Why all the Hate? Fox News and the Main Stream Media.

I find it strange that so many on the left seem obsessed with Fox News.  The hatred toward Fox News and Fox News viewers seems disproportionate to Fox News' actual public influence.  This causes me to wonder why is there so much political and media pressure to marginalize Fox News?  Doesn't anyone believe in freedom of speech anymore?  Who cares if Fox is right or wrong?  Who cares if they are a right-wing propaganda tool?  Doesn't the right-wing have a right to free speech?  Why all the hate?

I don't have an answer to this, but I'd like to suggest that in the larger of scheme of things Fox News is a relatively small voice in the world of media.  Let's consider the most recent Nielsen ratings as a basis for thinking about the influence of the national media.  Fox News daytime viewers amounted to about 2.56 million, while it's peak show, Bill O'Reilly, garnered about 4.72 million viewers.  The next highest Fox News show, Glenn Beck, attracted about half that number, with 2.36 million daily fans.  Keep in mind that both Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are political commentary shows, not news reporting programs.

Compare these Fox News numbers to the mainstream broadcast news numbers.  NBC Nightly News had about 7.55 million viewers in the same time period.  ABC World News tonight and CBS Evening News both attracted 6.64 and 5.09 million viewers respectively.  If one adds MSNBC (890,000), CNN (540,000), Headline News (480,000), and CNBC (90,000), the total combined viewership for all the dominant media outlets equaled about 21.28 million viewers compared to Fox News' paltry 4.72 million for its peak show, again, which is a news and political commentary show, not a straight news program.  If we consider this, and compare Bill O'Reilly to a program like 60 Minutes, which garners an average of 13 million viewers, we can see that Fox News still doesn't have near the influence of mainstream media sources.  

Now compare these numbers to, let's say, American Idol  or the last Super Bowl.  American Idol's average audience on Tuesday nights reached nearly 23 million viewers.  Super Bowl XLIV, which occurred on February 7, 2010, attracted a staggering 98.7 million viewers, which is more than 20 times the number of viewers than Bill O'Reilly.  In fact, every single one of the top 25 non-news television programs, whether broadcast or cable, trounced Fox News viewership, ranging from over 10 million to nearly 20 million viewers on average. 

So, why all the obsession on the left and in the mainstream media with Fox News?  Clearly, Fox News has some influence upon public opinion, but they don't reach nearly the number that other news agencies do.  Why try to marginalize, perhaps even silence, Fox News?  Don't politically right-leaning people deserve to have their view of the world represented in the media?  Okay, many in the political center and left believe that Fox News is presenting an incorrect and unfair view of the world and political activities.  But that's because the left and the right disagree over the facts.  They don't trust one another, and take sometimes opposite views on the same subjects.  But does that mean that Fox News should be silenced?  Because Fox News has a political position, or more accurately a different political position, does that mean Fox News doesn't have a right to free speech? 

I'm not trying to suggest that one should give Fox News time or consideration.  I'm simply wondering why there is so much animosity toward a relatively small voice in the larger scheme of public opinion.  Yes, they are influential in some circles, especially among Republicans.  However, could it be that Fox News is attracting more and more politically independent viewers?  Could this be the main reason why so many on the left and even in the mainstream media are attacking Fox News more often?  Could this concentrated, perhaps even coordinated, effort to marginalize Fox News in the sphere of public opinion really be about political power? 

For all the feigned outrage against the "right wing" bias of Fox News, perhaps what's really going on is fear that conservative views might gain a larger share of public opinion.  Perhaps it is not that Fox News is not "fair and balanced," but that the views promoted by Fox News undercut the political and social influence of the left and the left-of-center.  On the other hand, perhaps it is little more than concern over market share!  Who knows?  No one tracks this kind of stuff.  But for me, when it comes to claims from the left that Fox News is a political tool of the right wing, the complaint sounds more like that famous sarcastic line in Casablanca:  "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"        

-- David Adcock, Managing Editor

Expansion of Executive Power

Many Americans are concerned by the direction our political leaders are taking our country. This is not merely a recent concern. During the eight years of the Bush administration the growth of federal spending, two wars, and the doubling of the federal debt created dissatisfaction among many of us. Then came President Obama and the aggressive agenda of a Democratic controlled congress. Federal spending exploded and the growth of the budget deficit threatens to bankrupt America. However, while America faces great fiscal problems, another danger has been growing, and its consequences risk tyranny greater than any we have faced since our nation's founding. This danger is the growth of executive power.

By executive power, I mean the power of the executive branch of our federal government. Since the election of President Barak Obama, this expansion seems to have exploded, even though President Bush garnered a great deal of power under the guise of national security. I'm not suggesting that President Obama is any different from our last several presidents, per se. I think this growth of executive power has been occuring for quite some time. Still, I am concerned by the breadth of power that the executive branch has been accumulating since President Obama came to office, especially with the federal takeover of companies like AIG, Citibank, GM and Chrysler, as well as with such recent legislative monstrosities as the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" and the "Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010."

The federal government now owns or controls several of the largest financial institutions in the U.S. (e.g., AIG), as well as the second largest car manufacturer in the world (GM). With the new health reform and financial reform laws, the executive branch effectively controls a large part of the means of production for the U.S. economy. Whether this is good or bad depends on one's point of view. But should we really be comfortable giving the executive branch so much power?

Let's just consider the recent financial reform bill that made its way into law. Indeed, I am surprised that few are paying attention to the dangers in this bill. First, every member of the oversight council (the main financial oversight body established by the new law) is appointed directly by the President of the U.S. Moreover, the head of this council is the Secretary of the Treasury, who is not only appointed by the President, but also serves exclusively at the whim of the President. Essentially, this new law gives the President of the United States direct control over the entire financial sector of the U.S. because the Secretary of the Treasury and most of the members of the new Financial Oversight Council are duty-bound to carry out the policy objectives of the President. Indeed, under this new law, while the Federal Reserve still maintains most of its power, the Treasury gains more direct power over the economic system, without any congressional limitations on making new economic policy. This is way too much power given to the President and the executive branch.

Second, the new financial reform law further erodes the ability of states to maintain jurisdiction over its local and state financial institutions. While local and state banks played no role in the crash of 2008, the federal government has taken this opportunity to expand its jurisdiction over areas traditionally left to the states.

Third, the new law extends federal -- and specifically executive branch -- power and jurisdiction over so-called 'non-bank' financial companies. The bill defines such companies (whether incorporated in the U.S. or outside the U.S.) as: any company that is "substantially engaged in activities in the United States that are financial in nature" (Sec. 102 a, 4). While a 1956 law establishes the basic parameters for what counts as "activities . . . that are financial in nature," both the original 1956 law and the new financial reform law of 2010 give the Treasury and the new oversight council complete authority to add to this list, without restriction. In other words, the new financial oversight council, which is entirely comprised of presidential appointees, has complete authority to determine what does and does not count as "activities that are financial in nature." Congress has no power to override the council's decisions. This potentially gives the President direct control over every business, and perhaps every economic transaction in the U.S.

I doubt that anyone is planning anything sinister with regard to these 'fine print' details. But, why give the President so much power in the first place? This is a bad law, and it has potential dangers for our future. What was congress thinking when they passed this thing? How can congress fail to see that they are paving the way for a super-powerful executive branch?

Clearly, there are a number of very good things in the new financial reform bill, just as there were many good things in the health insurance reform bill. But my complaint is not about the beneficial items in these bills. My complaint is that these bills expand executive branch power to such an extent as to be dangerous.

If you haven't read these bills, I encourage you to do so. When you read the 'fine print,' you may become just as concerned as I am.

-- David Adcock, Managing Editor

Source Detective Work: Digging Deeper...

Today I viewed a television ad by America's Power.org.  Like many other "energy" commercials, something didn't seem right, something seemed 'hidden.'  As a result, I visited the recommended internet site http://www.americaspower.org.  A professionally produced, aesthetically pleasant site, America's Power promotes clean coal energy, which is immediately obvious once the site's home page opens.  With news like quality, the site touts the benefits of clean coal technology.  What the TV ad didn't mention that America's Power.org is essentially a publicity arm of the coal industry.  To be fair, the website does disclose this fact, but one has to search for the information.  First, one must select the "who we are" tab, then find the "view a list of our members" link.   But one must look at the fine print at the bottom of the web page to see that this is a product of a political action organization of the coal industry, namely "American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy" (ACCCE). 

 

It didn't take much digging to find additional information about the ACCCE, but one finds significant political debate about the ACCCE.  The America's Power.org site portrays the ACCCE as a "partnership of the industries involved in producing electricity from coal."  In contrast, http://www.sourcewatch.org describes the ACCCE as "astroturf support for coal-based electricity . . . [that] promotes the interests of mining companies, coal transporters, and electricity producers."  With the exception of the negative political spin, the Source Watch site provides nothing significantly different from the ACCCE's own site.  In fact, the ACCCE's site is more detailed and complete in its disclosures than the highly critical Source Watch article.

 

When one digs a little deeper into Source Watch, however, one finds that it is linked to the liberal Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), founded by radical activist and Bush hater John Stauber, who admits his political activism began during the late 1960s when his views became radicalized.  Source Watch, run by Sheldon Rampton, another left-leaning political activist writer, co-authored a number of anti-Bush books with Stauber.  Rampton, a student of Princeton's "new journalism" advocate John Angus McPhee, seems to have adopted the 1960s-1970s "new journalism" practice of subjectivist, political advocacy coupled with the use of exaggerated, embellished descriptions in pieces pretending to be objective news articles.  This intentional distortion of hidden political activism presenting itself under the mask of objective news seems to be a tactic that both Rampton and Stauber adopt as legitimate.  What makes matters worse is the fact that this personal history is left undisclosed in CMD and Source Watch material.  In contrast, they claim to present information with "accuracy and fairness," while hiding the fact that the Center for Media and Democracy controls editorial policy and access.

 

My point here is simple:  we must be diligent enough to dig as deeply as possible into the sources of our information.  We must not take anything at face value, whether the source is right-leaning or left-leaning.  The political convictions of our sources matter.  Sources that disclose their biases may not be any more accurate than other sources, but at least we know what we're getting.  Dig a little deeper.  Maybe in this way, we'll gain a better perspective on what's really happening in our world.

 

-- David Adcock, Editor     

General Stanley McChrystal and the Limits of Free Speech I suspect that most of us have a clear understanding that there are some restrictions as regards our rights under the United States Constitution. I, for example, know full well that while The First Amendment provides for my freedom to speak my mind, it does not necessarily guarantee my continued employment if I decide to publicly ridicule the owner of my company. Whether we like it or not, in the real world I think there are limits, and if this is true in civilian commercial life it is, or should be, even more a certainty for the military. I am therefore baffled and more than a little dismayed by the recent actions of General McChrystal, especially the latest affront, which was evidently the final affliction for our commander-in-chief. What was he thinking? What would lead a very talented, dedicated, and, in my opinion, eminently qualified officer down the path that led to dismissal? Last September I read a transcript of the "60 Minutes" profile on the general with considerable interest, and I was duly impressed. He struck me as not only being a soldier's soldier, but his understanding of what was needed to win over the Afghan people, the only true road to success in the conflict, was dead on. The only reservation I had at the time was a concern that he might be selling his ideas and agenda to the public via the media, not the traditional or orthodox approach for military commanders. One of my colleagues, a former military man himself, agreed with this line of thinking. Perhaps we are just old fashioned, but active officers talking directly to journalists about strategy and tactics was and remains something we find troublesome, especially when these ideas may be seen as contrary to the official position of the government. There is a chain of command, in other words, and this sort of "talk" probably needs to be left to either the President or one of the key Secretaries, i.e., State, Defense, or Army. In October, General McChrystal followed up with a controversial speech in London before the Institute of International and Strategic Studies, an event that led to an almost immediate summons for a face-to-face meeting with President Obama. Judging from the President's reaction it would seem that he was not only surprised but also more than a little upset with McChrystal, and understandably so. The General's comments in London were blunt, critical, and, depending on one's point-of-view, bordering on insubordinate. The whole affair was reminiscent of some of the antics of Douglas McArthur or George Patton, and McChrystal was probably lucky to retain his command after what amounted to a gross violation of protocol. Finally, we have "The Runaway General" interview published in Rolling Stone Magazine just last week. In this article by Michael Hastings—really another profile compiled over the several days Hastings spent with General McChrystal and his inner circle—we are exposed to a healthy dose of what these fellows truly feel, along with a glimpse of how they doubtless interact with one another on a daily basis. I found nothing is this article either surprising or particularly shocking, apart from the obvious fact that they had a reporter in their midst, and they had to fully understand that all of this banter was likely to make it into print! As I mentioned above, General Stanley McChrystal is a man worthy of our respect and gratitude for a life of service to this country. Men and women do not rise to field grade ranks in our military without being very intelligent, dedicated, diplomatic, and highly motivated individuals, and we can rest assured that McChrystal is representative of his class. In other words, it is difficult if not impossible for a fool to reach these ranks. These people are typically going to be outspoken and aggressive, and while we would doubtless not want them to be any other way, it goes without saying that there is the proper time and place for these views to be aired. Among other issues, the spectacle of a military commander blasting our government is likely to aid the enemy. Once more, what was he thinking? We may have to wait for General McChrystal's memoirs to know the true answer. The whole affair could easily be written off as the actions of an arrogant hothead, but nothing in this gentleman's service record makes this a credible argument. I have to wonder if this may be the result of the massive stress imposed on our military over the last decade. We have a volunteer service bearing the brunt of multiple, lengthy deployments, while for most of the country events in Iraq and Afghanistan may as well be taking place on the moon. We are demanding more from less, the rules of engagement are more complicated than ever, and at least in the case of Afghanistan we seem to be watching a repeat of the Vietnam War. I hope that General Petraeus can pick up where he left off in Iraq. For the sake of the troops and their families, not to mention the budget, these conflicts need to come to an end sooner rather than later. Good luck and Godspeed General! —John Stegall

Disaster/Politics/Spin "It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill As the calamity in the Gulf of Mexico continues, the outlook appears bleak— The newest estimates on the volume of the spill indicate that the flow rate may be three to four times what has heretofore been reported. The results of a deep-water sampling mission performed under the auspices of NOAA confirm the presence of underwater plumes of oil and chemical dispersants, a toxic brew that seems likely to make its way to the Gulf Stream and beyond. Every day brings more reports and photographs of oil saturated wildlife, beaches, and slick-covered bays and marshlands along the Gulf Coast. Commercial fishermen, shrimpers, marina-owners, seafood wholesalers and processors, and a large chunk of the tourist industry all appear to staring at short-term doom. BP's official word on the status of the two relief wells started last month—probably, though not definitively, the only solution to the problem—predicts completion dates in mid-August. And, of course, the finger pointing and political spin continue with no end in sight, too much talk and too little action. As I watch the greatest environmental catastrophe in American history unfolding, a disaster also likely to wreak a fair amount of additional damage on our already struggling economy, I feel the real shame is that none of this surprises me in the least. To begin with, a spill of this type is not without precedent. On June 3, 1979, an exploratory well in the Bay of Campeche suffered a blowout that led to the release of an estimated 3 million barrels of oil, a spill that remains the third largest in history. It may be worth noting here that this wellhead was at a depth of 160 feet (not 5,000 feet, as with the Deepwater Horizon) and staunching the flow only took nine months! In other words, while it has been a very long time since "this" event, and while offshore drilling has been largely incident-free for years, this type of worst-case scenario will always exist. Did British Petroleum cut corners in the interests of profits? Was oversight by the Minerals Management Service somewhat less than energetic? Is it possible for large corporations to wield undue influence with our lawmakers? Based on what we know, or ought to know about how our government works, should we expect anything different? I suspect the answers are yes, yes, yes, and no. While this view may be interpreted as cynical, I see myself as a realist. Our economy is based on cheap oil, and until we can come up with a realistic plan to wean ourselves from this commodity we will continue to run the risk of facing catastrophic system failures as currently represented by the Deep Horizon Spill. Even imagining a structure where everything worked as envisaged—no human error, all contingency plans considered and prepared for, perfect oversight, etc., bad things are going to happen, it is not a matter of if, but rather when. Where do we go from here? Apart from the obvious—stop the wretched thing as quickly as possible, protect and/or cleanup the affected areas, compensate those with legitimate claims—I would hope that this disaster would spur rational, bi-partisan support for a realistic plan placing us on the path toward a "cleaner" energy future, but don't count on it. Our elected officials, at least at the national level, seem more intent on watching the newest polls to decide their next move, which generally means pointing the finger at the other guys, spinning the news to benefit the next election cycle, and taking little, if any real action. Yes, they hold widely publicized hearings ostensibly to identify problems (recall the grilling of ratings agencies, Goldman Sachs employees, and, most recently, BP officials), it just seems that little of consequence emerges afterwards other than more spin and posturing. At times such as these, when my overall disgust for politics seems poised to carry me into the abyss, I am comforted by Mr. Churchill's quote above. Not only could things always be worse, but we need to be thankful to live where we do. My views about our government and politics are clear enough at this point, but the good news is that we can make it better; we can help bring positive change. I once heard a saying that "we get the government we deserve," and I have come to believe in this wisdom. We have to get involved and make our voices heard, and we are going to have to be very loud indeed to overcome the special interests, but I have to believe that it can be done! --John Stegall

Has President Obama Lost His Mind?

Yesterday, June 15, 2010, from the oval office President Obama delivered his first national address to the American people. The topic? The nearly 60 day old environmental crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. We all hoped the president would finally take charge of this diaster and call all Americans to step up to the proverbial plate and assist the gulf states in any and every way, both in clean up and in financial support for those hardest hit by the crisis. But instead, the president cynically used a third of his speech to push his so-called clean energy agenda.

Mr. President, we don't need your constant hyperpartisan politics. We need LEADERSHIP! Perhaps British Petroleum (BP) is best able to plug the leak, but the U.S. and state governments are in the best position to help with coastal protection and with the spill clean up. You say that your administration has been on top of this oil spill since "day one," but on Capitol Hill yesterday every single oil company testified that neither you nor anyone in your administration contacted any of them to ask for their help in this mess. Instead, you relied on politically motivated academics and environmentalists who have little to no direct expertise in how the oil industry actually works.

It is time you set aside your partisan extremist politics and start acting like a president. There will be time enough for politics in the future. For now, let BP plug the oil leak, and you focus all your efforts on protecting the gulf coast line and on cleaning up this spill!!!

-- David A. Adcock

BP's Blowout on the Gulf Floor

On April 20, 2010 Transocean's Deepwater Horizon drilling platform exploded, killing eleven workers and injuring seventeen others.  A few days later the rig was gone, crumbling into the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the subsequent fires and structural damage.  Since that time news media and political pundits have been blaming British Petroleum (BP) for the ensuing ecological disaster, which has since become America's largest oil spill in history.  BP operated the Deepwater Horizon rig, making it the company primarily responsible for the terrible accident.

 

Since the explosion, news media outlets and political blogs alike have been looking for someone to blame for the growing ecological disaster as well.  On April 30, 2010 New York times reporters Campbell Robertson and Eric Lipton criticized both BP and the U.S. federal government for its sluggish response to protecting the gulf shoreline from the effects of the massive amounts of thick, unrefined crude oil.  As the crisis continued to drag on, pressure began to mount on President Obama to take dramatic action.  On May 27, President Obama issued a six-month moratorium on deep water drilling, suggesting that this kind of disaster could potentially happen again.

 

Certainly, the ecological and economic damage will take years to remedy.  However, is the hysteria over BP's role in the accident reasonable?  Is this kind of accident unprecedented?  Was it BP's "fault" that the oil well exploded the way it did?  How should we view the accident itself?  Is BP taking the right steps to stop the leak that spews thousands of gallons of crude oil into our precious gulf waters every day?  How much oil is really flowing out of the well every day?  What's hype and what is mere political posturing?  What's the truth of the matter?

 

First, I am not a "fan" of BP.  But neither am I an anti-oil activist.  I am a Louisiana native, and know first hand about both the sensitive nature of Louisiana's coastal ecology as well as the vital importance of the oil industry to the Louisiana economy.  I have numerous relatives and friends that work in the oil and fishing industries.  Like most, I want the Louisiana coastline protected, as well as the shores of Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.  I, too, am frustrated by the President's inadequate response, as well as the chaos produced by the narrow-minded, turf protective bureaucracies of the EPA, Interior Department, Homeland Security, Coast Guard etc.  Federal control and bureaucracy are killing Louisiana, and threaten to worsen the disastrous effects of the oil spill.

 

But setting the ecological and economic consequences aside for a moment, what was the cause of the accident and is BP taking the appropriate steps to stop the leak? Should we 'blame' BP for all this? Certainly, it will take time to know what caused the problem and determine whether it could have been prevented.  But after speaking to a petroleum engineering expert yesterday, I am convinced that blaming BP for the accident is probably neither helpful nor fair.  

 

It appears at this point that the accident is what industry experts call a well "blowout."  Blowouts are one of the risks of oil exploration.  They have been occurring since the very beginning of oil exploration.  In fact, my source just recently experienced a well blowout in west Texas, and stated that while no one wants a blow out, sometimes they happen.  

 

Drilling is dangerous and risky, even though the industry generally does an excellent job managing those risks most of the time.  This expert noted that prior to BP's deep water well blowout, the well was having trouble.  They were in the process of trying to "bring in the well" (release the oil) when several tests revealed problems with the well.  Supposedly, one particular test that indicated it was safe to go forward turned out to be invalid, even though this seems to have been unknown at the time.  The expert suggested that many tests are frequently performed to preserve a safe drilling site.  Under ordinary circumstances, this particular well condition may not have resulted in a blowout.  However, with deep water drilling, sometimes the physical pressures in a well do not operate in the same way that they do in shallower waters.  BP's engineers and rig workers went ahead with the process of releasing the oil, and the blowout occurred. In other words, the accident may have been preventable, but no one may be particularly to blame.  It just happened.  No amount of federal regulation will absolutely prevent this kind of event from happening in the future.  It is a natural risk of drilling.  The industry will learn from this mistake, and hopefully find ways to minimize the potential for recurrence.  But as long as there is drilling, there will be risk.

 

But there is more.  It appears that while the deep water well exploded, the well's blowout preventers seem to have malfunctioned. Drilling wells of this type have what the industry calls "blowout preventers." These devices are located at the top of the well head and are designed to stop the kind of explosion that the Deepwater Horizon rig experienced.  This particular well had four blowout preventers at the top of the well head (on the gulf floor).  If the blowout preventers had operated normally, they would have prevented the disaster.  No one knows at this point why the blowout preventer apparatus failed, but my consultant suggested that as soon as the blowout began to, something, perhaps the drill pipe itself, may have been pushed up into the preventer's opening, keeping it from closing.   This would explain why the blowout preventers didn't work.  The exact cause of the failure is unknown at this point, but it may not be a design flaw, but simply a fluke.  Still, no one knows what caused the problem at this point.  Until the problem is resolved, determining what caused the blowout is secondary. 

 

So, has BP taken the right steps to fix the problem? This is where BP probably has some blame.  All of the steps BP has taken to resolve the crisis so far have been reasoned and measured, if not as swift as we would all like.  Clearly, BP has been overly cautious.  Public frustration with the slow progress has produced unrealistic expectations with regard to a permanent solution to the constant flow of oil from the wellhead.  Yet it may be that all the public scrutiny and outrage is also the main reason BP's efforts are cautious at best. 

 

If BP's direct remedies succeed temporarily, only to build up too much pressure on the damaged wellhead, the consequences might be even more catastrophic than they are now.  At the base of the wellhead, a weak point might provide an additional way for oil to escape, perhaps much more oil.  My engineer source suggests that this may be the primary reason BP is being extremely cautious. 

 

The figure at the right is a basic diagram of a deep water wellhead.  Should BP cap the leak successfully without making certain the wellhead structure can handle the pressure, the oil could be forced outside the wellhead at its sides, releasing the oil directly from the ocean floor.  There would then be no way to stop the leak until the relief well is completed to reduce the oil pressure at the original wellhead site.  It is reasonable, therefore, for BP to take extreme care in this process.  It is difficult enough with the wellhead being a mile deep below the ocean surface without rushing BP into making an even greater error in judgment.  While public frustration is justified, let's not rush to judgment about BP's efforts to fix the problem.

 

DAVID A. ADCOCK

Post Script:  Let us not forget those who lost their lives in this accident.  Let us hasten to protect and clean up our oil saturated shores.  Forget the politics.  Forget the bureaucratic red tape.  Let everyone who wants to help, help.  Get it done.