Book not unbiased
In his letter of Sept. 25, Bill Davis recommends the book “Collusion: How the media stole the 2012 election and …” written by conservative Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center. He implies it shows explicitly how the mainstream media refrained from including negative remarks about President Obama during the campaign.
Before I was tempted to look at the book, I wanted to find out about the author and the MRC organization. What I found out is this organization is a very conservative, far-right and biased, as is Mr. Bozell.
There is extensive analysis of the media’s treatment of Obama during both the 2008 and 2012 election campaigns to be found on the website of Journalism.org. The figures presented there do not add up to any media “stealing the election.”
From Aug. 27 to Oct. 21 mainstream media gave a 19 percent favorable coverage of Obama, 30 percent unfavorable and 51 percent mixed reporting. After the first debate with Romney those figures changed to 13 percent favorable, 36 percent unfavorable and 50 percent mixed reporting. Social media was even harsher on Obama.
The Better Business Bureau gave failing marks to MRC in two areas: the lack of board of directors’ oversight on the output of MRC and on its hiding of donor and patron contributions. This second “F” grade should make any thoughtful, analytical and through person suspect of the truthfulness and objectivity of this organization and its founder.
Any person should realize a far Right or Left organization will slant their reporting to try to make you believe everything they tell you is factual and the truth.
Look up Journalism.org and examine the facts about media coverage of the last presidential election campaign. Don’t rely on one biased author’s book to give you all the truths and facts.
Roundabout would help
I would like to second the suggestions put forth by Jennifer Larson (How about a roundabout) and Melanie Ochoa (Crosswalk needed) in Viewpoint dated Wednesday, Sept. 25. I agree with Jennifer’s comments that the new road to connect Cascade to Country Club has done nothing to correct the problem; it has, in my opinion, made it even worse for traffic headed eastbound on Cascade Avenue.
I have seen roundabouts work to control traffic on many roads and major thoroughfares and do not know why it was not considered as a solution to the Country Club/Cascade traffic issues. Now we have a road with three different names and no actual turn from one to another. Imagine the confusion for those folks visiting our town.
The need for crosswalks is also a real concern. With additional living space created on Cascade, there was no additional infrastructure to support the people living there. We need to start paying attention to all the building that goes on in this town and the need for walker/biker safety.
Regarding Mr. Davis’ letter “Book for open minds” (Sept. 25): How odd that he should only recommend a conservative-bent book to those of us who listen thoughtfully, etc., to both liberal and conservative sides of the issues.
I suggest equal time be spent reading “The Obama Hate Machine: The Lies, Distortions and Personal Attacks on the President — and Who is Behind Them,” by Bill Press. I’ll read his book if he’ll read mine. Two sets of spin doctors will undoubtedly cancel each other out.
The Right’s sour grapes are getting quite moldy after 11 months. Perhaps we should focus on a future in which our elected “representatives” stop treating legislating as a team sport and give their constituents some consideration.
Toward that goal I recommend one more book, “Democrips and Rebloodlicans,” by Jesse Ventura. Yes, “The Body,” but also a former governor. I don’t agree with all of his views, but I have finally found someone who voices my long-held belief that government should be about reason and responsibility, not party loyalty.
As Hood River County Farm Bureau president I want to share with you how important the passage of the farmer protection parts of the governor’s “Grand Bargain” are to all family farms in Oregon.
Passage of “seed pre-emption” will ensure that farmers won’t have 36 different counties regulating seed production in different ways. Seed production regulation would remain at the state and federal levels where there are the resources and scientific expertise to make good public policy.
Oregon’s Right to Farm laws are intended to protect farmers’ right to choose the best crops, tools and technologies to meet the needs of the markets we serve. Allowing a hodge-podge of different regulations from county to county makes no sense. Even the Association of Oregon Counties agrees that’s a bad idea and supports seed pre-emption.
There is a lot of hype regarding this from the opposition but please look at the harm that all of us producers face if regulated by people not working the land and trying to make a living or having the complete understanding of agriculture.
One state, one set of rules for family farms!
ACA or no ACA?
I do not think that the major problem with our government is passage or non-passage of the ACA legislation.
I think that the major problem that we have is the refusal of one party to negotiate. When a given party continually says that it is my way or the highway, they need to be replaced.
In case there is any confusion, I am speaking of the refusal of the Republican Party to compromise. They seem to think that their thinking is the only way to think. This is not correct. By the way, a compromise is only a compromise when both parties give some.
When our representative continually votes the party line, then he/she no longer represents us. They are now the tools of whoever pushes the party agenda.
In case there is any confusion, much of the Republican agenda is funded by the ultra-rich. Notice the continued tax breaks for the rich. Tax breaks that are pushed by the Republicans.
If the ACA legislation is so bad, why does it work in Massachusetts? Of course, the fact that this health legislation was pushed by Romney, was important. Notice that this ancestor of the ACA legislation is not mentioned by the Republicans.
The fact that the Affordable Care Act has a much more favorable rating that the same act, when referred to as Obama Care, says a lot about our society.