‘Hotly Disputed,’ Outright Misleading: More on the Journal’s Anti-Planned Parenthood Campaign

March 24th, 2016 · budget policy, civil rights, Congress, inequality, role of government, social safety net

By Denise Tessier

After nearly a year’s hiatus from writing for ABQJournalWatch, I am compelled to add to the points my colleague Arthur Alpert made Tuesday in his post about the Journal’s anti-Planned Parenthood campaign.

The impetus is Wednesday’s UpFront column – “100 years of fighting for reproductive rights”.

At first, the front-page headline prompted thoughts that the Journal was injecting some months-overdue fairness into its generous coverage of the pro-birth, anti-choice movement and its attacks designed to cripple and even eliminate Planned Parenthood, an organization that for decades has done much to improve women’s health.

That the UpFront had been written by the exceptional Joline Gutierrez Krueger held promise that the article would be fair and enlightening. It was just coincidence that the column appeared the day after Arthur’s post, as it was clear she had been working on it before.

But the column in fact served to obfuscate one critical point – the damning and oft-repeated allegations that the women health’s organization was selling fetal parts.

“Hotly disputed” is the weak description chosen to characterize allegations of fetal tissue sales, keeping Planned Parenthood in the defensive position for purposes of the Journal column.

From the column:

Planned Parenthood . . . has been lashed lately by a host of bad press: allegations – hotly disputed – of selling fetal body parts for profit, defunding threats by Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates and the shooting deaths of three people at a Colorado Springs clinic in November by a self-described “warrior for the babies.”

There is no mention of the fact that in January a Texas grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing and actually indicted two anti-abortion extremists for allegedly trying to buy fetal body parts. The extremists were also charged with tampering with a governmental record after they made videos edited to mislead viewers into believing a Texas Planned Parenthood clinic was engaged in fetal parts sales.

Those allegations weren’t just “hotly disputed,” they were essentially put to rest by a conservative Texas court.

[Read more →]

→ 4 CommentsTags:·····························

Politicizing The News: Albuquerque Journal uses front page to launch its latest political campaign

March 22nd, 2016 · journalism

By Arthur Alpert

Sorry about my long silence, but I’ve been ill. Almost at full strength now, but because the Albuquerque Journal never took a break from politicizing the news, the backlog of critiques facing me is sky high.

I could begin with the Journal’s frenzied attacks on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the news and opinion pages. At the Journal, a political pamphlet in newspaper garb, there’s no need to consult the editorials to know what management thinks. It’s all politics, all the time, everywhere.

Or, I could document management’s see-no-evil coverage of the Governor and her policies. Remind me to point out how what looks bad for the Journal’s friends in Santa Fe is spiked or, at best, relegated to C2.

Also, while I was away, the political commissars maintained their near-absolute ban on mainstream economics; I could begin there or with their absolute ban on “demand-side” economics.

I’ll try to get to all those topics but today let’s mark the arrival of a new Journal editorial campaign, which, like its eternal war on Obamacare, will be conducted in the “pretend” news pages.

Be forewarned. The editors will –if their treatment of Obamacare is a precedent – use their power to assign (or opt to ignore) local stories for coverage, to publish or deep-six wire copy, to write accurate (or inaccurate, biased or muddy) headlines and to run stories up front or bury them depending solely on management’s political druthers.

And if you listen carefully, you will hear William Randolph Hearst chortling in his grave, “I’m not dead yet.”

Oh, but I haven’t named the campaign. Sorry. The Journal favors restricting abortion rights. How do I know this?

Sunday, Jan. 31, the Journal ran a story by reporter Rick Nathanson. An editor composed this top headline:

“Albuquerque’s ANTI-ABORTION CRUSADERS”.

(Note the bold capitals.)

The second deck read:

“Bud and Tara Shaver take no prisoners in their ‘culture of life campaign.”

This was Nathanson’s lead:

“Think June and Ward Cleaver with a soapbox and a megaphone.”

Good lead. It tells us this is going to be a profile, basically, a friendly profile.

[Read more →]

→ 1 CommentTags:·····

National vs. Local

February 15th, 2016 · budget policy, Congress, Fact Check, journalism, Washington

By Arthur Alpert

About a week go I bumped into a former Albuquerque Journal reporter who said – I paraphrase – we’re essentially on target in our critiques of the daily but I write too often on national and global stories, not enough about the daily’s local coverage.

My reaction to the “on target” was to exhale. The endorsement was welcome because I’m always fearful of getting it wrong, misunderstanding or in some way being unfair to the Journal.

As for not spending sufficient time on local coverage, well, that ex-Journal staffer is correct. I plead guilty, Your Honor, and will try to improve, but may I explain?

My explanation may not get me of the hook, but it should give readers a better idea of how I approach the job.

You see, Your Honor, it’s easier to demonstrate how the Journal substitutes politicking for journalism when the topics are national or international. That’s because the editors can skew the news to fit management’s agenda without ever talking to a staffer.

There’s zero need to deal with the professional reporters and columnists on staff when the issue is what wire copy will run, what stories, analyses and opinions on happenings in Washington, the nation and around the world

Editors can and do discard wire copy on their own. And as I’ve often tried to demonstrate, they throw out what doesn’t fit the party line.

(Example: search the Journal website for a story on what the Iranians gave up in the nuke deal and, please, let me know what you find. Me, I found one glancing reference. One.)

Editors can and do chose what wire copy to publish on their own, then edit it on their own (I almost wrote, “fiddle” with it) and headline it on their own.

That is why the Journal’s politics come through so loud and so clear in its coverage (if that’s the word) of national and international affairs. The editors make it conform to the newspapers’ political line with no interference from the staff.
[Read more →]

→ 1 CommentTags:················

Marketing Plutocracy

February 1st, 2016 · budget policy, economy, Fact Check, financial coverage, journalism, social safety net, tax policy

By Arthur Alpert

It may not be much of a newspaper but – credit where credit is due – in its marketing of plutocracy, the Albuquerque Journal is single-minded.

Today, Monday, Feb. 1, there’s Page One box headlined “Bad news for NM permanent funds”. It refers readers to a story in the Business Outlook section, which inspires the lead editorial on A6. They add up to an argument against using public funds to better fund the public schools for fear the state’s permanent funds will be depleted.

The editorial sits next to a Robert Samuelson column chastising the leading candidates for playing “Russian roulette” by ignoring the “economic dangers of excessive debt.”

This, two days after George Will’s latest foray into economics, wherein he urges tax reforms (breaks for corporations) to jump start economic growth by a full percentage point.

And there you have the Journal’s total marketing message. Spending is very bad. Deficits are evil. Economic revival depends on making the rich richer.

This is the plutocrats’ story, with a few caveats. Spending is not bad when it subsidizes mega-enterprises or transfers public money into private hands. Deficits are not evil when they result from gifts to the One Percent, including tax transfers.

The Journal can and should make those arguments in its editorials. Journalism, however, rests on fairness and requires that newspapers present a range of opinion. And it most definitely precludes campaigns like the one I’m describing where the editors deceptively spin news stories, opinion and editorials to promote an agenda.

And spin it is.

Look at that headline on the front-page box. How bad is the news? Well, as I read Kevin Robinson-Avila’s story, not very.

Yes, the funds were down 1.2 percent in 2015 and things could get worse if the economy weakens. But, he writes in paragraph nine, “On the plus side the permanent funds are coming off a prolonged run up in value from the oil boom and from previously robust stock markets that helped drive /up total assets to all-time records.”

This was in his 10th graph:

“Today, the permanent funds are 24 percent higher than before the recession.”

The front-page rubric wasn’t quite right.

As for the editorial, once again the Journal rested its case on the back of John Arthur Smith, the conservative Democrat from Deming. It’s a favorite ploy, using Smith to suggest something’s wise because, look, both parties agree.

The Journal never reports that New Mexico has two conservative political parties. Instead, management promotes the fiction that we can grasp New Mexico politics through the party prism.

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags:··

A Win for Win

January 28th, 2016 · economy, journalism, role of government

By Arthur Alpert

I’ve just finished reading Winthrop Quigley’s thoughtful Thursday, Jan. 28 UpFront column tying New Mexico’s population losses to the state’s failing economy and I still cannot decide if he’s a super journalist or simply very good.

You understand the problem – seen in contrast to what the Journal does day in and out, his work clearly deserves an A+. But it might earn only an A silhouetted against the background of a competent journalistic vehicle.

Just today, the daily gave us another series of stories from Santa Fe with not one mention of the role of money in the annual legislative session. Not one.

Of course, in Albuquerque Journal-world, politics is about what is moral and rational, not about power and definitely not about who is spending what to promote whose interest.

Which makes Quigley look very good.

And then there is the newspaper’s brainless reporting of legislative efforts to “get tough on crime.”

We’ll save for another time comment on the Journal’s outrage at violent crime in the streets and its inability to even make out crime in Wall Street suites. No, let’s just ask:

How often you have read about politicians getting tough on crime?

How often have you noticed crime diminishing as a result of their brave statements?

Or diminishing as a result of laws enacted to punish criminals more severely?

I thought so.

Brainless is the word because getting tough on crime doesn’t work except in authoritarian states.

Yet the Journal front-paged this yesterday, Wednesday:

“Bills get tough on crime, but can we afford them?”

Notice the framing. We can get tough on crime or save money.

This is how Journal editors think.

[Read more →]

→ 2 CommentsTags:···

Chalk This One Up to Incompetence

January 20th, 2016 · journalism, NM Legislature

By Arthur Alpert

Regular readers will remember my references to the veteran New Mexico journalist who cautioned me against finding political motives for all the Albuquerque Journal’s missteps. It’s often youth and inexperience, he said, or amateurism.

I think about that advice often, but sadly, political decisions by the editors are the rule and incompetence, the exceptions that prove it. Not today, though. Today, Wednesday, Jan. 20, a doff of the hat to the Old Pro is in order.

I refer to the big headline over the daily’s Page One story on the Governor’s State of the State speech.

Here’s the rubric:  “Governor: Future of NM at stake in session”.

There’s a second deck or sub-head, too, with which we’ll deal in a moment.

First, about the primary headline, Governor Martinez is correct, of course. The state’s future is at stake. It’s at stake whenever the legislature meets. That’s what they do in the Capitol they debate and enact (or reject) legislation to affect the future. Duh.

So despite the Journal’s partnership with the governor, whoever decided her rhetoric deserved a headline was not doing her any favors.

Next, note that the editor who chose that gubernatorial wordplay preferred it to a conventional rubric based on Dan Boyd’s lead paragraph. Boyd opened by characterizing Gov. Martinez’s tone as “stern.” Then he listed what she wanted from the lawmakers, specifically “tougher criminal penalties,” “bills aimed at job creation” and “demand more than mediocrity” in public schools.

Why the headline writer ignored all that to find inspiration in the jump on page 6, paragraph 15, is beyond me, but I see no political motivation. (Let me know if you do.)

That second deck to which I referred did deal with specifics. It read, “Economy, education, crime and Real ID top priorities for Martinez.”

But this, too, is puzzling. First, Boyd listed the priorities differently. He put crime on top, then devoted the next 11 graphs of the story to the Governor’s anti-crime proposals and reaction from Democratic leaders.

Secondly, Boyd never mentioned Real ID; reporter Deborah Baker dealt with that issue in a sidebar on protests outside the Roundhouse.

My powers of divination are limited. I don’t understand why most of this happened. It looks, however, like routine incompetence and nothing like the work of the Journal’s political commissars.

Chalk this one up as a win for the Old Pro.

→ No CommentsTags:····

Kochtopus Tentacle in [INSERT STATE NAME HERE]

January 19th, 2016 · journalism, Koch brothers

By Arthur Alpert

As an avid follower of politics, it’s my impression the political Left makes too much of the Koch brothers’ efforts to shape the nation. They’re not the only billionaires out to conform the nation to their private interests.

As an avid reader of the Albuquerque Journal for purposes of journalistic criticism, I’m struck by how hard management works to obscure the family’s political role and, simultaneously, provide the Kochs a pulpit from which to preach their doctrines.

Thus does the Journal reveal its political agenda and thus does it make clear it feels no need to confine that agenda to the editorials. Management politics determine – suffuse, saturate, permeate – the news and opinion pages.

William Randolph Hearst would approve.

Case in point – Washington Post reporter Tom Hamburger’s report on “Dark Money”, a new book about the Koch brothers’ impact on the American political system, ran in his paper Jan. 15. Other newspapers and magazines and Web sites also have found newsworthy what New Yorker writer Jane Mayer dug up.

Unsurprisingly, the Albuquerque Journal has not, even as the editors did find deserving of print, Jan. 17, another essay by Paul Gessing, president of the Rio Grande Foundation, an organization that belongs to the Koch political network.

Not incidentally, the editors eschewed the usual boilerplate italics at the bottom of Gessing’s piece, about the RGF’s independence and nonpartisanship.  This contrasted neatly with what they did the next day, Monday the18th, with an essay lauding the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. from Darryl Lorenzo Washington. They gave him this ID:

“Darryl Lorenzo Washington is a poet and critic living in Santa Fe. He wrote this for Progressive Media Project, a source of liberal commentary on domestic and international issues. It is affiliated with the Progressive Magazine. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.”

I approve. Nice to know, to borrow a phrase from younger people, where he’s coming from.

Funny, though, the Journal’s editors don’t do likewise for Gessing or the many other Koch-inspired authors on the Op Ed page. Fairness (if you’ll forgive the word) would suggest Gessing be described as a laissez-faire-ist employed by the Kochs (and other monied interests) to advance their view that big business should dominate government.

Something along those lines, anyway. No need to drag in the historical connections between corporatism and fascism. Just a few facts.

Speaking of fairness, though, I would be remiss if I implied the Journal always hides the source of Koch propaganda. That’s not so.  Sometimes the Kochs step out from behind their front groups, so no cloaking is required.

For example, Mark Holden, General Counsel and Senior VP, Koch Industries, argued under his own name and title that New Mexico should roll back “burdensome occupational licensing regulations” in an Op Ed the Journal ran Dec. 30, 12015.

Ah, but even that admirable forthrightness was accompanied by a slight deception. “What should New Mexico lawmakers’ New Year’s resolutions be?” asked Mr. Holden, addressing us Enchanted folks.

Turns out, Mr. Holden’s message was localized to some 35 newspapers across the country. What we read in New Mexico was what readers from Anchorage to Portland, Maine by way of Charleston read, with only a few words like the name of the state changed, so as to make us think Koch Industries cares. Andy Cush wrote about that at Gawker.com Jan. 13 (“Koch Industries Has a Very Special Personalized Message for [INSERT STATE NAME HERE]“). He also noted that Holden rested his case in part on the “Institute of Justice” without informing us that it is yet another Koch-funded operation.

And so it goes. As the Kochtopus swims, the Albuquerque Journal opts to be a tentacle, political not journalistic.

→ No CommentsTags:········

Christmas Surprises

December 23rd, 2015 · journalism, Koch brothers

By Arthur Alpert

I cannot be trusted. Last time, Dec. 10, in a post where I suggested the Albuquerque Journal has promoted Gov. Martinez into the “sacred cow” status Pete Domenici once occupied, I promised I would deal next with the daily’s “sourness, narrow-mindedness and ban on ideas the richest do not endorse.”

Ah, but it’s almost Christmas.

This is the time of year believers exult at the birth of an innocent Jewish baby, adoring him (as the carol says) even as feelings of love, peace and hope conquer the negativity we deal with the other 11 months. If you can forget the materialist War on Christmas, that is. And since Christmas has become so intertwined with being American, even unbelievers like me partake of the joy.

It was in that spirit that I read the Journal’s Tuesday, Dec. 22 issue, with a front-page story on how climate change could wipe out our piñon and juniper trees within a generation or two.

What struck me was that the author, Mark Oswald of Journal North, assumed climate change, yet the editors published it. On the front page! I re-read it to make certain I hadn’t missed some climate change denier wisdom inserted by the editors but there was none.

What a pleasant Christmas surprise!

[Read more →]

→ 1 CommentTags:······

Old Story: The Journal repackages the “Worst-Run State”

December 10th, 2015 · journalism

By Arthur Alpert

“You know what the problem with the Journal is,” said the guy in the other barber’s chair, a lawyer. “There’s nothing in it.”

That isn’t exactly true, of course. Nor is it fair to the newspaper’s rank-and-file; they try hard to inform us accurately and fairly. But we know what he meant. I’d restate it this way – Journal editors work slavishly to make certain the news and opinion pages carry darn little that questions or contradicts the Journal’s political agenda.

Which means, since reality has a liberal bias, they leave out so much that it sure feels as if  “There’s nothing in it.”

This leads many people, in and out of the barbershop, to call the newspaper “partisan.” OK, sometimes, but that’s a trivial fault compared to what I want to discuss today – the sourness of tone, narrow-mindedness, promotion of a political agenda both oligarchic and neo-conservative to the point of refusing to publish ideas of which the richest and most bellicose disapprove.

When Finley Peter Dunne said newspapers “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted,” he was putting down the muckraking newspapers of his day for self-importance.

No matter how you mean it, that description would not fit the Albuquerque Journal, dedicated to the reverse – plumping the pillows of the comfortable and blaming the afflicted for their afflictions.

Consider Dan Boyd’s Political Notebook Thursday, Dec. 10, on the first page of the Metro section under the rubric:

Gov. disputes group’s ranking of New Mexico as worst-run state”.

Did you know that’s an old story? The report, I mean, from 247WallSt, a respectable source of business and financial news. It was published a week ago, Dec. 3. The Santa Fe New Mexican and other state news organs, print and online, printed it in timely fashion. In fact, by Sunday, Dec. 6, the New Mexican’s Milan Simonich was wrapping that sad ranking into an opinion piece headlined. “Last on the lists, NM needs a shakeup”.

So how come the Journal never touched it? I don’t know. Given, however, the Journal’s inability to stop publishing photos of Governor Martinez reading to school kids or (lately) vowing to be tough on crime, I’ll hazard a guess.

We didn’t get it until today because the Journal has cast Governor Martinez in Pete Domenici’s old role. She’s the new sacred cow.

Ergo, with everybody else having reported this story, what was a Journal editor to do? Easy. Turn the negative on its head. First, hold it ‘til it cools. Next, put the Governor’s rebuttal atop a bare-bones summary of the original in a “Notebook”. Neat. She gets the lead and the headline and, not incidentally, the whole thing is relegated to the Metro section.

Poor readers. Poor journalism. Poor Dan Boyd.

And you know what’s really sad? Faced with that ranking, editors at a real newspaper might assign their best reporters to finding out what’s behind it. Instead of playing politics, they could follow Win Quigley’s lead, exploring what’s wrong, isolating the state’s options and reporting them back to the citizenry.

This is naïve, maybe, but not unheard of. In fact, it’s par for the course at journalistic enterprises. Setting a public interest agenda, I mean, and asking questions instead of expounding management’s views in the news.

But today’s post was supposed to be about the Albuquerque Journal’s sourness, narrow-mindedness and ban on ideas the richest do not endorse. And I went on a walkabout.

Sorry. Next time. I promise.

→ No CommentsTags:······

Economic Mobility and Poverty: Journal’s political agenda overrides the facts

November 30th, 2015 · economy, Fact Check, inequality, journalism, Koch brothers, social safety net

By Arthur Alpert

It is Monday, Nov. 30 and having just finished reading the Albuquerque Journal, I’m shaking my head. It’s more of the same. Political advocacy I mean, disguised as journalism.

Sorry Donald Trump, the daily’s editors don’t want you to be the GOP nominee. Sorry, Hillary Clinton, judging from today’s double-barreled assault (yet another Op Ed column on your political handicaps and no account of your new jobs-and- infrastructure plan), the editors fear you more.

Also, the Journal’s passionate friendship with the Koch brothers continues apace with another un-credited contribution from their political network. Jay Ambrose’s Op Ed column argues it’s unwise to tax Corporate America, which you might evaluate differently if you knew he’s tied into the Independence Institute, funded by the Kochs. That, however, isn’t how the Journal identifies him.

But it isn’t news that the Journal advocates via its decisions on what news and views to publish, which to reject and a broad repertoire of deceptive techniques, all of which we’ve documented here.

What would be novel and what I’ve never fully grasped is to learn what lies behind the Journal’s journalistic malfeasance, the deeper assumptions that (I suspect) blind management to its personal and institutional responsibilities.

So it was with great pleasure that I read the UpFront column by Dan Herrera, editorial page editor, Friday, Nov. 6, wherein he revealed some of the bedrock beneath the editors’ decisions.

(In response, a few New Mexicans offered up-from-poverty stories Friday, Nov. 20 and Veronica Garcia of New Mexico Voices for Children rebutted Herrera in an Op Ed, Wednesday, Nov. 25.)

[Read more →]

→ 3 CommentsTags:·······