Bill Whittle sums up the conservative view of life quite nicely in this short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjGsLmAXTYs
Bill as the Virtual President on Gun Control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY
Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Monday, August 4, 2014
Walker Wins, Unions Lose in Wisconsin
Unions have been used to having their own way for a long time. Finally, in cases across teh country, some balance is being re-instated. In Wisconsin, the right of speech once again trumps the desire of unions to force members to support their political campaigns by providing union dues.
Bold emphasis by me..
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin had quite a good day on July 31 when the state supreme court upheld not only Wisconsin’s voter ID law, but also the 2011 budget legislation that severely curtailed the power of public unions to control the lives and salaries of state and municipal government employees.
In Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker, a majority of the court overturned a lower court decision that had enjoined various parts of the law and upheld it in its entirety. The 2011 law (Act 10) prohibited public unions from bargaining on issues other than base wages; prohibited municipalities from deducting union dues from the paychecks of public employees; imposed annual recertification requirements for unions; and prohibited any union agreement that would require employees who are not members of a union from having to pay union dues.
Various unions, including the AFL-CIO, challenged these provisions, claiming they violated their associational rights under the First Amendment and their equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment.
This ruling represents a huge victory for both Wisconsin taxpayers and the recipients of government services.
In tossing out these claims, the Wisconsin Supreme Court pointed out that, as the U.S. Supreme Court itself has said, public employees have no “constitutional right to negotiate with their municipal employer on the lone issue of base wages, let alone on any other subject.” Collective bargaining is “a creation of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation.” According to the court, “the plaintiffs’ associational rights are in no way implicated” by the law’s change to the state’s collective bargaining framework.
Union member are not restricted in any way from exercising their First Amendment right to associate together: they “remain free to advance any position, on any topic, either individually or in concert, through any channels that are open to the public.” But the union has no constitutional right to force the government to listen to what it has to say – or to require the government to negotiate only with the union.
Furthermore, unions can’t force the government to subsidize them through paycheck deductions for union dues from public employees who are members of the union – “no constitutional right exists for the deduction of dues from a paycheck to support membership in a voluntary organization.”
Unions also have no constitutional right to force employees who do not want to be members of a union to pay union dues. Because none of the challenged provisions involves constitutional rights and public employees are not a protected class, the unions’ equal protection challenge also failed under the court’s rational basis review.
The court also threw out an additional challenge to another Wisconsin law that prohibited the City of Milwaukee from paying the employee share of contributions to the city’s retirement plan.
This ruling, which removes the last legal challenge to Act 10, represents a huge victory for both Wisconsin taxpayers and the recipients of government services. Before Act 10, the Wisconsin state and local governments could not manage their workforces without union consent. Collective bargaining meant government unions had to agree with any changes to how the government operates. Government unions often use this power to hijack the government and make it serve their interests ahead of the public good.
Unions in the private sector cannot ask for too much without their companies prohibitively raising prices and losing customers to competing firms. But the government has no competition—it has a monopoly. Government unions do not have to worry about holding costs down or operating efficiently because the public has nowhere else to go. Without Act 10, Walker would have to either raise taxes or cut programs to balance Wisconsin’s budget.
Eliminating collective bargaining also allows governments to operate more efficiently. Local school districts saved tens of millions of dollars by shopping for more competitive health plans. The Wisconsin Education Association used to force districts to buy health benefits from WEA Trust. This plan charged inflated premiums. School districts can now spend those savings to better educate children.
Similarly union seniority systems meant Wisconsin schools had to lay off the newest teachers first—no matter how well they taught. In 2010 Megan Sampson won statewide recognition for excellence as a first-year English teacher. A week later Milwaukee Public Schools laid her off because the union contract required her to be let go first. That system benefited senior union members at the expense of new hires and children who need the best education possible. Act 10 eliminated this restriction. Wisconsin school districts can now hire and fire on the basis of what works best for the children, not the union members. Act 10 means the government can serve the public instead of unions.
Bold emphasis by me..
Unions Lose and the Public Wins Big in Wisconsin
Hans von Spakovsky and James Sherk at Heritage FoundationGov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin had quite a good day on July 31 when the state supreme court upheld not only Wisconsin’s voter ID law, but also the 2011 budget legislation that severely curtailed the power of public unions to control the lives and salaries of state and municipal government employees.
In Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker, a majority of the court overturned a lower court decision that had enjoined various parts of the law and upheld it in its entirety. The 2011 law (Act 10) prohibited public unions from bargaining on issues other than base wages; prohibited municipalities from deducting union dues from the paychecks of public employees; imposed annual recertification requirements for unions; and prohibited any union agreement that would require employees who are not members of a union from having to pay union dues.
Various unions, including the AFL-CIO, challenged these provisions, claiming they violated their associational rights under the First Amendment and their equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment.
This ruling represents a huge victory for both Wisconsin taxpayers and the recipients of government services.
In tossing out these claims, the Wisconsin Supreme Court pointed out that, as the U.S. Supreme Court itself has said, public employees have no “constitutional right to negotiate with their municipal employer on the lone issue of base wages, let alone on any other subject.” Collective bargaining is “a creation of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation.” According to the court, “the plaintiffs’ associational rights are in no way implicated” by the law’s change to the state’s collective bargaining framework.
Union member are not restricted in any way from exercising their First Amendment right to associate together: they “remain free to advance any position, on any topic, either individually or in concert, through any channels that are open to the public.” But the union has no constitutional right to force the government to listen to what it has to say – or to require the government to negotiate only with the union.
Furthermore, unions can’t force the government to subsidize them through paycheck deductions for union dues from public employees who are members of the union – “no constitutional right exists for the deduction of dues from a paycheck to support membership in a voluntary organization.”
Unions also have no constitutional right to force employees who do not want to be members of a union to pay union dues. Because none of the challenged provisions involves constitutional rights and public employees are not a protected class, the unions’ equal protection challenge also failed under the court’s rational basis review.
The court also threw out an additional challenge to another Wisconsin law that prohibited the City of Milwaukee from paying the employee share of contributions to the city’s retirement plan.
This ruling, which removes the last legal challenge to Act 10, represents a huge victory for both Wisconsin taxpayers and the recipients of government services. Before Act 10, the Wisconsin state and local governments could not manage their workforces without union consent. Collective bargaining meant government unions had to agree with any changes to how the government operates. Government unions often use this power to hijack the government and make it serve their interests ahead of the public good.
Unions in the private sector cannot ask for too much without their companies prohibitively raising prices and losing customers to competing firms. But the government has no competition—it has a monopoly. Government unions do not have to worry about holding costs down or operating efficiently because the public has nowhere else to go. Without Act 10, Walker would have to either raise taxes or cut programs to balance Wisconsin’s budget.
Unions can’t force the government to subsidize them through paycheck deductions for union dues from public employees who are members of the union.Government unions could live with either option, of course. What they did not want was what actually happened – eliminating the deficit by trimming their members’ benefits. Wisconsin government employees must now contribute toward their pension benefits and pay a larger portion of their healthcare premiums. They still make more than comparable private sector workers, but that gap has narrowed. These reforms allowed Walker to close a $3.6 billion budget hole and cut taxes by $2 billion.
Eliminating collective bargaining also allows governments to operate more efficiently. Local school districts saved tens of millions of dollars by shopping for more competitive health plans. The Wisconsin Education Association used to force districts to buy health benefits from WEA Trust. This plan charged inflated premiums. School districts can now spend those savings to better educate children.
Similarly union seniority systems meant Wisconsin schools had to lay off the newest teachers first—no matter how well they taught. In 2010 Megan Sampson won statewide recognition for excellence as a first-year English teacher. A week later Milwaukee Public Schools laid her off because the union contract required her to be let go first. That system benefited senior union members at the expense of new hires and children who need the best education possible. Act 10 eliminated this restriction. Wisconsin school districts can now hire and fire on the basis of what works best for the children, not the union members. Act 10 means the government can serve the public instead of unions.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Charles Koch vs. Harry Reid
Lately Harry Reid has been vilifying The Koch Brothers for simply being successful. And for speaking about their beliefs and backing that speech with support for political groups. Harry Reid has been using the Alinski principles to make the Koch into the "great satans." As usual Harry is wrong.
The opinion piece below brings some balance and truth to the war.
This article was published in the Wall Street Journal on 2 April 2014.
I’m Fighting to Restore a Free Society
by Charles G. Koch
I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.
Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation’s own government. That’s why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.
A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.
by Charles G. Koch
I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.
Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation’s own government. That’s why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.
A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.
More
than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen.
“The natural progress of things,” Jefferson wrote, “is for liberty to
yield and government to gain ground.” He knew that no government could
possibly run citizens’ lives for the better. The more government tries
to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current
health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government
control of the means of production and how people live their lives)
promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies
the means.
Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.
Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.
Rather
than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately
report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you
believe we’re “un-American” and trying to “rig the system,” that we’re
against “environmental protection” or eager to “end workplace safety
standards.” These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick
Moynihan’s observation, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but
not to his own facts.” Here are some facts about my philosophy and our
company: Koch
companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products
that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our
employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate
nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of
our U.S.-based employees are union members.
Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our “commitment to a cleaner environment” and called us “a model for other companies.”
Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement.
Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.
Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people’s lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.
If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I’m dedicated to fighting for that vision. I’m convinced most Americans believe it’s worth fighting for, too.
[Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.]
Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our “commitment to a cleaner environment” and called us “a model for other companies.”
Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement.
Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.
Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people’s lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.
If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I’m dedicated to fighting for that vision. I’m convinced most Americans believe it’s worth fighting for, too.
[Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.]
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Government Targets "True the Vote" Group
I first heard about True the Vote a few years ago. It is a voter fraud watch group founded by a Tea Party leader from Texas. It seemed like a good idea. There are similar groups across teh country, some have liberal and some conservative leaning, but a common goal. Some are claimed by opponents to be partisan or "fake" or otherwise not credible. You have tpo decide for yourselves on those issues.
However, one issue that is undeniable in the case of True the Vote is that the current Administration is targeting this 501c(3) group in outrageous ways. Watch this video of the testimopny by Catherine Engelbrecht, teh group's founder, to the House Oversight Committee and see if what you hear is not very disturbing:
See here: True-the-vote-president-catherine-engelbrecht-slams-irs-abuse-weaponizing-of-government
However, one issue that is undeniable in the case of True the Vote is that the current Administration is targeting this 501c(3) group in outrageous ways. Watch this video of the testimopny by Catherine Engelbrecht, teh group's founder, to the House Oversight Committee and see if what you hear is not very disturbing:
See here: True-the-vote-president-catherine-engelbrecht-slams-irs-abuse-weaponizing-of-government
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Common Core: Education Salvation or Commie Core?
Common Core: Education Salvation or Commie Core?
Many States in the U.S. are implementing a new teaching methodology and set of standards called Common Core. I have been observing the pros and cons and arguments on both sides. Given my usual distrust of big government solutions, my predilection is to identify with the anti-CC side. But people I respect (like Mike Huckabee) are supportive of it.
In California, CC has being implemented swiftly and without feedback from the voters. CA stands to get a lot of money from the Feds and no doubt that is a driver. I spoke to Mr. Garagarza last week, the principle of the new Sierra Foothills Charter School in Mariposa, who said he liked CC. Of course our conversation was very limited.
Today I came across this video from Utah. It contains the best description of reasons and philosophy of why one should appose CC that I have seen to date. I would love to hear Nancy's take on this, if she has time to watch it. Also Alice, if you are watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TYj-HDDrL4w#t=3533
Also see this video by a high school grad of excellence: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/06/watch-another-high-school-student-take-down-common-core-like-a-boss/
Here is a video that discusses the CC standards: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EXf91AGW2QA#t=114
For me the greatest danger presented here is loss of local control. The statement that elected school boards no longer represent citizens as concerns education is terrifying.
Now, why should I care? I don't have kids in school. Only my taxes are at risk. Not so fast: I hope to have grandkids one day and they will be affected. I have friends whose kids are being affected. I have a love for this country and I fear for the future of the Constitutional process when oligarchies (private companies and organizations as well as political leadership cabals) can take over education, on the belief that they are the holders of the keys to the perfect utopia.
Now, you might say, "Jay, you're being a scare monger." Maybe, maybe not. I have recently begun to apply this test to things: "What if only 50% of what they are saying is true or applicable?" Wouldn't you still have to say there is something to be concerned about here?
One last thing: CC includes a cradle to career student data collection scheme, with little security and broad distribution to data users. They accomplished this by changing the definitions of privacy law to become broad based and squishy. Watch the last video at minute 50.
A last video by a Professor of Education Daniel Coupland at Hillsdale College: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSvvyjsXSk
Many States in the U.S. are implementing a new teaching methodology and set of standards called Common Core. I have been observing the pros and cons and arguments on both sides. Given my usual distrust of big government solutions, my predilection is to identify with the anti-CC side. But people I respect (like Mike Huckabee) are supportive of it.
In California, CC has being implemented swiftly and without feedback from the voters. CA stands to get a lot of money from the Feds and no doubt that is a driver. I spoke to Mr. Garagarza last week, the principle of the new Sierra Foothills Charter School in Mariposa, who said he liked CC. Of course our conversation was very limited.
Today I came across this video from Utah. It contains the best description of reasons and philosophy of why one should appose CC that I have seen to date. I would love to hear Nancy's take on this, if she has time to watch it. Also Alice, if you are watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TYj-HDDrL4w#t=3533
Also see this video by a high school grad of excellence: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/06/watch-another-high-school-student-take-down-common-core-like-a-boss/
Here is a video that discusses the CC standards: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EXf91AGW2QA#t=114
For me the greatest danger presented here is loss of local control. The statement that elected school boards no longer represent citizens as concerns education is terrifying.
Now, why should I care? I don't have kids in school. Only my taxes are at risk. Not so fast: I hope to have grandkids one day and they will be affected. I have friends whose kids are being affected. I have a love for this country and I fear for the future of the Constitutional process when oligarchies (private companies and organizations as well as political leadership cabals) can take over education, on the belief that they are the holders of the keys to the perfect utopia.
Now, you might say, "Jay, you're being a scare monger." Maybe, maybe not. I have recently begun to apply this test to things: "What if only 50% of what they are saying is true or applicable?" Wouldn't you still have to say there is something to be concerned about here?
One last thing: CC includes a cradle to career student data collection scheme, with little security and broad distribution to data users. They accomplished this by changing the definitions of privacy law to become broad based and squishy. Watch the last video at minute 50.
A last video by a Professor of Education Daniel Coupland at Hillsdale College: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSvvyjsXSk
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Laura Logan - What A Reporter Really Thinks About Benghazi and Afghanistan
CBS reporter Laura Logan has been suspended for a mistake
in reporting on Benghazi lately. It
appears she and her producer did get this detail wrong. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/60-minutes-correspondent-lara-logan-producer-suspended-over-benghazi-story/article15625938/
Is suspension the right punishment, or should the retraction
be enough? And then get on with finding the
straight story. See retraction story
here: http://voices.suntimes.com/arts-entertainment/the-daily-sizzle/60-minutes-admits-it-messed-up-in-recent-benghazi-report/
Watch this speech by Logan in Chicago this year to the BGA (Better
Government Association) and then decide if she should be silenced or not. Or should her fervent interest in
her stories (like Afghanistan) be used by her bosses as the driving force to
produce the truth about the world?
The last two minutes are especially provoking.
And, will this Administration ever come clean
and admit how badly it fucked up in Benghazi?
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Is NSA Spying Making You Self-Censor Your Writing?
Do you find yourself limiting your speech? Come to think of it, I do. I limit Facebook posts to mostly bland stuff. I don't talk about several issues that the current government deems unacceptable, by their standards. What do you not do anymore?
See full article at link below. This article is repeated from Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Digest.
NSA Spying Has Led Writers To Self-Censor
A new survey conducted by a leading literary organization finds that the recent revelations of pervasive spying on American citizens have had a chilling effect on the intellectual freedom, creativity and social discourse of American writers.The PEN American Center, a nonprofit literary group, partnered with the FDR Group to produce the report titled “Chilling Effects: NSA Surveillance Drives U.S. Writers to Self-Censor,” which notes that 85 percent of writers expressed worries about the government’s ongoing surveillance of American citizens. Seventy-three percent of respondents said that they “have never been as worried about privacy rights and freedom of the press as they are today.”
The report also notes:
–28% have curtailed or avoided social media activities, and another 12% have seriously considered doing so;Writer comments on the matter included statements like: “I assume everything I do electronically is subject to monitoring.”
–24% have deliberately avoided certain topics in phone or email conversations, and another 9% have seriously considered it;
–16% have avoided writing or speaking about a particular topic, and another 11% have seriously considered it;
–16% have refrained from conducting Internet searches or visiting websites on topics that may be considered controversial or suspicious, and another 12% have seriously considered it;
–13% have taken extra steps to disguise or cover their digital footprints, and another 11% have seriously considered it;
–3% have declined opportunities to meet (in person, or electronically) people who might be deemed security threats by the government, and another 4% have seriously considered it.
And: “I feel that increased government surveillance has had a chilling effect on my research, most of which I do on the Internet. This includes research on issues such as the drug wars and mass incarceration, which people don’t think about as much as they think about foreign terrorism, but is just as pertinent.”
A similar chilling of creative expression and research by U.S. writers and journalists occurred after the passage of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which included provisions allowing the Federal government to detain indefinitely any citizen suspected of aiding foreign terrorist organizations. The Act sparked a lawsuit by activists and reporters — including such notable names as Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and Daniel Ellsberg — who claimed a section of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Barack Obama in December, could give the Federal government legal powers to detain any dissident voices.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Grimes 2nd Law - The News Formula
at Guns & Ammo on has a interesting article about why the media covers some violent crimes (13 Navy Yard killings vs. 13 Chicago school yard woundings) and not others. Is it because they are biased, lazy, or affected by other factors. In the article he refers to media Prof. Charlotte Grimes, Knight Chair in Political Reporting at Syracuse
University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. She has developed a formula that relates many factors common to news items and provides "a common sense explanation of what the media considers
newsworthy, as well as a sobering look at today’s fragmented information
world."
Grimes' Second Law: The News Formula
N / Di(prx) x I x Du x T x R x P x Cf/Cr x Ch x Hypcrsy x U x Factor X = News Value
Variables:
N = number of people affected by event, issue, policy
Di = the physical distance those people are from the news organization's home community—Baghdad and Syracuse, for example. Also considered the PRX or PROXIMITY to the news organization’s home community. Or the emotional or psychological distance between the subject and the reader, say, a welfare mother and an affluent suburbanite. The closer the event or person is, geographically or emotionally, the higher the news value.
I = the intensity of the effect, such as death being a more intense effect than injury, or injury more intense than damage to property
Du = the duration of the effect, such as the longer-lasting effect of an atomic bomb or tsunami, compared to a temporarily closed bridge
T = the timeliness of the event–today, yesterday, last year
R= the rarity of the event, issue, policy. An atomic bombing is rarer than a hurricane; a hurricane is rarer than a thunderstorm; a "First" – as in "first Hispanic as U. S. Attorney General" or "first woman
or African American as Secretary of State" – has high rarity value
P = the prominence of the people involved, as a plane crash in which one of the passengers is the president compared to a senator
Cf/ Cr = the conflict or controversy surrounding the event
Ch = the change, and its degree, from the usual or normal
Hypcrsy = hypocrisy – people saying one thing/doing another or contradicting their public images – always has high new value, especially for politicians
U = the usefulness to the audience of the information
Factor X = such variables as sex, money, children, pets, human interest, a slow news day when nothing else is going on, or an editor's whim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)