From a Broadcasting & Cable interview with new CNN host Piers Morgan:

What kind of feedback have you gotten from CNN?

They're thrilled. They just tell me not to forget it's an intelligent audience. And to remain independent. And being independent right now is a really good thing. Being too far right or left right now is a bit dangerous, given what’s going on in the Middle East. What Americans need is facts.

I watched some of his show last night. The guests were Hugh Hefner and his soon-to-be-wife. I guess that would be neither right nor left--just the "facts."

New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane (2/27/11) offers a justification that makes very little sense for his paper's concealing the fact that an American arrested in Pakistan worked for the CIA. The Times, Brisbane wrote, could not "take the risk that reporting the CIA connection would, as warned, lead to Mr. Davis’s death."

Davis was arrested for murder after allegedly shooting two people in Pakistan. Pakistan has the death penalty, so in theory he could be tried and executed if found guilty. Is that the risk that the New York Times is concerned about? If so, is that how the Times approaches all its crime reporting? This would lead to some interesting editorial conversations:

"We found out that the suspect took out a big insurance policy on his wife just before she disappeared, chief."

"We can't report that!! We're journalists! Do you want to get someone killed??"

The closest Brisbane comes to explaining the Times' logic is this: "The American government hoped to avoid inflaming Pakistani opinion and to create 'as constructive an atmosphere as possible' while working to resolve the diplomatic crisis." In other words, it will be easier for the U.S. to get Davis out of the country where he can't face trial if key facts in the case are hushed up. If you think that's a good reason for self-censoring your reporting, then you have no business calling yourself a journalist.

UPDATE: The New Yorker's Amy Davidson (2/28/11) delves into Brisbane's illogic in greater detail.

The documentary Gasland was up for an Academy Award last night. Director Josh Fox has been writing about the gas industry's campaign against the film, which is a critical look at hydraulic fracturing, or  "fracking." That controversy found its way to the Wall Street Journal on Friday, where a story by Ben Casselman was posted that included an interesting admission.

As Press Action noted:

In the original version of the article, Casselman, who has covered the energy industry at the Journal for several years, quoted Range Resources-Appalachia director of public affairs Matt Pitzarella as saying: "We have to stop blaming documentaries and take a look in the mirror."

Obviously, "we need to look in the mirror" is not the message the industry means to send about the film. And that might explain why the quote disappeared--to be replaced, ironically enough, by an industry spokesperson declaring that they "don't want to get drowned out... We need to be able to respond objectively and accurately." Yes, let's hope the energy industry gets a chance to be heard!

So what happened? Press Action got a response, though not one that helps explain what happened:

Press Action contacted Casselman on February 26 to find out if he knew why the Range Resources spokesman's quote was removed from his article. In an e-mail response, Casselman wrote: "As a matter of policy, the Journal doesn't discuss its editorial decisions, so I can't get into details. But stories are edited all the time between editions, for all sorts of reasons (space, clarity, etc.). So it's not unusual for the early versions of a story to look different from the final version."

Perhaps a Wall Street Journal editor could provide an answer?

As we noted here, there weren't many labor voices booked on the Sunday morning chat shows. One, actually--Richard Trumka from the AFL-CIO.

ABC's This Week featured four governors (two Democrats, two Republicans) talking about their fiscal problems. CBS's Face the Nation had a soft interview with New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie. Host Bob Schieffer asked him one question that began, "You have a reputation as a straight talker, I think...." Schieffer went on to play a clip of Christie bravely calling for Social Security cuts. Instead of questioning Christie's totally inaccurate premise--that you "have to raise the retirement age"--Schieffer asked him, "Should other people be saying that?"

Over at NBC, Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker could at least be challenged by another guest  on the same show. They weren't on at the same time, but NBC viewers could hear Trumka say this:

Well, first of all, this isn't about the budget crisis. Let's look at how this--his arguments migrated.  First he said it was--the budget crisis was caused because workers were paid too much in Wisconsin.  We now have studies that show they're not overpaid, they're underpaid.  In fact, people with a degree in Wisconsin get 25 percent less than their private sector things. 

Then he said it was about the pension.  Now we find out that his pension plan, unlike a lot in the country, is almost fully funded.  The assets match the liabilities. 

And then the employees said, or the members out there said, his workers said, "We'll accept your cuts." And he said: "No.  We won't accept your accepting our cuts." And the most outrageous thing that he did, and he talked about this, was he's now saying to them, "You either have to accept a loss of your rights or I'm going to lay you off." Now, no person should have to face the right of their loss of their job or the loss of their rights.  I know Governor Barbour would never say to his employees, his people down there, "You either have to give up your rights or you have to give up your job."

So there isn't much of a pension crisis in Wisconsin. State workers  aren't overpaid. And those same workers have agreed to many of the concessions Walker is demanding. If this were part of every discussion about Wisconsin, we'd be having a far more sensible discussion.

NBC host David Gregory followed with a popular right-wing argument about public workers' unions--that their political campaign contributions mean that elected officials owe them favors:

You raise a lot of money from public employees.  That goes, goes to finance campaigns to try to get somebody in office that you can do business with.  And ultimately you're supporting someone, in some cases, that you're ultimately negotiating with.  They also know that political employees, rather, public employees are politically active because they're organized by the unions.  And so they make concessions on things like pensions, on healthcare, knowing that the promises don't come due to well down the road.  Isn't this the cycle that we've gotten into that public unions have to take some responsibility for?

In other words, aren't politicians doing favors for you because you help them get elected? How often have CEOs and corporate trade associations--who have far more money than labor to give to politicians--been asked that kind of question?

On his Fox News show Friday, self-described "union guy" Bill O'Reilly was touting the results of a new poll finding that Wisconsinites are backing Gov. Scott Walker:

According to a new poll by WisconsinReporter.com, a nonpartisan group, 71 percent of Wisconsinites believe that Gov. Scott Walker's union cutbacks are fair. 71 percent. And 69 percent of Wisconsin residents believe state workers have better benefits than private sector employees.

That finding would seem to  at odds with other polls of Wisconsin residents. But who is this "nonpartisan" group, anyway? If you go to the  WisconsinReporter.com website, the "About" page  is blank. TPMuckracker fills in the details:

The mysterious poll of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's budget proposal making the rounds today was commissioned by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a conservative not-for-profit based in North Dakota and Virginia that was founded by a former Republican operative.

The Franklin Center also has ties to the some of the groups that organized a pro-Walker rally last weekend in Madison, including the Tea Party training group American Majority.

So that's "nonpartisan" in the same sense that O'Reilly is "independent."

In journalistic parlance, a "beat sweetener" is a story that lavishes praise on a powerful figure the reporter is assigned to cover on a regular basis--a great way for that reporter to get in good with an important source. That may have been what was happening with Lori Montgomery's February 26 Washington Post piece touting the deficit-busting greatness of White House budget director Jacob Lew. Under the headline "Jacob Lew Returns to Work on Fixing Nation's Finances, Again," she begins:

At 27, Jacob J. Lew helped save Social Security. At 41, he helped cut a deal to balance the federal budget. During the Clinton administration, he became the only White House budget director in a generation to banish deficit spending.

In a city suddenly crawling with would-be deficit-busters, even some Republicans recognize Lew as the real deal.

About the only real criticism is reserved for Barack Obama, whose budget is called "deficit-ridden." Lew leads a team that is apparently universally loved:

As a group, they are viewed by people in both parties as pragmatists with a track record of inspiring trust on both sides of the aisle. Lew, in particular, seems to have few enemies, not much ego and a reputation for focusing on the demands of the deal.

Readers also learn that Lew is "tall and dark" and "exudes a calm geniality." As Dean Baker titled his post at his Beat the Press blog, "Doesn't Anyone Have Anything Bad to Say About Jacob Lew?" Apparently not.

A front-page story in today’s New York Times strongly suggests that Roger Ailes--the News Corp executive who runs the Fox News Channel, the Fox Business Network, and Fox broadcast stations--urged a witness to lie to federal officials in order to protect friend and politician Rudolph Giuliani.

If true, what may be most remarkable about the story is how unsurprising it is coming from Fox. Other networks surely harbor biases, but it would be surprising to find, say, that a top ABC News executive had suborned perjury in a partisan ploy to protect a politician.

But if the allegations against Ailes are true, it's only the latest glimpse of the culture of lying that pervades Fox and its News Corp parent.

In addition to a well-documented habit of on-air distortion, it's important to remember that Fox has argued in court that that the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie.

The case, heard before a Florida court in 2002-03, was appealing a $425,000 judgment against Fox, that found its local Tampa affiliate WTVT had wrongfully fired reporter Jane Akre when she refused to falsify a story about  the safety of Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH). WTVT's pressure on Akre and her partner Steve Wilson to insert false material into the story reportedly came after Monsanto, which produces BGH, complained to Ailes about the anticipated report. (Ailes was not directly in charge of Fox broadcast stations at the time; he wouldn't assume that job until 2005, but was known as one of the most powerful and influential News Corp executives.)

The gallery of covers for Time magazine this week. One stands out, obviously.

As best I can tell, the labor battle in Wisconsin is a big story--and maybe the biggest labor story in years. But as Amanda Terkel reported at the Huffington Post, that doesn't mean you're going to see union advocates on the Sunday chat shows. Terkel noted:

A union official told the Huffington Post that when none of the Sunday shows' producers reached out to them to book a labor representative this week, several unions started to pitch the shows with affected workers and local and national leaders who they felt could discuss the protests. The official said the response from the shows was essentially "thanks, but no thanks."

Terkel's original post has been updated to reflect the fact that NBC's Meet the Press has announced that it will add Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO to its roundtable. The show will include an array of Republicans and conservatives: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, John McCain (because how could you have a Sunday show without him?), Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.*). Liberal MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell will also be on hand.

Shutting out labor is nothing new. A FAIR survey in 1995-96 found:

John Sweeney and Thomas Donahue, candidates for the presidency of the AFL-CIO, were the only guests who were labor leaders. Instead of worker representatives, the shows invited the CEO of United Airlines, the CEO of Continental Airlines, a Goldman Sachs analyst, retired basketball stars and political satirists.

Last week on ABC's This Week the roundtable segment was titled (on the show's website) "Roundtable: Unions vs. Tea Party." They did manage to find a Tea Party congressman (Steve Southerland), along with right-wing regular George Will and right-leaning reporter Jonathan Karl. On the other side? Democratic strategist Donna Brazile.

(Corrected: Emanuel is a Democrat)

As Josh Marshall noted recently, one of the assumptions in the media discussion about Wisconsin is that Republican politicians are playing on public outrage over the perks given to public workers. That assumption took a hit after a new Gallup Poll, reported on the front page of USA Today, found this:

Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61 percent would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33 percent who would favor such a law.

But another interesting finding from the Gallup Poll hasn't received much attention. They asked this:

As you may know, many U.S. state governments are facing large budget deficits this year. Please say whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose each of the following ways state officials could reduce their budget deficits. How about reducing pay or benefits the state provides for government workers?

One might assume that the public would support government workers taking a pay/benefit cut. But the findings are surprising: 44 percent favor or strongly favor such reductions; 53 percent oppose/strongly oppose.

Back to Marshall's point--this finding makes the prevailing media assumptions appear even weaker. On Sunday in the Washington Post, Dan Balz wrote this:

Given the precarious condition of state budgets, there is some public support for reducing pension and health benefits for public employees. Favorability ratings for unions are at a historical low, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. And the public is divided over whether it supports unions or state governments in such disputes, though tipping slightly to the unions.

In fact, if the Gallup Poll is any indication, the public hasn't decided to save money by cutting public workers' pay.

The Washington Post had a report yesterday (2/22/11) about the military tradition of  giving "challenge coins." For those unfamiliar, here's a quick explanation:

"Challenge coins," as they are known, have become an important part of the ethos of the armed forces, where the story of service members' careers--deployments, promotions, awards--is told by the ribbons and patches on their uniforms. Traditionally, commanders hand out the coins to troops for exemplary service and morale boosting.

The point of the article is that too many coins are floating around, and are being offered to just about anyone. Including reporters who cover the military:

When he was covering the Pentagon for CNN, Jamie McIntyre kept getting "coined" by top officials after interviews, which made him slightly uncomfortable. "I always felt like as a news reporter, you don't want to be in anybody's debt," he said.

So he bought a batch of coins for $4 a pop with his own money because the network refused his expense account. "CNN Covering the World Since 1980," they read on one side. On the other: "Jamie McIntyre Covering the Pentagon Since 1992."

Obviously a reporter should feel "uncomfortable" when military officials come bearing gifts. But making your own coins to mimic those traded by the people you're supposed to be covering? Now that's just weird.

I read this in the New York Times a few days ago (2/19/11):

The images from Wisconsin--with its protests, shutdown of some public services and missing Democratic senators, who fled the state to block a vote--evoked the Middle East more than the Midwest.

There's a labor movement in this country? And in the Midwest, even!?

On Monday (2/21/11), ABC World News wanted to set the record straight on Wisconsin's budget problems. As host George Stephanopolous put it, the debate is over

whether pensions and other benefits for public workers are to blame for the crippling budget shortfalls in Wisconsin and other states. Tonight Barbara Pinto has a reality check.

What a relief-- this is something that surely screams out for clarification.

The report starts with a quote from Republican Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. ABC's Pinto weighed in on his side:

Part of that problem, pension plans for America's public workers that are under funded by at least a trillion dollars. Finance professor Joshua Rauh thinks the debt could be at least three times as much.

So the problem is a (nationwide) trillion dollar deficit, or maybe it's three trillion. What's the other side of this discussion? ABC doesn't seem to think there is one. They speak to a "state worker set to retire in December." Said worker is asked to respond to the Republican complaint that "state workers like you are bankrupting them."

Pinto mentions that ten years ago most states were in fine shape, but then by 2008 things changed considerably. Governor Walker "wants to control those costs, fixing the budget by breaking the unions' power to negotiate over benefits."

A reality check could have pointed out, as the New York Times did (2/19/11), that Wisconsin's "pension fund is considered one of the healthiest in the nation, and it is not suffering from the huge shortfalls that other states are facing."

So do those trillion dollar figures make any sense? And if everything was fine until 2008, maybe something happened around that time that would explain the current crisis?

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy & Research provides some helpful context-- the kind of information you would appreciate in a news report purporting to be a "reality check."

Baker writes:

There have been numerous media accounts in recent months warning of large shortfalls in public pension funds. Conventional estimates have placed the shortfall at around $1 trillion, while some analyses have put the shortfall as high as $3.2 trillion using a discount rate that implies pension funds will only earn the risk-free rate of return (Novy-Marx and Rauh, 2009). While there are important measurement issues in determining the size of the shortfall, it is also important that the number be placed in some context. Most people, including those involved in policy debates, will not have a good basis for assessing the meaning of a shortfall measured in the trillions of dollars that must be filled over an indefinite period in the future. The relevant context is the size of the projected shortfalls relative to the size of the state economies.

Before going through this exercise, it is worth noting that the size of the shortfall in many of these funds has likely already been reduced as a result of the fact that the stock market has continued to recover from its downturn in 2008 and 2009. On July 1, 2010, the S&P 500 was already more than 11 percent higher than its July 1, 2009 level (from 987 on July 1, 2009 to 1101 on July 1, 2010). Most funds use the stock market’s closing value at the end of the fiscal year as the basis for determining the valuation of their assets. Of course they also use an average, so the valuation would not simply reflect the market value at the end of the fiscal year. However, with the market having already risen substantially from its low (the S&P 500 had risen another 19 percent to 1293 by January 10, 2011), it is likely that pension valuations based on current and future market levels will show smaller shortfalls. In other words, a substantial portion of the shortfalls that were reported based on 2009 valuations have likely already been eliminated by the rise in the market.

This is how ABC This Week host Christiane Amanpour introduced the roundtable pundit line-up on Sunday's show:

With pitched battles going on right now here in Washington and in statehouses from Florida to Wisconsin to California, with me now, our roundtable: George Will, Congressman Steve Southerland, a Republican freshman from Florida-- he was elected to public office for the very first time last November and sent here to Washington on a mission to cut spending. Also with us, ABC senior political correspondent Jonathan Karl and political strategist Donna Brazile, who calls herself a labor Democrat.

So the right wing Will, a right wing Congressman, an ABC journalist who came to Beltway journalism after participating in a right-wing journalism training institute... and from the left, Donna Brazile.

Sometimes the premise of an article is just all wrong. Like this from Monday's New York Times (see bold):

As Republicans See a Mandate on Budget Cuts, Others See Risk

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON -- In Congress and in statehouses, Republican lawmakers and governors are claiming a broad mandate from last year’s elections as they embark on an aggressive campaign of cutting government spending and taking on public unions. Their agenda echoes in its ambition what President Obama and Democrats tried after winning office in their own electoral wave in 2008.

They're talking particularly about the battle in Wisconsin to eliminate collective bargaining rights for public workers under the guise of budget cutting and fiscal discipline. What comparable steps did Democrats take after 2008? End the Afghan War? No, they dramatically escalated it. Push for the Employee Free Choice Act in order to help bolster the ranks of the labor movement? Nope. Enact aggressive, far-reaching Wall Street reform in order to take advantage of widespread public outrage? Nope. Massive jobs program to counter horrendous unemployment? No. There were few signs that the Democratic leaders and the White House ever much considered such steps. Healthcare is the only legislative item that might make sense here--a bill that, in many respects, borrowed from Republican Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts.

The point of these articles is to warn about partisan "overreach," the need for bipartisanship, and so on. But they often have to start with a false premise--that the major parties behave in the same way, playing to their respective bases. They do not.