Secrets of the City

I hope DeRusha doesn’t get fired!

Here’s some random behind-the-scenes stuff with bad audio.

It was a story that got a surprisingly good reaction in our newsroom. Usually those of us in old media are afraid of the new citizen-journalists. I think the training component to The UpTake is what makes most of us feel great about this concept.

Well, I won’t be jumping shop from you “old media” types for any foreseeable future.

No matter how much training the citizen-journalist gets, “old-media” has something that they won’t have for a long, long time: accessibility.

If one of the hobby journalists screw up. there’s no consequences.

If they guy in the tie makes mistakes, his livelhood and credibility is on the line. He’s the one taking the risks and living with the consequences. He answers to people.

There’s your difference right there.

Rat’s point is an excellent one, though I think he overstates it.

I expect that most hobby/citizen journalists will have considerable concern for their reputations.

Prominently screwing something up will result in them losing credibility among their peers, plus professional journalists. Such that it’ll be difficult to be taken seriously the next time around. And most hobby/citizen journalists will definitely want to be taken seriously.

I imagine they do. But there’s little risk involved. If it all hits the fan, they can put down the camera and take up gardening.

I totally agree with you, The Rat. I think The UpTake knows that they’ll never gain traction (and make money) unless they have credibility. My understanding is that to address that issue: they have editors with some mainstream news experience. They’re trying to apply some of the old editorial controls to a new medium.

I described The UpTake as an effort to train semi-professional amateurs. I think there’s room for people above the Joe Blow with a camera; and the “professional” journalist. Of course, surveys show that the public doesn’t exactly trust the mainstream media, so I’m not sure the trust factor is that big of a deal.

One big advantage of a team of citizen journalists, we hope, is that we’ll be covering things not covered by traditional media. We’ve already published several exclusive stories. Or, in the case of critical mass and other political events, we’ll cover certain stories with more breadth and depth.

The Uptake is both networked citizen journalism, and part of a growing movement of “am-pro” journalism, meaning a mix of amateir and professional. We’re hoping to fill the gap between random clips of raw video and professionally produced network news.

Original citizen journalism is already huge in the blogging world — I’m sure you’re all familiar with that one guy… Dan Rather. We’re bringing it to video. Of course reputation is important. The blogosphere is, to some extent, a reputation economy and an attention economy. I think we have to work harder to earn a reputation than legacy media — not that they can coast, given declining audience.

You tend to hear about citizen journalism when there’s a disaster. Myanmar, tsunamis, school shootings… that’s when a regular joe or jane is likely to commit and act of journalism. We’re trying to elevate that and find people that want to be proactive – tell us what you think should be covered, and we’ll help show you how to go out and cover it, and distribute it.

It’s pretty cool.

Stick with writing. Why limit your audience?

Think of the power of video — the “macaca moment”, “don’t tase me bro,” even last month’s critical mass. video is happening on the web in a big way and we’ve chosen to focus on that.

They also require additional audio cues in order to accurately interpret what is occurring, and without captioning, you’re leaving a significant chunk of audience out.

I’ll admit, I’m not very happy with video happening on the web. The web used to be a great equalizer for those of us that are deaf/HOH: email, IM, etc.

Now, we’re once again getting left behind without much of a second thought: podcasts, vlogs, on line movie downloads, etc.), and content/information that used to be accessible to us on an equal basis is now being placed beyond our reach.

Since I anxiously await the day when videos such as your examples have completely lost their “power,” I’m all for as much citizen journalism as quickly as possible.

Prominently screwing something up will result in them losing credibility among their peers, plus professional journalists.

Hasn’t seemed to hurt SeeBS News.

It is possible to subtitle internet videos. I suspect that will become more common eventually, but, yes, it sucks that the vlogging movement leaves deaf people out. Except, I guess, for silent films such as this vampire movie by an unnamed filmmaker.

I enjoyed Mike defending his “right to be stupid” on Minnesota Stories, chuck.

“It is possible to subtitle internet videos.”

Yeah, it is. That’s part of what’s so frustrating. It “only” took us a couple of decades to get broadcast TV widely captioned, and that was with a relatively small number of broadcasters to deal with. And that doesn’t even count the backsliding that has been occurring with the switch over to digital broadcast.

With the sheer number of point sources and exceedingly small budgets that the citizen-journalist model will be dealing with, I’m not holding out much hope for improvement.

Yep, even public television doesn’t always pay for transcription of their shows.

The best bets right now are (1) Providing enough text with the video to be relevant, and (2) Voice recognition/transcription services. For example, you can search the text of Minnesota Stories videos using a service called podzinger. Of course it’s not completely accurate, and for some reason they don’t give you a full text transcript of the videos they index, but searchability is an important step in the right direction.

That’s pretty cool, chuck. I had no idea such a service was available.

BTW, I tried podzinger on Corn Guy, but all he kept saying was “Don’t taz me, bro!”

“Yep, even public television doesn’t always pay for transcription of their shows. “

That’s surprising, as there are only a small number of exceptions anymore for not providing captions. As I recall, those include local, non-scheduled, live broadcasts, not intended to be re-run, and short commercial programming.

The backsliding I was referring to was the 4 year exemption to captioning requirements for “new” networks. What has been happening there, when the network begins operating their digital signal, some of them are claiming that this is a new network, and therefore is exempt from the captioning requirements. (The Discovery Channel took this route).

Oh, and Chuck, you may remember, we’ve briefly discussed this issue before by email a year or so ago.

“You tend to hear about citizen journalism when there’s a disaster.“

Then, from both sides, the upcoming convention would seem to be ideally suited for such an effort.

I know there’ll be a ton of us St. Paulites roaming about with our cameras and our biases, so between all of us, I’m guessing there’ll be at least good pic and vid coverage of everything that happens.

And then the the blogs and news ops on one side will show the pics and vids taken by people on their side which clearly show the evil that lurks within the other side, and the blogs and news ops on the other side will show THEIR chosen sights, and all of us will watch our own side’s blogs and news ops, but not those other cretins’/liars’/child-molesters’ blogs and news ops, which goes to show that even having the perfect info-gathering system will still leave both extremes utterly convinced that they fight for truth and beauty and justice. But we’ll all have better pictures to prove it.

Just so long as no building is left standing, then we can call it a draw.

In terms of CJ’s not having anything on the line, “trust” is a vital commodity in any position. I speak from personal experience on this one. If anything, CJs have more on the line at the moment, since our organization is smaller, and can’t mount a defense if one of our CJs (rightly or wrongly) screws up.

Mnblrmkr brings up some vital accessibility issues – I’ve noticed a ton of backsliding on the web on this regard. Since I’m often writing copy for The Uptake, I’ll make it my business to make the piece accessible regardless.

Bobby_b: you just described why I fear the future of new media and want to be involved in making sure that doesn’t happen. It would require more space than the MNspeak comment thread but I think there are ways to compensate.

In terms of CJ’s not having anything on the line, “trust” is a vital commodity in any position. I speak from personal experience on this one

So do I. And if you have to fold up your tent, its no skin off your nose. You’ll just go on to something else. Unless this is your full time livelihood.

CJs have more on the line at the moment, since our organization is smaller, and can’t mount a defense if one of our CJs (rightly or wrongly) screws up.

You can’t rightly screw up (unless you mean “rightly” in a big way, as in “We rightly screwed up”). But I suggest you look into libel insurance, since you plan to use a bunch of greenhands.

You can’t rightly screw up (unless you mean “rightly” in a big way, as in “We rightly screwed up”). But I suggest you look into libel insurance, since you plan to use a bunch of greenhands.

Screwing up mightily hasn’t stopped the cavalcade of half-truths, celebrity hijinks and clownish punditry pawned off on the American public as “news” every night. There is precious little depth or accountability in the mainstream media today. Maintaining that citizen journalists have less on the line is specious.

The UpTake’s training programs represent an interesting angle, but the most important comment Jason made in his piece was this: “We don’t have a license to do this either.”

A free press isn’t a function of a lack of censorship. It is a function of the the power to gather and publish the truth being vested in the citizenry. Way back when, Ben Franklin was a citizen journalist. Every working journalist in the US is a citizen journalist. The UpTake and others simply choose to join their ranks without the benefit of a large production budget or shareholders driving editorial decisions that speak more to the bottom line than social relevance.

Um… wait a minute. I watched this broadcast, and I thought it was all cool and stuff… y’know… citizen journalism, right???

But somebody’s gotta say this, and it might as well be me, I guess:

What would you all think of a a CJ training that was co-sponsored by… oh… say… the Conservative Leadership Conference?

Or for that matter… Wellstone Action?

Ranty, I did raise the political issue with The UpTake in my interview (no time for it in my story)… they, like most new media that I’ve been seeing, describe themselves as “progressive.” That’s the new term for liberal.

Which is cool and all, but I asked — What if a bunch of conservatives show up for their training and start contributing stories to The UpTake? They said they’d run those stories. We shall see.

Much like the right has mastered the talk radio medium, the left appears to own the online world.

I hope that sites that are serious about citizen journalism try to reach out to both sides of the political spectrum and at least attempt to be fair.

And of course, I would take issue with cdykstra’s assertion that the mainstream news serves up a “cavalcade of half-truths” nightly. That is a gross exaggeration to say the least.

And we have quite a bit of accountability, I’d say. This is how we make our living. If we lie, if we serve up a cavalcade of half-truths, I believe the public will reject us. And stop watching/reading. And we’ll lose our jobs. That’s The Rat’s point.

Chris Dykstra is the chairman of The UpTake. I assume the commenter is the same guy.

Well I’m glad you asked the question Jason, though I’m also disappointed that such an intrinsic (in my view) question about political motivations of the org. wasn’t important enough to make the broadcast, or this thread, for that matter.

I mean… “politics, politicians and the media” are listed as “the subject matter” of the Uptake. (hello?)

And just for the record, I’m not bugged by the fact that a so-called “progressive” group wants to do journalism. In fact, I welcome it(!)… as long as it’s explicit – as is the case in many other countries where you have right and left papers, columns, tv stations, and so on.

What pisses me off is this mouldy whiff of subterfuge…

There is precious little depth or accountability in the mainstream media today.

Even if you say it’s precious little, that still makes it more then no accountability.

I actually have a pretty in-depth interview with prominent right-wing blogger Mitch Berg coming up on The Uptake.

When we posted a video about counterprotesters at a peace march, the headline called them Anti-peace. Not an unreasonable thing to call them, in my opinion, but they rejected that generalization and we changed the headline.

Most everyone involved with The Uptake leans left – that’s no secret. Most of us have had some involvement in the liberal blogosphere and/or DFL politics. But we endeavor to cover stories with journalistic principles and treat people fairly. I think where the bias will be most apparent is in *what* we cover. Even that is something the Uptake community will decide by voting up events in the calendar, which anyone can do.

Thanks for weighing in, Chuck. Like I said – I personally don’t mind “leaning” as long as it’s up-front. (And I think it *is* pretty up-front on the Uptake website. It just wasn’t on the broadcast, or in this thread, initially.)

Oh crap, okay, just one more thing, since you mentioned:

“Anti-Peace” is about as appropriate a news headline for counter–protesters at a peace march as would be “Anti-Freedom” for counter-protesters at a [fill-in-the-blank-conservative] event.

Pleeeeeeeease. Can we drop the damn *Unspeak?????

*Book by Steven Poole: UNSPEAK: “How words become weapons, how weapons become a message, and how that message becomes a reality.”

Makes sense ranty… I was stuck with some time constraints, and decided if I went down the political motivation road, I’d have to spend a lot of time going into that.

Will they train conservatives? yes.
Will they run stories from Republican citizen journalists? yes.
Are their stories biased? Probably. Most news stories have some sort of bias.
Will their stories be fair? That’s the goal.

The reason I skipped the “progressive politics” angle is that it’s a little confusing. I guess a simple line may have worked: “The staff of The UpTake leans left politically, but promises to be fair in storytelling. They’re also eager to train people of all political backgrounds how to be citizen journalists.” Would have been 15 seconds well spent, in retrospect.

I will go back and add the political angle into my web story. I have plenty of space to get into it there. (my taped broadcast piece was only 87 seconds long).

Will they train conservatives? yes.
Will they run stories from Republican citizen journalists? yes.

Really? Sweet! I’m signing up!

I’ll even go through a co-hosted training with Wellstone Action… I mean, why not, right? I’m tolerant and open to new ideas…

Well Ranty, they also objected to pro-war. In fact, they didn’t have a consensus on what to call themselves. (Just like the left!)

True, true, cdykstra is Chris Dykstra, Chairman of the UpTake and that’s me.

The political bias question is fair, I think. One of the reasons why this project is so appealing is that – at it’s core – truth is non-partisan. Our goal is to let the stories speak for themselves. I for one would welcome conservatives at our trainings and in the field shooting stories with us.

re: dropping the unspeak = yes please.

—

Jason– You are a very good, principled reporter. Your piece on us was thorough and thoughtful. I think the WCCO team (and most of the local media) does a pretty good job covering local stories with integrity. National narratives, on the other hand, come from someplace else. They are delivered by the national television, print and electronic media – collectively the mainstream media.

I don’t think it’s possible to honestly assess mainstream media in this country and conclude that saying it serves a “cavalcade of half-truths” is any kind of exaggeration at all. If anything, it is too kind. On a national level, the trend is towards consolidated, merged, corporate news “product” that stresses narrative over investigation and verification. Narratives are developed and distributed by wonks and repeated endlessly by a rising class of pundits. Much more attention is devoted to competing narratives than whether or not something being said is actually true. Pundits are a lot cheaper than investigative reporters and news bureaus. It isn’t so much that the media “lies.” It is that they pass along the lies of others, very, very easily. It isn’t much of a filter any more. Our national narratives tend to be pretty suspect. Witness:

- The National narrative in the runup to the Iraq War
- Al Gore’s historic trashing by the media in the 2000 election (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710?currentPage=1)
- The Swiftboat smearing of John Kerry – outrageously false, endlessly repeated
- There are far too many examples to list.

As far as accountability goes, I am afraid I have to disagree again. The accountability of mainstream media isn’t primarily to its viewers. Ultimately, the accountability of corporate news is to its shareholders, not to the viewing public. Truth is not necessarily the litmus test for keeping one’s job in journalism. Ratings and profitability are. In fact, it is actually illegal in the US for a corporation to act against the interest of its shareholders. That can mean killing or altering stories that affect shareholder value.

At any rate…it’s all a healthy debate. The UpTake doesn’t intend to change the universe, just contribute our little part to civil civic discourse and to use our American birthright – to go get the story and publish it.

Ultimately, the accountability of corporate news is to its shareholders, not to the viewing public.

This gets thrown out a lot by people — that newsrooms are answerable to The Corporation somehow. Do you have examples of this process in action?

You make a valid distinction between the national and the local media, Chris. I think people blur that line too often by using the all-encompassing term “Media.”

Of course, I’d make a distinction between the CNN/MSNBC/Fox News Channel group and the 5:30 p.m. network newscasts too.

At any rate, I think the biggest benefit of an outfit like the The UpTake is covering the stories that aren’t being covered. I believe Citizen Journalism and Traditional Journalism can compliment each other without tearing each other down. A diet of both will give all of us a more complete picture of our world.

Of course: the holy grail for a Citizen Journalist (and most bloggers, self-publishers, etc) is ending up on TV or in the newspaper. Right now: that’s still how you reach a critical mass of people. So there’s that.

Well Ranty, they also objected to pro-war. In fact, they didn’t have a consensus on what to call themselves. (Just like the left!)

How about pro-american and anti-american? Seems fair to me.

Based on dykstra’s comments above, it’s obvious to this casual observer that these people don’t lean left, they’re far left. Only an ardent leftist believes what he wrote.

Follow the (George Soros) money.

Or, you know, because they are expressing an entirely legal opinion, the sort of thing that this country absolutely guarantees in its constitution, how about we just call them American. And how about we leave questioning the patriotism of people we disagree with back where it belongs, somewhere about the time Joseph N Welch asked Senator McCarthy “Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

I had hoped to go my whole life without having morons pull out that old “Anti-American” canard. It’s so colossally beneath us as a nation, and it tells us a lot about what we have become that someone can smugly say it in public without fearing the heaping of abuse and humiliation that it deserves.

Follow the (George Soros) money.

All the way to the White House, baby!

Max…in fairness to Maz, he didn’t say which group was anti-American. for all we know he could be referring to the group that was attempting to stifle free speech. nah.

“Follow the (George Soros) money.”

And what makes his money any less worthy than, say, Richard Mellon Scaife’s money?

Scaife also bankrolls the American Spectator. You don’t want to get on the wrong side of anyone who buys ink by the barrel.

Richard Scaife is an american businessman.

George Soros is the world’s wealthiest leftist who is using his wealth to fund anti-american groups to harm america. I suppose you don’t see a difference.

Good satire, Maz.

I Scaife a hero to you, Maz?

“I Scaife a hero to you, Maz?”

Hey, would you scaife me one, too? I could go for a hero around lunchtime.

Scaife’s bankrolling of efforts to bring down an elected American President don’t count?

And Soros is an American businessman as well.

Not to mention that Soros made his fortune, after escaping communist Eastern Europe.

But I suppose it only counts if they get their fortune the American way, like Scaife: They’re born into it.

(Soros) made his fortune, after escaping communist Eastern Europe.

Maybe that’s how he became such a ruthless sonofabitch.

He was dubbed “the man who broke the Bank of England.”

Ask people in Malaysia and Thailand what they think of Soros.

“Maybe that’s how he became such a ruthless sonofabitch.

Ask people in Malaysia and Thailand what they think of Soros. “

And that differs from Ken Lay, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski, Richard Scrushy how?

Only difference I see is that Soros has chosen progressive causes to fund, whereas the others chose Republican causes, or were apolitical at best.

So he a sonofabitch, but he’s OUR sonofabitch?

And that differs from Ken Lay, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski, Richard Scrushy how?

Only difference I see is that Soros has chosen progressive causes to fund, whereas the others chose Republican causes, or were apolitical at best

Maybe they are all screwing us and laughing all the way to the bank. Wake up America, the right and the left wing of both parties could give a rats ass about the vast majority of the people in this country. They exercises control through ownership of the media and give us a steady diet of nothing. It’s about selling shit not providing hard news. As Rome burns we argue about marginal bullshit both here on this site and in the national press. Jason you do a hell of a job given the restraints of time and do come across as honest but the problem is much bigger than anyone of us.

thanks, Big G (BTW, that compliment to DeRusha is a little out of character)

And that differs from Ken Lay, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski, Richard Scrushy how?

Those guys are just crooks. Their objective was to get rich, not overthrow a country.

Heh, maz doesn’t seem willing to address Scaife’s attempts to overthrow a country.

So, mnblrmkr you’re not uncomfortable having someone who you, yourself compared to some of the biggest white collar criminals in U.S. history on your side?

Heh, maz doesn’t seem willing to address Scaife’s attempts to overthrow a country.

Exposing a sexual predator and an accused rapist who happens to sit in the oval office isn’t overthrowing a country, it’s serving a country.

Hm. Let’s not do this, okay?

Awright, I’m out.

Oh God! This stuff everyday, and with the same handfull of clods poisoning the well over and over and over. I would quit reading but something keeps bringing me back.

once again, kiddies, repeat after me….sex bad, killing good.

sex good, rape and sexual harrassment, bad.

Did this thread seriously spiral into tired old Soros/anti-american rhetoric?
Sad. It was actually a good conversation.

We can get it back on track, chuck.

We can all start by just not taking the bait maz lays out for us. Let him call me “unAmerican” if he wants to — I don’t define myself by what others have to say about me — especially maz.

Back to topic:

I would say the jury is still out on cititzen journalism, but it is an interesting phenom. Interesting also, how much the mainstream media is becoming dependent on images provided by CJs.

Yeah, I was really enjoying this before the devolution.

But to add my two-cents about the The UpTake. In our interview with JD, we talked openly about being a “progressive” organization, and this is how I see it:

I fully believe that it is a progressive value to have an active and engaged citizenry. I believe that it is a progressive value to seek, work for, and organize citizen journalism, and to *train them* to learn how to tell a good story, to be fair, transparent and honest. I believe that it is an American value to do all this, and I believe that it is *necessary* for a health democracy.

It is easy to spout off on a blog, to your friends, or on the street corner, it is quite another thing to tell a compelling story, to engage the community, and to build respect and accountability for anything you endeavor to do. We hope to be a facilitator to your everyday citizen to become a more active player in this democracy.

There are many other organizations doing this for the written word, we are the first to take it to video.

I look forward to working with as many of you who wish to participate.

And just for the record, I’m not bugged by the fact that a so-called “progressive” group wants to do journalism. In fact, I welcome it(!)… as long as it’s explicit – as is the case in many other countries where you have right and left papers, columns, tv stations, and so on.

Then you must be bugged by the fact that Fox News doesn’t explicit call itself “George Bush’s Sperm Encrusted Tissue Paper?”

It is really, really interesting to be called “far left” loudly and often by so called “conservatives. ” I have lived most of my life without being wedded in anyway to any particular ideology. I am a nuts and bolts capitalist, husband, father and entrepreneur. I coach my kids soccer team, attend parent teacher conferences, and go to potlucks and dinners with my neighbors. I have friends and relatives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What on earth is “..an ardent leftist?”

What on earth is “..an ardent leftist?”

Anyone to the right of Arne Carlson or Joe Lieberman! <– half joking

I fully believe that it is a progressive value to have an active and engaged citizenry. I believe that it is a progressive value to seek, work for, and organize citizen journalism[...]

My first instinct was to agree wholeheartedly with this statement and leave it at that. After a moment’s thought though, it also occurred to me that it’s an instructive example of what I was trying to get at earlier about words and language. Specifically, I understand “progressive” to mean something which enables and encourages “progress,” e.g. some beneficial change or improvement. As such, I agree with the sentiments expressed, because it makes sense to me that having an active and engaged citizenry will contribute to an improved society.

At the same time though, the word “progressive” has (in my view) also become coded, indicating not only the above definition, but also an inherent political ideology, which necessarily packs the additional baggage of associated parties, movements, candidates, etcetera.

This of course is not the fault of the poor little word, but rather of those who have co-opted it for purposes of their own political branding, as it were, to say nothing of members of the media who reinforce the coded message through their repetition of it.

And of course, this type of thing happens all across the political spectrum, and is perpetuated (in my view) by all kinds of media as well, so I don’t mean to just pick on, um, “progessives.”

I have lived most of my life without being wedded in anyway to any particular ideology. – cdykstra

From his site:
Chris Dykstra has more than 20 years of progressively responsible business experience, the last 15 of which have been spent in software and web development. Hes a founding partner in Warecorp, a web and software services company with development centers in the former Soviet Union. Warecorp balances traditional web and software engagements against its mission of serving as an incubator for socially conscious technology startups and progressive activism.

“The political bias question is fair, I think. One of the reasons why this project is so appealing is that – at it’s core – truth is non-partisan. Our goal is to let the stories speak for themselves.“

Truth is non-partisan, of course. But deciding which part of truth to convey to an audience isn’t. If I take my camera to the RNC, I’ll probably shoot lots of protest activities. If Chris D walks next to me with his camera, his result will likely tell a very different story from mine. Both stories will be true – as in, not dishonest, not a lie, not photoshopped – but I’d argue that neither, alone, would be The Truth.

So here I am, standing on my particular part of the political continuum, and I can’t see either end – too far away – and so, in my mind, I’m somewhere near the center. Chris is off there in the distance to the left somewheres. Like my spot, the ends aren’t visible from where he sits, so in his mind, he’s somewhere near the center. And from each of our spots as centrists, we’re going to convey to an audience remarkably dissimilar truths. And that’s what the networks, and the papers, and the local newsies do, every day, all the while claiming that their product is largely unbiased, and predicating that claim on both their centricity (to which they honestly lay claim) and their efforts to tell us the whole story as they saw it. Again, maybe it’s truth, but it’s not The Truth.

Like Ranty points out, we’re moving closer every year to the english system of explicitly partisan news deliverers, which is good (in that all knowledge is good, and knowledge about who’s choosing which snippets of truth to show you is amongst the most critical parts of knowledge) and bad (somewhat because the ideal – always claimed but so seldom attained – of adherence to The Truth instead of mere accuracy was a noble concept.)

But the biggest loss as we move that way will be the loss of whatever part of The Truth we still might have in the unitary news industry. Once you move to the explicit split – the liberal press v the conservative press – you lose the inner tension inside each individually that keeps things at least facially serving The Truth – you no longer have even the minimal pressure needed to stick with the truth, small “t”. We’ve seen that happen already on both sides – as a conservative, my examples will differ from Chris’s, but I’ll throw out the NYT now daily repeating small factual instances and big factual instances and entire themes that are made of whole cloth, and which exist only through willing and eager partisan-driven repetition.

That will be the future of our news industry, on both sides, if it can’t figure out a way to deliver The Truth. Half of the country will go home and hear how Bush thinks Saddam killed Mandela, and half will hear how stupid the other side must be to not understand metaphor, and the divide will grow. “There’s only so much space/time” doesn’t cut it when the choices made in service to that pressure always tend the same way.

Well, here’s a simple example: In today’s newspapers, including the strib, there’s a story about how the president vetoed a bill to extend the SCHIP program that provides government-provided health insurance to poor children.

The Strib version of the story started like this:

WASHINGTON – President Bush on Wednesday vetoed a bill to extend a health insurance program for children of the working poor.

Bush has criticized the legislation as too costly and complained that it would undermine private insurance by extending benefits to some middle-class families at the expense of the poor.

In the eight paragraphs of the story, the reporter never saw fit to report that the bill provided health insurance to children in families with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal pverty line – $82,600 dollars for a family of four, or that the “children” covered can include people up to 25 years old.

The remainder of the story basically consisted of quotes from democrat politicians saying how they were going to use this as an election issue to paint republicans as “cruel” and “heartless” and how polls show a large majority of americans are in favor of helping poor children get free health insurance.

I checked the websites of all the major news organizations, and the stories never mentioned the income limits or age limits of alleged “children.”

And that was true of WCCO, too Jason. I was hoping that I would’t have to point to Fox News Channel as the only media outlet to tell the truth … but there it was, actually quoting Bush! How unfair. How partisan.

“The intent of the program was to focus on poorer children, not adults or families earning up to $83,000 a year. It is estimated that if this program were to become law, one out of every three person(s) that would subscribe to the new expanded SCHIP would leave private insurance. The policies of the government ought to be to help poor children and to focus on poor children.” – George Bush

“In the eight paragraphs of the story, the reporter never saw fit to report that the bill provided health insurance to children in families with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal pverty line – $82,600 dollars for a family of four, or that the “children” covered can include people up to 25 years old.”

Because it’s not accurate. Only one state allows that high an icome: NY, which has a high cost of living. Other states onl allow up to 200%, and the bill cuts the money to the state if they enroll families earning more than 300% poverty.

The 25 year old age limit is pretty similar to prvate coverage. Many private plans allow parents to cover their children to 23 or so while they are full time students.

I’ll also add, that $82,000 figure has been widely reported. Just because you found one story that didn’t mention it, doesn’t mean that it’s not out there.

maz: don’t get be too spooked at mentions of “former Soviet Union.” chris employs programmers there. he’s not a commie; he’s an international businessman. welcome to 2007.

Maz…check your house for something made in China, an avowedly communist country. Most of those products were made by US companies. Does that make you or the people that made them communists?

George Bush made a lot of money failing at oil prospecting in the Middle East. Does that make him a Muslim?

What’s wrong with socially conscious start ups? As a conservative – do you or do you not believe in entrepreneurial, market-based solutions to social problems?

——
bobby b – I believe in truth with a small t. I suspect we are closer together on the political spectrum than you might think. Most Americans are closer than is immediately evident from the level of rancor in our discussions. I am an equal opportunity hater of lies in the media. What are some examples of a national narrative that is substantially untrue taking hold about a conservative?

Anyway, the UpTake doesn’t claim to be telling the whole truth. We just claim to cover stories.