It seems almost passé to blame the educational system for all of our woes. But in the discussion as to why we as adults make poor decisions when it comes to choosing media, we must first ask ourselves how we got to this point in the first place.

It should be safe to say that a child has no inherent system built into them that causes them to choose certain media sources and stories over another – youth are a blank slate. A youth is affected by the culture that surrounds them and one of the billion traits that youth will carry through to adulthood is what to value in media.

Youth learn from two main sources: their parents and the schools. As I have already discussed how we as adults are to blame for bad media decisions, it is time to move on to the schools – and more specifically, school funding and policy.

Let us first begin with civics education.  Nationally, the feds only spend about 50 cents per student on civics education during the year. Obviously the majority of civics education funding falls to the states. In an era of tightening budgets, however, it is difficult for any particular topic to get the funding it so desperately needs.  Topics not seen as beneficial to creating a workforce (i.e. civics, art, history, etc.) often receive the harshest blows when budgets get tightened – when money is sent back to the schools, legislative fiat often states that the money is to replenish the “important” topics like the three “R’s.”

But why is civics education so important in the first place – surely you could go your entire life and not need to know how a bill becomes a law or what the three branches of government are. But, in that same breath, we should say that someone could go their entire life not knowing how to read, understand algebra, or know how to write; but I would argue that to go though life in this way puts an individual at a great disadvantage.  When people don’t understand the basics of what it is to be a citizen, policy makers can easily pass laws and policies that directly affect individuals, leaving those poor souls powerless to fight back.

Let us throw in the second aspect of the education system: students increasingly are taught for the test rather than taught to learn.

Currently, the model for education funding is to give more money to successful schools and less to those that are failing with the rationale being schools and school districts will focus on results.  This is good in theory, but the practice of such a policy can be devastating to the quantity and quality of a students education.

Because teachers have only so much time and so many resources at their disposal, they are forced to teach just enough to a student to ensure that they are able to pass the state sponsored test at the end of the year – any extra education a child receives is considered gravy.  Why? Because if teachers actually spend time exploring the educational needs of each student, there is a greater likelihood that the student, though possessing more knowledge and wisdom, will score lower on a standardized test.  Lower test scores mean lower funding, and suddenly teachers are forced to do even more with even less.

This hyper competitive form of education policy culminated with the passage of No Child Left Behind back in 2001, but in reality policy makers have been drifting towards this policy for many, many years.

Greater emphasis on results creates students that are fact heavy and theory light; students know what to learn, but don’t know how to find knowledge unless it is presented to them.  In today’s educational climate critical thinking is far less important that regurgitation. Students may know when the Louisiana purchase took place,  they may know who the key players were, and they may even know why it was important – but the knowledge is compartmentalized and students can’t necessarily piece the information together into a cohesive narrative; if a piece of information is forgotten, the rest of the knowledge associated with it falls apart too. It is not that critical thinking is discouraged, it is that it is not encouraged.

Actually, the third problem with the education system is that critical thinking was never encouraged. It is fully acknowledged that the education system is designed to create workers. The bell system, the regimented tasks that take place at certain times, the sometimes arbitrary rules and respect for authority, were put into the public school system to ensure that children can transition into the workforce.  Sometimes this is very overt and obvious, other times I doubt anyone even considered the similarities.   Now, I am not saying that this is a bad thing, indeed if we are not preparing our youth to hold jobs, what can our future really look like? But by using a model that has not adapted since the industrial revolution, we are subconsciously creating adults that are tuned to simply go through the rat race rather than question why they are going through the motions.

So, what does all this have to do with poor media choices? Well if you will allow me the slight turn of phrase – think about it. If our educational system is spitting out students who don’t have critical thinking skills and don’t know how to properly seek out information, what chance do they really have at investigating articles that pose complex thoughts and ideas? It is far easier for the adults that come out of this system to simply sit back and listen to an echo chamber that neatly packages information and presents it in test format.

Put on top of this the fact that most don’t understand basic civics and it is easy for one particular mindset to dominate in the eye of the consumer – a lack of knowledge allows media to fill in the gaps and ignore other important aspects of a political or civic debate.  This simplification and lack of information are why we have what I like to call “bumper sticker politics” where an entire political issue or philosophy can be distilled down to a 10 second soundbite or fit on the back of a bumper sticker.

Of course what happens the majority of the time is that people are turned off by even the most simple of political and social debates, opting instead for media that makes them feel good; media where the consumer knows the answer by knowing how to react to a story. Why would individuals invest time and energy into learning a very complex process that is difficult to understand and does not relate to your life (until you actually understand just how much it actually does)?

The problems with the education system are a reflection of the problems within society.  We don’t want to encourage critical thinking because critical thinking requires effort. Public school teaches us just what we need to know, not necessarily why we need to know it.  These bad habits carry on to adulthood and one symptom of this baggage is are the poor media decisions we often make.

Click here to read Part I: The Consumers

Click Here to read Part II: The Media and the 24 Hour News Cycle

Click here to read Part III: The Death of the Fairness Doctrine

Up next: Why bother with hard news at all?

Previously, I discussed the role the average consumer plays in the creation of bad news, stating that, basically, consumers vote with their feet and that their actions are the reason why interesting (but non-impacting) stories are popular.  Today, I will focus my attention to the other side of the coin and examine the role the media and the 24 hour news cycle has on the creation of poor media decisions.

First, though, we need to ask why we are targeting the media in the first place and what news really is. News of any sort is information meant for public consumption – be it fluff pieces, or hard hitting expose’s. Until very recently, news also came from specific sources that we like to classify as “traditional media” or media that comes from professional journalists. The key word here is professional – implying that someone is paid to collect raw information and put it into a narrative that can be consumed by the public.

Yes, this means that, at its heart, the news media (just like any other private company) is interested in profit, and unprofitable news organizations are soon out of business.  I will not put a value judgement on this, and I encourage the reader to do the same; but it is important to recognize this fact as we continue on.

Information is a powerful tool, it always has been and it always will be. Therefore the source of information can be powerful indeed. During the enlightenment, people came to realize that having only a few information sources (namely the state or the church) was a bad thing. Centralized information meant that it was easy to distort, lie about, or completely ignore events that were not favorable to the narrative the central source wanted to portray.  The democratization and decentralization of information was a great step forward in overall truth, and it is one of the principal reasons why the founders of this country wanted to ensure that media was free and open. Indeed, one of the staples of a modern democracy is a free press that can succeed or fail regardless of the state.

This brings us to the next fact about news – a well informed public is required for our government to work. Because of this fact, the media has often been called the fourth estate of government, providing a check and balance to the executive, legislative, and judicial branch. Because of this monicker, the media has a responsibility to report the events that are important, but not necessarily the most sexy.

Now, before I dive head first into what I am going to say next, I want to make it very clear that there are many good reporters out there who do work tirelessly to ensure that the public is informed of the world around them.  These reporters, I suspect, write for the same reasons most good amateur reporters (read bloggers) do – because they have a passion to inform, make people think, and provide people with the tools they need to navigate the world around them. Indeed, I respect many reporters both locally and nationally for not only the quality of their work, but the passion it takes to write it.

But the best reporters can still work for bad organizations, and these bad media companies are creating a serious problem when it comes to the creation of media that is worth consuming.

A bad editorial board will make good writers look bad because a bad editorial board will place a greater emphasis on placing sensational stories into the news that are high in entertainment value and low in societal value.Why? Because having the juicy details on a murder case or chasing after the next scandal sells.

But when does an editorial board go too far and degrade the system? As I said before, I don’t think it is a good or a bad thing that media is a profit seeking endeavor.  But I will now expand to say that a media outlet that is more focused on making a profit rather then truly informing is a bad thing. Companies should absolutely do what they can to stay in business and thrive – and that generally means that media outlets  need to have a sort of ratio between heartwarming and hard hitting stories.  I don’t have a scientific model, but I will say that we all know when that ratio has been exceeded.  At its most extreme you have the National Enquirer, but all papers fall on a continuum.  But, even if a news outlet is far from the extreme, many people can still tell when a paper is mostly junk designed more to sell adds than inform.

Think about it, we all have negative words associated with this type of media: Morning Zoo’s, Shock Jocks, Rags, Trash TV, and Junk Mail are all forms of media that are designed more for profit and less for information.  When this media model is used, bad things can happen.

This can be evidenced by the recent downfall of the News Of The World.  After a run of nearly 170 years the paper fell because reporters and editorial boards were so focused on selling papers and less on providing information that they tapped into the cell phone records of murder victims – not celebrities or politicians (though this is just as bad), but everyday people. The desire to make a profit was so extreme that an institution consumed itself. In short, there are many in the media who are more concerned about making money than they are about informing the public.

Lets talk more about the picking and choosing of stories. Certainly there is no way for any media outlet to report every single news story that exists in the world, or the nation, or the state, or even in a particular community. But we must focus back on the ratio I stated above and how the potential desire for greed can cause legitimate news to either be distorted, downplayed, or out and out ignored.

Because not every story can be reported on, it is natural to pick the stories you think your consumers would like and then report on them.  But the profit motive also means that, not only do you have a responsibility to the by way of the fourth estate, suddenly you have to worry about advertisers – indeed, the principal reason Glenn Beck is off the air is because his advertisers abandoned him, not because he was necessarily too radical for his audience. If we take it a few steps back, suddenly we see that advertising (and more specifically consumerism) means that there can be a conflict of interest between a media outlet and the companies they receive their funding from.  As the saying goes, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

The result of this hard fact is that some stories are purposefully not reported; serious events could be taking place, but because no one wants to be out of a job, it is quite easy to turn the other cheek.  On the flip side, the potential for disinformation is far larger when this model is used. As an example, look at companies that damage the environment but also have influence on the media – stories are downplayed as much as possible and clever wordsmithing is used to either divert attention away from the event.  With the BP oil spill we saw this very event, where reporters were not allowed to get up close and when the media was able to report, numbers were severely underestimated.

So we have editorial boards that place too great an emphasis on feel good stories because they, like every business, want to make a profit.  Because they want to make a profit they attempt to make their advertisers happy.  But out of this self interest, we point our eyes towards the third reason why the media has been created the poor media environment we see today: The 24 hour news cycle.

Now the reason the 24 hour news cycle has created the poor quality of our media is due to the fact that the 24 news cycle requires news to work.  But, because you need to attract and retain consumers, you also have to work with the market forces I have discussed above, meaning that you need to entertain as well as inform. Because of this, only a certain amount of information can be reported in any given day that consumers will enjoy – to much hard hitting news and viewers turn off. So we need to create programs that claim to report news but consistently deliver fluff. We all know them: Nancy Grace, Sean Hannity, Ed Schwartz, Rush Limbaugh, the list goes on and on. Yes, information may be conveyed, but the focus, when you get right down to it, is entertainment.

But, you can’t be all fluff and still call yourself a news outlet. The problem, however, is that on any average day, there simply is not 24 hours (or 12, or 6) worth of news that consumers will reasonably report on.  If there were, news programs would not repeat themselves over and over again during the course of the day and so called “infotainment” shows would take up only a small portion of the total broadcast. It would not be necessary to have breaking news every thirty minutes to capture your attention, rather the news would be worth your attention.

But we are not confined simply to television and radio, with the advent of online media, print media too has to have breaking sections in order to ensure that readers click to their website – sensational headlines rule in a world where substance lacks.

And this is the final reason why the media are to blame for the downfall of quality media.  Legitimate information has been cheapened because it has been buried under mounds of garbage. The unnecessarily fast pace of media has combined with the deafening  noise of irrelevance to create a cacophony of non-applicable information that is designed to elicit emotion rather than debate.  It is now more difficult than ever to discover what information is important because it is mixed in with so much chaff. Indeed, the news programs and papers many respect today are limited to an hour, perhaps two, in order to focus attention on what matters most – in print, the stories that grace the front page are ones of importance – and the reporters ensure that they do a quality job, without sensationalism.

So, the media are responsible for the degradation of our news because of greed. This greed also means that editorial boards fear reprisal from advertisers.  Finally, in search for more eyeballs, the media constantly broadcasts – numbing people to the news and making it more difficult to discern what is truly important from what seems important right now.

I am not going to pretend that the news was perfect up until now. The stories of corruption, manipulation, and fluff go back as far as journalism itself, but what is different is that, in today’s world, there are so many opportunities to report things of worth. Furthermore, our greatly connected society means that now, more than ever, it is important to hear the stories of value as events around the globe and in our own back yard truly do affect our lives.  Finally, we all need to recognize that information is truly a commodity, one that can empower us to do great things.

We need to demand more from our media providers, because we simply can not function without quality information.

Click Here to Read Part I: The Consumers

Up Next: The Fairness Doctrine with guest blogger Dylan McDonnell

On Saturday night, I had the misfortune to be a little under the weather.  This caused me to be online and have a great conversation with BiRZ contributor Dylan McDonnell. During our conversation, he jokingly linked to an article titled “The Gospel according to Jack Sparrow;” soon after he linked to”Army amputee thrown from NY roller coaster, dies.” After clicking on the respective links, I noticed that both stories were from the Deseret News.

A bit surprised to hear that he was digging around the Deseret News’ website, I wondered why he was seeking out these stories – his answer was simple: they were the third and seventh most popular stories for the day. Curious I dug deeper and found that four of the top ten stories the Deseret News was featuring that night had to do with religion (three in a very roundabout way), three had to do with sports, two were gruesome crime stories, and one was a gruesome accident story.  Wondering if this was just a symptom of looking at a newspapers online front page, I hopped over to the Salt Lake Tribune to see what their ten most popular stories were. In my opinion their readers did a better job: one was business related, four were political, but two were human interest stories, two were gruesome accident stories, and one was a sports story.

Now, I want to make it clear that there is not anything wrong with reading any of the various types of stories I have complained about above, however I firmly believe that it is a disturbing fact that, between the two websites only a few of the most popular articles actually provided the readers with information that may be of actual use to the reader.

I understand that I make such a statement at my own peril. Many people may say that the articles listed above really do have an impact on the readers life, and I dare say that, for a select few, some of those stories really do. But a reasonable person would say that the majority of the articles listed above did not make even the slightest impact on or civil society, nor did it make an impact on the thoughts and actions of any random selection individuals. In short, I would bet that a reasonable person would classify the majority of the most popular articles as “fluff.”

And it’s not surprising that this really is the case.  We as people like our candy and french fries far more than our salads and whole grain wheat bread. Why? Because it tastes better – makes you get a warm fuzzy feeling, and it comforts you. In much the same way our media choices are the same way.

We want the fluff piece about a fictional sea captain’s dogma or how a number really fits an athlete.  We secretly enjoy the violence associated with a traffic accident, hoping to see mangled wreckage while publicly saying that we hope the person is okay. We rejoice at the foibles of a celebrity while secretly wishing we were them – and we get angered at this years “trial of the century” because we are told that if we don’t pay attention, we don’t care about the lives lost (even though, in reality, the only reason we may focus on the case in the first place is because of the drama that surrounds it).

We want the fluff pieces because they are easy to digest.  Right and wrong are clear and we know how we are supposed to react when we hear the news. No critical thought is required to dig deeper to find out the issues at hand.  No need to ask of the complex and subtle series of events that created the situation being reported, nope, we can just sit back and provide simple one word responses to articles. Someone die in a car accident? That’s sad. Person found not guilty? That’s outrageous! Household cleaners may kill me? That’s scary! New tech product coming out? That’s cool.

The reason these stories are popular is because we allow them to be popular.  We like the idea of not having to think because, if we do think, we will soon have an opinion; if we have an opinion, we will soon have to defend that opinion; once we defend that opinion, we soon are not part of a particular group.

And that is at the heart of this problem – we are social creatures. The easy news stories allow us to live under the guise of being informed without forcing us to step outside the group and really question what is going on.  If we all have the same opinions about the same things we don’t have to think about the true problems that may exist and can cast those aside that do feel that something is wrong while labeling them “outsiders.” It is not popular to think that something may be wrong with the group you subscribe to, and it certainly isn’t popular to actively question this assumption. By continually seeking out fluff pieces that make us feel good about us and the world around us, we can deny the reality of the situation we face.

But it isn’t just fluff that this applies to.  Consumers also suffer from not truly wanting to be informed of media that does not fit with their world view. Most people receive information from one or two media outlets; this is understandable for two reasons: 1) most people simply don’t have the time to seek out multiple sources, and 2) we trust that the media sources are truly fair.  In my opinion the second assumption is far worse.

Because consumers only have time to consume a finite amount of media, they seek out sources that match their world view – having nearly unlimited access these days means that a consumer can easily find media that agrees with them. As more time passes and as more stories are unchallenged, consumers feel that the media source they go to is inherently unbiased – even though the initial decision to seek that particular brand of media was based on an inherently biased decision. By finding a media source that matches their unknown biases, they are unknowingly consuming biased media.  By assuming that media sources are fair, and not seeking out alternative viewpoints, the consumer quickly falls into a trap of misinformation.

There is an old saying: “vote with your feet.” Consumers have consistently told providers of media that they want fluffy, feel good news stories that don’t challenge the status quo or advance the debate. The result is that we have top ten stories that are high in entertainment value and low in societal value.

But there is more to the story.  As you can see, this is just one part of a series on the topic. Part II will focus on the media and the 24 hour news cycle while Part III will focus on the fairness doctrine (a feature produced by McDonnell). Part IV will focus on the relationship between poor education policies while Part V will ask why we have any hard news at all. Finally Part VI provide a wrap up and summary. Stay tuned folks, and please feel free to comment!

Click Here to Read Part II: The Media and the 24 News Cycle

Last Tuesday it was announced that West Vally City Mayor, Mike Winder will be a regular contributor to the Deseret News’ online, local news oriented, feature “Deseret Connect.” Since then, Mayor Winder and the Deseret News have successfully reopened the debate regarding how close is too close when it comes to having politicians involved in the news cycle.

Let us start by discussing what this is not.  This is not a state takeover of a media outlet – but in the same breath it is also not a politician simply wishing to communicate with their constituents through another means.

I hold sacred the idea  that the media is the so called “fourth estate” in our electoral process. Providing a check and balance to the three main forms of government we learned about in 8th grade civics class. The role of the media is to question if the decisions of the legislative, executive, or judicial branch are sound – not if they should have a corner office or just a cubicle to write from.

We should not forget that politicians are regularly allowed to participate in the media through opinion pieces. These articles often are given more weight that regular letters to the editor and are segregated in newspapers to emphasize their importance. This higher standard is fair, if only because politicians are naturally regarded as experts in the field of municipal affairs.  It is not as if decision makers are left out of the media, it is just that they do not receive an additional platform to politic from.

In a very short press release from Salt Lake County Chair Mary Bishop, the county party hinted at the true nature of the problem, but fell short at hitting the mark. In it Bishop states that “It truly defies fairness for a candidate for public office to be granted such a stage from which to trumpet himself,” and “if Mayor Winder wishes to use the conveniences of the internet to reach his constituents and other interested parties, he can easily do so using a blog on the West Valley City website.”

Bishop is correct in saying that it is unfair to give one elected official more clout than any other in a major publication, but she falls short in placing the blame squarely where it needs to go: on the Deseret News.

Although I doubt the Deseret News had any sort of nefarious motives when they chose to bring on Winder as a contributor, they did show an astounding lack of respect for journalistic integrity by doing so. In an effort to add to their business by beefing up their local news coverage, they ignored the idea that integrity should be upheld and bias should be removed whenever possible.

Bishop is right when she says that this provides Winder an unfair platform – but it is not unfair towards Winder, it is unfair towards the public who may not be able to decipher the difference between actual news and political opinion. Deseret News Managing Editor Rick Hall feels that by simply labeling  a news article in slightly bold print at the top of an article as coming from the mayor, people will automatically be able to decipher what follows as an opinion piece. This line of thinking is a dangerous one to go down because it implies that the Deseret News has no qualms about where stories and sources come from.

The role of the news is to educate, and education implies ignorance on certain topics. In this case it is not the role of the news to educate the public on this topic or that, but to educate the public on the news itself. By attempting to downplay and brush off the  potential violation of public trust, the Deseret News has said that it has put profit before journalistic integrity.

Winder did what he did because not only does he have a passion for his city, but also because it is in his best interest to continue putting his name forward as he attempts to run for County Mayor. The problem is that the Deseret News did what it did because it has lost its way on how proper reporting should work.

Even if Winder never touches a story that has to do with himself or his administration, there will now be the cloud hanging over the newsroom that he has input in the editorial process. His mere presence casts doubt on the Deseret News’ ability to accurately report, and  that alone should have been reason enough not to invite him to the table.

As I told you last Friday, I appeared as a guest to debate the actions of protesters in our nations capitol. If you missed it, you can replay the show by following clicking here and pushing the play button.

Overall, I thought it was a good discussion with many good points presented. Listen for yourself and tell me what you think.

Remember when I did a little post about Protesting Gone Awry? Well I have been invited to a discussion with Deb Henry to have a discussion on the events that took place as well as the tactics involved.

The program starts at 6:00, and I will be on the air at 6:30.

Listen tonight at KRCL FM 90.9 – podcast will also be available after airing or you can stream online.

Senator Stewart Reid (R – Ogden, District 18) just doesn’t seem to get it as he continually chooses to stand by his yea vote on HB 477 and his nay vote on HB 1001 to repeal the draconian GRAMA (Government Records Access Management Act) law.

In yesterdays Salt Lake Tribune, Reid said 477 should have stayed in place, asking the hypothetical question “What if my wife texts and asks me at 3 o’clock to rendezvous with her?” And went on to say “Some government official gets to read that text.”

Reid and his ilk continue to labor under the false impression that GRAMA requests allow citizens and the media to have full and open access every single document transmitted over any means whatsoever.

The simple fact is that GRAMA requests need to be somewhat specific, otherwise those in government charged with fulfilling the request won’t have a place to even start. For a request to be effective, requests have to be given a frame.

And what of these so called “fishing” expeditions. The few pro-477 legislators point to one GRAMA request that took 290 hours and resulted in no newspaper article or citizen action. They claim that this is proof that people abuse the system, but they have failed to actually state what the request was for. Having poured over many documents from my own GRAMA requests, it is safe to say that sometimes you can’t find anything worth reporting – even if you really want to. It is quite possible that an individual, despite extreme tenacity, simply could not find enough evidence to make a case – that lawmakers actually did act in the best interest of the public (a novel concept, I will grant you, but possible none the less).

But let us suppose the request truly is an attempt to find embarrassing information – the so called “midnight text.” The answer to preventing people from finding these texts should come from the law-makers themselves, rather than clamping down on the citizens.

Anyone with any sense of the employee-employer relationship knows that you do not use company resources for personal matters; furthermore, you should know that if you do send an email over official channels, you have no right to expect privacy. Why do lawmakers – whom we employ, mind you – feel that they are somehow exempt from this basic rule? Personal matters should take place only through personal channels, and if you, either through ignorance or arrogance, choose to ignore this, don’t expect privacy.

But this isn’t enough, lawmakers should expect that if personal devises are used for the peoples business, those particular records should be made available as well. This does not mean that a GRAMA request can demand your entire hard drive, what it does mean is that if you respond to a constituent email from a home computer, you just did the peoples business, and we have a right to know your opinion on any particular matter. If the “personal” avenue is protected, lawmakers could simply tell special-interest leaders to email or text on a personal account or phone, pushing potential corruption to an even deeper level.

Lawmakers, naturally, are the most concerned about GRAMA laws and complain that their 4th Amendment right is at jeopardy; but, as Michael Williams, former Utah Supreme Court justice points out in the same Trib article, lawmakers give up some of their rights by choosing to be a public servant – it is simply part of the job. In essence, there ability to effect the public good outweighs their private right to some (but certainly not all) rights. Though it may be an extreme parallel, felons, due to  the decisions hey have made, give up some (but not all) of their rights as well.

Reid also wants to paint a picture that GRAMA requests will put a chilling effect on peoples desire to communicate with their legislators. This I find to be a very weak argument, if only because if a citizen is willing to write a legislator, it is probably because they are passionate about an issue and want to make sure their representative votes a certain way. Even if a person does not want their information published, a request to vote a certain way (and the reasons to do so) are far different from those that a GRAMA request would look for. I don’t care if Jon Q. Public thinks you should vote a certain way, I only care if Mr. Public says that you should vote a certain way and bribes or blackmails you to do so. There is a sort of de facto protection of the citizens right to contact lawmakers because a simple “I think you should vote this way” does not make for a very interesting story.

But lets suppose I am wrong. The evil main-stream media really is out to harass a law maker for no reason other than they just don’t like them. How do we address this legitimate concern?

Well, that is what the GRAMA work-group is hashing out right now. In my own opinion a few reasonable updates should be put into place:

1. Require that all electronic communications between legislators and registered lobbyists take place through a traceable and archived system, be it text, email, instant message, or other recordable digital communication (you will note that this would, most likely, still exclude phone calls and says nothing about face-to-face communication). These electronic communications should only be accessible to lawmakers and lobbyists,  unless a proper GRAMA request is made.
2. Create a formal Ombudsman for the citizens of Utah to act as an intermediary. A list of no less than five people should be generated and agreed upon by the Governor, the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House and the House Minority Leader, and the President of the Senate as well as the Minority Leader. One Ombudsman should then be elected into office with a term of no more than four years and given a term limit of two terms. This Ombudsman should be independent and charged with defining what is truly private communication requests. There should also be a process to overturn the Ombudsman’s decisions.
3. Make it clear to lawmakers that ownership of an electronic device is immaterial in regards to any public communication.
4. Lawmakers should make clear, upon first communication, that their conversation could be public in nature with added rights given to individuals who are initially, and legitimately, unaware of this possibility.

Reid ends the article with the rather aggressive statement that “(t)here is no interest on the media’s part to protect privacy of legislators and their constituents.” Reid is only half right, and proves that he has no respect for the additional check and balance the fourth estate provides. You see, if the media always respected the right to privacy at a level Reid and his cronies would like, the media would no longer be doing its job. The media must probe, and it should not always play nice. To do so would mean that it is no longer serving the interest of the public, it is only by way of the open exchange of ideas – no matter how embarrassing, misguided, or downright deceitful – that our democracy is able to function. One you are operating in the public realm, you have to accept the fact that the public is able to criticize and question it.

AP Photo/Jim Urquhart

So, rather than talk about the protest that took place and if was effective way to improve relations or awareness, I would like to draw your attention to an interesting little tidbit.

Last night I noticed that Channel 2,4, and 13 stated that there were upwards of 4,500 protesters who “circled Temple Square” and Channel 4 said they circled it twice. Organizers stated that it was three and a half times. Ok, impressive, but I found it interesting that KSL trotted out Carole Mikita who stated that there was around 600 protesters.

Hrm, quite the difference there… As an added note, for the two of you who don’t know, KSL is owned by the LDS church, the target of the protests.

So who is correct?

Assuming news outlets mean the area from State to West Temple and from North to South Temple, to circle Temple Square, you would need to travel 4400 feet (thank you Google Earth). Assuming that some people sat while others laid down, it is safe to say that the average person took up 5 feet. 4400/5 = 880. Double that and you have 1,760. At the high end, 3 1/2 “circles” would equal 3080 protesters.

The picture above shows multiple people, however, in the same “spot” – a trend probably repeated around Temple Square. But we can also assume that organizers will probably over estimate, so a number of 2,000 - 3,000 protesters is probably close to accurate. Still very impressive but not quite as high as they stated.

But 2,000 is a long way away from 600, even for the worst of estimators. Now I am not saying that KSL didn’t do an accurate job of reporting, I am saying that KSL out and out lied to downplay the protest.

Shame on KSL. They have a commitment as newscasters to report the news as accurately as possible and they violated the public trust for private interests. I know why they did it, but their position of influence places them in a special position, a position the organizers simply don’t hold. I admit that the protest organizers likely overestimated by 1,500 while KSL underestimated by the same amount, but, again, their position as a news source puts their error in a different classification.

For what it is worth, the Tribune stated that there were “thousands” of protesters and the AP quoted the police as stating there were ”roughly 1,000″ protesters, but cited the 4,500 number as well.

As is my tradition, I present to you my upcoming article, called Smart Ass,  for the Young Democrats of Utah’s newsletter…ENJOY!

—

It is that time of year again, you know the one, where the news media will rightfully report the shocking heat wave, rising gas prices, and (one can only hope) single shark attack that will mark the official start of sharkmageddon 2010.

I, for one, welcome the change of pace. Though I am still concerned about the size of Kim Kardashian’s butt and which common household item could kill me if applied to the ear – but that is neither here nor there; what is really important is that the news media will still report the issues that matter most.

Never mind the immigration debate or the environmental disasters taking place in Alaska and the Gulf Coast.  I know it is a bit of a downer to think about how instability in the Middle East may lead to higher energy prices or how domestic terrorism is on the rise. No, no, don’t burden me news media with issues that might actually affect me and my family.

Although, to be fair, I will admit that when news programs talk about these issues, they do a bang-up job of showing flashy graphics and yelling at people who have different view points from those approved by the network.  That does provide some level of entertainment but, come on, SHARKMAGEDDON!

Aw, who am I kidding – I don’t want to watch the news in the first place, TLC has a show about little people who bake cakes and were attacked by killer bees. Now that’s news!