May 30, 2011, 8:00 a.m.
Allocating Costs; Setting the Price
The Sunday Des Moines Register of May 22, 2011, had a major, page one spread about the rising costs of a college education. Except it wasn't about the cost of education. It was about the rising price of that education, comparing the increase in the share of those costs allocated to tuition with the rising price of peanut butter, milk and eggs. More on the Register's piece on down the blog.
First, here is my 300-word-limit response in the next week's Sunday Register, May 29:
Legislature shifted the cost of education
Nicholas Johnson
Des Moines Register
May 29, 2011, p. P20
"The Challenge for Students, Parents and Schools: Runaway Tuition" (May 22), helped focus attention on the rising price of a college education.
Unfortunately, it conflated the "price" (to the student and parents) with the "cost" (to the universities) of that education.
Can universities do more to reduce the costs of education? Can they increase the quality and utility of that education? Absolutely.
However, it's both unfair and inaccurate to suggest that the sole cause of rising tuition is the increase in costs resulting from poor management by the Iowa Board of Regents and administrators.
A major reason for the increase in tuition is not the cost of education, but the allocation of those costs between taxpayers (who receive a public benefit from a well educated workforce) and the private beneficiaries (the students who go on to better jobs and lives).
When California universities charged no tuition, that didn't mean they had no costs. It meant taxpayers paid those costs.
The most appropriate allocation? That's a debate worth having.
But for now, let's recognize that it is the Iowa Legislature that has chosen to allocate an ever-increasing share of the costs to students' tuition; not
the Iowa Board of Regents, universities' administrators or faculty members.
Here are some early excerpts from the Register story the week before, followed by some comments.
Iowa's two largest universities expect to pocket millions of dollars in extra tuition revenue next fiscal year, with the vast majority going to pay for
additional faculty, programs aimed at lowering dropout rates and other student services, officials said.
That decision comes as the cost of earning a four-year degree in Iowa at a public university continues a steep march upward and pushes students to take on more debt, which, at $26,066 per graduating student, is the fourth-highest average in the country.
In the past 30 years, the average cost of tuition and fees at an Iowa public university has jumped 707 percent, more than four times the rate of inflation. College costs have increased each of the past 30 years for students and their families.
Meanwhile, a new survey shows families and students saddled with rising tuition and debt, stagnant wages and an uncertain job market are questioning whether a traditional college education is their ticket to the American dream.
Some universities are trying to respond to the converging forces with innovative classroom approaches and three-year degree programs. . . .
Americans are reassessing what they get for their tuition dollars.
Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed by the Pew Research Center say the higher education system does not provide a good value for the money they spend, and 75 percent say college is too expensive for most Americans to afford, according to findings released last week.
Jens Manuel Krogstad, "Runaway tuition: A challenge for students, parents and schools," Des Moines Register, May 22, 2011, p. A1.
I acknowledge in the response to the Register's report, "Can universities do more to reduce the costs of education? . . . Absolutely." Frankly, I don't know enough to support that "absolutely" judgment. It's based simply on the intuition and experience that virtually every individual, business, government agency, and institution that is willing to address in detail its systems and processes, goals and operations, can probably come up with ways to reduce costs, at least a little -- often while improving quality and outputs.
It may well be that the salaries of universities' personnel, and the other costs of education (as distinguished from the price of education, tuition), have increased significantly further and faster than inflation in the costs of producing other goods and services. If so, that's a matter well worth investigating. If the increases represent necessary costs, held to the minimum, wise investments, and other consequences of skilled, creative and attentive management, that's one thing. If not, if alternative decisions could have produced greater quantity and quality of service at lower cost, that's another.
The point, for purposes of critiquing this Register story, is that it only addresses the increases in the price of education, not the costs of providing that education.
Beyond that, there was another opinion piece in the Sunday paper [May 29] of even greater relevance to America's future than my 300 words.
Robert Reich, the former U.S. secretary of labor, is now an author, columnist, blogger, and professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkley, testifies before Congress from time to time. The Register published as an essay an excerpt from his May 12 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. It's vey much worth reading in its entirety; indeed it could be characterized as must reading for every American and public official.
To give you an idea of his subject, and thesis, here is is lead paragraph:
How did we go from the Great Depression to 30 years of Great Prosperity? And from there, to 30 years of stagnant incomes and widening inequality, culminating in the Great Recession? And from the Great Recession into such an anemic recovery?
Robert Reich, "How Our Prosperity Became Stagnation," Des Moines Register, May 29, 2011, p. OP1.
In the course of answering those questions, here's what he had to say about the role of higher education:
Government also widened access to higher education. The GI Bill paid college costs for those who returned from war. The expansion of public universities made higher education affordable to the American middle class. . . .
Starting more than three decades ago, trade and technology began driving a wedge between the earnings of people at the top and everyone else. The pay of well-connected graduates of prestigious colleges and MBA programs has soared. But the pay and benefits of most other workers has either flattened or dropped. And the ensuing division has also made most middle-class American families less economically secure.
Government could have enforced the basic bargain. But it did the opposite. It slashed public goods and investments -- whacking school budgets, increasing the cost of public higher education, reducing job training, cutting public transportation and allowing bridges, ports and highways to corrode. . . .
Coping mechanism No. 3: Draw down savings and borrow to the hilt. After exhausting the first two coping mechanisms, the only way Americans could keep consuming as before was to save less and go deeper into debt. During the Great Prosperity the American middle class saved about 9 percent of their after-tax incomes each year. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, that portion had been whittled down to about 7 percent. The savings rate then dropped to 6 percent in 1994, and on down to 3 percent in 1999. By 2008, Americans saved nothing. Meanwhile, household debt exploded. By 2007, the typical American owed 138 percent of their after-tax income.
He concludes:
The fundamental economic challenge ahead is to restore the vast American middle class. That requires resurrecting the basic bargain linking wages to overall gains, and providing the middle class a share of economic gains sufficient to allow them to purchase more of what the economy can produce. As we should have learned from the Great Prosperity -- the 30 years after World War II when America grew because most Americans shared in the nation's prosperity -- we cannot have a growing and vibrant economy without a growing and vibrant middle class.
"To restore the vast American middle class" is going to require, among many other things discussed by Reich, a restoration of affordable post-high school college education -- as well as a reduction in the price of community college education, and skills training in the trades.
Had we been hell-bent on deliberately evolving into a third world country's population, with a statistically insignificant percentage of super-wealthy at one extreme, and 90 percent or more struggling just to get by, we would have adopted almost precisely the policies we have. That's not to say that it was deliberate. Others can explore the conspiracy theories. But that is the result.
# # #
April 18, 2011, 10:50 a.m.
Gannett Modifies Half-Page Newsprint Ads
But Outraged Readers' Protest Continues
When I was a boy everyone had gardens. What we called "Victory Gardens" were a part of our war effort during World War II.
When we had excess produce we shared it with our neighbors.
And the greatest of these excesses seemed to involve zucchini squash. ["The zucchini . . . is a popularly cultivated summer squash which often grows to nearly a meter in length, but which are usually harvested at half that size or less." "Zucchini," wikipedia.org.]
The proliferation of zucchini gave rise to a story my mother used to tell -- whether true or apocryphal I neither know nor care. (As Mason Williams ended the lyrics to one of his songs, "This is not a true tale, but who needs truth if it's dull." "The Tomato Vendetta.")
An especially generous neighbor, who had grossly overestimated her need for zucchini, regularly delivered a supply to the woman who was her next door neighbor. One day the gardener was met at her neighbor's door by the neighbor's nine-year-old daughter. Offering to take the gift, the young girl said, "Gee, I hope they are the small ones." "Why? Do you like the small ones better?" the gardener asked. "Oh, yes," said the girl, "they go down the disposal ever so much easier."
The newspapers' advertising supplements are the zucchini of the industry.
But unlike the zucchini, the larger the supplements are, and the more well assembled in a single pack, the easier they are to "put down the disposal" -- or, as we'd say today, "transfer to the recycling bin."
It is the "little zucchini," those half-pages of newsprint pretending to be a newspaper, that create the problems for those few remaining, loyal, hard-copy newspaper subscribers and readers.
I won't repeat here what has been said about this problem in the past, but here are a couple of links: "A Half-Page Newspaper Not Better Than None; Disintegrating Paper Contributing to Disintegrating Industry," September 20, 2010; and "Abusive Advertising; It's Time to Strike Back," April 6, 2011.
As explained in the latter blog entry, it's now "no more mr. nice guy." The refusal of Gannett to take readers' legitimate complaints seriously has caused a shift in strategy. Outraged readers, no longer content to just "protect innocent civilians" by attacking the newspapers, are focusing on "regime change," removing the problem by searching out the Muammar Gaddafis of newspaper advertising: the advertisers themselves.
The latter blog entry lists the advertisers who were found on the half-piece of newsprint on the front of that issue of the Press-Citizen, enabling blog readers to take such action as they might think most appropriate.
In fairness to Gannett, it's latest offense reduces a little the harm of half-page pieces of newsprint. "A little" meaning that it's kind of like a $38 billion reduction (which turned out to be $350 million) in a $3.83 trillion budget, $1.56 trillion of which is deficit spending (and an addition to a $14 trillion debt).
Last Sunday's Des Moines Register had a half-page piece of newsprint on the front and back of both its main section and another section in the back of the paper. Unlike the Press-Citizen's disaster, however, because the Register's continued as a half-page ad on the back of those sections -- rather than, as with the Press-Citizen, as a full page of regular newspaper -- when the half-pages fell to the floor they at least did not take a full page of the newspaper with them.
So here's the continuing, updated list of Gannett's "Abusive Advertisers":
The Abusive Advertisers of the Press-Citizen and Des Moines Register
April 6 and 17, 2011
www.budgetblinds.com
Stanley Steemer
Lenoch & Cilek/Ace
www.lebeda.com
Emma Goldman Clinic
(and, given even advertisers lack of interest in this abuse,)
Press-Citizen Media
(which was left no option but to buy most of the space from itself)
Des Moines Register
HyVee (front section)
Vision 4 Less (back section)
Let us continue to hope this list will shrink, rather than expand, over time; that our garden zucchini will be the small ones; that our newspapers' zucchini will be easily disposed of; and the news easy to hold and read without disintegration.
# # #
March 24, 2010, 7:00 a.m.
National Broadband Plan Has Everything . . .
Except for Any Meaningful Price Caps
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Click here for blog entry about President Obama's March 25 Iowa City visit.
Today's blog entry is a reproduction of a newspaper column of mine that appears in this morning's Des Moines Register.
As such, it is the third blog entry recently about the FCC's National Broadband Plan. (See "Here Comes the Broadband; The FCC's 'National Broadband Plan' is so big . . .," March 13, 2010, and "Dear FCC Chair Genachowski: An Open Letter; Controlling the Broadband-its," March 21, 2010.)
Here is the column as published by the Register:
Much at stake for Iowa in FCC broadband plan
Nicholas Johnson
Des Moines Register
March 24, 2010, p. 15A
Why does the FCC think America needs its newly-announced "National Broadband Plan" (NBP)? Why are Iowa cities scrambling to be Google's choice for installation of superfast broadband?
"Broadband" is how we do, or soon will, connect to the Internet. For most Iowans that means Mediacom or Qwest. Federal and Iowa officials think we're suffering by lagging the world in broadband speed. They want to increase it by as much as 100-fold.
I neither have, nor represent anyone who has, a financial interest in these issues; just an interest in what the NBP means for Iowans in general and you in particular.
Obviously, what it took the FCC 376 pages to say - with the help of eight small-print pages of glossary and "common abbreviations" - can't be fully explained in a 600-word column. (If you'd like my fuller take, see "Broadband Challenge," at www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/BroadbandChallenge.doc.)
Having spent seven years as an FCC commissioner writing what were mostly critical, dissenting opinions, I want to complement the FCC this time. The NBP is one of the agency's largest, boldest efforts ever. There is much in it that mirrors my own recommendations, such as promotion of broadband for poor families and underserved rural areas, a super-fast access point in each community, and better informed consumers.
On the other hand, until voters insist on public financing of campaigns, big money will continue to dictate big policy. Congress turns the health-care problem over to those who created it, with a health-insurance-company subsidy program. Instead of meaningful consumer protection, it selects Treasury Department secretaries from Goldman Sachs and tells Wall Street to regulate itself.
As a result, the NBP offers broadband consumers no hope of protection from price-gouging by limited-competition phone and cable companies earning upwards of 80 percent profit margins. The industries' campaign contributions had already eliminated local, state and federal regulation.
The FCC's not even requiring them to provide open access to their competitors - the one requirement that explains how Korea and other countries sprint ahead of the United States with their near-universal access, dramatically faster speeds and cheaper rates.
Broadband is a classic multiple-variable challenge. The speed and varieties of computer chips, computers, and phones; the demands of the millions of new applications; alternative distribution technologies (phone, cable, wireless; optic fiber and coaxial) - and broadband speeds - must ratchet upward together.
There may be questions about who needs how much broadband speed, where, and by when. But it seems clear Internet access will have an increasing influence in Iowans' lives. The FCC focuses on seven areas: economic opportunity, education, health care, energy and environment, government performance, civic engagement, and public safety. There's more: 3 billion downloads of the 134,000 iPhone apps for that device alone.
Iowa's governor and legislators are aware of the challenge and opportunity expanded and extended broadband offers our citizens. There will soon be more to say about their planning process (in which I participated). Today's Internet is no less significant to our era than railroads were to the 19th century, AT&T to the early 20th, and the interstate highways to the late 20th. Each of us can benefit from learning more about it.
How much speed do you need for your uses? What are you actually getting compared to what you were promised? (What does "up to" mean?) Is there a cheaper alternative? Does your library offer free access? What additional uses might improve your family life, increase your business' profits, deliver your health care more efficiently, let you earn a degree (or run a business) from home, or make your neighborhood safer?
What's your "national broadband plan"?
[For an update on the Google proposal, noted in the opening paragraph, above, see "Next Steps for Our Experimental Fiber Network," March 26, 2010.]
_______________
Commentary
The column has produced some commentary, both by way of emails and as posted to the Register's online site.
A Mr. Jerry Viers emailed me this afternoon:
Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for the insightful article I just read in the DM Register. It really hit home with me. Ten years ago I moved to the country and for my sin, learned that high speed internet was not available here. I need high speed for my business and had to travel to my daughter's house to use her connections. The use of dial up connections was like not having internet at all.
I have [my company] as a phone provider and their efforts for providing rural customers with high speed have been laughable. In their advertisements, they proclaim that virtually all their customers have high speed access. When I ask them to explain this, they provide me with the phone number to a satellite provider. That act makes me accessible to high speed, according to them. High speed (DSL) is offered by them in populated areas. They have been promising me that high speed will be in my area in a few months. They have been saying this for about eight years now.
Some other tidbits about [my company];
• Their CEO is the third highest paid person in the State of Iowa.
• Their phone "service" is equivalent to a Dixie cup on a string.
• They do not wish to speak with you about these issues, save for a poor uninformed customer service rep.
• Their rates have doubled in the last 10 years.
And lastly, they have recently been sold to a national company that I hope is more tech savvy and customer friendly.
Also, I have conducted some research on the above mentioned satellite providers; they are slow and dependent on weather conditions, expensive and are not recommended by the Consumers Union.
With the help of [another company] I now am able to connect via cell phone signals with a device that attaches to my computer. I get fair speed from it. Ten time faster than dial up, but still not DSL.
In answer to your question; I believe that providing internet to rural areas is tantamount to the rural electrification of the 1930's. The answer is to run fiber optic lines to all areas.
I thought this real life description of Iowans' broadband frustrations worth sharing with others, as support for what I hope will be our State's equivalent to the FCC's National Broadband Plan.
Here are some of the comments posted to the Register's Web page for the column:
2002retired wrote:
As a result, the NBP offers broadband consumers no hope of protection from price-gouging by limited-competition phone and cable companies earning upwards of 80 percent profit margins. The industries' campaign contributions had already eliminated local, state and federal regulation.
Must be talking about all that regulation that was stopping competition and not letting capitalism work for us. Good thing we got rid of that government socialist program and let Americans enjoy the fruits of unregulated capitalism.
3/24/2010 9:55:06 AM
adelguy wrote:
Let me get this straight. The Federal Government decides everyone in America has a "right" to broadband internet, no matter what the cost is. So if you live in a city that has at least two options (phone and cable companies) you will now get to pay for those who live in rural areas that don't have cable or DSL. Apparently it never crossed the minds of the big thinkers in D.C. that broadband is available via satellite and cellular companies plus a few other over-the-air broadband carriers like Prairie i-Net. Are rural areas blocked by trees so they can't get a clear view of the sky for satellite, or live too far away from any cell tower to get that reception either? Yes, those two options cost more than cable or DSL, but I would bet there's enough money left from rural residents not having to pay city property taxes to more than offset that difference.
3/24/2010 10:59:18 AM
ImSpeakingMyMindInIowa wrote:
Replying to adelguy:
Replying to adelguy:.....Apparently it never crossed the minds of the big thinkers in D.C. that broadband is available via satellite and cellular companies plus a few other over-the-air broadband carriers like Prairie i-Net. Are rural areas blocked by trees so they can't get a clear view of the sky for satellite, or live too far away from any cell tower to get that reception either? Yes, those two options cost more than cable or DSL, but I would bet there's enough money left from rural residents not having to pay city property taxes to more than offset that difference.
Prairie i-Net, LOL, I couldn't get rid of them fast enough, what joke. As far as all current over the air ISPs, none of them meet the qualifications of being broadband. They just like to call themselves that for sales because they are faster than dial-up, oh boy! They only get away with it because there is no legal definition of broadband which the FED proposal changes.
3/24/2010 5:01:33 PM
ImSpeakingMyMindInIowa
Replying to adelguy:
......So if you live in a city that has at least two options (phone and cable companies) you will now get to pay for those who live in rural areas that don't have cable or DSL. .........
You mean like the rural areas have subsided your city electricity for what now, 80 years? Its easy to anticipate a program setup up like the REC did for electricity, where the government subsidizes the private companies on capital expenses at a super low interest rate to get it to all rural users. Who then turn out to be the major market over the city folk in its use. Just like with electricity, interesting to say the least.
3/24/2010 5:10:28 PM
ElsaA wrote:
Living in my rural area means muddy gravel roads, slower fire and ambulance response times, and slow crappy Internet access. If I decide I don't like those things, I have the option of moving into a city. So be it.
I did get annoyed when I read that a sizeable amount of previous federal money allocated for broadband access ended up going to suburban millionaire McMansions in Texas to upgrade their already-reasonably-fast Internet speeds. Either spend the money better than that or don't allocate it, period.
3/25/2010 10:09:11 AM
cubreporter wrote:
Electric Coops already supply burglar alarm and similar services in many states.
Let them step forward with computer connections.
3/25/2010 10:42:48 AM
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
July 9, 2009, 9:30 a.m.
University of Iowa College of Law Doing Fine
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
UI President Sally Mason did a good job the other day of trying to put in perspective some folks' concerns about the University's College of Law.
It's a subject I addressed a year ago in what has become one of my most popular blog entries in terms of hits from throughout the country and around the world -- a subject to which I return this morning.
As the newspaper industry searches for innovative business plans and practices to compete in this age of digital journalism, the Des Moines Register has an innovative operation it calls "Live Chats."
It's not totally clear to me how it works, but it appears to be an online exchange between a newsmaker and reporters and members of the public -- sort of IM, text messaging, or tweets, only in full sentences.
The Register makes the full set of exchanges available on its Web site, and also assigns a reporter to write a story about the "Live Chat" for the hard copy and online version of the paper.
Anyhow, our UI President Mason underwent the process a couple of days ago. The full transcript is available as, "Live Chat with University of Iowa President Sally Mason," "Des Moines Register Live Chats," July 6, 2009 (scroll down, click on "Completed Events"). And this is the story Erin Jordan wrote about the event: Erin Jordan, "Mason Praises Athletics Leaders," Des Moines Register, July 7, 2009.
Here is the excerpt from the "Live Chat" having to do with the law school:
[Comment From JeffH] President Mason. I am an Iowa Law alum, and I am concerned about the path the school has taken the past few years, dropping out of the top 25 rankings, losing key members of the faculty, and looking at losing more of the aging faculty soon. Not only that, but the faculty numbers have been falling, as some members aren't being replaced, and young faculty are leaving because they feel the ship is sinking. There is a golden opportunity to hire a new dean, but more has to be done. Can you share your views on the future of the law school?
Sally Mason: The latest rankings, I believe, have us placed at no. 26 overall and 9th among public universities. But I believe we can, must and will do better. Hiring the new dean will provide a great start to a process that will include rebuilding a strong faculty and setting priorities that will build on and expand the existing and traditional strengths of our law school. With losses also come great opportunities, especially for a new dean, to reinvigorate the entire school. We look forward to a search that will yield strong candidates and we are prepared to maintain strong investments in our law school.
A little over a year ago I provided my own analysis of law school rankings in general, and those of the University of Iowa College of Law in particular, in a blog entry entitled "Random Thoughts On Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
Its analysis is as relevant now as it was then. There's no need to repeat it all here; just use the link to read last year's blog entry. But here are the sub-headings and conclusion from that piece:
How to Pick Your Law School:
Random Thoughts on U.S. News' Law School Rankings
Altogether too much is made of these U.S. News' rankings.
U.S. News' monopoly (of law school ranking systems) contributes to its disproportionate weight.
Iowa was a good law school, is a good law school and will continue to be a good law school.
The weight accorded various factors makes a dramatic difference in ranking.
The rankings have distorted law schools' decisions, and led to "gaming" the system -- and therefore unreliable and misleading results.
So what's a student to do when choosing a law school?
Distinguish between the "superficial" and the "substantive."
Substance: You have to "teach yourself the law" -- and you can.
Superficiality: How to pick the best law school for you.
Bottom line: chill. Law school rankings don't tell you much, and can be and are manipulated. Rankings are of very little significance in terms of the substantive quality of the legal education you'll get, especially because you're going to have to teach yourself the law anyway. Superficially, rankings in the top half-dozen may make some difference -- if you're set on getting into the places where they can help open doors -- but even by that standard you may be better off with a higher class rank from a lower ranked school than a much lower class rank from a higher ranked school. And between schools ranked, say, 15th to 30th, there really isn't much basis for choosing one school over another.
Good luck -- and don't forget to apply at Iowa!
If you're really concerned about the future of the University of Iowa College of Law I urge you to read that entire blog entry, "Random Thoughts On Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
I believe it deals, more than adequately, with the concern of "JeffH" that we are "dropping out of the top 25 rankings." ("Rankings" are unreliable, misleading and manipulated; all schools go up and down from year to year; Iowa has been pretty consistently over the years in the top 10 of public law schools; and it has ranked in the top 1, 2 or 3 by some measures from time to time.)
Meanwhile, here are some additional thoughts.
Rotation is an Iowa strength, not weakness. So far as I know, I am the only member of the law school faculty who was actually born and raised in Iowa City. (There is one other native Iowan, from Cedar Rapids.) Top law schools -- of which Iowa is one -- draw on what amounts to a national pool of top faculty. In addition to looking for the most promising potential faculty among Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals judges' law clerks (we have a number, including myself), they raid each others' faculties, including ours. During the 28 years I've been teaching at Iowa the number of our faculty who have become law school deans and internationally well-regarded faculty elsewhere has been a matter of pride -- although admittedly accompanied by sadness at the loss of a friend as well as a colleague.
But as one or more move on, others -- equally bright, creative, hard working and collegial scholars -- are soon occupying their offices. That will be the case again, as it has been over the last three decades.
Think about it for a moment. Why would you want a faculty made up of professors who are never invited to visit, or move, elsewhere? Why would you want a faculty that is never reinvigorated with new hires?
I've spent substantial time in many cities in this country and beyond. Iowa City is my favorite place to live (for a long list of reasons I won't now take time to explain). I have family in northwest Iowa and in Des Moines. I'm living once again in the house I grew up in from 1941 to 1952. It's a three or four block walk, or bike ride, from the law school. I enjoy the atmosphere and community that is the law school, and being intellectually challenged by my colleagues. It's unlikely that any amount of money, or professional opportunity, could attract me elsewhere.
But I'm somewhat unique in that way. For the most part, the loyalties of this "national pool of top faculty" are, by definition, to the legal profession in general, and the legal academy in particular -- not to any given institution or geographical location. They don't come to Iowa, or anywhere else in America's heartland, for the beaches, mountains, or the "ho, hum, another perfect day" weather of a southern California. They don't come for the corndogs at the Iowa State Fair, or the "little green salads" of lime jello in our church basements. (Nor do they leave for those reasons.) They have come, do come, and will come, because of the academic opportunities our law school offers.
In fact, it's amazing that pay is not more of an issue than it is. Bear in mind, top-of-the-class law graduates, from top law schools like Iowa, in a good economy, are offered starting salaries at the top law firms in the range of $120,000 to $160,000. That's with no experience. With a Court of Appeals or Supreme Court clerkship there may be an additional bonus. Those who move up the partnership ladder at such firms (again, in a good economy) are looking at $500,000 to $1,000,000 a year or more, possibly plus bonuses. (A fellow who followed my path as a law clerk first to Judge Brown and then Justice Black, is now billing out his time at over $1000 an hour.)
No one goes into law school teaching for the money. But I would acknowledge that the Iowa law school may suffer a bit in the national competition when it is not only precluded from competing on the basis of weather, beaches and mountains, but on the basis of salary as well.
It's tough in a university setting, where undergraduate liberal arts professors already earn a fraction of the salaries of professional school faculty members (e.g., doctors, engineers, dentists, lawyers, etc.) to appropriate even more money for professional school faculty recruitment.
But in view of the disparity between what we can pay law school faculty and what they can get at some other schools -- not to mention law firms -- it is an extraordinary credit to the law school that we are able to attract, and hold, those we do.
I know fairly well each of my colleagues who is going to be visiting elsewhere, or has accepted a "permanent" position elsewhere. I am not about to reveal confidences, but I am about as confident as anyone can be of another that it is simply not true that our "young faculty are leaving because they feel the ship is sinking." Each has his or her own unique set of factors they've weighed in making their decisions. This is to be expected when you think about it, as it's true for almost anyone leaving one job for another, whether academic, corporate, public interest or government.
When I was in the building yesterday I couldn't help but reflect on the quality of those colleagues who were working there that day, and the many more who will be this coming semester; colleagues whom any law school would be delighted to have; colleagues who choose to be at Iowa.
We will be needing a new "captain" for our ship, given the resignation of our dean, and a couple extra crew. But they are in the process of being recruited, and aside from them we have about as good a crew as any ship ever had.
As the former U.S. Maritime Administrator, I've walked the deck, I've checked the hull, the bridge, the paint job, the propeller, the engine room. I see no signs of a "sinking ship" and I don't think my former colleagues did either.
As I wrote a year ago, "Iowa was a good law school, is a good law school and will continue to be a good law school."
And thank you, President Mason, for recognizing and saying as much to "JeffH" and the Des Moines Register.
_____________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
November 17, 2008, 2:40 p.m.
Register Wins "Hats Off" Award for Expose:
Tawdry Impact of Campaign Contributions on Iowa's Nursing Home Public Policy
We're all familiar with the role of big money in Washington. See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996, p. C2 (documenting the details of how major campaign contributors get benefits from the federal government roughly 1000 to 2000 times the value of what they contribute).
We like to believe that the elected officials representing the honorable folks living here in bucolic Iowa are a cut above all that.
Well, sadly, they're not.
But making the case isn't easy. Last April I wrote, "Unfortunately, . . . investigative reporting of money in Iowa politics and governing is all too rare. Occasionally there will be stories regarding which legislators have raised how much money. There may even be a reference to where some of that money came from. Very rarely is there an effort to investigate the extent to which there is a relationship between the sources of campaign funds and the votes of the recipients -- let alone a routine reporting of these relationships for every single member of the Iowa legislature." Nicholas Johnson, "Golden Rules & Revolutions: A Series, Part VIII: Money and Lobbyists in Iowa: Smoke and Mirrors," April 19, 2008.
Occasionally ("rarely" would be more accurate) this blog gives a "hats off" award for journalistic excellence. And the Register earned it yesterday for two pieces by Clark Kauffman: Clark Kauffman, "Nursing home groups donate to lawmakers," Des Moines Register, November 16, 2008, and Clark Kauffman, Industry Courts Legislators," Des Moines Register, November 16, 2008. (As it happens, Kauffman was also the author of the earlier article, on this same subject, that prompted my earlier blog entry last April: Clark Kauffman, "Culver won't part with nursing home industry's donations," Des Moines Register, April 7, 2008.)
Here, then, are excerpts from Kauffman's November 16 stories, followed by additional excerpts from my earlier April 19, 2008, blog entry.
At 4 o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon last year, a group of Iowa nursing home officials gathered at the South Dakota home of Tim Boyle, the owner of Grinnell's Friendship Manor and several other Iowa care facilities.
It was one of 12 legislative fundraisers . . .
The 12th, at Boyle's residence, was for Rep. Christopher Rants, then the minority leader of the Iowa House [who] collected 15 checks totaling $3,090.
The contributors included Boyle; two of his relatives; the political action committee of the Iowa Healthcare Association; Steve Ackerson, the association's executive director; and Richard Allbee, the chief executive officer of a company that operates four dozen care facilities in Iowa.
Boyle is now the president of the board of the Iowa Healthcare Association, which is telling lawmakers that the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals is overly aggressive in policing the state's nursing home industry. His Friendship Manor is facing a $112,650 federal fine for alleged neglect that resulted in 89-year-old Ruth Louden losing part of one leg. . . .
Here's a look at some of the biggest recipients of money from the Iowa Health Care Association Political Action Committee during 2008:
Iowa Democratic Party: $12,500
Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs: $12,500
Gov. Chet Culver: $10,000
Republican Party of Iowa: $7,500
Senate Minority Leader Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City: $5,000
House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque: $4,500
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines: $2,500
Former House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City: $2,000
Rep. Jo Oldson, D-Des Moines: $2,000
Senate President Jack Kibbie, D-Emmetsburg: $2,000
Clark Kauffman, "Nursing home groups donate to lawmakers," Des Moines Register, November 16, 2008.
State Rep. Dave Heaton thinks Iowa's nursing home industry is getting a raw deal from the Department of Inspections and Appeals. . . .
[T]he Mount Pleasant Republican has suggested moving the regulation of Iowa's nursing homes from the state inspections department to the Iowa Department of Elder Affairs. . . .
Elder Affairs . . . did oversee assisted-living centers until 2002 when it was reported that the agency had never issued any penalties against any Iowa care facilities and was keeping two sets of inspection reports - a confidential set that detailed problems within the facilities, and a public version that omitted any mention of those issues. . . .
Senate President John "Jack" Kibbie, D-Emmetsburg, says he'd like to see the inspections department take what he calls a "softer approach" to regulating nursing homes. . . .
In 2007, Kibbie and Heaton each traveled separately to Washington, D.C., with their travel expenses paid for by the Iowa Healthcare Association, the organization that lobbies state legislators on behalf of Iowa's nursing homes.
Heaton said he sees nothing wrong with private industry paying for such trips. . . .
Steve Ackerson, executive director of the Iowa association, said the . . . association paid for the lawmakers' airfare and lodging expenses . . ..
Heaton said he doesn't recall spending the night or attending the convention.
Association records indicate Kibbie traveled to Washington with Ackerson two months later. In a newsletter sent to Iowa nursing home officials after that trip, Ackerson said . . . Kibbie "really went to bat" for the industry.
Kibbie said he and his wife went back to Washington this year at the association's expense. While there, he was given an award from the American Healthcare Association.
"They just offered to take us out there and bring us back," Kibbie said. . . .
"Where am I going to get the money?" he said.
Clark Kauffman, Industry Courts Legislators," Des Moines Register, November 16, 2008.
So a big "Hats Off" to the Register and Clark Kauffman for performing this central obligation of the mass media, and central purpose of the First Amendment: a "checking value" on all major institutions in general, and on the role of money in politics in particular. Those "Washington politicians" are not the only ones Iowans need to keep an eye on -- a task made possible only with this kind of assist from the media.
See also, Jay Christensen-Szalanski, "Following the Campaign Money," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 16, 2008 ("For years, non-partisan groups like the League of Women Voters have documented the corrupting effect of lobbyist money and out-of-state campaign contributions like those cited above. When our legislators respond with the standard, 'These gifts don't affect my voting,' ask yourself why smart lobbyists still give them money and then think back to the common-sense examples at the beginning of this article." Some of the cited examples for Iowa City's legislative representatives included "lobbyists for hospitals, nursing homes, drug companies, insurance companies and health provider interest groups" giving to two legislators who publicly "advocate affordable health care." Riverside Casino and a payday loan company contributed to another. A New York investment firm CEO gave $10,000, plus $3000, plus $3000 to two others.)
_______________
From the April 19, 2008, blog entry:
Former Governor Tom Vilsack took "campaign contributions" from the nursing home industry. Iowa's present Governor, Chet Culver, received $15,500 from the nursing home industry during the last two years -- at a time when lax state inspections of nursing homes have been criticized. I don't mean to suggest a connection, and neither did the Des Moines Register story, but the governors' responses to these observations remind me of the Queen's line from William Shakespeare's Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
A former Iowa legislator, Democrat John Tapscott, a critic of the industry, asked both Culver and his predecessor, Tom Vilsack (both Democrats) to return the payments.
Vilsack wrote to Tapscott and said: "[I]f you believe that the taking of this contribution in some way affects my ability to do that job, I can assure you it does not." . . .
Culver spokesman Brad Anderson said, . . . "The idea that contributions have affected in any way the regulation of the nursing home industry by the Department of Inspections and Appeals under this administration is patently false . . .."
Clark Kauffman, "Culver won't part with nursing home industry's donations," Des Moines Register, April 7, 2008.
Unfortunately, this kind of investigative reporting of money in Iowa politics and governing is all too rare. Occasionally there will be stories regarding which legislators have raised how much money. There may even be a reference to where some of that money came from. Very rarely is there an effort to investigate the extent to which there is a relationship between the sources of campaign funds and the votes of the recipients -- let alone a routine reporting of these relationships for every single member of the Iowa legislature.
Nor has there been much reporting about the use of money as legislative power inside the legislature. To what extent is "leadership" purchased? What of those legislators who raise "campaign funds" far in excess of reasonable need in order to pass them along to the leadership, their relevant state parties -- or to their less prosperous colleagues. Is there any correlation between their "generosity" and the fact they end up chairing committees?
Understand, I'm only raising questions, not providing answers. Indeed, my point, my complaint, is that we don't have the answers, answers I think are necessary in a democracy, answers we can rightfully expect the media to provide for us. Iowa's springtime legislators may well be as pure as Iowa's wintertime snow. But it is possible -- just barely possible -- that they may share some of the practices that have been a part of American politics during the past century in the other 49 states and Washington.
For example, where are the current news stories tying campaign contributions and lobbying expenses to the otherwise rather bizarre votes of Iowa legislators banning smoking throughout the entire state of Iowa -- except for gambling casinos?
As Rekha Basu reports, "The result came out of political deal making, not logic. The exemption was put in after hard lobbying by the casino industry." Rekha Basu, "Logic takes detour with smoking-ban exemptions," Des Moines Register, April 11, 2008.
When I say "where are the stories" I don't mean to suggest there are no such stories -- with the details of dates (over time as well as last 12 months), amounts ("in-kind," trips and entertainment as well as cash), names of donors (gambling and tobacco industry individuals as well as PACs) and recipients (political parties as well as legislators and their leadership), Nevada and other out of state money, and so forth. I just mean the question literally: if you've seen them please put a comment on this blog entry as to where they are so I can make reference to them.
Can those legislators who insisted on the casino exemption give us equal, governor-quality assertive assurances that their votes were not in any way influenced by campaign contributions, lobbyist pressure and favors, or other benefits?
Nicholas Johnson, "Golden Rules & Revolutions: A Series, Part VIII: Money and Lobbyists in Iowa: Smoke and Mirrors," April 19, 2008.
# # #
September 14, 2008, 9:30 a.m.
Pick a Language, Any Language
The Register editorializes this morning that we should have more foreign language instruction in Iowa's schools. Editorial, "Encourage Learning Foreign Languages," Des Moines Register, September 14, 2008, p. OP1 ("Marcia Harmon Rosenbusch, director of the National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center at Iowa State University in Ames, said all children should have the opportunity to study foreign languages in elementary school. Many European Union youngsters learn a second language starting in preschool. 'I think high school is really late,' she said. It's also out of sync with President Bush's 2006 National Security Language Initiative, which calls for better developing foreign-language skills. . . . That's why Iowa school districts should look for more creative solutions, with help from the state. The status quo is falling short.").
Here's my response -- too long for the Register's limitation on the number of characters it permits in comments about its stories:
Great Idea -- But Let's Pick One
As someone who has used foreign languages during considerable international travel, I couldn't agree more with the desirability of Iowa's schools requiring, or at least offering, foreign languages.
But given the small number of our high school students who are truly fluent in reading, writing and speaking a foreign language when they graduate we might want to consider some alternative approaches.
Here's one.
1. Pick one foreign language. When I was in school it was French, then the international language. Today the international language is English -- and a second, rapidly gaining, U.S. language is Spanish. But whatever the choice, just pick one.
2. Start teaching it in kindergarten and continue every year until high school graduation -- and students' mastery.
3. Forget the cafeteria choice of foreign languages. Concentrate resources and teachers on one. But when parents or students want to, make it possible for K-12 students to get credit for studying additional languages from universities and community colleges, private companies and tutors, or study abroad programs.
It's one more example of how, when we put our minds to it, we can get a greater return on less investment in our schools. Every high school graduate would be truly fluent in at least one foreign language (something they, and we, can't claim now) -- and at far less public expense than what our present K-12 foreign language programs costs.
And no one who wanted to do so would be deprived of the opportunity to earn credit for learning additional languages.
Just an idea.
# # #
June 25, 2008
Hold the Raindrop Where it Falls
Des Moines Register joined the chorus of thoughtful Iowans who are calling for Greenbelts, Greenways, and other water and soil conservation approaches to flood control. Yesterday Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced a $1.7 billion purchase of 187,000 acres of sugar fields. We have a lot to learn from the Florida Everglades preservation efforts -- and the Register.
The Register notes that today's emphasis on turning floodplains into parks that can withstand flooding, rather than condo and business developments that cannot, is . . .
a reminder of the simple advice shared many years ago by former Register cartoonist Ding Darling, a renowned conservationist: "Hold the raindrop where it falls."
Beyond battling Mother Nature with man-made structures to control her rivers and streams, Iowa must work with Mother Nature to help her keep the raindrops where they fall.
That will require a change in how Iowans collectively view our water, not as a hindrance - to be drained off fields and parking lots as quickly as possible, often carrying animal waste, fertilizer and street runoff downstream - but as a natural resource to soak up and savor.
It also will require a collective commitment from everyone in a watershed, everywhere the raindrop falls.
Commit to conservation
That means stepping up farm conservation efforts. If Iowa's rolling hills include more trees and swamps, excess water is more likely to be sponged up and slowed.
Curbing flooding downstream means working upstream to restore wetlands, prairies and natural barriers to control water.
Editorial, "Embrace a New Water Ethic for Iowa," Des Moines Register, June 22, 2008.
Imagine Iowa 1000 years ago, with its prairies and river systems. Look at a map of Iowa that highlights our vast network of rivers. And then look at, and learn about, the Florida Everglades -- the so-called "River of Grass."
No, I'm not suggesting what Iowa tourism needs is more alligators.
What I am suggesting is that we have some problems, and opportunities, in common with Florida.
Here's a brief excerpt from Wikipedia's detailed entry on the Everglades:
The Everglades are a subtropical wetland located in the southern portion of the U.S. state of Florida, comprising the southern half of a large watershed. The entire system begins in the vicinity of Orlando with the Kissimmee River. The Everglades includes the region that spans from Lake Okeechobee south to Florida Bay, as well as the interconnected ecosystems within the boundary. The Kissimmee River discharges into Lake Okeechobee, a vast shallow fresh water lake. Water leaving Lake Okeechobee in the wet season forms the Everglades, a slow-moving river 60 miles (97 km) wide and over 100 miles (160 km) long, flowing southward across a slightly angled limestone shelf to Florida Bay at the southern end of the state. It is such a unique convergence of land, water, and climate that the use of singular and plural to refer to the Everglades is appropriate.[1] Characteristics of the climate of South Florida include annual wet and dry seasons, and the region has a history of recurring flooding and drought that has shaped the natural environment.
"Everglades," Wikipedia. The piece goes on to provide details about the variety and extent of water plans and projects from the past and for the future.
The Everglades is one very wide River of Grass, covering much of the state. The Iowa rivers system is one vast river system covering all of the "State of Grass" -- or what once was a prairie state.
The Everglades has become polluted from, among other things, fertilizer. Development is encroaching. That creates rapid runoff and flooding.
Sound familiar?
Iowa ranks near the bottom of all states in terms of public lands, park and forest lands, wetlands and prairies. Some of our rivers are the most polluted in the country.
What is Florida doing about its problems? Read on.
Two sides that rarely agree on anything celebrated Tuesday a "monumental" but still tentative $1.7 billion buyout that would put the nation's largest sugar grower out of business in six years but fill a gaping hole in Florida's long-stalled Everglades restoration.
The deal, expected to be final by Nov. 30, is good for the environment -- the nearly 300 square miles of sugar land is "the holy grail," one Everglades advocate said. And it's good for U.S. Sugar Corp., which will get $1.7 billion and six years of rent-free operations with the state as its landlord.
In return, Florida gets a chance to reinvigorate the stalled restoration of the Everglades, end years of bickering over pollution by "Big Sugar" and -- years from now -- get more much-needed clean water flowing into the River of Grass.
"I can envision no better gift to the Everglades, or the people of Florida, than to place in public ownership this missing link that represents the key to true restoration," Gov. Charlie Crist said Tuesday, likening the announcement to the creation of America's first national park, Yellowstone. . . .
No one has drawn up specific plans yet, but a likely scenario involves massively expanding reservoirs and the 44,000 acres of treatment marshes that the state is building, at a cost of more than $1.2 billion.
The marshes scrub farm runoff to the pristine water quality level needed to protect the sensitive Everglades system. . . .
Michael Sole, the secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, . . . said the deal would have the added benefit of easing pressure to pump polluted water out of Lake Okeechobee to protect its deteriorating dike, discharges that have choked estuaries on both coasts in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers with repeated, damaging algae blooms.
Curtis Morgan and Scott Hiaasen, "Sugar buyout hailed as Glades `gift,'" Miami Herald, June 25, 2008.
There is no shortage of ideas that simultaneously eliminate or reduce flooding, purify our rivers and streams, encourage wildlife, reduce greenhouse gases, minimize the pollution from runoff, increase recreational opportunities, promote tourism, and stimulate economic growth.
Florida has just invested $1.7 billion in one such effort. Johnson County residents will be given the opportunity to provide roughly 1% of that amount to produce similar benefits here.
If we continue to re-build in floodplains, if we refuse to change our water runoff practices where we can, and fail to build Greenbelts and Greenways where we can't, if we fail to demonstrate the political courage to put in place the solutions that have already been worked out by others, we will deserve what we get in future flood losses -- and don't get in future benefits.
Its our grandchildren and great grandchildren who don't deserve the former, and do deserve the latter.
# # #
February 10, 2008, 11:00 a.m.; February 11, 2008, 7:30 a.m. [Register posts new AP story], 1:30 p.m., 3:15 p.m.; February 12, 2008, 8:00 a.m., 11:45 a.m.; February 13, 2008, 11:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m.; February 14, 2008, 12:30 p.m.
Register Skips a (Presidential) Beat
Yesterday was a really big day for Senator Barack Obama. In one AP story it was called "his best night of the campaign." (All quoted stories are linked, below.)
The New York Times's page-one headline called it "convincing wins" in a story that began, "Senator Barack Obama won decisive victories . . . an impressive sweep . . . just as Mr. Obama is building a strong advantage over Mrs. Clinton in raising money . . .."
The Washington Post's page-one story headlined that "Obama Handily Wins" and began, "Sen. Barack Obama dominated Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in presidential balloting . . . besting her by huge margins . . .."
The Gazette used an AP story that led, "Sen. Barack Obama swept the Louisiana primary and caucuses . . . , slicing into Sen. Hillary Clinton’s slender delegate lead . . .. The Illinois senator also won caucuses in the Virgin Islands, completing his best night of the campaign."
This morning's Register, by contrast, headlines this news "Obama, Clinton Fight in 3 States," puts the story on page 2, and leads with news of Senator McCain -- following which they note that Obama and Clinton "competed for convention delegates across three states" in a race that was "close and likely to get closer."
Spreading the Clinton campaign's usual pre-results spin (if Obama wins this one it was to be expected and doesn't mean anything; of course if we win it is a major upset showing the momentum is now going with us) the story notes "nearly half those casting ballots [in Louisiana] were black. As a group, African-Americans have overwhelmingly favored Obama . . .."
The story reports the merged (pledged and super) delegate count (in which Clinton has a slight edge) rather than the caucus and primary delegate count (in which Obama leads). It mentions that "people were turned away from a University of Maine [event where] Clinton spoke to a capacity crowd of about 1750 people" (with of course no mention of Obama's crowd of 21,000 at a Washington State event earlier in the week).
Morever, immediately under this page 2 placement, in the "Campaign News" sidebar, following the heading for "DEMOCRATS" is, immediately "Hillary Clinton" -- in bold. It goes on to quote her view "that she, not Barack Obama, is best positioned to beat [McCain]." Only later in that paragraph is there a quote from Senator Barak Obama, referred to as simply "Obama" at that point, and in regular font rather than bold, without a paragraph break, and thus something the reader's eye would not quickly catch.
I have no real problem with the Register deciding that its corporate, or ideological, or political, or public spirited interests or inclinations lean it in the direction of an editorial endorsement of Clinton over Obama. That's the right and choice of those who buy printers' ink by the barrel.
But I do think that running this AP story and "Campaign News" blub favoring Senator Clinton -- without more -- raises questions regarding the extent to which that editorial ink is bleeding over into the news pages.
Now the Register may respond that this was all that was available to it when the paper went to press. (The AP story it used ran about 5:00 p.m. CT Saturday.) To which I would respond with the following questions and comments:
1. When do you go to press with the up-to-date "news" for the first, "Section A," portion of your Sunday paper? Is there no way you could do that any later in the afternoon or evening?
2. If not, wouldn't it have been better -- knowing that the page-one news all across America (and the world, for that matter) this morning was going to be results in yesterday's Democratic contests -- to put a notice on page one indicating that you were aware of the importance of the results in the primaries and caucuses, but that your paper had to be printed before any results could be known?
3. Finally, since you have an online version of the paper, to which you often add news and updates before the next hard copy paper version is printed, why did you not post results -- and stories -- there once they were available? (Perhaps you have by now; but I couldn't find them when I looked this morning at the same time I was getting the stories from the Times, Post and Gazette).
[Feb. 11, 7:30 a.m.: The Register has an AP item on its Web site this morning that tells the story of Obama's impressive sweep of five events over the weekend: the Washington, Nebraska and Virgin Islands caucuses, to which he added the Maine caucus on Sunday, plus the primary in Louisiana -- all by substantial 2-to-1 or close to 3-to-1 margins over Clinton. Charles Babington, "Obama Basks in Crowds, Momentum," Associated Press/Des Moines Register, February 11, 2008, 7:47 a.m. ET. (Also noting that Obama's crowds are "several times larger" than those for Clinton, Obama's having won a Grammy as well (over Bill Clinton), and the shake-up in Clinton's top campaign staff.) [The link now [4:00 p.m.] takes you to a 4:46 p.m. ET rewrite of the Babington story.]
The addition of the Maine victory makes this an even bigger national/international story this morning than it was yesterday. I haven't yet seen a hard copy paper version of this morning's [Feb. 11] Des Moines Register, but if it still contains no mention of Obama's string of major victories during the prior 48 hours I think it has some explaining to do.
Feb. 11, 1:30 p.m.: Having now seen my hard copy Register for today I'm sad to report that the paper's choice of AP stories continues to leave it open to charges of (pro-Clinton) news (as distinguished from editorial) bias. Details later this afternoon.
3:15 p.m.: On p. A1 is Beth Fouhy, "Clinton Overhauls Campaign Leadership," Associated Press, with a cheery picture of Hillary Clinton. [A version of this story can be found as Beth Fouhy, "Clinton Replaces Campaign Manager," Associated Press/WTOPNews.com, February 11, 2008, 12:34 a.m. -- a version from which the Register 's version deletes from its lead: "engineering a shake-up in a presidential campaign struggling to overcome rival Sen. Barack Obama's financial and political strengths."]
Page A2 has the carry-over from the p. A1 story, and two additional Associated Press stories: Stephen Ohlemacher and Jim Kuhnhenn, "Clinton Leads With Insiders" [a version of this story can be found as, Stephen Ohlemacher and Jim Kuhnhenn, "Clinton Has Lead With Party Insiders," Associated Press/WTOPNews.com, February 10, 2008, 9:44 p.m.], and Pauline Arrillaga, "Obama's Appeal Among Hispanics Could Prove Critical; Polls Show It's Lagging, Whereas Hillary Clinton Has Solid Support From This Segment of Voters." [A version of the Arrillaga story -- with a much more balanced headline and a story from which the Register stripped all the balanced positives about Obama and Hispanics -- is available as Pauline Arrillaga, "Democratic candidate Barack Obama says 'Yes, We Can!' but Hispanic voters ask: Can he?," Associated Press/Minneapolis Star Tribune, February 10, 2008, 2:04 p.m.]
The only mention of Obama's extraordinary string of victories is a little boxed story on p. A2 with no by-line: "Maine Voters Hand Obama Another Victory." As the headline suggests it is, almost in its entirety, merely a very brief report from Maine. Thus, so far as I know the Register has yet to run a story regarding Obama's having bested Clinton, often by 2 or 3-to-one, in 5 straight contests during 48 hours -- contests in America's Northeast, Northwest, Midwest, South and Virgin Islands.
Feb. 12, 8:00 a.m. -- And the (Register's) beat (up on Obama) goes on: Haven't seen the hard copy yet, but The Gazette features the AP story pointing out how much better Obama does against McCain than does Clinton. The Register's online "national news" uses the AP story repeating the Clinton "expectations" spin, designed to diminish any Obama victories, while downplaying and burying the "Obama Beats McCain" story and presenting only the Clinton camp response to it. Beth Fouhy, "Obama Hopes to Rout Clinton in Primaries," February 12, 2008, 8:22 a.m. EST.
11:45 a.m.What the Register runs in its hard copy paper edition is a different AP story (90% of which deals with Clinton and McCain) on page 2: Kristin Jensen and Indira Lakshmanan, "Democrats Work Crowds Ahead of 3 Primaries Today," Associated Press/Des Moines Register, February 12, 2008, p. A2 -- along with a smiling picture of Senator Clinton trying to look her most charming, and an expressionless picture of Obama. (It's not available from the Register's online site, but is available here: Kristin Jensen and Indira Lakshmanan, "Clinton Woes Small Groups, Obama Rallies Crowds," Associate Press/Bloomberg.com, February 11, 2008.)
As the Bloomberg version reveals, not only did the Register's headline give the story an entirely different spin than Bloomberg, the Register also chose to omit from its version of the story paragraphs such as the following:
Obama held his first rally today at the Comcast Center arena at the University of Maryland's College Park campus. The arena, which seats more than 17,500 people, was packed with cheering Obama supporters. He plans a similar event at a stadium in Baltimore.
. . .
Weekend Contests
Obama bested Clinton in four states over the weekend, winning caucuses in Maine yesterday 60 percent to 40 percent and rolling up similar margins in caucuses in Nebraska and Washington along with the primary in Louisiana.
Meanwhile, The Daily Iowan printed the AP story reported by Alan Fram and Trevor Tompson, under the headline, "Obama Bests McCain in New AP Poll," The Daily Iowan, February 12, 2008, p. A5 (which I cannot find in its online edition). Against McCain Obama wins by 48-42%; Clinton and McCain are in virtual tie at 45-46%. Clinton did no better than Obama with two groups that have previously favored her: whites and women. (While among men, in a McCain-Clinton match-up, they prefer McCain by 9 points, but split evenly with Obama; younger men favor Obama by 9 points over McCain.) Matched against McCain, women choose Obama by 12 points, and Clinton by 11. Among minorities, Obama gets 74% of their votes when running against McCain -- 7 points more than Clinton.
In short, this is a major, major story -- especially given the role of the super delegates and the emphasis they tend to put on who can win (as do Democratic voters generally). And yet the Register chooses to dismiss it with the line in a little sidebar, "MATCHUPS: McCain remains competitive in head-to-head matchups against both Democratic contenders . . .." [p. A2].
Feb. 13, 11:30 a.m. -- Register acknowledges existence of 2008 presidential election contest. David Espo/Associated Press, "Win in Virginia is Sixth Straight for Obama; On the Republican Side, John McCain Narrowly Edges Mike Huckabee," Associated Press/Des Moines Register, February 13, 2008, p. A1. (Although not available from Register online, it can be found as David Espo, "Obama, McCain Win Virginia Primaries," Associated Press/AP Online, February 12, 2008, 9:46 p.m.) Below the fold, at the bottom of the page, it was at least on page one, and a fairly straight story -- although the Register deleted the line, "An Associated Press-Ipsos poll found Obama with a narrow lead over the Arizona senator [Senator John McCain] in a potential match-up, and Clinton running about even," characterizing Obama's lead as simply, "the two camps debated which contender is more likely to defeat McCain in the general election." And of course, presumably because of early deadlines, the Register's headline referred only to "Sixth Straight for Obama" rather than the eight it now is. Nor did the story report anything beyond bland generalities regarding the extent to which Obama is not only winning eight contests in a row, not only winning by margins of 2-or-3-to-one but, most significantly, now increasingly adding to his base demographic (African-Americans, upper income, well educated, and young people) larger and larger shares -- often even besting Clinton -- of those demographics formerly providing her support (women, white men, older voters).
1:00 p.m.: The great irony is that the Register columnist, David Yepsen, has written a balanced column about what's really going on in this primary.That's the good news. The bad news? It's not in the paper! It's a blog entry, available only to those who search for it. David Yepsen, "On Politics: Of Delegates and Demographics," Des Moines Register Online, February 12, 2008. He begins, "Despite all the network talk about how close the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama race has become, Obama is starting to put this away." He then itemizes six categories of reasons why and concludes,
"Bottom line: He’s winning. She’s losing. It’s only a matter of time. While there will be lots of talk about how this will have to be decided by the superdelegates, the fact is those superdelegates are politicians. They can put a wet finger in the wind quicker than any of the rest of us and sense that reality.
They will also want to get with a winner. They will want to unify their party and move on. O-mentum will accelerate."
Has this already appeared in the Register's hard copy paper edition? Is it (or some revision thereof) scheduled for publication later? If not, why not? What is going on at the Register?
Feb. 14, 12:30 p.m. -- It's Valentines Day; Time to Credit the Register Where Credit is Due. Today's page one, bottom of the page, in the "Inside Today's Register" feature, there's a picture of a charming, smiling, energized Senator Clinton, but a headline: "Clinton's Support Slipping Among Women, Whites." So, it may be coming nearly one week late, but the paper is finally acknowledging (on page A6) that its candidate is in real serious trouble (as its columnist, David Yepsen, pointed out yesterday -- though from a blog entry that's yet to appear in the hard copy paper).
The demographics that have been thought to be hers have been moving over to Senator Obama. The story on page 6 (unavailable from the Register online) is Alan Fram and Trevor Tompson, "Women, Whites Leaving Clinton; Her Support Among Other Groups Also Seems to be Slipping, Exit Polls Show," Associated Press/Des Moines Register, February 14, 2008, p. A6.
The story is available online as Alan Fram and Trevor Tompson, "Clinton's Edge Slips With Whites, Women," Associated Press/wtopnews.com, February 14, 2008, 6:32 a.m. ET. (This version contains a good deal more than the Register's edit, but I cannot say that either is more or less favorable to Senator Clinton than the other.)
So thank you, and Happy Valentine's Day, Register!]
What Follows Are Links to, and Quotes From, the Stories Referenced
in the February 10th Portion of This Blog Entry
David Espo, Associated Press, "The Race to the White House: Iowa winners Obama, Huckabee add to totals; McCain still far ahead in GOP delegate count; Clinton, Obama tight," The Gazette, February 10, 2008, p. A1.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama swept the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washington state Saturday night, slicing into Sen. Hillary Clinton’s slender delegate lead in their historic race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Illinois senator also won caucuses in the Virgin Islands, completing his best night of the campaign.
“Today, voters from the West Coast to the Gulf Coast to the heart of America stood up to say ‘Yes, we can,’” Obama told a cheering audience of Democrats at a party dinner in Richmond, Va.
Michael D. Shear and Anne E. Kornblut, "Obama Handily Wins Nebraska, Louisiana, Washington," Washington Post, February 10, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama dominated Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in presidential balloting in Nebraska, Louisiana and Washington state last night, besting her by huge margins in those contests and further narrowing her slender advantage in delegates needed to claim the Democratic presidential nomination.
Kate Zernike, "Obama Gets Convincing Wins in 3 States," New York Times, February 10, 2008
Senator Barack Obama won decisive victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska on Saturday, giving him an impressive sweep going into a month when the Democratic nominating contests are expected to favor him. The successes come just as Mr. Obama is building a strong advantage over Mrs. Clinton in raising money, providing important fuel for the nominating contests ahead.
David Espo, Associated Press, "Obama, Clinton Fight in 3 States; Huckabee Wins 1," Des Moines Register, February 10, 2008, p. A2 [not available from Register online].
Although the Register does not make an online version available of the AP story it used, what follows is a version of it as presented by Yahoo! News. The Register did not run all of it; the portions it omitted are [enclosed in brackets] -- for example, the AP story's noting that Obama raised $7 million in two days and Clinton had to loan her campaign $5 million.
David Espo, Associated Press, "Democrats battle; Huckabee wins Kan.," Yahoo! News, February 9, 2008, 6:11 p.m. ET
Sen. John McCain flunked his first ballot test since becoming the Republican nominee-in-waiting, losing the Kansas caucuses on Saturday. Democratic rivals Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton competed for convention delegates across three states in their landmark struggle for the party's presidential nomination.
McCain fell in Kansas to Mike Huckabee, who got nearly 60 percent of the caucus vote a few hours after telling conservatives in Washington, "I majored in miracles, and I still believe in them." The former Arkansas governor won all 36 delegates at stake.
Republicans also voted in a primary in Louisiana and held caucuses in Washington.
McCain began the day with 719 delegates, far ahead of his remaining rivals. Huckabee's Kansas victory left him with 234.
The Democratic race was far different, close and likely to get closer.
A total of 158 delegates was at stake in the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washington. Caucuses in the Virgin Islands offered three more.
Preliminary results of a survey of voters leaving their polling places in Louisiana showed that nearly half of those casting ballots were black. As a group, African-Americans have overwhelmingly favored Obama in earlier primaries, helping him to wins in South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia.
One in seven Democratic voters and about one in 10 Republicans said Hurricane Katrina had caused their families severe hardship from which they have not recovered. There was another indication of the impact the storm had on the state. Early results suggested that northern Louisiana accounted for a larger share of the electorate than in the past, presumably the result of the decline of population in the hurricane-battered New Orleans area.
Clinton began the day with a slender delegate lead in The Associated Press count. She had 1,055 delegates to 998 for Obama. A total of 2,025 is required to win the nomination at the party convention in Denver.
[The day's contests opened a new phase in the Democratic race between Clinton, attempting to become the first woman in the White House, and Obama, hoping to become the first black.]
The Feb. 5 Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses in 22 states, which once looked likely to effectively settle the race, instead produced a near-equal delegate split.
That left Obama and Clinton facing the likelihood of a grind-it-out competition lasting into spring — if not to the convention itself.
[With the night's events, 29 of the 50 states have selected delegates.]
[Two more — Michigan and Florida — held renegade primaries and the Democratic National Committee has vowed not to seat any delegates chosen at either of them.]
Maine, with 24 delegates, holds caucuses on Sunday. [Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia and voting by Americans overseas are next, on Tuesday, with 175 combined.]
[Then follows a brief intermission, followed by a string of election nights, some crowded, some not.]
[The date of March 4 looms large, 370 delegates in primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.]
[Mississippi is alone in holding a primary one week later, with a relatively small 33 delegates at stake.]
[Puerto Rico anchors the Democratic calendar, with 55 delegates chosen in caucuses on June 7.]
People were turned away from a University of Maine student center Saturday morning as Clinton spoke to a capacity crowd of about 1,750 people. [She urged supporters to participate in Sunday's caucuses.]
"This is your chance to be part of helping Maine pick a president," she said. "So I hope even if you've never, ever caucused before, tomorrow will be your first time ... because there is so much at stake in this election."
Obama, also campaigning in Maine, looked ahead to the general election, criticizing Republican McCain without mentioning his Democratic rival.
McCain initially "stood up to George Bush and opposed his first cuts," Obama said at Nicky's Diner in Bangor. Now the GOP senator is calling for continuing those tax cuts, which grant significant breaks to high-income taxpayers, "in his rush to embrace the worst of the Bush legacy."
[If Super Tuesday failed to settle the campaign, it produced a remarkable surge in fundraising.]
[Obama's aides announced he had raised more than $7 million on line in the two days that followed.]
[Clinton disclosed she had loaned her campaign $5 million late last month in an attempt to counter her rival's Super Tuesday television advertising. She raised more than $6 million in the two days after the busiest night in primary history.]
[The television ad wars continued unabated.]
[Obama has been airing commercials for more than a week in television markets serving every state that has a contest though Feb 19.]
[Clinton began airing ads midweek in Washington state, Maine and Nebraska, and added Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia on Friday.]
[The exit poll was conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for The Associated Press and the television networks.]
# # #
January 24, 2008, 8:00 a.m.
The Register has done Iowans a favor this morning with its perusal of, and then reporting about, the "newly released state campaign finance disclosure reports for 2007." Jennifer Jacobs, "Democrat McCarthy Raises Most Money at $251,000," Des Moines Regislter, January 24, 2008.
But it has only scratched the surface.
"Knowledge Management" literature (for which the linked document is but the first on Google's list) draws a distinction between "data," "information," "knowledge: and "wisdom."
The disclosure reports, and the Register's reporting, provide the "data" -- or at least some of it.
What we now need is the additional data, and discovery of relationships, that can turn that data into "information" and "knowledge."
(I'll save for the day that happens an exploration of what "wisdom" might be with regard to Iowa's needed campaign finance reform.)
For example, as one reader commented following the Register's online story, "Why is it McCarthy's biggest donors were from out of state? Does this not raise any questions with anyone? What pull, and on what project are these people looking for help on?" ("TheWizard," 1/24/2008 4:36:06 AM).
If the Register is still interested in Pulitzer Prizes (it was once the proud possessor of a collection of them second only to the New York Times) -- not to mention the very substantial community service of cleaning up Iowa politics -- here are some of the questions to which they might want to seek answers.
1. "Follow the money." That was "Deep Throat's" advice to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as they investigated and exposed the Watergate scandal ultimately leading to President Nixon's resignation. And it's my first bit of advice to the Register. Who is giving what to whom and what do they do with it? Individual Iowa legislators tell their constituents they need money for re-election campaigns -- even when they're running unopposed. What do they do with it? Much is simply passed through to their party's leaders, or the state Democratic or Republican organizations. Why? What do they, what do their contributors, what do we, get for that money? To what extent is this pass-through procedure used to shield from public disclosure how much is really coming from special interests to party leaders? And, in reverse, what are party leaders (and the special interests they may be representing) gaining by passing out money to other members? Where do the major state parties get the (largely unregulated) money they have and how do they spend it?
2. Who are these donors and what are their interests? A name (of a donor) and amount (of a contribution) is data. "Knowledge" requires that we know the economic or other interests of that donor. Sometimes that's easy, when the donor is a registered lobbyist for a special interest, or the CEO of a corporation, or is known to be a highway contractor or major land owner. At other times it's more difficult, especially if the money is coming through employees (who have been given raises and are then asked for checks, which are bundled, donated and amount to little more than an illegal contribution from a corporation), spouses, children, relatives or friends of that individual.
3. What is being bought? Some special interests are regular donors. They are like the wealthy Texan, asked by the airline ticket agent where he wanted to go, who replied, "It makes no difference; I've got business everywhere." Some of those funding Iowa's campaigns always have some kind of business with the legislature or governor -- or know that they might. Others are primarily focused on a specific bill they want to defeat, or have enacted, or an earmark, tax break, or bit of "corporate welfare" cash they would like from the state's taxpayers. In any case, "knowledge" requires that we know the relationship between who is giving and what they are getting: what bills on their behalf were introduced by party leaders, or individual legislators, who benefited from their contributions? If they gave to the governor, or other executive branch officials, what agency decisions affected their economic interests? (The rule of thumb in Washington is that major contributors get at least a 1000-to-1 return on their money; contribute $1 million and get $1 billion of government largesse in return. For documentation see, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996.)
There are lots more questions to ask and trails to follow, but hopefully these few illustrative examples will get our editors and reporters thinking about how their "data mining" these golden nuggets could end up providing some real "knowledge" -- and maybe someday even "wisdom" -- for their readers, and a few extra prizes to hang on the walls of the board room and news room.
# # #
November 12, 2007, 12:15 p.m.
At Long Last: Johnson Disagrees with Doak
Newspaper-TV Mergers Are Not in Democracy's Best Interest
I've finally found a reason to disagree with Richard Doak about something.
There is no one in American journalism I admire more than this Register former editor and (actually continuing) columnist, who's now lecturing at Iowa State for some very lucky students. (I just wish he was here in Iowa City.)
Not just for months or years, but for decades, I have been agreeing with virtually everything he's written. In fact, I've urged him to put some of those columns in a book for those who care about Iowa and who might just build a future for Iowa based on his blueprints. (He's so far been too modest to do it.)
So it was with a sense of relief, of sorts, that I found myself disagreeing with his column last Sunday. Richard Doak, "Get best of modern media world — allow newspaper, TV ownership," Des Moines Register, November 11, 2007. It's probably not a good idea to agree with anybody all the time.
Doak's column advocates that we'd all be better off if media corporations were permitted to own both newspapers and television stations in the same town.
For years this kind of media concentration has been prohibited by the FCC even though it has, over the last 30 years, continued to erode more and more of the specific regulations that once defined the Congressional licensing standard: "public interest, convenience and necessity." Now the current industry-dominated agency is proposing to do away with the prohibition. Doak thinks it would be a good thing if it did.
In order to respond to his arguments I must first set out excerpts from them in his own words rather than my characterization of them. I will number what I believe to be a rough breakdown of the categories.
1. More news. "the sum of the news it ["a combined newspaper-television newsroom"] could deliver to readers-viewers would be greater than either part could deliver alone.
The television broadcasts at 6 and 10 p.m. could carry more news because the station's small staff would be augmented by the reporting power of the newspaper's large staff.
The newspaper could broaden its news gathering even more if its reporters didn't have to staff the same events being covered by the TV reporters."
2. Better Web Sites. "Best of all, a combined newspaper-television station could produce a killer Web site.
A local Web site that had both comprehensive text and compelling visual presentation would be unbeatable. A merged TV-newspaper newsroom could create a site everyone in town would automatically log onto first, not only for news but also for community information, entertainment, discussions, weather and links to databases and government agencies.
It would be a convenient, indispensable, one-stop source for text and visual information. Every community should have one.
American communities never will, however, unless the Federal Communications Commission allows 'cross ownership' of newspapers and television stations."
3. Limit numbers, not co-ownership. "Opponents of allowing cross ownership raise the fear of media being concentrated in too few hands. If that's the problem, the way to address it is by limiting the total number of stations a company may own, not by prohibiting the natural convergence of print and broadcast news in local communities."
4. Promote convergence. "Convergence is the right word. It used to be a theoretical concept. Now it's here. The lines are blurring between print and electronic media as they converge onto one platform, the Internet.
* * *
But newspaper staffs aren't great at visuals, and TV staffs aren't great at text. Combined staffs could be, and a lot of unnecessary duplication of assignments could be eliminated in the process."
5. Make media more Wal-Mart-like. "Requiring newspapers and local television stations to remain separate would be like requiring hardware to be sold only in hardware stores and clothing to be sold only in clothing stores, thus denying Wal-Mart the ability to sell both in its supercenters.
The time has come for supercenters of another kind."
6. Blogs eliminate information monopolies. "Another argument against cross ownership is that it would allow one company to monopolize the news in a community. That's an obsolete concept. In an age when anyone with a computer can launch a blog, an information monopoly is impossible.
Having an information supercenter in your community would leave plenty of room for boutique information shops around town."
7. What's good for general media is good for the country. "Of course, it's possible that the motives of FCC commissioners who want to allow cross ownership are not entirely pure. Perhaps they are succumbing to the blandishments of media moguls who want to expand their empires.
If so, it would be an instance of self-interest coinciding with the public interest. A strong merged newspaper-TV newsroom in a community would serve the public better than two weak separate operations, even if media companies made more profit in the deal."
Here's my response to each of these arguments in turn.
1. More news. The track record so far, as A.J. Liebling once observed (in his book, The Press), is that newspapers are like bars. Bars used to offer the "blue plate special" -- reduced price food with the drink. But as monopoly or oligopoly bars took the place of competition, the first thing to go was the blue plate special. Similarly, he observed, the first thing to go, following the merger of newspapers into a local newspaper monopoly, was the news.
There are significant differences between today's five major multi-media owners and the early notion of local ownership of what were then AM radio stations, "integration of ownership and management" as the FCC called it in picking the winners in comparative hearings, or as it was sometimes called, "mom-and-pop" owners.
As many have bemoaned, it is no longer enough that a chain-owned newspaper make a profit. It must make increasingly greater profits each year in order to convince Wall Street that its stock price should increase. Newspapers making 20% and more profit are cutting back on the number of journalists in their overseas and domestic bureaus and becoming even more responsive to the interests of their advertisers and the demographics they want to reach.
Television stations owned by media conglomerates are, if anything, even worse in terms of their solid news coverage, investigative reporting, and community service.
When newspapers, or stations, are locally owned they may still have conflicts of interest, and third-generation owners may be more committed to profit than journalism, but the community at least knows who they are. The owners feel some pressure from their neighbors, country club colleagues, and others in the community to provide a constructive service. Once public ownership takes the place of human ownership those restraints disappear. Many multi-media CEOs -- hired guns all -- probably couldn't even name for you all the properties their corporation owns.
In short, I just don't believe that permitting multi-media conglomerate corporations to own newspaper-television combinations within a given community is going to increase the quantity or quality of local news and public service. (And, although of lesser concern to me, a decline in the number of local media owners has also proven to be bad for local merchants and advertisers who, historically, have found themselves paying much higher advertising rates as media competition declines.)
2. Better Web sites. Doak argues that America "never will [have the "killer Web sites" he desires], however, unless the Federal Communications Commission allows 'cross ownership' of newspapers and television stations."
Virtually every media outlet in the country has a Web presence, from the New York Times and Washington Post, and all the major television networks, to The Daily Iowan -- and, not incidentally, Dick Doak's Des Moines Register. Many, like the Register, already combine online reproductions of their hard copy content with video and still picture features, blogs from their own reporters and other publication-certified bloggers, along with spirited contributions from readers in comment sections for each story and opinion piece. As if this was not enough, the Register also offers an "e-mail newsletter," "news text alerts," RSS feeds, and a new "mobile site" that can provide news on your cell phone. Want to know what's next? The Register is "redesigning" all of this and now offers it for inspection on a beta site.
It's hard to argue that none of this will be possible without a merger of a community's newspapers and television stations -- especially given what the Register is already doing.
Moreover, where there is co-ownership, such as with one of Iowa's few remaining locally owned newspapers and television stations -- The Gazette and KCRG-TV9 in Cedar Rapids -- the owner wisely maintains separate news staffs, and Web sites, for each rather than combining them into one. There are advantages, in terms of quantity and quality of coverage and maintenance of a little more competition, to not merging the two.
3. Limit numbers, not co-ownership. I agree that it would be advantageous to reduce the numbers of stations any one owner could control. I just don't think that has anything to do with the evils of joint ownership within a community.
Initially, as mentioned above, the notion was that an owner would just hold a license to one station. Over the years the limits were raised to what they were when I was an FCC commissioner during the 1960s and '70s: 7 AM stations, 7 FM, and 7 TV -- only 5 of which could be VHF stations. Today, with the continuing erosion of FCC standards, at one time Clear Channel held licenses to something like 1200 radio stations.
There are several, distinguishable, problems associated with media ownership. Conglomerate ownership (owning media and other kinds of businesses in the same market) can influence the owner's coverage of issues affecting its other businesses. Regional concentration can create an undesirable amount of political power in a single media owner. Increasing the number of media outlets a single licensee can control nationally increases its national political power and reduces the number of media voices. Multiple-media owners (those owning book publishing, movie studios, TV networks, cable systems and cable program providers, DVD sales and rental, newspapers and magazines) can use their market power to cross-promote products, unfairly compete, and raise the barriers to entry of new firms and the creative community.
Joint ownership within a community -- whether of newspapers and television, or just multiple radio stations -- is a distinct problem. Ultimately, the only persons with meaningful First Amendment rights are media owners.
There is a distinction between "matters of grace" and "matters of right."
A newspaper may decide to publish virtually all letters to the editor -- whether because doing so helps increase circulation, or as a community service -- as a "matter of grace." But no one has a legally enforceable right to have their letter published -- or their paid advertisement accepted for publication for that matter.
The Supreme Court has ruled, in effect, that with a newspaper's First Amendment right to speak, to publish, goes its First Amendment right to censor all others from publishing in that paper.
Thus, as a practical matter, the fewer media owners in a community, the smaller is the likelihood that there will be a diversity of voices, a competition among those with the potential to do investigative reporting and to stand up to powerful advertisers.
At a minimum, local concentration of media ownership is a different issue, with different risks and compromises, than the issues surrounding the total number of media outlets nationally owned by any single licensee.
4. Promote convergence. Convergence is already here, as my description of the Register's Web site, above, illustrates: newspaper copy created with printer's ink and newsprint and also on computer screens, delivery by newspaper carriers and also by cell phones, bloggers commenting about newspapers' stories and newspapers providing outlets for bloggers.
Convergence has, and will continue to, occur regardless of ownership patterns -- though there will be more of it if the FCC fails to approve the newspaper-TV station merger proposal.
Doak argues that co-ownership will prevent the "unnecessary duplication of assignments" that exists today when a television crew and a newspaper reporter are both sent to cover the same story. But it's that "unnecessary duplication of assignments" that is an "essential duplication of assignments" if we are to maintain a distinction between our media and the Soviet-style single voice that is the preference of dictators.
It is that "duplication" that makes for a marketplace for any product. When it comes to news, it's all that makes possible a "marketplace of ideas."
5. Make media more Wal-Mart-like. Doak writes: "Requiring newspapers and local television stations to remain separate would be like requiring hardware to be sold only in hardware stores and clothing to be sold only in clothing stores, thus denying Wal-Mart the ability to sell both in its supercenters.
The time has come for supercenters of another kind."
I suspect there are a good number of Iowans who are already questioning the supercenters represented by Wal-Mart, let alone "supercenters of another kind." This was probably not Doak's best choice of analogy.
In the context of the news business, "hardware" and "clothing" are more like "sports news" and "city council news." The issue is not whether there should, or should not, be separate sources of each variety of news. The issue is whether their combinations in "supercenters" (called "newspapers" and "television stations") should be combined and then controlled by corporations with the power, and consequences, of a Wal-Mart supercenter's impact on local merchants or whether more, and smaller, locally owned "supercenters" would better serve the needs of citizens in a self-governing democracy.
6. Blogs eliminate information monopolies. Doak says, "Another argument against cross ownership is that it would allow one company to monopolize the news in a community. That's an obsolete concept. In an age when anyone with a computer can launch a blog, an information monopoly is impossible."
That fewer media outlets, and owners, reduce diversity in sources of news is far from an "obsolete concept." And to say that because "anyone with a computer can launch a blog, an information monopoly is impossible" would be laughable if it were not presented as a serious argument.
The Los Angeles Times is the dominant newspaper in what is about an 8000 square mile area with a population, and readership, in the millions. Anyone in the LA basin who disagrees with a position the paper has taken, and who is excluded from the paper's pages, has the option of going to a commercial copy center, running off millions of copies of an 8-1/2 x 11 flyer, and delivering them to every home in LA. Could anyone seriously argue that this option makes the LA Times any less of a dominant information source? (That it is not technically a "monopoly" -- either with or without the availability of blogs -- is really irrelevant to the point that it is clearly disproportionately influential when it comes to LA news and opinion.)
The same goes for blogs. As a blogger myself, I can assure you of that.
7. What's good for general media is good for the country. Doak argues: "Of course, it's possible that the motives of FCC commissioners who want to allow cross ownership are not entirely pure. Perhaps they are succumbing to the blandishments of media moguls who want to expand their empires.
If so, it would be an instance of self-interest coinciding with the public interest. A strong merged newspaper-TV newsroom in a community would serve the public better than two weak separate operations, even if media companies made more profit in the deal."
Doak has it right when he suggests that FCC commissioners are "succumbing to the blandishments of media moguls who what to expand their empires." But I believe he is dead wrong when he argues that "A strong merged newspaper-TV newsroom in a community would serve the public better than two weak separate operations, even if media companies made more profit in the deal" -- for all the reasons I've set forth above. It is precisely the financial community's pressure for the merged, publicly-held company to make "more profit in the deal" (made easier by the elimination of competition) that results in the problem.
Given the media moguls' adoption of the kind of arguments that Doak puts forth, the unwillingness of either members of Congress or of the FCC to argue back, or otherwise stand up to these firms, their lawyers, lobbyists and campaign contributions, and the expected failure of the mainstream mass media to present the issues to the public, it is likely this outrageous change in policy will probably come to pass.
But one cannot help but hear the voice of the ghost of Congressman Luther Johnson calling to us from the 1920s, when Congress was both more courageous and prescient, and reminding us of his warning from the floor of the House:
American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations. For publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a Republic, and when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership and dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people."
67 Cong. Rec. 5558 (1926).
Woe be to us, indeed.
# # #
