The line between success and corruption in politics - if there is one

The news of Illinois Governor Blagojevich's "auctioning" of Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat is a hot story and has been covered extensively in the past week. However, Liz Halloran of NPR highlighted a new take on the news with her article, "Pay-to-Play Politics Versus Political Favors."

Although Halloran doesn't explicitly defend Blagojevich, a figure that are quick to condemn, she does present an alternate point of view - that although his actions were wrong, in the context of today's politics, they aren't unheard of. With an unassuming tone - she admits in casual language that quid pro quo politics "can get pretty confusing" - she points to cases of corruption in the past, including ones in Connecticut. Halloran puts our state up next to Illinois and Louisiana for the "corruption crown," which surprised me at first, but with indicted officials including Waterbury Mayor Joseph Santopietro, his successor, the mayor of Bridgeport, and of course Governor John G. Rowland, it's a legitimate comparison.

Halloran raises the following question: Where is the line drawn between crimes like Blagojevich's and the quid pro quo exchanges that have driven American politics since the birth of the country? One thing's for sure - that line's not a clear one. One person quoted, Connecticut defense lawyer Hugh Keefe, said "Politicians exist and thrive on legitimate political contributions, but there has always been a vague line between those contributions and the point at which bribery and personal gain come into play." There are always big donors that receive some sort of benefit for their support in political campaigns. Unfortunately for Blagojevich, his chances of sliding under the radar are shot. The tapped phone calls that incriminate him will probably be more than enough evidence for jurors, who, as Halloran points out, are already suspicious of public officials. However, Hubert Santos, a defense lawyer that represented former Connecticut State Treasurer Paul Silvester, makes a good point - that no money or favors have actually changed hands.

The aspect of Blagojevich's dealings that will seal his fate is the upfront nature of his Senate seat auction. Politicians can usually get away with exchanges as long as they're not explicit, but this was not the case for Obama's successor in the Senate.

I do think that Halloran presents the story with an interesting slant, and I commend her for reporting the news with an alternate point of view. It's always good to make yourself think about things in a different light, and if we had more dissenting points of view represented in the media, we would be a much better educated public. Personally, though, I think Blagojevich (like a lot of other politicians) is a pig, especially in his persistent claims that he did nothing wrong and his stubborn refusal to back down from his governorship. I hope the American justice system is functional enough to give him all the consequences he deserves.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98326848

Auto companies - Just another bailout?

I'm not quite sure where I stand on the bailout of the the auto companies GM and Chrysler, and as an undecided reader, Herszenhorn's article on the issue was unsatisfying.

While the politics behind the vote were explained well, I wasn't impressed with the explanation of the arguments for and against the bill. Herszenhorn talked about how the Democrats in Congress were working with White House officials to finalize the details of the bill and rally support for it, which they need desperately because it needs 60 votes in the Senate in order to pass. The bill is sort of a long shot in the Senate because the Democrats hold 50 seats right now and the Republicans hold 49 (the missing senator is President-Elect Barack Obama), and there are a number of Democrats, the party that is generally in favor of the bill, that actually oppose it. Ten of them voted against the $700 billion bailout, which may indicate that they'll vote against a $15 billion bailout for the two companies, and two Democrats, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, will be overseas for the vote.

It seems like it'll be a difficult feat for the lame-duck Congress to pass any legislation, but the Detroit 3 are important enough to demand the legislators' attention. The rescue plan up for vote grants $15 billion in emergency loans to GM and Chrysler, which are worse-off than Ford. The two auto companies would accept, along with the loans, a "car czar" - an individual named by President Bush to have a high level of government control and oversight. Under the bill, long-term viability plans would have to be developed for each of the companies by March 31, otherwise the "car czar" would either impose a viability plan (which could include Chapter 11 bankruptcy) or demand repayment of the administration. In face, the "car czar" can demand repayment of emergency loans at any point if the car companies fail to reorganize or meet other obligations outlined in the bill.

This is what Herszenhorn explains in his article, but for me, it's not what I really want to know. I want to know how the bailout proposal would affect me and my family should it be passed, and how the failure of these auto companies could if it doesn't. I don't think I'm alone either. Obviously a downside to the bill is that it would raise taxes for Americans, but what about the consequences of its potential failure? These are elements of the story that were absent from Herszenhorn's article - elements that were sorely missed.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/10auto.html?_r=1&ref=us

Newspaper Endorsements... Obscuring or Enlightening?

So apparently even the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska's biggest newspaper with a circulation of 76,000, endorsed Obama instead of McCain and Palin, saying that Obama "brings more promise to the office of president," citing specifically his "thoughtful analysis in a time of grave economic crises."

This short blurb, however, puts a slightly different spin on the story. The headline is pretty neutral: "Anchorage Newspaper Endorses Obama," but the first paragraph says, "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin may have the respect of her home state's largest newspaper, but she doesn't have its endorsement." That sentence, while not saying it explicitly, sends a message more along the lines that even Palin's home state newspaper doesn't support her. And don't get me wrong, that's definitely a slap in the face. But by making the endorsement about Palin instead of about Obama definitely draws in the body of readers ready to eat up any failure of hers.

I'm not sure I like the whole concept of a newspaper endorsing a candidate. I know it's sort of common practice, but it's kind of counter-intuitive to the concept of unbiased reporting. From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the members of a newspaper's editorial board sit, discuss, and vote on who to endorse in an election. The Connecticut Post says thay they make endorsements not with "political bias, but with what the board members perceive would be best for our communities and state. We talk to the candidates, we research their records and we examine their leadership abilities." So I guess the difference between that and a political bias is that it's made based on qualifications, skills, and abilities, not on the candidate's position on the issues. I'm still not sold on it, though. I mean, if you're really in support of one candidate or the other, aren't you going to think they're most qualified? The journalists on the editorial board are still people with personal opinions and biases... how can they separate themselves from that?

I also have to wonder if everyone on a newspaper's staff agrees with the newspaper's endorsement. I hope that they wouldn't all agree, actually, because I wouldn't want to read news from a source where everyone shares the same opinion and no one checks to make sure that bias doesn't taint the stories.

Maybe, though, by knowing a newspaper's endorsement, we can be more educated readers. Maybe it gives us an idea of what bias to expect, so then we can more easily recognize it if it's given to us. Maybe knowing a journalist's predisposition gives you a flashlight to cut through the fog of his/her potential bias. Maybe a newspaper's endorsement tells you more about how to read the news than how to vote.

I'm still not sold, but maybe that's why newspapers endorse a candidate. Or at least, maybe that's what we can get out of it.

NPR Article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96150814
CT Post Re: Endorsments: http://www.connpost.com/stephenwinters/ci_4570440

Keeping an Objective View

As someone who recently wrote an article regarding the October 15 Presidential Debate, I can personally attest to how difficult it is to remain objective when talking about a race that has polarized the nation. I watched the debate on Wednesday night from two points of view - from the perspective of a student and as a citizen, trying to form an educated opinion about the presidential candidates based on their performances and policies, and from the perspective of a journalist, trying to suppress whatever opinions I have in order to write and deliver an unbiased story to the readers of The Hawkeye.

Trust me, it's no easy feat.

Watching the debates (and the entire presidential race, for that matter) and simultaneously trying to form an opinion and suppress it is near impossible. And when it came down to actually writing the article, it was even more difficult. There were so many things I wanted to point out - like that McCain was perhaps a little too aggressive, using words like "petty," "cockamamie," and "idiocy," interrupting both Obama and Bob Schieffer (who, now that I'm allowed to have an opinion, did an excellent job as a moderator), and rolling his eyes while Obama responded to the questions. I wanted to point out how while McCain was definitely on the offensive during the debate, Obama was playing "rope-a-dope," as George Will, a columnist for Newsweek and the Washington Post and a news analyst for ABC, said - calmly taking the blows and letting his opponent tire himself out. I found myself so tempted to talk about the things I hate to read about in the news - how Obama was wearing a red "power tie," and McCain a much subtler blue one, but how McCain was definitely the more firey debater of the night. I was so tempted to spend my space on McCain's Freudian slip, calling Obama "Senator Government," and how his comment that Governor Palin should be a role model for American women didn't sit too well with the Democratic audience.

I suppressed my opinion, as much as I could, and talked about what I think is more important - the issues (although I did spend a good amount of time talking about the negativity of each campaign, since it was brought up in the debate). Doing so was definitely the ethical thing to do as a journalist, but I found that it was so ungratifying as I deleted many well-written, if biased, passages from my computer screen. And while I think some of the stuff I omitted from my article (especially the whole tie thing) was good to omit, I think other parts were relavent to the story, I just didn't know how to say it objectively. While it is difficult to describe McCain's and Obama's contrasting demeanors without injecting a personal bias, it is a valid topic to discuss, because the average American voter is going to be looking not only at what the candidates say, but how they make them feel. McCain's aggressive stance on Wednesday night appealed to some viewers, because they feel such a strong figure would be a good leader, but other viewers felt that he lost his cool in some regards, which isn't quite such a good thing.

These points, which are near-impossible to report without bias and yet important to discuss, are why I think you end up with articles like this one, "Candidates Clash Over Character and Policy," by Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times. Rutenberg talked about some of the things that I didn't dare to address in my article, but deserve to be remembered - like when McCain came out and said "Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago," and Obama came back by saying, "The fact of the matter is that if I occasionally mistake your policies for George Bush’s policies, it’s because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people — on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities — you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush."

At the same time, though, I wouldn't call some of Rutenberg's diction cool and objective - words and phrases like "anger," "methodical determination," "placid," "bemused demeanor," and "Mr. Obama said sternly as Mr. McCain bristled," hardly fit that description. I agree with the points he made on the candidates' approaches to the debate, but some of what I read made me frustrated (especially after spending a considerable amount of time editing bias out of my article). I mean, if I'm editing myself, shouldn't the NY Times reporter be doing the same thing? Take the following paragraph, for instance:

"The debate touched on a wide variety of issues... But it also put on display the two very different temperaments of the candidates with less than three weeks until Election Day. The lasting image of the night could be the split screen of Mr. Obama, doing his best to maintain his unflappable demeanor under a sometimes withering attack, and Mr. McCain looking coiled, occasionally breathing deeply, apparently in an expression of impatience."

If that's not a slanted description, I don't know what is, but describing the demeanor of the candidates is perfectly valid. I guess what I'm saying is, being objective is harder than it looks... and at what point does a reporter cross the line from fair to biased?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/us/politics/16debate.html?_r=1&sq=third%20presidential%20debate&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all