April 30, 2005

Media Meanness

Matt White has a tribute to a state legislator who is neither mean nor hateful - and marvels that the allegedly unbiased reporter John Commins of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, who allegedly called Dunn "mean and hateful" during a press conference, hasn't been fired yet.

UPDATE, Thursday May 5: Commins just called me, irate, and denied calling the legislator, state Rep. Bill Dunn "mean and hateful." Commins says, "I like Bill Dunn."

I'll take Commins at his word unless there is evidence otherwise. So, apparently, some other reporter called Dunn "mean and hateful."

Consider this a correction - and marvel at how the blogosphere corrects errors much, much faster than the mainstream media.

A Few Changes

I have made a few changes to the look of BillHobbs.com. Hope you like them - let me know what you think. The Nashville skyline panorama is a photo I found on the web - I think at PBase.com - a while ago. I'm only using it temporarily until I shoot a good shot of the Nashville skyline of my own.

Star Blogger

Blogger Mark Rose reports - with pictures - from The Tennessean's 66th Annual Three-Star Forum Banquet, last night . Each year the paper honors writers of letters to the editor over the past year whose letters it deemed worth of its "Three Star" designation. This year, there were nearly 200 "Three Star" letter-writers. It should come as no surprise that The Tennessean chose many more liberal letters as three-star winners than conservative ones.

Rose, who wrote two "Three Star" letters, reports that the some people in the crowd booed when he made public remarks in favor of protecting the lives of defenseless babies.

Read the whole thing.

The Tennessean's report on the event notes that the paper has began awarding the three-star letters in 1938, and the first banquet was held in 1939. The banquet has been held each year since then, except 1945 when it was cancelled during World War II. The banquet's signature event is an opportunity for each letter-writer to speak for one minute about any topic they choose.

I wish I'd known that back in the mid-1980s when I won a "Three Star" award. I'd have stuck around. Instead, I ate the food, listened to the keynote speech and left. Ah well.

Perhaps I'll dig the letter I wrote out of the files and post a scan of it tonight or tomorrow.

April 29, 2005

Dictator Update: AP Moves Worthless Story

The Tennessee Associated Press has moved a completely worthless wire story about House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh and HB 887 (hey, this mini-scandal needs a catchy name!). The AP story provides virtually no information about what really happened, just a shallow "he said/they said" overview, and no pointers to help readers find the truth.

Hey, AP, the truth is out there. All of the video, plus statements from witnesses and from some of the people involved, are available on this blog or via this blog's links to other blogs. If you can't be bothered to prepare a thorough report, AP, why not at least help your readers across Tennessee find it? Just give 'em these links and tell 'em to follow all the links and watch all the videos.

Dictator - April 27
Dictator Update: Naifeh Blinked! - April 28
Dictator Update: WKRN Story - April 28
Dictator Update: More Press Coverage - April 29
Dictator Update: Is Naifeh Like Saddam? - April 29
Dictator Update: What Really Happened in the Subcommittee - April 29
Dictator Update: Watch Naifeh Blink - April 29
Dictator Update: WKRN's Bundgaard Responds - April 29

UPDATE: The AP's story was longer than the one I initially saw and linked to. Here's the longer version. It's better, but still leans toward believing Naifeh's version of events. It's worth repeating a question I asked earlier - why did state Rep. Chris Newton, a Republican and co-sponsor of HB 887, bow before Naifeh's demand that he make a motion to return the bill to the subcommittee that Newton chairs, which had legally passed it?

I sent Rep. Newton an email a few days ago seeking an answer to that question. He has so far not responded.

Off The Sidelines

Sidelines, the student newspaper at Middle Tennessee State University, has an excellent advance story today on the BlogNashville conference. The site requires registration, but it's free. The story mentions that a member of the journalism faculty at MTSU, digital media professor Jennifer Bailey Woodard, is attending the conference and that she hopes to learn more about blogging that would help her incorporate blogs and blogging into the journalism curriculum.Woodard says she hopes to gather information at the conference that will determine if blogging will become part of the curriculum at MTSU, possibly as part of courses offered as early as this fall.

"We want to teach mobile media - where a reporter is using a laptop, a
cell phone, a digital camera, reporting live from the scene," Woodard
says. "We also want to plan an Internet magazine coalition, do a
variety of things, including publishing a Web newspaper. Blogging
could be part of that. We are not that heavily into blogging here yet.
That's what we hope to learn."Here's an additional excerpt from the Sidelines story...

The effects of blogs on journalism and the mainstream media are among the topics Woodard said she hopes to learn more about at the conference.

"Blogging is such an individual undertaking, and some blogs are certainly more credible than others," Woodard says. "Internet blogging is so wonderful and yet so strange. It opens up the media to the world, but adds more credibility problems. But it does allow those who never had a voice to have one."

Hobbs said that the instantaneous nature of the Internet helps to keep bloggers accountable for what they publish.

"Blogs have a self-correcting dynamic," Hobbs says. "If I publish something factually inaccurate on a blog, it will be pointed out immediately by other bloggers, and because it happens in real-time, errors are often corrected right on the blog."

Among the topics scheduled during the conference is legal protection for bloggers and using the Internet and blogs as research tools for journalists.

Hobbs said the legal session will discuss what legal protections bloggers can expect under the First Amendment and what standards should be followed to avoid slander and libel lawsuits.

"This is a new area of law. We don't really know if bloggers are covered by the same legal protections as journalists," Hobbs says. "Can bloggers protect their sources?"

Hobbs said the session on computer-assisted reporting and research, often called CARR, is intended to help journalists use the Internet for research and fact-checking.

Mark Tapscott, a conservative journalist and director of media relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, will lead the session along with a representative from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a policy watchdog group for the middle to low-income families and individuals.

"Tapscott pioneered this type of training using the Internet and database to improve reporting," Hobbs says, "but we didn't want to appear partisan, so we made sure that we had representation from a more liberal group like the CBPP as well."

Also coming: Blogging pioneer Dave Winer, who originated the "BloggerCon" conference that BlogNashville is modeled after. Winer is not only a big-time Howard Dean fan, he's brilliant and a true pioneer of blogging. Winer writes the ScriptingNews blog and was instrumental in convincing the New York Times to make it possible for bloggers to access their archives for free via RSS feeds.

On his blog, Winer recently wrote this about his participation in BlogNashville: "I'll lead a discussion on a topic near to my heart. How can we work together in the USA even when we disagree. Nashville's a good place for that, and I'm a southern boy these days, but still have my blue state values."
`
That's what BlogNashville is all about - building a better blogosphere for all bloggers, not just liberal or conservative bloggers, in order to help build a better country and a better world. Come, join the conversation.

P.S. May 2 is Winer's birthday. Happy Birthday, Dave.

Dictator Update: WKRN's Bundgaard Responds

WKRN Capitol Hill reporter Chris Bundgaard has submitted a comment to my earlier post regarding WKRN's story and the factual error in it. I thought you should read that comment, so I'm posting it here:

My bad, Bill. You are correct about the voice vote issue on Wednesday, but the error did not changes the thrust of the story---Gill's comments, Naifeh's response and the fallout afterwards. Unfortunately, I was not in the House Wednesday and had to rely on what I thought were reliable versions. We've also problems here at CH 2 in downloading the House streaming video. Three attempts to view it Thursday revealed a problem on our end. With regrets, I did not get to look at it and my deadline loomed, so I had to go with what I thought was a reliable version. We'll be watching what happens in the subcommittee next week.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes,

Chris Bundgaard

As I said before, Chris Bundgaard is one of the best Capitol Hill reporters. All reporters make mistakes - his willingness to review his story in light of the criticism is to be praised. It's that kind of honesty that makes for a good journalist.

You may have noticed that there's a WKRN scrolling-headlines ad near the top of my blog. They bought that space. But they don't own BillHobbs.com. Based on my own discussions about journalism and the blogopshere with WKRN's general manager, Mike Sechrist, I'm confident that WKRN is comfortable with being a part of the give-and-take of the blogosphere, even when it includes criticism of WKRN stories, such as my post yesterday, or praise such as this post. It isn't just a marketing slogan - WKRN really is trying to listen to what Nashville is talking about.

WKRN is clearly plugged in to the Nashville blogosphere, and having its reporters pay attention to what the blogosphere is saying about its stories can only benefit both the newscast and the audience.

P.S. It's worth noting that Nashville's three other teevee news operations, WSMV, NewsChannel 5 and Fox17 News, are not blog-savvy and plugged into the local blogosphere the way WKRN is - and none of those stations reported on this story.

Dictator Update: Watch Naifeh Blink

Here is video of the portion of Thursday's House session in which House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh gave a false description of how a subcommittee managed to pass legislation that Naifeh wanted killed. Watch Naifeh struggle to try to keep from doing the right thing and allow a legitimate vote on whether or not to send the bill back to the subcommittee...

Please right-click here to download the 10-megabit file.

The day Jimmy Naifeh is just another relatively powerless member of the minority caucus in the Tennessee House can not come soon enough.

Dictator Update: What Really Happened in the Subcommittee

State Rep. Jerome Cochran, R-Elizabethton, a member of the House Constitutional Protections Subcommittee, sent an email giving more detail as to how HB 887, which House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh wants killed, was passed by that subcommittee.

Just wanted to write and give the perspective of a member of the Constitutional Protections Subcommittee who was at the meeting and who was there on time. The Meeting started 2 or 3 minutes LATE. Of the 5 committee members, 3 were there (Newton, Brooks, and myself) to constitute a quorum.

Seeing a quorum present and seeing that according to the clock in the committee room that it was past 11:30 the Chairman call the meeting to order and called up the first bill on the calendar, which was Rep. Todd’s. It should also noted that we get committee calendars a week in advance and it was clearly shown on the calendar that Rep. Todd’s bill was first on the calendar.

Rep. Newton asked questions on the bill and then we voted on the bill. Not one member present asked to be put down as a no vote. So it passed 3-0. We then proceeded to the next bill by Rep. Stanley and we began asking questions about the bill. At 11:40 or later, Rep. Sontany comes into the committee room along with the legal staff. A few minutes later Rep. McMillan comes into the room.

It should also be noted that to my knowledge that there is no House rule that states that a committee cannot start or conduct business with the legal staff being present.

The public is seeing what many of us already know, there is one set of rules for 98 House members and another set for the Speaker. It is my hope that in the House we start having session first thing in the morning so we can all set our watches together with the Speaker since apparently he has the official House time.

Representative Jerome Cochran

Newton - one of nine turncoat Republicans who voted for Democrat Naifeh for Speaker - did Naifeh's bidding. Perhaps the people of Newton's district will elect a real Republican next fall instead of a faux Republican.

By the way, on Day One of this story I predicted you would get more and better coverage of this story from blogs than you would from the media. Judging from the media coverage so far, I'm right. Just compare the information provided by Rep. Cochran above with how Tom Humphrey describes the subcommittee hearing in his story in today's Knoxville paper, and how the Nashville City Paper's story today accepts Naifeh's claim that the subcommittee hearing started early, without questioning it.

Humphrey's story reports both sides, but clearly encourages readers to believe Naifeh's claim that the meeting started early. Humphrey chose to end his story with a Naifeh quotation asserting that the subcommittee's allegedly early start was "orchestrated."

Except, as Rep. Cochran explains, the subcommittee hearing didn't start early, and everyone who needed to know had known for a week that HB 887 was to be the first item on the agenda.

HB 887 was legally passed by the Constitutional Protections Subcommittee. It is only back in that committee for a second vote, so it can be killed, because state Rep. Chris Newton lacks a backbone.

UPDATE: Espo has some further thoughts on the Knoxville News Sentinel's slanted, incomplete and inaccurate coverage, and on whether state Rep. Harry Tindell, D-Knoxville, his legislator, really supports common-sense self-defense legislation or not.

Dictator Update: Is Naifeh Like Saddam?

Nashville radio talk host Steve Gill responded to my mild criticism of his comparison of Tennessee House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh and former Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein with the following email:

Thanks for the reference in the blog. My comparison of Naifeh was actually focused on how our young troops are fighting and sometimes dying on the front lines of freedom to bring democracy to the Middle East while petty political tyrants like Jimmy Naifeh are undercutting basic democratic principles here at home.

To me, that is the real shame of his actions. I did refer to his Saddam Hussein-esque heavy handedness, and I stick by that comparison.

Let's review. Raw power exercised to benefit the powerful themselves rather than following the rules and standards of a democratic system? Check. Silencing those who would object by the use of threats and intimidation? Check. Narcissistic self importance and a willingness to ignore the law when it is inconvenient? Check. Keeping lackeys and yes-men (and women) close by to constantly reaffirm the wisdom and greatness of their beloved leader? Check. Using power to attain great personal wealth and luxury? Check. Paranoid fears that someone may try to remove him from power? Check. Shall I go on?????

Where I disagree with Gill is the overt comparison to Saddam Hussein, for the simple reason that it gave Naifeh a way to shoot back. Until Steve compared Naifeh to Saddam, Naifeh was on the defensive and under scrutiny for his heavy-handed, abusive-of-power and, yes, downright dictatorial actions on the House floor on April 27. But WKRN's story, the first major media coverage of the story in the Nashville market, focused not on what Naifeh did wrong, but on Gill's "Saddam" remarks. Instead of the WKRN story showing the damning video of Naifeh's dictorial actions, it carried video of Steve Gill behind his radio mic.

Naifeh was under heavy fire. The Saddam remark gave him a target at which to shoot back - and gave the media a way to cover the story without making Naifeh look bad. When your enemy is drowning, you don't toss him a rope.

Why So Much GOP Support for Bredesen's Pre-K Boondoggle?

Rob Huddleston has a rather blistering look at the 23 Republicans in the Tennessee House of Representatives who helped pass the governor's pre-k legislation. He says the 23 Republicans "voted to continue to spend the State's money recklessly - even if it means spending us straight into an income tax."

Since we have already had to raise taxes on sales and property in just about every corner of Tennessee over the past few years, it is accurate to say that those who voted for the Pre-K boondoggle appear no better than tax-and-spend liberals that have little staying power in this new era of Tennessee politics. At least that is true in the enlightened parts of the state. That Bredesen's Frankenstein passed the House is not surprising. It was a way to needlessly spend money and was backed by the teachers' organizations, so of course the Democratic majority was passing this bill on to the Senate. That it passed with so much Republican support is disappointing.

Dictator Update: More Press Coverage

The Nashville City Paper and Knoxville News Sentinel both have stories today on House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh and his abuse of power regarding HB 887. The Tennessean has ignored the story entirely. The City Paper's story reveals something unflattering about state Rep. Chris Newton, R-Benton, while the News-Sentinel story only reveals that Tom Humphrey is a very biased writer.

From the City Paper:

The bill passed the House Constitutional Protections subcommittee Wednesday on a voice vote. The committee is the very place the bill is killed each year – one of a similar nature was killed there last week. Because two Democrats were absent at the time of the vote, the legislation passed the committee, which typically has a Democratic majority.

However, Naifeh (D-Covington) asked subcommittee chairman Rep. Chris Newton (R-Benton) to re-refer the bill to the committee because the panel had started early and legal staff were still absent from the room. Newton made a motion to re-refer the bill to the committee Wednesday, after which a number of Republicans objected. Naifeh gaveled the bill back to the committee without entertaining the GOP objections.

The Knoxville News Sentinel story today by Tom Humphrey presents a very pro-Naifeh version of events and virtually ignores his deliberate failure to follow House rules Wednesday, and his rude treatment of Republican legislators who were merely asking for House rules to be adhered to. Those who believe Humphrey is a biased reporter who favors Democrats won't change their minds after reading his story. He reports that Republicans "accused ... Naifeh of unfairly killing legislation" but does not give readers any details of how Naifeh did it. There's no mention of his passing the motion on a "voice vote" in which no one voted aye, no mention of his refusal to recognize legislators who were raising their hands to call for a roll-call vote, and no mention of his rude treatment of Republicans, ordering them to "put your hands down."

Blake Wylie at Nashville Files has the video clip, courtesy of Ben Cunningham. Every single TV station and newspaper website in Tennessee can now download it and make it available to their readers and viewers online or on air. I'm betting most of them won't.

Naifeh's version of events is an unverifiable claim that the subcommittee meeting at which the bill was passed started before it was supposed to, so two Democrats who would have voted against the bill weren't there. Newton, chairman of the subcommittee, says the meeting started on time.

The big question is this: Why did Newton, a co-sponsor of the legislation, cooperate with Naifeh to have it sent back to the committee, where it will most certainly be killed next week?

Rep. Newton, what good is it for you,a Republican, to be a subcommittee chairman if you are going to collaborate with the Democratic majority to kill legislation the Democratic Speaker wants killed?

(Editor's note: I emailed Rep. Newton asking him for an explanation of these events. He has not responded.)

UPDATE: Espo has some further thoughts on the Knoxville News Sentinel's slanted, incomplete and inaccurate coverage, and on whether state Rep. Harry Tindell, D-Knoxville, his legislator, really supports common-sense self-defense legislation or not.

April 28, 2005

Dictator Update: WKRN Story

WKRN has aired a Chris Bundgaard story on the controversy swirling around Tennessee House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh and HB 887, focusing on radio talk host Steve Gill's unfortunate comparison of Naifeh with Saddam Hussein. That's way over the top, though understandable given Gill's role and that he just returned from a week in Baghdad. But that's not why I care about the WKRN story.

Bundgaard's story simply got it wrong about what Naifeh did yesterday. You can view Bundgaard's story online here - but the link doesn't work if you have pop-ups disabled. In the story, Bundgaard said:

"On Wednesday, the House Speaker asked for and received a House floor voice vote that sent the bill back to a subcommittee where it passed earlier in the day."

Naifeh did not take a House floor voice vote, as the video of the floor session clearly shows. What happened was that the subcommittee chairman made a motion to return the bill to the subcommitee and Naifeh - staring straight down at his podium - bellows "You've heard the motion. Without objection, so ordered" - and bangs the gavel simultaneously. There's no chance for a voice vote and - if you listen to the audio - you hear not one single "yea" approving the motion.

Further, according to witnesses, hands were flying up all over the House floor from representatives objecting to the motion. House rules say if at least five hands are raised, the motion must be discussed and voted on with a roll-call vote. Naifeh, however, ignored those hands - and ignored the very clear rules of the House - and then declared "out of order" another legislator's attempt to get the motion reconsidered.

Despite his blustering in the WKRN story, Naifeh knows he was in the wrong. That's why, as my previous post explained, earlier today Naifeh blinked and allowed for a voice vote.

Dictator Update: Naifeh Blinked!

State Rep. Stacey Campfield, Tennessee's only blogging legislator, reports that smart legislators forced House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh to follow the law, something he intentionally refused to do yesterday. Here is an excerpt from Campfield's latest blog post, with links added by me:

Another big day on the hill - Steve Gill and Bill Hobbs are really on their game. They have really put heat on Speaker Naifeh for his actions yesterday. The House was abuzz with the news of the NRA hustle that went down yesterday.

Many blogs like Nashville Files are reporting on the situation (and probably many more that I haven't had time to see). Bloggers have really drawn attention to the incident by sending e-mails, posting comments, and calling legislators. Today we started the session and Representative Glen Casada was recognized. I'll try to describe how it happened:

Casada addressed Speaker Naifeh by making a motion that the House vote to reconsider the motion yesterday to send Rep. Curry Todd's bill... But he didn't get to finish. Naifeh broke in: "You are out of order. Next motion!"

Later Rep. Casada was recognized again. He said something like "Mr. Speaker, under parliamentary procedure I invoke rule 40."

There was silence.

The Speaker and his staff did not know what to do. They grabbed their procedure and law books and huddled. About 5 minutes passed...

By the way, my hat's off to state Rep. Glen Casada, my state rep and one of the few Republicans in the state House who simply won't give an inch to Naifeh.

Rep. Casada, please blog. Just imagine how many fits you could give Naifeh if you did.

UPDATE: Blake Wylie has more. And he has even more here.

Fisking Rupert Murdoch

Rocky Mountain News editor and blogger John Temple is fisking Rupert Murdoch.

"Well, we don't do that to all of them."

Tennessee's only blogging state legislator, Rep. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, has an update on pre-k legislation and also his proposed "Students Bill of Rights." As to the latter, Campfield reports that at a committee heearing on that legislation today a representative from the state's higher education establishment, an opponent of the bill, inadvertently but effectively confirmed that the bill was, in fact, necessary.

He started out as expected by saying it's not needed, it's already covered, etc. When I asked about the weakness of it not being codified and the inability to enforce the rules with tenured professors, he agreed saying that the programs in place might affect just non-tenured teachers.

What happened next was very interesting. Unprompted, several other representatives from both sides of the political aisle started to talk about their own horror stories. And then they talked about stories told to them by their constituents years before I ever brought up this bill! Then probably most interesting of all to me, was one legislator told how he used to be a student government president and would have to deal with these complaints.

He told how most of the students were given the runaround and put off or brushed under the carpet. The Tennessee Higher Ed rep. said something to the effect of "well, we don't do that to all of them."

My jaw hit the floor. I chimed in that he was ADMITTING it does happen to SOME of them?!?! He replied "yes, but not many". I don't know what to say except thank you-he proved there is indeed a need for my bill. I answered a few more questions and then it was time to go.

Related Item:
Kay Brooks, a Tennessee homeschooling advocate and founder of TNHomeEd.com, has started a new blog dealing with Tennessee education issues. "I’m hoping to encourage parents across the state to become their own best advocates and supply some of the information and tools to get them started," Brooks said.

No Pajamas

Linda Seebach of the Rocky Mountain News has an excellent column today on the question of whether bloggers are journalists. Answer: "Sure, when they do journalism."

Seebach - who will be a part of a panel discussing blogging and journalism Friday, May 6 - discusses the role of American blogger Ed Morrissey (Captain's Quarters) in breaking a Canadian judicial publication ban on testimony in a political corruption case in Canada, and remarks:

We can only hope that Canadian bloggers will perform a similar service during our elections, when politically active American organizations (although not established media) are muzzled by the detestable McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

April 27, 2005

Dictator

Tennessee's only blogging legislator, State Rep. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, blows the whistle on House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, who found a way to cheat the legislative system. Blake Wylie also has two must-read posts on Naifeh's shenanigans, here and a follow-up here.

What Naifeh did was this: He violated House rules in order to kill popular legislation he personally opposed. Some people think Naifeh is the epitome of corrupt good-ol-boy lobbyist-larded politics. I don't know about that. But I do know that what he did yesterday was pure political corruption of the most dangerous kind.

Naifeh showed himself yesterday as a proto-dictator who merely masquerades as a servant of democracy.

If you doubt the value of a legislator blogging or of blogging in general, just compare Campfield's post and the two from Wylie to the coverage this story gets (or, more likely, won't get) in tomorrow's newspapers across Tennessee.

Below is an email from TeamGOP.org, which includes also an email forwarded from John Harris, Executive Director of the Tennessee Firearms Association (TFA), regarding Naifeh's corrupt action yesterday. TeamGOP.org says:

House Bill HB0887 would allow those with a Tennessee carrying permit to bring their handgun into an establishment, like an Applebee’s, O’charleys or a TGI Fridays, licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises provided that the person is not consuming alcohol. Something already allowed in many states.

The action taken by some in the House on Wednesday demonstrates two things. First, it is long overdue for important organizations like the National Rifle Association, to get their heads out of the sand in dealing with these State House and State Senate races, especially for those in 2006 when they choose their endorsed candidates. The TFA is the largest non-partisan firearms advocacy group in Tennessee that any interested citizen should join and support. They are working diligently to make a difference everyday.

Second, removing as many of these so-called Republican Representatives and State Senators who have prostituted themselves to the Democrats for power or position must be at the top of our goal’s list. These Republicans, like Chris Newton, do the bidding of their political masters like Naifeh, Wilder and Bredesen.

These so-called Republicans must pay a price if people are going to take the Republican Party seriously.

This bill by Rep. Curry Todd was in the House Judiciary Constitutional Protections Committee passed out of subcommittee today. This afternoon [Wednesday], about 15 minutes into the full House session, Rep. Chris Newton (R) stood and made a motion to have the bill sent back to subcommittee because of "some confusion" - Speaker Naifeh immediately struck the motion granted "without objection" notwithstanding the fact that hands were flying up all over the House.

I want to point out that Rep. Tre Hargett (R. Minority Leader) raised his hand and started to object for debate on the motion. Speaker Naifeh stated that Rep. Hargett was "out of order" and then, obviously upset, called Speaker Pro Temp to his station and went to the floor where he and Kim McMillan had a private discussion with Rep. Hargett. When Speaker Naifeh returned to his station, the proceedings moved forward without a vote of any type on HB0887.

I am not surprised the motion was made but am quite disappointed that it was made by Rep. Chris Newton (R.)

I am not surprised that Speaker Naifeh essentially and essentially single handedly refused any vote on the motion.

Could the abuse get any more blatant?

A couple observations:

Naifeh's actions may cause the NRA to work harder then ever to help replace Naifeh's dictatorship with a Republican majority in the state House. And Chris Newton is in big trouble come next year's election - and deservedly so.

UPDATE: Blake Wylie calls Naifeh's actions an "abuse of power." And, vid Doug Kenline in the comments below, we are reminded that House sessions are video taped for broadcast. You can watch it here, but only for three days. I don't know if it is downloadable.

Zero coverage of Naifeh's abuse of power in today's Tennessean or Nashville City Paper. A Google news search finds no mention of this in any newspaper in Tennessee today.

UPDATE: I am getting a VHS tape of the April 27 session, but probably not until tomorrow or Monday. Once I have it, I'll find a way to get the key part digitized and made available to the people of Tennessee forever.

UPDATE: The bill in question, HB 887, has 30 co-sponsors in the House. Newton is one of them. Why he collaborated with Naifeh to scuttle legislation he ostensibly supports is a mystery.

When you watch the video, you see Newton make a motion to return HB 887 to his committee, due to some unspecified "confusion" that he doesn't detail. Naifeh, staring straight down at his podium, says "You've heard the motion. Without objection, so ordered" - and bangs the gavel.

The problem is, according to witnesses, hands were flying up all over the House floor from representatives objecting to the motion. House rules say if at least five hands are raised, the motion must be discussed and voted on with a roll-call vote. Naifeh, however, perhaps knowing the motion would fail and the popular legislation would then be in front of the whole House to vote on, simply ignored the raised hands - and House rules - in order to send the bill back to the committee.

Fuzzy Math

In the race for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate seat coming vacant after 2006, former U.S. Rep. Van Hilleary has claimed to be the leader in fundraising. Ah, but he's using fuzzy math, says Blogging For Bryant:

According to his report 57 individual contributors have already maxed out -- meaning they contributed $4000 to the Hilleary campaign. Federal election law will only allow an individual to contribute $2000 toward the primary and $2000 toward the general, so if Hilleary spends any of the money alotted for the general during the primary and loses, he must reimburse his contributors. That takes $121,400 off the table for Hilleary in the GOP primary, leaving his campaign with $265,608 to work with. At the rate Hilleary's campaign is burning money - an average of $9000 a week during the 1Q - he's going to need to pick up his fundraising pace drastically to be competitive.

By the way, if you add Hilleary's primary and general-election votes together from the 2002 governor's race, he actually beat Phil Bredesen's general election tally!

UPDATE: Jay Bush from Blogging for Bryant has clarified the $121,400 figure, and he was right - that's how much of Hilleary's over-hyped fundraising isn't actually available for him to spend until after the primary.

Hyper-Local Blogging

If you live in Middle Tennessee's Maury County you ought to check out MauryNewsNet.com, a new hyperlocal news blog that aims to tell the stories that the local Columbia Daily Herald misses or ignores. It looks promising. Reporters and editors with area news organizations ought to bookmark the site and check back from time to time. My guess is, the site will break some juicy scoops.

Here's an excerpt from their introductory post:

If you've read the Columbia Daily Herald on a regular basis, you will have noticed an image of a quiet little southern town nestled in the foothills of Middle Tennessee. You will see a town marked by its rich history, proud heritage, and historic flavor. You will see a town of good, hard-working people who love their families, their neighbors, and their God.

If this were the complete story of Columbia and of Maury County, this site would not exist. Unfortunately, there is much that happens and has happened in Maury County that most citizens know nothing about. The Daily Herald makes a passing remark about an issue, but never expands on it further. We as concerned citizens believe that it is time for our fellow citizens to get the whole story about their local institutions. Our goal is to be informative and helpful to the citizens of this area. We hope that this website fulfills this mission.

Pre-K Blog Roundup

Blake Wylie has a good round-up of links and commentary regarding the pre-k legislation pending in Tennessee.

This plan just comes down to bad policy and political posturing, and if you question such plans then you must be against the children. Unfortunately, it's the politicians who are pandering for votes that are against the children by using them as a polictical prop, and that's all it boils down to. Too bad the willing propaganda machines media is unable to see through that.

Tennessee's only blogging state legislator, Rep. Stacy Campfield, R-Knoxville, has another thoughtful post on pre-k today. You can read it here.

Gay Marriage Update

Roger Abramson has a pretty good analysis in this week's Nashville Scene of the Tennessee ACLU's procedural-technicality challenge to the gay-marriage ban amendment to the state consitutition that will go before voters in November 2006. Bottom line: The ACLU will lose and the amendment will be on the ballot. It's the second item in Abramson's "Political Notes" column, titled "Wishful Thinking."

Wednesday Barn Blogging

This barn and the surrounding 110-acre estate called "The Meadows," located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Franklin Road and Mack Hatcher Parkway in Franklin, Tennessee, is owned by Jerry Meadows, who, it is reported, "describes himself as a marketing consultant helping others start their own business." Meadows is one of those very rare people who made a killing in multi-level marketing. He keeps a few horses and a few dozen cows on the farm. Given its location, it has to be one of the most valuable pieces of farmland in the county. Click image for a larger view.

For those of you who prefer dilapidated old barns, here is another view of the dying barn I blogged last week.

Tennessee's Revenue Surplus To Grow Even Larger

Joe White of the subscriber-only Nashville Bureau forwarded me a copy of his newsletter for today, with the happy news that "University of Tennessee economist Dr. Bill Fox Tuesday told members of the state Funding Board he is raising his estimate of incoming state revenues (for the end of this fiscal year) by $96 million." On the other hand, Fox is less bullish about revenue growth next year.

But, then, Fox has a track record of spectacular inaccuracy. Three times in the 1990s in his annual Economic Report to the Governor, Fox predicted economic slowdowns, only to see the economy - and state revenues - boom.

I'll have more details later from Joe White's report on the latest meeting of the State Funding Board - information you wont' get from the mainstream press. Neither The Tennessean nor Nashville City Paper have a report today on the State Funding Board meeting.

UPDATE: Fox predicts overall state tax revenue will grow 4.1 percent this year over last year, to $9.469 billion, putting $7.916 billion into the state's general fund. He predicts additional revenue growth of 3.7 percent in 2006, bringing the state $9.821 billion to spend.

Overall, the state will collect $727 million more in tax revenue in 2006 than it did in 2004, if Fox's forecast is correct.

Continued healthy growth in revenue from the state's much-maligned sales tax will generate a big part of that $727 million in additional dollars for the legislature to allocate and the bureaucracy to spend. Fox expects sales tax growth of 4.2 percent this year, and 4.5 percent in 2006. This year, sales tax revenue will top $6 billion for the first time in state history, and rise to more than $6.3 billion in 2006, Fox predicts. That growth is within the state's historical norms and the additional revenue - Tennessee's budget makers ought to be able to live within.

Of course, you have to take Bill Fox's predictions with a grain silo full of salt. He's usually wrong. As I wrote in a Nashville City Paper column back in 2001, Tennessee's descent into fiscal policy madness in the form of a proposed income tax was in large part driven by Fox's continual "sky is falling" predictions of economic doom that failed to materialize.

Bill Fox is a University of Tennessee economist who advises the Sundquist administration on the state’s economy. Last week, Fox said he’s "puzzled" unemployment fell last month in Tennessee when he predicted it would rise.

He should be used to Tennessee’s economy outperforming his pessimistic forecasts. It happens quite often.

In 1998, Fox predicted the statewide unemployment rate would rise almost a full point in 1999, with dire consequences for everything from state tax revenue to the health of the unemployment compensation trust fund.

A year later, unemployment had fallen a full point, to the lowest rate in modern Tennessee history. Revenues soared – piling up $300 million more revenue than the budgeted forecast in fiscal year 1999-2000. The unemployment trust fund swelled as employers paid unemployment taxes on more workers while the fund issued fewer checks. Also that year, Fox was fired as the state’s economic seer.

Well, the last part didn’t happen, but it should have.

April 26, 2005

Ad Space Sale

I have cut the price on a three-month ad in the second Blogads strip on the left sidebar (below the stats counters) to $45, until the end of April, for the first three ads placed. Grab a slot while you can. Click here. I also have cut the price slightly on a three-month placement on the Blogads slot on the right sidebar, but only through the end of April and only for the first two new ads that are placed. Click here.

Blog Jobs

If you're a blogger and you're nuts about biotech and healthcare, and you need a job, click here.

The Future of News

What's the future of news? Via a link on Rexblog, I learn that it is "mobile, immediate, visual, interactive, participatory and trusted." In fact, says a new briefing from the Media Center at the American Press Institute, "Make way for a generation of storytellers who totally get it."

The Media Center's new briefing "summarizes key findings from Media, Technology and Society, a multi-disciplinary research project on the media landscape conducted for professionals engaged in strategies, research, thinking, education, policy and philanthropy related to the future of journalism and media. It is fascinating.

The report doesn't use the word "blog," but it might as well have, given this forecast:

Consumers become the important storytellers of the era. They trust each other. They become self-reliant on the stories they create, skeptical of the stories created by "trusted brands" or "trusted institutions." Although passive consumption of news will continue, new forms of interaction will emerge. Even traditional consumers will find ways to make content more meaningful.

The Content Generation creates, produces, participates and shares news and information in the connected society. It captures life as it happens on digital cameras - currently more than 250 million, by 2008 an estimated 400 million on mobile phones. Content spreads through global networks that allow anyone to post news, thoughts, ideas, and images on the web.

A conversation, not a lecture. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah. At the bottom of this post.

UPDATE: The Cincinnati Enquirer has a job opening for a journalist who gets it.

Interactivity Is a Three-Way Street.

The Poynter Institute's Al Tompkins, in a lecture to a class of college journalism students today, had some good things to say about the future of journalism, though I thought he was quite dismissive of blogs.

"Interactivity is absolutely the future of news delivery," he said. He's right about that, but his vision of "interactive" journalism seemed a bit limited.

Tompkins is a fine journalist, and his four-year-old column on the Poynter website, Al's Morning Meeting, is often an excellent offering of story ideas. Last fall, Tompkins linked to my blog's archive of election-fraud stories as a resource for any news director or editor looking to cover that issue. But just because he linked to my blog doesn't mean Tompkins thinks blogs are an important part of journalism. Except for blogs produced by journalists. He likes those.

Tompkins praised newspapers that put their stories online and fill them with hyperlinks to supporting materials and related resources. He praised instances where reporters have conducted online Q&A sessions with readers.

Tompkins took students on a brief tour of the changes that the Internet is bringing to journalism, starting with the 1997 special report by Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Mark Bowden detailing the 1993 battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, that led to the deaths of 18 American soldiers. Bowden's work eventually became a book and a movie, both titled Blackhawk Down.

But it first was a series of newspaper articles that the Inquirer also published online. And the way the Blackhawk Down articles appeared online was revolutionary. Instead of just static text on a web page, Bowden's articles were filled with hyperlinks to additional materials and resources, raw Pentagon video of the rescue raid, audio, photographs and much, much more. In addition, after publication of his reports Bowden participated in 20 online question-and-answer sessions, or web chats, and all of those are archived on the Inquirer's website.

"What struck me was not just how cool it was but how it allowed the journalist to interact with the public," said Tompkins. "Interactivity is absolutely the future of news delivery."

Blogs are the ultimate in interactivity - allowing readers of news to become commentators on the news, to "write back" at the newspapers and news broadcasts, to critique their work and to offer relevant information that the news media for whatever reason - bias, ineptitude, laziness or lack of space or time - failed to bring to its audience.

Blogs also allow experts in any field to share their expertise directly with the world, outside the reach of media filters and gatekeepers. Too few journalists have any training or experience in any field other than journalism, so that often means the blogosphere provides richer, deeper and more accurate information than journalists do.

And, finally, blogs allow readers and viewers to connect directly with other readers and viewers.

Truly interactive news media will enable journalists to interact with people, people to interact with the journalists, and people to interact with other people.

Tompkins' vision of interactivity is one that would still leave media filters in charge of deciding what information the readers or viewers should or should not see, which voices will be quoted and which will be ignored, which studies or documents will be linked to and which will not, which issues will be covered and which will not.

But while that gatekeeper/filter role was necessary when news was delivered via space-limited newsprint or time-limited broadcast, it no longer is given that web pixels are infinite and cheap.

Tompkins' vision of "interactive" news is one that you might expect from someone who works in the rarified air of the elite media. It's a turf-protecting vision that offers only a limited interactivity that would keep journalists in charge as the ultimate arbiters of what is to be news, and when and how readers and viewers can "interact" with it.

It's still top-down journalism.

It's also, in my estimation, a recipe for failure. The people who consume news are long tired of being talked at by the news media. They are tired of being told what to think by newspapers that won't even give them all of the relevant information. They are tired of reading The Daily Lecture. They are ready for news to be a conversation.

Pre-K: One Legislator's View

Tennessee state Rep. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, Tennessee's only blogging legislator, has a pretty good summary of the issues involved with the governor's pre-k proposal, over on his blog. Here is a small excerpt of his post, which I've edited because typos and misspelling drive me nuts...

Our state's greatest weakness is in 8-12th grade. We don't graduate as many as we should, and those that do, don't go to college. The original goal of the lottery was to increase the number of students getting a college education.

I think before we start spending excess money we should fully fund existing programs. Our K-4 students score the highest internationally. Once we get to 4-8, we have a drop off. Grades 8-12 drops off even more. Pre-K testing from other areas has had mixed results-some say no noticeable differences after grade 2, some say no difference after grade 4.

The Georgia model that is similar to ours reveals no noticeable difference at all. They have had this program for 10 years and spent over a billion dollars. (Please see the Georgia results in Drew Johnson's Policy Study on the Pre-K program. You can download or view this study at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research at www.tennesseepolicy.org)

I have heard statements made frequently about one study that showed "every $1.00 invested returns $7.00." The Governor often quotes this statement. Unfortunately, the program is not at all like the one being proposed, nor has it been duplicated by anyone.

Many representatives wanted to discuss some of these questions and facts, and therefore held a press conference to openly discuss and address the issues and questions. The Governor and/or his office were invited to attend. But guess what? He did not appear and not one staff member showed up.

This is not an isolated incidence. Many representatives have questions. Since session began many have asked "how will children be tested?", "what will be considered a successful result?" etc.

The Governor's response? Silence.

Pre-K Update: Tennessean Urges Support; Leaves Readers Uninformed

Today's Tennessean carries an editorial endorsing the governor's plans for a new taxpayer-funded pre-k progrm, and dismisses critics of that plan in a single, condescending and false statement.

The only argument worth debating on establishing a solid pre-kindergarten in Tennessee is how to get the program running and to sustain funding once it is.

Only a few detractors argue against pre-K either because they are promoting private programs or they don't want to see the state invest the money in young students. But most Tennesseans recognize that the best way to build a strong educational system in Tennessee is to start at the bottom with strong pre-K programs.

...the legislature should have no problem with the concept. Pre-K is, after all, an investment in elementary, secondary and higher education. It's also an investment in lower crime rates, better health statistics and higher civic participation.

Educators maintain that students who get the earliest start on education have better outcomes later on in life. Few Tennesseans would argue that point.

The Tennessean has intentionally declined to inform its readers in its news pages of the existence of a study published by the non-partisan Tennessee Center for Policy Research, co-written by nationally recognized education policy expert Darcy Olsen, which reviews the performance history of pre-k programs stretching back over the last 40 years and finds that "empirical evidence suggests more early education will do little to improve children’s long-term education outcomes."

You want press bias? That's press bias. A major newspaper cheerleading for legislation in its news and opinion pages and intentionally ignoring a part of the story that conflicts with its agenda.

The editorial writers at The Tennessean compound the problem with their sideswipe today at opponents of the governor's pre-k plan, asserting - without evidence - that the only two reasons anyone in Tennessee opposes that plan are they are promoting a private pre-k plan or "they don't want to see the state invest the money in young students."

That's a slanderous lie. There are plenty of opponents of the governor's plan for universal government-funded pre-k who would gladly support a limited pre-k program focused on at-risk youth. Opposition to the governor's proposal is based on the fact that universal government-funded pre-k is expensive and does not improve academic long-term performance.

Read the TCPR study, in which the authors state this:

To the degree that the state remains involved in early education, we recommend adopting a flexible system of early education grants to cover the average cost of pre-k tuition costs for Tennessee’s most at risk four-year-olds. The current $25 million earmarked from the lottery surplus for a "down payment" on a $250-$300 million pre-k program is more than enough to provide these targeted grants to every economically disadvantaged preschooler in Tennessee not served by existing pre-k programs.

In all my years of writing about Tennessee politics, I have never seen a more egregious example of intentional media bias than the coverage of the pre-k proposal. Not even during the four-year battle over the income tax. Back then, reporters covering capital hill allowed themselves to regurgitate the pro-income tax spin without questioning it, but at least when presented a counter-argument they reported it.

Not this time.

These are the cold, hard facts: The Tennessean knows about the TCPR study. The Tennessean has chosen not to inform its readers about the study. And The Tennessean has deliberately misrepresented the viewpoint of the authors of the study and others who share their views.

Disgusting.

In the extended portion of this entry you will find links to all of my past coverage of the pre-k story. You will note, if you read it, that in one post I mention an MIT study that was encouraging to supporters of the pre-k plan and extensively excerpt a story about that study. Isn't that interesting. You get more balance from a biased blogger than from the supposedly objective newspaper.

Past pre-k coverage:
Pre-K Update: Informed Opinion
Today's Nashville City Paper editorial urges the Tennessee legislature to pass Gov. Phil Bredesen's pre-k program. The paper has yet to mention the Tennessee Center for Policy Research's excellent study showing that government-funded universal pre-k is a costly failure that...

Pro Pre-K Bias in Tennessean Story Today
Drew Johnson of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research emailed to inform me that he provided reporter Claudette Riley of The Tennessean the link to the TCPR's new study on the ineffectiveness of government-run universal Pre-K programs when she interviewed...

Pre-K Update
This report in today's Tennessean reveals that Gov. Phil Bredesen wants to increase funding for his pet Pre-K program to $150 million per year by 2010. The story quotes Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a...

Policy Analysts Give Low Marks to Bredesen's $25m Pre-K Plan
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is questioning Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen's claim that state-funded universal pre-kindergarten is a good investment. The TCPR has released a study, Hard Lessons Learned: Applying 40 Years of Government Pre-K to Benefit Tennessee's Children...

UPDATE: The Knoxville News Sentinel's Thom Humphrey mentions the TCPR report in this story today. His story is better than any other so far, but not yet enough - he fails to cite data from the report, or give readers the name of the report and how to find it online.

April 25, 2005

Bloggy Mountain News

John Temple, editor of the Rocky Mountain News, has started a blog. Think about that for a second. The editor of the best newspaper in one of America's largest cities - which happens to be the city I'd most love to live in - is blogging. Somebody get him a plane ticket to BlogNashville, quick.

Then go and read his rather long post on the exchange between RMN columnist Dave Kopel, and Denver Post Washington bureau chief John Aloysius Farrell after Kopel listed him as one of the Post's left-leaning columnists. It's entertaining and enlightening. The only thing missing: a comments feature, so readers of Temple's blog could post their own thoughts and perhaps add to the discussion.

Memo to the Media: Don't Miss This

The upcoming BlogNashville conference May 5-7 will feature a panel discussion on the evening of Friday, May 6, on the role of blogs in journalism, and the relationship between the two, including a Friday night panel discussion, 7-8:30 p.m. in the Massey Performing Arts Center, that is free and open to BlogNashville registrants, the news and public relations media and the general public.

This Makes Three

Mr. Roboto: I am shocked that Mr. Hobbs typed the words "Mr. Roboto." Ever. It's in the comments - scroll down.

Irony at the AARP

The AARP says one reason it opposes Social Security reform is that the personal accounts proposed by the Bush administration "come with a host of risks. The stock market goes down as well as up, and sometimes it stays down for quite awhile. Not every individual or every fund earns a lot of money; many have returns well below the average return."

Yet, as blogger Mark Rose notes:

The AARP also encourages its members to participate in the AARP Investment Program, where it offers "A wide selection with a family of 38 mutual funds. Choose from many asset classes and risk levels, including money market funds, bond funds, U.S. large cap funds, U.S. small cap funds, and international funds."

ACLU Gambles Lottery on Gay Marriage Defeat

State Sen. Jim Bryson says the Tennessee ACLU's lawsuit aiming to get the Marriage Protection Act dropped from the 2006 ballot may have some interesting ramifications, if the ACLU prevails.

The Marriage Protection Act is the constitutional amendment passed by the legislature that bans gay marriage. The bill passed the legislature and is scheduled to be on the ballot for the 2006 election.

The ACLU has challenged the legality of that bill on a procedural matter. They claim that the Secretary of State did not follow all the requirements of the Tennessee Constitution necessary to let the public know about a pending constitutional amendment. Therefore, the ACLU claims, the legislature did not constitutionally pass the bill and it cannot be on the ballot in 2006.

The ACLU’s argument has interesting ramifications. Apparently, the Secretary of State followed an identical procedure for our last constitutional amendment, the amendment enacting the lottery. If the ACLU prevails in this case, will the Lottery become unconstitutional? This will be one to watch.

UPDATE: The blogosphere knows more than any one person.

My friend Roger Abramson, a lawyer and public policy wonk who writes for the Nashville Scene, read this post and then emailed Glenn Reynolds - the law professor who writes Instapundit.com - to inquire about whether the lottery could be declared unconstitutional.

Roger wrote:

Some are saying that if the ACLU wins this (I doubt it) that it would also invalidate the lottery, since that was put through the same way. Question: Is there--to your knowledge--a statute of limitations on challenges to constitutional amendment procedures? I can't find one offhand, and I should think that there would be some sep of power concerns. I asked the AG's office, and they said that I would have to submit a request and wait. Ugh. So I thought I'd ask you.

According to the TN Sup. Ct., the vote on state const'l amendments purges any procedural irregularities leading up to the vote.