Others join Gibbons in criticizing Senator Reid
SUBMITTED NEWS RELEASE
CARSON CITY — Governor Jim Gibbons is not the only governor highly critical of the “bribery-like and extortion-like” actions of Senator Harry Reid as Reid makes backroom deals to rush his health care fiasco through the Senate.
Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue says, “I am utterly dismayed and disappointed by the vote buying that has occurred in the United States Senate in order to pass a measure that most citizens are against. If this reform was truly the right policy for our country, we wouldn’t see waffling Senators lining up like game show contestants hoping to win today’s jackpot of a special deal from Harry Reid.”
Meanwhile, Governor Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island said, “The passage of this legislation may prove to be the greatest affront to our democratic process and shows a complete lack of respect of taxpayers and for the principles this nation was built on.”
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour says “As debate entered its final hours, the Senate Democratic Leadership says it has exactly the number of votes needed to pass its dreadful healthcare reform bill. Despite opposition from a majority of Americans, most Governors and other state officials, consumer groups, business leaders, and healthcare professionals, the Senate majority seems intent on cramming this monstrosity down the American people’s throats.”
“Under no circumstances did I have anything to do with Senator Nelson’s compromise,” Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman said in a written statement. “The responsibility for this special deal lies solely on the shoulders of Senator Ben Nelson.” Heineman urged Nelson to reconsider his support for the overall health care bill and said his state expects “a fair deal, not a special deal. Governors all across America are troubled by this unfunded Medicaid mandate. If the U.S. Senate plans to address the unfunded mandates issue, all states must receive fair and equal treatment.”
According to a newspaper reporter, even Senator John McCain called Reid’s deals, “Bernie Madoff gimmicks.”
Senator Reid himself admitted he had “taken care of” enough Senators when he was quoted saying, “I don’t know if there’s a senator that doesn’t have something in this bill that was important to them.”
Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons stands by his statement that, “Senator Reid is wishing Nevadans a Merry Christmas with a smile on his face and a knife in our backs.” Reid’s health plan will cost Nevada taxpayers $613,000,000 in general fund revenue which will lead to less money for education, less money to keep criminals off the streets, and less money for programs for the disabled and senior citizens.
“Senator Reid should stop this health care train right now or he will be responsible for crushing working families in Nevada with higher taxes along with fewer local and state services,” Governor Gibbons said, “Senator Reid’s tactics border on corruption and are a far cry from the political integrity the people of Nevada expect and deserve.”
This is Reno, why are you running this crap? Submitted press release?! Let them publish it themselves. I’m waiting to see the plan of Gov. Gibbons and other genius Republicans to fix the deplorable state of health care in this country. Oh, wait, I forgot. They’re happy with the way it is.
I agree w/ Mr. Cohen. The NV GOP must really have their arses in the sand if they think bashing Reid is going to distract Nevadans from reality. Years of data on quality of life indicators in NV at the hands of Gibbons and is predecessors = Gibbons has 0 credibility. Negative propagands by the GOP as far as I’m concerned, = an endorsement FOR their opponent.
Ed,
Perhaps you missed the point of the site: http://thisisreno.com/about/our-philosophy/
b
b (is this a name?),
It’s your site, you can do what you want with it. I guess I disagree with the notion that because perfect objectivity is impossible to achieve one shouldn’t even try. It’s one thing for a political organization or candidate to publish half-truths or lies. It’s another for a third-party to do so on their behalf.
People going to a candidate or party’s website can rightly expect the views or whatever is presented there as news to be slanted.
Good media attempt, at minimum, to let all sides make their cases and let the readers decide who’s right.
The best media try to get to the truth of the matter, an extremely valuable commodity. Think McCarthy Era.
Lazy media just reformat and flow whatever happens to come through the door.
I’m guessing you guys think that running stuff like this propaganda is OK because if the left wanted to respond with propaganda of its own, you’d run that in full, too.
Hey, that’s easy enough. But I have a hard time imagining it will attract much of an audience, and it does nothing to improve understanding.
Ed,
We predicted that the notion of news not needing to be filtered would be offensive to some. We deliberately took the position that the filtration process automatically places one in a position of making decisions, perhaps arrogantly, for others (see, e.g., my posts here http://su.pr/1oZPy2 and here http://su.pr/1pyl3I ). Examples are plenty and painful.
If such “good media” were representative of public interest — complete with the strive toward reducing news to the lowest common denominator, as well as the great fields of research into media effects and audience perceptions that contradict the idea that the news media do a good job, even remotely, of telling the truth — then sites such as This Is Reno would likely not be able to launch so quickly with relative success.
The assumption that such sites will not attract much of audience is easily contradicted by our site stats and other measurements. It certainly got your attention.
The nice thing is that we will gladly run opposing views if they are crafted with some measure of reason, even from you.
b(OB CONRAD)
PS Just curious: Was your reaction to the Gibbons news release similar when reading many of the releases we’ve posted from Reid?
No need to get huffy, my friend.
I’m not sure what studies you refer to that show traditional media don’t tell the truth. I’m sure that many do and many don’t.
I absolutely believe in — and appreciate — experts filtering the news and trying to deliver the truth. It’s far too time consuming to try to read everything and fact-check every claim and thereby decipher what is really happening in regard to every field of human endeavor. That’s what professional journalists are supposed to do, and I’m happy to pay for it.
Some people believe in the partisan press — reading or listening to only that which they know will jibe with their view of the world. Fox News and Air America — that’s their business model.
Yours is something else. More power to you. As I said, you’re welcome to provide an additional platform for political diatribes and the truth be damned. Some people — especially those who agree with the rant — will undoubtedly drop by and nod in agreement and push your page views.
I’m just saddened that you don’t try to do more. I don’t think your business model is ever going to generate meaningful investigative journalism, for instance.
Oh, wait, I just saw Ryan’s post. Yikes!
“However, we will not refuse to run anything that someone sends us on the basis that we think it might be fudging the truth or a flat out lie.”
So you have gone ahead and stated on the record that you’re willing to publish something you think is a lie! Hope you have a good lawyer.
As for this silliness that I don’t think much of the public, it was Thomas Jefferson who said “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
You can substitute electronic news organization here for newspapers if you like. You can’t substitute “press releases.”
To respond:
“No need to get huffy, my friend. I’m not sure what studies you refer to that show traditional media don’t tell the truth. I’m sure that many do and many don’t.”
I posted two links with enough references to keep busy for some time. It’s your choice to pursue the inquiry, or not.
“I absolutely believe in — and appreciate — experts filtering the news and trying to deliver the truth. It’s far too time consuming to try to read everything and fact-check every claim and thereby decipher what is really happening in regard to every field of human endeavor. That’s what professional journalists are supposed to do, and I’m happy to pay for it.”
The press is one of the least credible and reliable sources of information, despite much citation, cheerleading and misunderstanding. What professional journalists are supposed to do and what actually occurs are two different things. Again, the citations at the links above tell more.
“Some people — especially those who agree with the rant — will undoubtedly drop by and nod in agreement and push your page views.”
The site’s popular content is mostly that which is written and created by our volunteer contributors and which you will find nowhere else in the Reno area. But, again, that’s one of a few indicators we’re considering as to whether what we’re doing is worthwhile. The political chest-thumping tends to be less popular. Even our most-popular non-original content tends also not to be widely available in this market, which I interpret as an indication that there is indeed a market it for it in the area despite it being ignored elsewhere.
“I’m just saddened that you don’t try to do more. I don’t think your business model is ever going to generate meaningful investigative journalism, for instance.”
As Ryan said, the point isn’t to follow in what’s already been or in some cases is still being done. There’s a reason we call it a “new kind of news.” As for whether we’re not trying, or this is a lazy form of journalism, as you put it, I can only offer that the people here are doing this in addition to their day jobs, raising families, going to school, writing their own blogs and countless other activities. Nobody’s getting paid, and the best that I can tell is that we do it precisely because of gaps left in the mainstream media and other opportunities. Not so much a business, I consider this a service and one that so far appears valued, despite your claims.
As an example, we have been able to effectively give voice to perspectives ignored in the dismal reporting by our local media. The TMWA water-bill story and our subsequent interviews come to mind, as does the story about the RSCA re-branding of Reno/Tahoe, which likely impacted how the media subsequently covered the issue after it was pointed out here and elsewhere how lousy the story was being reported and what critical details were missing.
Finally, you’ll have to forgive my tone; it’s hopefully understandable that I would respond somewhat negatively after the pedantic and hyperbolic judgments leveled about the time, effort and thought put into this site, especially when our intention not to follow the disappearing news-business model is clearly stated.
As imperfect as our approach may be, it is also worth considering in the broader scheme of things that criticizing the efforts of a site such as This Is Reno, which is attempting one kind of solution to the larger problem of the disintegration of mainstream news as we know it, is far easier than actually doing something about it.
Moreover, if indeed news as you view it is “an extremely valuable commodity,” then it would naturally follow that there’s really nothing here to worry about.
B
You’ll have to forgive me, Ed. When I said that about the lying, it was in response to your original problem with us running political press releases. You’ll have to trust me when I tell you I’ve been through the charges of lying in a story and what the consequences of that are, even when you don’t lie. We’re not new to this here and I take offense to the condescension that oozes from your comments here.
Bob has pretty calmly and handily demonstrated most the problems with what you have said, but I’ll add to it a little.
What is your issue with this site? First you had a problem with the Gibbons press release, presumably, but I can’t be sure, because you have a problem with his politics. If not, then you would have responded to Bob when he asked how you felt regarding the numerous Reid press releases we have run and will continue to run. Then, you started telling us that we run what surely will amount to be an unpopular and uninteresting site. Which is it? Is it both?
The thing about the unpopular stuff only came after we both clearly explained why we run what we run, so I think you were just trying to not back down. That’s fine–this is the internet, right? The biggest beef I will take though is that your comments have brought a tone to the site that is more at home in the anonymous cesspool that our local paper has no problem being home to. And it only came about because of your misunderstanding.
One thing I stated early on and added to the philosophy page myself was that we were not to have this garbage here. If you’d like to have a discussion that isn’t accusing us of anything and starts after being apprised of all the information we openly provide to you–something else you won’t ever get from a traditional media outlet of any kind–then by all means bring it on. I’m sure you can add some value with your experience. Otherwise, come up with a funny name and post on the RGJ. Heck, talk about us over there if you like. Just be sure to link back.
Ed,
You still don’t seem to be understanding the entire point of this site. We hope to get news out there, through the press releases that organizations send, that never makes it into papers or on TV or on the radio or even on other websites. This site has nothing to do with what you describe media as being–editors of what is and isn’t news. I describe the site as unfiltered news. You send it, we run it, with the only exceptions being our inability to always get to it in a timely fashion because this is not the primary, or even secondary, job that all of us have.
We hope to be similar to the media as time wears on in that we will cover events, press conferences, or anything else firsthand. However, we will not refuse to run anything that someone sends us on the basis that we think it might be fudging the truth or a flat out lie.
You also say that this does nothing to improve understanding. Doesn’t it? I would argue every day and twice on Sundays that whenever we run something like this–something that comes straight from the governor’s office–it gives everyone who isn’t too angry to see clearly a better understanding of how the office–and the person–operates and what they choose to focus on in the job. It’s something that lacks disgustingly from local news outlets. There is no context. This is context in its best form. It’s exactly what the governor is saying and nobody other than his own people have altered any of it.
Arguing with what we choose to run is never going to get you anywhere here. We’re doing our best to provide the clearest information there is–all of it.If you think that hurts the public’s view, then you don’t think too highly of the public.
-Ryan
OK, gentlemen, I think I understand where you’re coming from, and it sounds sadly like the same disingenuous region as the creators of Fox News. These are the people who state, with a straight face, that the news media all have a glaring liberal bias so we are introducing a radical new concept, “fair and balanced.” Just watch 15 minutes of Fox News and if you don’t laugh out loud at the “fair and balanced” claim, that should tell you something about your own biases.
In case I didn’t make myself clear…
There are plenty of reporters and editors (arguably all) who are biased. They’re human. Plenty are lazy. Journalists make mistakes, unconsciously and consciously, that mislead the public. I’m sure you can point out many examples.
However — and this is important, so pay attention — what we think as “news” is what doesn’t happen every day. So when you point to examples of journalistic misdeeds, those are the exceptions, not the rule. Newspapers and other media create millions of reports daily. What percentage are false or misleading? I’m not asking what percentage could be better, because almost anything can be made better.
You seem to be saying that because journalism has some bad actors, the entire enterprise should be abandoned in favor of…well, nothing. We’ll just make this here megaphone available to the agents of pure self-interest (never mind that they already have their own megaphones in the form of websites and ad dollars) and you, gentle readers, well, good luck sorting out the facts from the lies because we’re not going to get involved in any of that evil “filtering.” We would never insult your intelligence by helping you understand an issue by, say, trying to anticipate and answer your questions.
As I’ve pointed out, I’m convinced that there is value in having professionals who study issues, learn the background, and at least attempt to get to the truth of a matter. Media build credibility by doing just that, day after day. You seem to think this is fantasy. You seem to think it’s impossible. You seem to be convinced that this well is polluted beyond remediation and it was never worth a dime anyway. I disagree.
And, despite the evidence of declining circulation and ad revenues, the majority of the public also disagrees. They value traditional journalism. Read studies of perceived credibility of various news sources and you’ll find that CNN and NYT, for example, still rate miles higher than the typical blogger.
I’m not here to disparage what you’ve built. I congratulate anyone on building what they believe in (short of a concentration camp) and working to sustain it, especially absent a pay check. But I disagree that a simple open forum can or should replace reporting that aims — it may not succeed, but it at least AIMS — to be accurate, serious and fair.
I do agree with you about anonymous comments — http://48-year-old.blogspot.com/2008/03/anonymity-is-for-wusses.html –
although I don’t know how you can verify that people at a keyboard are who they claim to be.
Ed,
The ability to create dubious parallels (“like … Fox News”), to invent conclusions (“journalism … should be abandoned … for nothing”), to insist there’s evidence for something that is clearly debatable while ignoring other, readily available evidence (“media build credibility” and “the public … disagrees” (see, e.g., http://people-press.org/report/543/ )), and to assert claims made that, in fact, are not (“you seem to think it’s fantasy … impossible” and “a simple open forum should replace reporting”) is right at home with what occurs in newsrooms daily.
The irony is resounding.
Bob
Bob,
Have you ever worked in a newsroom? If not, how do you know what occurs in newsrooms daily? Are you perhaps relying on certain media reports? Now there’s irony.
Ed
Ed,
Whether or not I’ve worked in a newsroom is irrelevant to what is readily observed as arising from newsrooms. Assuming you’re referring to my series of posts on how reporters spin news, I relied as much as possible on peer-reviewed works, the words of researchers themselves, other journalists and those who watchdog the press. One of these by itself perhaps would be inadequate; collectively, I’m not sure a better mix could be had as far as gaining credible information, unless you have better suggestions.
So I’m not sure what your point is about what’s ironic; once again, it appears points are being invented out of nowhere.
Finally, if, again, the idea of this site is worthy of so much criticism, I am bewildered as to why you, as a director of marketing and communications at the University of Nevada, Reno, are now taking advantage of it by sending us your news releases.
-Bob
The three of you are doing a good job of making your points. It would be nice if the world were the way Ed sees it. In my ideal world, there would be no news consumers too lazy to analyze and question all the news they’re fed. I know that’s far from the case.
I think Ed made his original comment because this site did not meet his expectations. That’s understandable because this site is not like other news sites. (I wouldn’t be working here if it were just another site that repeated news originally reported by newspapers or press associations.)
To me, the value of this site is it publishes news that is ignored by the other local media. Furthermore, even with our volunteer staff, we have published news before it appears on the local paper’s site.
Space in the other local media is restricted by the amount of advertising they sell; in the past few years, in other words, their news space has been shrinking. Ours is unlimited.
I hope readers will read our philosophy, visit often to get a more complete picture of what’s going on in Northern Nevada than they will get elsewhere–and keep the sources in mind while reading.