it means making sacrifices. In this case, Finley rejects the notion of climate change because he wants to continue enjoying his automobiles, meat, etc. Similarly, it is much more costly for industry to deal with climate change honestly than it is to fund think tanks and pay off lawmakers. Because it is easier to create straw men to attack than it is to actually change behavior, we get Finley's deranged assaults.

More importantly, climate change is also inconvenient ideologically to conservatives and libertarians. Under their worldview there is no government regulation, every individual and institution works in their own self-interest, and markets will take care of everything to create a utopian society. Unfortunately, while it may be in the interest of individual actors to contribute to the climate change problem, this happens at the expense of the rest of society. Even under perfect market conditions, climate change would continue to occur.

Because climate change is real and requires policy changes to fix, it means that the libertarian ideal of how the world is supposed to work doesn't hold true. The idea that a policy solution is actually needed to address climate change is ideologically abhorrent to them. So, they would rather deny that a problem exists altogether. Rather than change their theory on how the world is supposed to work, it is easier to attack environmentalists.

So the next time you find yourself reading a column by Nolan Finley, or arguing with someone like chetly, remember this: Opposition to climate change has nothing to do with logic, or facts, or reason, or science. It's about convenience.

To add on to what Eric mentioned, $80,000 makes up only 0.002 percent of our $3 billion budget deficit.  Get a life, Finley.

I don't understand this petty obsession with the FG's office, which really takes up an insignificant portion of our state budget.

I was watching some TV with a friend, and he mentioned something today that I feel very strongly about and wanted to pass along.

In its coverage of the Iraq conflict, the mass media has utterly failed to discuss who the insurgents are, how they became insurgents, and why they do what they do. These factors must be understood if we want to even begin to have a discussion about what is taking place over there.  In this sense, they have been completely derelict in their duty to the American people.

With some reservations, I used to think that Skubick did a pretty good job. However, between his recent reporting on Matt and Michigan Liberal, the atrocity that is "See Dick and Jen Run," and some other little things that have continued to bother me, I don't really feel the same way about him any more.

In Quaker's Michlib entry about a recent exchange on Off The Record, I somehow missed the bombshell dropped by his wife in the thread:

One of the main reasons Tim (and I his former wife (#2)and mother of said daughter)can afford her going out of state to college is I arm twisted Tim to enroll her in MET when Blanchard first set up the program. Still, the cheapskate wanted our daughter to stay in Michigan for college because it would have been cheaper for the scrooge to pay his share. I made up my mind she was going wherever her heart desired and if he wasn't willing to kick in his fair share (he earns 4x what I earn) then I would just have to take out loans or do whatever to make it happen. But I digress.

I'm surprised he conceded the point to Kathy BH since he would not be paying any more for college if his daughter went to school in Michigan BECAUSE I got him to enroll her in the MET. He does not feel the pain of regular citizens because he makes way more than working stiffs and he likes to stiff others (like his own daughter when he cashed in her savings bonds (from his mom)last summer to pay for her car repairs instead of coughing up the bucks he could well afford. He is a cheapskate, a liar and more. Thus, whatever he has to say on OTR is of no use to me since he can't be trusted to be honest and true.

Do I sound resentful after all these divorced years...yes. I could say so much more but "trust me"...one of his favorite phrases...he can't be trusted in any way shape or form.

Wow. Just... wow. I just have to say that anyone that thinks that rising higher education costs by as much as 10% is not an issue is completely out of touch with the people. Higher education is practically the only vehicle for social mobility in our society, and when higher education becomes more inaccessible it only serves to maintain the existing social stratifications. THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT AFFECTS EVERYONE!!!

Quaker21 expounds on the idea of Scooby being out of touch with the people here.

SSP: Skinner Should Run Again

Here's what the Swing State Project had to say about Nancy Skinner:

Nancy Skinner MI 9
This is probably the greatest under-target in the nation and for that very reason Nancy Skinner should be given another shot in this district should she want it. One huge accomplishment of hers was to run through the considerable about of money Congressman Knollenberg had stored up over years and years. She ran a very good race and needs another chance. It also be noted this race was missed almost completely by the mainstream blog's that could have pushed it higher up. We might have missed a win here, as surely as the DCCC did.

However, DavidNYC disagreed with the diarist's assessment:

I would like to see someone with more experience take on Knollenberg, who has been in the House for over a decade. Beating an incumbent in a non-wave year is almost impossible - you need to have as strong a candidate as possible.

Also, Skinner raised only $400K, which strikes me as quite weak. By way of comparison, Eric Massa and Tim Walz, both first-time candidates without prior political experience, raised $1.4M and $1.2M respectively. And Massa's district is quite poor. They are sort of my benchmark.

If you can't raise somewhere in the realm of that kind of money in a strong Dem year, what were you doing? And I should note that MI-09 is a 50-50 district, while both MN-01 and especially NY-29 have a notable GOP tilt. NY-29 went for Bush 56-42.

Joe Knollenberg already announced that he was running for re-election, so he's obviously worried about something.

Mark Maynard: Sacrificing for our kids

Not really politics related, but a good read nonetheless.

TCM: Help WJR become the Great Voice of the entire Great Lake State again

Fantastic post on the lack of balance at WJR, especially considering its target audience. Make sure to read the comments too.

Dave Dempsey: Fresh Water: Protect the Public Trust

Dave discusses the "small container loophole" in terms of future water diversions from the Great Lakes. In his essay, he touches on a very important point: we all collectively own the Great Lakes, which are held in trust to us by our state governments.

WK: Michigan Legislature officially adjourns for the year

WK comments on the Legislature's last day of session. Its pretty funny.

I've been one of Skubick's most fervent defenders, but I am beginning to realize that he really does have biases. It isn't necessarily liberal or conservative, but as a pundit I think he is out of touch with popular sentiment. He makes the same mistakes that a lot of pundits make: underestimating the sophistication of voters, and attributing ideological causes to voting behavior.

Recently, I took offense to some of the things he said in the most recent Off The Record.

He called Granholm disingenuous for proposing an SBT replacement plan very soon after the election (and not before). I thought that charge was ridiculous because such a politicized issue wasn't going to get resolved before the election, the issue has been discussed long enough where I think everyone has a good idea of what it is about (a solution wouldn't really be "rushed"), and these legislatures committed to finding a replacement as they eliminated it. Voters may disagree on how the new tax will be structured, but it is completely justified to expect the same legislators that eliminated the tax and who understand the issue to find a replacement. This is especially true when the credibility of our state depends on coming up with a new plan.

Skubick really knows Lansing and has a lot of great insights into the political process, but he and his colleagues put so much emphasis on the "process" of politics that I think they lose touch with what these issues actually mean to people.