Not a Perversion of History

Martin Luther King and public sector unions

Today, Friday March 18, 2011, Fox News daytime host Neil Cavuto had a lot of important stories to cover in only an hour. Neil talked with a foreign affairs expert about a recently passed UN Human Rights Council resolution that included Iran and Venezuela’s criticisms of the US on human rights. He discussed the Libyan uprisings with a woman who lost three of her family members in the Lockerbie bombings. Neil also commented on the US roll in the creation of a no-fly zone over Libya.

Towards the end of the hour, he talked with tea party leader Lisa Fritsch about recent comments made by Richard Trumka that they both disagreed with. Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, a large labor union, announced plans for protests across the US on April 4^th, 2011 by invoking Martin Luther King. “Join us to make April 4, 2011, a day to stand in solidarity with working people in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and dozens of other states where well funded, right-wing corporate politicians are trying to take away the rights Dr. King gave his life for.” Lisa Fritsch said that these statements were “perverting, twisting, and lying about what Martin Luther King really stood for” and that, “there is a difference between equality (of opportunity) and entitlement.” She also said

“Do they even know why he marched on March 18^th? It was because two black workers were injured and sent home and not paid while the union workers were paid. They have no idea the history that they are invoking to promote themselves. It’s really base and disturbing.”

I decided to delve into the past to see if these claims were accurate.

In 1968, garbage workers in Memphis, Tennessee had it rough. Workers were required to lift tubs that leaked maggots on them. Black workers were called “boy” by their bosses and were often sent home without pay for minor infractions. Two workers, Echol Cole and Robert Walker, were crushed to death when they went into a garbage truck to escape the rain.  They weren’t injured, they had died. Memphis garbage workers went through all of this for just $1.70 an hour. On February 12, 1968, the workers went on strike to improve their working conditions, require the city to recognize their union, and raise their pay…to $2.35 an hour. (Source: The American Prospect)

So the garbage workers were rallying to create a union, not because non-union workers were being discriminated against compared to union workers. Before the strike, there was no union.

Throughout March and April Martin Luther King rallied with the workers of Memphis to show his solidarity with their struggle and to bring national attention to the story. On April 3^rd, 1968 Martin Luther King was shot while he was standing on the balcony of a hotel in Memphis, Tennessee. (Source: The American Prospect)

Martin Luther King gave his life for many causes that were controversial at the time, one of which was the right for public sector workers to collectively bargain. Thus the governors of many Midwest states are trying to take away at least one of “the rights Dr. King gave his life for,” as Trumka proclaimed. Thus Trumka’s statement is not, “perverting what Martin Luther King stood for,” as Lisa Fritsch claims.

As for her statement that, “there is a difference between equality of opportunity and entitlement,” she is absolutely right. However, Martin Luther King supported both. MLK called for a guaranteed national income that would be, “pegged to the median income of society, not the lowest levels of income” (Source: The Nation). This idea is a cousin of the minimum wage. But King’s support for a high national income places him far to the left of any politician that is active in politics today. This is clearly a call for entitlement, even if the money is to come from businesses rather than the government. Personally, I disagree with a guaranteed national income because if labor were to become drastically more expensive to businesses they wouldn’t hire as many workers.

MLK was also highly critical of inequality of outcomes, “Oh America, how often have you taken necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes... God never intended for one group of people to live in superfluous inordinate wealth, while others live in abject deadening poverty” (Source: The Nation). To claim, as conservatives often do, that King merely advocated for an end to discrimination to allow for the equality of opportunity is blatantly false. King supported aggressive policies to combat poverty to compensate for America’s history of racial discrimination and because he felt vast inequality was an injustice in itself.

So, Lisa Fritsch was wrong both in her assessment of the historical accuracy of Richard Trumka’s comments and in Martin Luther King’s views on inequality. Her inaccuracies of the Memphis Strike where MLK was assinated shows that she has no idea the history she is invoking. It’s really base and disturbing.

I suspect this will not be the last time that conservatives misrepresent Martin Luther King’s views on labor and inequality.

P.S. The union that was created by the striking Memphis garbage collectors was an AFSCME union. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) was founded in Wisconsin in 1932. Now, AFSCME unions in Wisconsin are fighting for their right to exist after Scott Walker signed a law that ended collective bargaining for public sector workers.

P.P.S. Here is a link to a NPR StoryCorpse segment on the Memphis strike.

Originally posted March 18^th, 2011

UPDATE: Glenn Beck presented similar distortions on Martin Luther King's views on public sector unions in reaction to the Trumpka's invitation to protest on Martin Luther King Day. Ed Shultz did an awesome takedown of that segment.  On Martin Luther King Day, both Fox News hosts continued to present the same distortions. Media Matters documents all of these incidents here.

Where do People Turn for News?

In order to better understand the news media landscape, I have compiled a list of the audience sizes of various sources of national news. 

 

No other website compiles data on audience sizes of news sources across as many diverse mediums. I used the most current data I could find. 

 

Inclusion on this list is meant only to compare the sizes of the audiences of various news sources, not to comment on their accuracy or tone. You can find my analyses of those qualities in my other posts. 

 

 

 

Newspapers

 

 

1. The Wall Street Journal                2,061,142 weekday         no Sunday edition

2. USA Today                                      1,830,594 weekday         no Sunday edition

3. The New York Times                        876,638 weekday          1,352,358 Sunday

4. Los Angeles Times                            600,449 weekday            901,119 Sunday

5. The Washington Post                       545,345 weekday             764,666 Sunday

6. Daily News of New York                  512,520 weekday             568,266 Sunday

7. New York Post                                   501,501 weekday              339,115 Sunday

9. Chicago Tribune                               441,508 weekday              768,073 Sunday

 

21. St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times           239,684 weekday             377,235 Sunday

22. The Oregonian of Portland           239,071 weekday              292,800 Sunday

 

 

 

 

Cable News

 

 

1. The O’Reilly Factor                                               3,194,000

2. Special Report with Bret Baier                              2,204,000

3. Hannity                                                                  2,189,000

4. Glenn Beck                                                            2,055,000

5. Fox Report with Shepard Smith                            1,949,000

6. On the Record with Greta van Susteren               1,623,000

7. Your World with Neil Cavuto                                 1,423,000

8. America’s Newsroom                                            1,234,000

9. Studio B                                                                 1,226,000

10. The O’Reilly Factor (11 PM Repeat)                   1,219,000

11. America Live                                                        1,214,000

12. The Rachel Maddow Show                                  1,102,000

13. Happening Now                                                    1,035,000

14. The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell            1,033,000

15. Fox and Friends                                                      987,000

16. Anderson Cooper 360                                             854,000

17. The Ed Show                                                           825,000

18. Piers Morgan Tonight                                              809,000

19. Hardball with Chris Matthews                                 728,000

20. The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer                     680,000

21. Parker Spitzer                                                        630,000

22. Nancy Grace                                                          584,000

23. AC 360 (repeat)                                                     563,000

24. John King USA                                                      559,000

25. CNN Newsroom                                                    558,000

26. Last Word (repeat)                                                508,000

27. Morning Joe                                                          459,000

28. The Daily Rundown                                               426,000

29. MSNBC Live                                                         393,000

30. Andrea Mitchell Reports                                        390,000

                                                                                       

 

 

 

Comedy Central

 

 

The Daily Show with John Stewart                                1,606,000

The Colbert Report                                                        1,124,000

 

 

 

Sunday News Shows

 

1.       Meet the Press                                 NBC                       3,460,000

2.       Face the Nation                               CBS                        2,750,000

3.       This Week                                       ABC                        2,420,000

4.       Fox News Sunday                           Fox News               1,300,000

 

 

 

Morning Shows

 

1.       Today                                           NBC                       5,650,000

2.       Good Morning America                ABC                     4,960,000

3.       The Early Show                            CBS                       2,860,000

 

 

 

Evening News

 

1.       NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams      9,710,000

2.       ABC World News with Diane Sawyer        8,550,000

3.       CBS Evening News with Katie Couric         6,290,000

4.       PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer                  1,200,000

 

 

 

 National Public Radio

 

1.       Morning Edition                                                13,000,000

2.       All Things Considered                                      13,000,000

 

 

 

Talk Radio

 

1.       The Rush Limbaugh Show                            15,000,000

2.       The Sean Hannity Show                               14,000,000

3.       The Glen Beck Program                               10,000,000

        The Mark Levin Show                                   8,500,000

        The Savage Nation                                       8,500,000

        The Alan Colmes Radio Show                      2,750,000

        The Ed Shultz Show                                      2,750,000

 

 

 

60 Minutes

  

60 Minutes                                              17,400,000

 

Originally posted 3/12/11

Jon Stewart’s Epic Takedown of Fox Business

Yesterday, Jon Stewart did one of his best segments he has done in the past few weeks. “Crisis in Dairyland-For Richer and Poorer” Exposed the inconsistency in the views of Fox Business hosts on Wall Street Bankers and Teachers. According to Fox Business host Eric Bolling, teachers who make around $90,000 a year in salary and benefits are making a lot of money while a Fox Business contributor thinks those making over $250,000 a year are, “near poverty”. It also contained Fox Business’ own ridiculous comparisons between Wall Street Bankers and public school teachers. Jon ends the segment with the hypocrisy of Tracy Brynes, a Fox Business contributor, who believes that contracts for Wall Street Bankers are sacrosanct, whereas contracts with public school teachers are not.

All of this supports the allegation that Fox Business is more about providing another platform for right wing talking points than providing useful investing advice.  In fact, Media Matters has documented countless examples of Fox News and Fox Business anchors injecting right wing talking points into their supposedly objective reporting of the stock market.

Wonderful work TDS (The Daily Show). You set the standard high for media criticism, and I look forward to the future commentary on your “comedy show.”


Originally posted March 4th, 2011

NPR

Excellence in Journalism

All of my previous posts have been critical of politicians and the media. Today I am going to switch gears and highlight my favorite source for news and explain the qualities that set it apart.

National Public Radio covers economic news in a way that doesn’t belittle the listener’s intelligence. During the financial collapse of 2007-2008 they were able to explain the failings of the mortgage and financial industries as their excesses finally came to light. One of their greatest stories was broadcast on December 22^nd, 2010 when cable news had nothing to offer other than rumors of Mitt Romni’s potential 2012 presidential run.  It was then that NPR broadcast the results of an investigation they had done with ProPublica on the investment bank Merrill Lynch.  Merrill’s traders were paid bonuses based on the number of risky investments they sold. When they realized no one else was buying, they made a deal to split their bonuses with some of their colleges who created a group within Merrill Lynch to buy the risky assets. The investments fell through, requiring Merrill Lynch to be sold to Bank of America

Their Foreign news is unrivaled among US news agencies. They cover all countries, not just the ones that are strong allies or enemies of the United States. Had I not been an NPR listener, I wouldn’t have known about the crisis unfolding in the Ivory Coast. NPR actually has a correspondent, Ofeibea Quist-Arcton, stationed in Senegal. CBS and NBC each have only one main foreign correspondent that covers international news overseas, Lara Logan and Richard Engle respectively.

Yesterday, NPR had a story that combines their expertise in both of these areas. The looming collapse of Afghanistan’s largest bank threatens to dissolve any remaining stability in the areas controlled by the central government. The bank loaned its money to relatives of Afghan politicians, who didn’t pay it back. The International Monetary Fund won’t take action to save the bank due to the bank’s refusal to reform its practices. As a result, the US will likely end up footing the 1 billion dollar bill. This report, along with others NPR has covered about Iraq, Afghanistan, and military issues, continue after most other US news outlets have given up on covering America’s ongoing wars.

NPR’s coverage on the lack of mine safety at Massey Energy is another example of NPR keeping listeners informed on the issues that matter. Massey Energy was responsible for the explosion of the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia that killed 29 miners. Despite receiving hundreds of citations for its safety violations, Massey has refused to reform its mining practices. The Labor Department took a critical step when it filed to shut down Massey’s Freedom Mine #1, due to the risk Massey’s blatant disregard for safety posses to its workers.

For these reasons and many more, NPR is my most trusted source for news. The depth and breadth of their coverage is above and beyond all other US news providers. You’ll always learn something new whenever you listen to NPR.

 

Originally Posted March 1, 2011

The Rachel Maddow Show verses Politifact:

The Battle for Truth, Journalism, and Fairness

I was extremely distraught when I heard that two of my favorite sources for news were engaged in a heated argument. The trouble began when Politifact Wisconsin ranked one of Rachel Maddow’s claims about the Wisconsin Deficit false. She responded tonight (February 24^th 2011) by saying that Politifact was wrong and in no uncertain terms attacked to validity of the entire organization. I decided to determine who was right and who was wrong.

The original claims in question were presented in the first 3 minutes of the first segment of Rachel’s February 17^th show.  That is where she said the following:

            I‘m quoting their own version of the Congressional Budget Office, the state‘s own nonpartisan “assess the state‘s finances” agency.  That agency said the month that the new Republican governor of Wisconsin was sworn in, last month, that the state was on track to have a $120 million budget surplus this year.

She also said:

            The state is not bankrupt.  Even though the state had started the year on track to have a budget surplus—now, there is, in fact, a $137 million budget shortfall.  Republican Governor Scott Walker, coincidentally, has given away $140 million worth of business tax breaks since he came into office. Hey, wait.  That‘s about exactly the size of the shortfall.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Her show’s blog also included a post titled, “Wisconsin Governor made his own problem,” which blames the budget deficit on Walker’s tax breaks.

Politifact Wisconsin wrote an article that rated Rachel's statements false because the tax cuts that Walker signed into law don’t take effect until the next fiscal year and that the deficit for the current year is actually the result of expected shortfalls in Medicaid, the public defender’s office, and the office of corrections. Those shortfalls weren't included in the Legislative Fiscal Bureau's report (Wisconsin's CBO) because the non-partisan agency is uncomfortable with assuming budget fixes will be passed when creating a fiscal forcast.

The Rachel Maddow Show replied with two letters taking issue with the Politifact article that fact-checked Maddow. The letters correctly state that both the headline and summery of Politifact’s article gave the false impression that Rachel failed to acknowledge that there was a budget deficit in Wisconsin. Politifact Wisconsin also failed to contact The Rachel Maddow Show for explanation and comment before posting the article, a clear failure in fairness and journalistic ethics.

However, the letters also assert that Rachel never claimed that Walker’s tax cuts were the source of the budget deficit. That was certainly the impression that I came away with after watching the segment when it first aired. TRMS claims that Rachel was merely trying to show that Walker doesn’t care about fiscal responsibility and merely wants to break public sector unions. Nevertheless, the show’s blog clearly named Walker’s tax cuts as the culprit behind Wisconsin’s deficit. It even included an excerpt from the Madison Capital Times to prove it.

The Rachel Maddow Show also gave an on air response to the Politifact article. The video attacks Politifact for falsely claiming that she claimed that Wisconsin doesn't currently face a budget deficit, but completely ignores the controversy over what caused the deficit in the first place.

Both Politifact Wisconsin and The Rachel Maddow Show have acted irresponsibly in this dispute. Politifact failed to contact TRMS for an explanation before posting the article and created a poorly written and misleading headline and summery. The Rachel Maddow Show failed to admit that she implied that the Walker tax cuts were responsible for the budget shortfall, failed to debunk or even mention that misperception in their piece on the controversy, and failed to admit that their blog clearly stated the false claim.  Both sources need to offer corrections and apologies. This conflict is a disgrace for all involved.

Debt and Social Security:

The Venn diagram with no center

Today, Friday, February 18, 2011, Morning Joe spent most of its time discussing the protests over Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s plan to require public sector union members to pay a higher percentage of their salaries toward health care and pensions. His plan also eliminates the ability of public sector unions to negotiate with the state, a truly undemocratic thing to do. The discussion was balanced, but it became heated at times.

One of the show’s great strengths is that its guests come from across the ideological spectrum. It is a guarantee that on any given day Morning Joe will have both conservative and liberal guests. That is something that few other cable news shows can boast.

One of their guests today was former National Republican Committee Senior Advisor Terry Holt. The panel’s discussion shifted temporarily from the fiscal situation in Wisconsin to the fiscal situation in Washington. Holt stated, “If you look at what we promised to do in Social Security, over time, it is a mushroom cloud of debt.” He then went on to suggest that Congress make small reductions in the Social Security benefit scheme and for politicians to stop using Social Security fear-mongering to get elected.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I strongly agree with Terry Holt’s positions on Social Security. In fact, if you add raising the cap on income that is subject to the Social Security payroll tax, than that is my position. Unfortunately, his claim that in the long run Social Security will become, “a mushroom cloud of debt” isn’t true.

Social Security currently has a surplus. In fact, it has a 2.5 Trillion dollar surplus (NPR). That’s trillion with a “t”. In layman’s terms it has a two and a half million million dollar surplus. That’s a lot of money. Social Security taxes will continue to be larger than Social Security payments for a few more years. After that, the surplus Social Security has accumulated will be used to make up the difference between costs and revenue. The non-partisan, non-ideological Congressional Budget Office projects that the Social Security trust funds [the surplus] will last until  2039 (CBO p 15). If Social Security isn’t tinkered with before then, Social Security benefits would be cut by about 20 percent to match the yearly revenues (CBO p11). In short, Social Security doesn’t have the legal authority to go into debt. Therefore, it cannot, in the short or long term, add to the deficit. Social Security and the debt are two completely separate topics. To say otherwise is intellectually irresponsible.

But that’s not quite the end of the story. The Social Security trust fund is invested in government treasuries (NPR). Essentially the government borrowed it, just as it borrows money from China. Like all borrowed money, it was spent. The rest of the government used that money to pay for everything in our discretionary budget: the Department of Health and Human Services, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the EPA, and so on. There appears to be some uncertainty whether that money will be paid back. It is horrific to even think that it wouldn’t be, because Congress could easily borrow money from China to pay back the loan if it couldn’t pay it back any other way. But that borrowing won’t be due to Social Security, but to the other things that were initially paid for using borrowed Social Security money. Blaming this part of the deficit on Social Security is like trying to blame our debt on China, it blames the lender for the money it allowed us to spend.

So no matter how you slice it, Social Security will not contribute to the national debt. There is no doubt that we ought to try to fix social security. But let’s not confuse the issue. There is the debt crisis and then there is Social Security. The former will never be the result of the latter.

Sources

CBO. "Social Security Policy Options." Congressional Budget Office, July 2010. Web. 18 Feb 2011. <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11580/07-01-SSOptions_forWeb.pdf>.      

NPR. The Friday Podcast: In Search of the Social Security Trust Funds. Planet Money. National Public Radio, 12 Nov 2010. Web. 18 Feb 2011. <http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/12/131281247/the-friday-podcast-in-search-of-the-social-security-trust-funds>.




CORRECTION: It sucks to do a correction on a factcheck. This article used to describe Social Security as a, "0 interest credit card." In fact the tresuries in the Social Security trust fund do collect interest. (Politifact)

The Muslim Brotherhood:

Democratic Actor or Threat to the United States?

On Tuesday February 1^st , 2011 Sean Hannity and many of his guests spent most of the hour criticizing an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood that Sean fears may come to power in Egypt as a result of the current democratic uprising there. I decided to check the accuracy of his claims. I was truly surprised by what I found.

Unfortunately, fox news doesn’t post a complete transcript or video for previous shows, so my analysis will come from my admittedly fallible memory.   

Hannity began by claiming that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood supports Sharia law. That is true (bbc). Sharia law is a cruel and outdated Muslim religious code of law which requires women to be veiled in public, makes blasphemy a crime, and prescribes stoning as the punishment for a woman who commits adultery (Duhaime). However, supporting Sharia law is not too different from conservatives in the United States who wish to make laws based on the bible, which calls for the stoning of disobedient children (Bible Gateway). However, most politicians who wish to legislate based on the bible are doing so based on the more accepting and reasonable passages, while Islamists accept the whole of their religious text, not just the humane parts. Our longtime ally Saudi Arabia employs a strict adherence to Sharia (Council on Foreign Relations).

Hannity’s second claim was that The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood supports Hamas. That is also true (Yahoo News). Hamas has launched rocket attacks on Israel in the past, which has landed it on the US government’s list of terrorist organizations. Such attacks are morally abhorrent and contemptible. But Hamas won the election in Gaza and is seen by many Muslims as freedom fighters who are in a valiant struggle against their occupiers and oppressors. Negotiations haven’t worked out well for the Palestinians in the past, so it is understandable why some of them would support violent means even if others rightfully condem it.  

Hannity also claimed that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is violent. This one is false. While the Brotherhood has supported violence in the past, the Brotherhood disavowed violence in the 1970s and condemned a recent bombing in Cairo (CFR).

One of Hannity’s guest claimed that the symbol of the Muslim Brotherhood included a phrase which specifically used the word “terrorism,” and supported it. This claim is absurd on its face. No group would refer to themselves as terrorist-supporters. They would use a euphemism like “freedom-fighter” or “Martyr.” The phrase on their symbol actually translates as, “prepare yourselves” (Der Spiegal). That’s not the most conciliatory or peaceful message, but it is a far cry from an outright endorsement of terrorism.

Hannity went on to say that there is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. That is true (Washington Post). He also went on to say that the group is a threat to the United States and Israel. The validity of that statement is mixed. The Brotherhood’s ties to Hamas means that it is a credible threat to Israel. However, the Muslim Brotherhood does not support terrorist attacks against the United States the way Al Qaeda does. Organizationally, the Muslim Brotherhood poses no threat to the United States. However, Individual members of the Brotherhood have gone on to join groups which do pose a threat to the US. The planner of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, was formerly a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait (Washington Post).

Hannity’s final mistake was to characterize Jihad as “holy war.” This is a common mistake in the United States. To Muslims the term means something else entirely. It refers to a process of self-betterment towards being a better person. It also means trying to make the world a better place, much akin to the informal use of “crusade,” as in ‘the crusade against hunger.’ The term can also refer to the use of violence in an attempt to cure injustice, but the term refers to much more than violence alone (Quranic Studies).

Hannity’s concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood stem from an understandable concern for the safety of the United States and Israel, not from an attempt to deceive. He has a history of welcoming those who disagree with him to his show, an act which I applaud. It was truly amusing to watch him ask each of his guests if they have been following the events in Egypt, including Larry the Cable Guy.

On the bigger issue, I believe that the Brotherhood must play a part in a future democratic Egypt. The overwhelming majority of Brotherhood members are non-violent. Throughout the world the Brotherhood brings Muslims together to form friendships and community bonds. In Egypt the Brotherhood also provides social services such as health care and education (The Real News). It is unlikely that the Brotherhood would come to power in Egypt as CNN security analyst Peter Bergen estimates that if a free and fair election were held, they would only receive a third of the vote (CNN). Nevertheless, they form a significant portion of the Egyptian population and can’t be excluded from the political process if Egypt is to become a true democracy. Democracy is what Egypt yearns for, and after 30 years of dictatorial rule they are ready to seize it for themselves.

Decide for yourself what you think of the Brotherhood. Here is a link to their English-language website. The Doha Debates did a wonderful show on whether Political Islam is a threat to the West, I highly recommend it.