In the public interest?

Posted on April 5, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Scrooge would be proud

Something interesting is taking place in the world of journalism. The world is buzzing about the release of the Panama Papers which reveled prominent world leaders hiding millions of dollars in offshore accounts and avoiding paying taxes.

(It was also hard to believe there was gambling going on at Rick’s Place in Casablanca).

The fallout has already begun with Iceland’s Prime Minister resigning after the leaked documents showed his wife owned an offshore company with big claims on collapsed Icelandic banks. More resignations are expected as the U.S.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) reveal more names from the more than 11.5 million documents leaked from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.

This poses an interesting question for ICIJ and other journalists. Is it ethical to use stolen materials to publish a story, even if it is in the public’s interest to do so?

Back in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers which showed how the Johnson administration systematically lied, not only to the public, but to congress as well about the Vietnam War.

Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property, but the charges were later dropped after prosecutors investigating the Watergate Scandal learned that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg.

Much like the Panama Papers, Ellsberg took the papers and released them to the N.Y. Times. At the time, Ellsberg said:

I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.

The Times v. United States is generally thought of as a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint. Its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents.

There is big difference between classified documents and documents from a business, but the point ends up being the same; should the press use material that was stolen and not authorized?

The press faced a similar question when former CIA employee Eric Snowden leaked classified information from the National Security Agency to journalists with stories appearing in The Guardian and The Washington Post. Snowden has been called a hero, whistleblower, patriot and traitor.

I am all for outing the bad guys, but do two wrongs make it right? I guess that, once again is determined by what side of the fence you are sitting on.

Modern media

Posted on January 28, 2016 by bvanrysdam

It was 30 years ago today when the space shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds after take-off. That event was a sad moment in American history, but it also reminded me on how much news coverage has changed.

30 years ago, I was working at KTRH, a news station that sent its own reporter to cover the launch. There was much excitement surrounding the fact that a high school teacher named Christa McAuliffe was selected to join the crew and participate in the mission and the powers that be at the station felt it important to be there live.

While all the major radio networks signed off the air after one minute into the mission, KTRH continued to broadcast the fatal launch and was first to let listeners know about the tragic events that followed. Reporter Sue Davis did a remarkable job of describing the scene while other media outlets scrambled to get back on the air.

I wonder how many local media outlets today would send a reporter and cover and event like that today. In a day of media consolidation and lack of competition, it seems that, more and more, we have to rely on a few outlets for our news coverage.

During the 1992 presidential election, KTRH sent reporters to all three candidate headquarters on election night, bringing local insight on what was the most important thing happening at that moment. Today, we’re lucky if a radio station will bother to broadcast radio network coverage. Yes, TV still does a pretty good job of covering major events, but it’s national coverage and can’t tell us what impact it could have on Houston and the Gulf Coast.

Maybe in today’s world of internet media, where everyone is a journalist, having a local source for news and information is passé, but I still like to know who I’m getting my news from and not rely on some blogger sitting at computer a thousand miles away from what is taking place.

I know this sounds like “back in my day”. Maybe I’m beginning to understand what that really means.

What’s there to fear?

Posted on October 20, 2015 by bvanrysdam

“We have nothing to fear, but fear itself” – FDR

Fear is an incredibly powerful motivator. Fear can influence the decisions we make, even if it makes little sense.

Fear is also a powerful tool in politics. Take two recent examples; Campus Carry and the city of Houston’s embattled equal rights ordinance.

When Campus Carry was being debated in the hallowed halls of the Texas legislature, both sides brought fear into the equation. Those in favor of Campus Carry pointed out that allowing CHL holders to bring a gun into a classroom would make it safer by discouraging anyone from going “postal” while opponents warned it would spark violence during an heated open discourse when opposing views were being discussed.

In reality, neither argument really carries much weight. If someone is set on doing harm, they are not going to worry about a law, or that there may be a person who would be able to stop them. These types of killers seem to relish going out in a blaze of glory. If another student/teacher were to have a concealed handgun, they might be in a position to reduce the carnage, but it also opens up a slew of other questions such as are they trained to react in that type of situation and how will police officers know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys.

Which leads us to equal rights ordinance. Opponents have started running a television ad showing a little girl entering a bathroom stall and about to be attacked by a male. He is presumably in the women’s bathroom thanks to the ordinance. One cannot imagine a more frightening scenario, but how likely would that be?

Do we think this will open the door (sorry) to males having an easier access to assaulting women? Similar ordinances have been passed in Dallas, El Paso and San Antonio with no reported problems. Are we afraid Houston would be different?

And is this just about bathrooms? What about the pregnant women, the disabled, minorities, military veterans and others in this community who may be victims of discrimination? Do we want to have a conversation about that, or is that not scary enough.

I do find it interesting no one seems concerned about a women using a men’s bathroom. I remember during a recent visit to Sienna, Italy, I went to use a public restroom (and yes, it was the men’s room). In many European cities, women act as washroom attendants, making sure the facility is kept clean which in my view is much appreciated. There is usually a plate of coins by the door to tip them for their service.

Some other American tourists came in to the men’s room and were taken back by the fact there was a lady in there. One even commented he had “performance anxiety” and couldn’t go. I hope he still had the decency to tip her.

Here is my fear with this bathroom issue. When I’m at sporting events and other large venues, the line to the women’s room is always ten times longer than the men’s room. I’m afraid women are going to start “identifying” themselves as men just to take advantage of the shorter line and make me wait longer.

The people have spoken (sort of)

Posted on October 14, 2015 by bvanrysdam

There was an interesting study recently conducted in the Lone Star State.

The nonprofit, nonpartisan Texas Lyceum found many familiar answers, including Texans’ identification of immigration as the most important issue facing the state and strong support for children playing football.

But the poll also showed that in a state led by Republicans who oppose gay marriage, 49 percent of Texans support allowing same-sex couples the right to marry legally, as provided by this summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling. That is up from 25 percent in 2009.

To no one’s surprise, gay marriage is more divided between the major parties, with 69 percent of Democrats and 31 percent of Republicans showing support for it. Still, the issue is not as black and white as it seems.

The poll also found that 46 percent of Texans support legalizing the use of marijuana, up by 13 percentage points since 2011. Of those who oppose legalization, 57 percent support decriminalization.

Those kind of numbers don’t make Texas a blue state, but it also doesn’t’ make it as red as some people might think. So why do conservatives hold such sway? Two words: voter turnout.

Only 28.5 percent of Texans eligible to vote did so in the 2014 November elections, the second lowest percentage in the country behind Indiana. 32.1 percent voted in 2010, the last time Texas voted for a governor.

There are many reasons why people in Texas don’t vote. Some Democrats blame the new voter ID law. Another thought is that the when one party dominates, there is no real driving need to vote and there is the issue of carving up voting districts by gerrymandering.

Whatever the reason is, I just wish politicians would stop saying “the people of Texas have spoken”. Only the people who bothered to vote spoke. Good for them; shame on the rest.

The poll surveyed 1,000 adult Texans Sept. 8-21. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Pope Mania

Posted on September 24, 2015 by bvanrysdam

Pope Mania is sweeping the U.S. Not since the Beatles invaded America has the nation gone so bonkers. From Pope Francis Bobble Head Dolls to cookies with his face in the icing (do you really want to bite the Pope’s head?), Americans just can’t get enough of the holy Pontiff.

I find it interesting to watch politicians walk that tight rope between using the Pope to further their agendas, while trying to ignore the issues in which they differ.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz released a statement on how Pope Francis leads on abortion, marriage and religious liberty.

Cruz (or someone in his office) wrote:

Pope Francis has spoken to the world, proclaiming the inherent truth and goodness of life, marriage and religious liberty.

In the first-ever papal address to Congress, Pope Francis continues to blaze a trail by going where no predecessor has been. The media will cover that extensively, but will they cover his trip to feed the homeless in DC, or to meet with students in East Harlem, or to shake hands with prison inmates in Philadelphia? That’s the true heart of the church — beyond any four walls in Congress.

I guess Cruz doesn’t watch much news. If he did, he would see that the Pope is dominating both national and local newscasts that would even make a Kardashian blush.

What Cruz doesn’t mention is the Pope’s view on areas like immigration, the death penalty and global warming and there-in lies the problem. This is not your usual Pope. He has surprised many people with his views on a variety of issues (hey, if a gay person has God in his heart, who am I to judge?) and does not fit into a neat box.

Now to be fair, this tricky balancing act isn’t unique to Cruz. The silence is deafening from Democrats who will tout his holiness’s position on immigration, but fall quiet when he reminds them about the church’s opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

So can the Pope be right on some issues and wrong on others? And, how would we know?