Government and political PR people have many tricks that help bend political reporters to their spin. One of the easiest to use is playing into media bias.

Case in point: When the Chapel Hill city council took tax funds to finance local elections, the last thing it wanted was continual reminders in the media that it was using, well, tax money to pay for elections. So the council came up with “voter owned elections” to describe the scheme.  Like fat bass, local media took the bait, even though reporters have at least three choices: voter owned elections, a term that favors the pro-public finance crowd, taxpayer funded elections, a term that favors opponents of it, or a relatively neutral term like publicly financed elections.

A big part of the reason, of course, is that media people generally favor public financing of elections. Plus, they generally take what the spin doctors hand them.

Some media, like the Daily Tar Heel, went even further, blindly pronouncing the Chapel Hill program a “success.” No evidence is produced for that statement save for the fact the only two people taking tax money in the recent election were both elected.

In fact, tax-financed candidate for mayor Mark Kleinschmidt won only after his supporters mailed an anonymous last-minute negative attack on the other candidate, Matt Czajkowski.

The mailing was financed with private contributions, of course, well outside the public finance system.

And even more interesting, the Chapel Hill Watch blog reports that the attack mailing may be perfectly legal even under the local pubic finance system. After the election, Kleinschmidt supporter Cam Hill fussed up. Apparently, all he needed to do was report the effort, after the fact, so long as he registered before Nov. 4.

When will reporters notice that the warm and fuzzy voter owned election concept is starting to feel, well, a whole lot less warm and fuzzy?

Truth is, reporters and political operatives love to play this game. But the real question is, does the game advance independent journalism or the civic good? Posted by Leroy Towns

Note: this is a corrected version of the original post. See comments.

Up early on Wednesday and want to see the results of yesterday’s local elections? Go directly to the Carrboro Citizen or Indyweek.com. Those two publications had the most complete election coverage, including stats on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. The Daily Tar Heel had full coverage, including video, of the Chapel Hill and Carrboro mayor contests, along with aldermen and council races.

The Chapel Hill News badly trailed other local media. Readers on the News web site had to click through several pages to find stories on the mayor’s races in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Posted by Leroy Towns

As every school kid supposedly learns, a basic protection of our system of justice is that judge, jury and prosecutor are separate processes and different people.

But what about investigative journalism, where a reporter(s) uncovers the dirt, pushes it to an official investigation and then covers the legal proceedings? Does the accused get a fair shake in the press?

The question is relevant to the N&O’s outstanding investigative journalism in the former Gov. Mike Easley affair. Lead reporter Andrew Curliss dogged the story for months. He pealed back layers of misstatement and coverup. His work shed light on what surely is a sordid chapter or North Carolina politics. He practiced textbook accountability journalism that resulted in the NC Board of Elections hearings last week.

Now the case is headed for the legal system. Should the same reporter that helped “indict” Easley be the one to cover the process that decides guilt or innocence?

It is a serious question, not only with the N&O, but with other investigative efforts as well.

Whether for a coveted journalism prize or just for newsroom bragging rights, the success of investigative journalism is judged by whether the subject of the investigation is brought before the bar of justice and, more importantly, found guilty. A verdict of not guilty pretty much discredits the news reporting that led up to it. Thus, the reporter has something of a vested interest in the case as it heads to court. At what point, should fresh eyes be given to the story?

Raising the question is not intended to discredit the ability of Curliss to cover the story. He is a fine reporter. His wrap-up article on Sunday put the story in context and reviewed the case against Easley.

Curliss obviously has a head full of facts that constitute an encyclopedia on the case. But Easley’s guilt or innocence will be decided on only what is presented to a judge (if a prosecutor sends it there), not all the damaging information that brought the affair to light. Until that process is finished, Easley is innocent, no matter what has been published to this point and no matter what else might be uncovered.

Yes, there are safeguards to prevent publicity from influencing legal proceedings. But those safeguards are far from perfect and lawyers in high profile courtroom dramas make their cases in part to the public. At that point, the work of an investigative journalist would seem to be mostly finished and a seasoned court reporter should take over.

I have no journalistic judgments here, only questions. Posted by Leroy Towns

A voter who wants information on local elections–especially the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board–should go directly to the outstanding election guide at Indyweek.com. The guide contains both news articles and the results of questionnaires answered by the candidates. The information is easy to find and use.

While both the Chapel Hill News and the Carrboro Citizen have given considerable ink to the local elections, it is difficult to find basic information about the candidates. Searches turn up many stories with little way of comparing candidates via bios and views on current issues. As expected, most stories are about the contested Chapel Hill council elections.

The Daily Tar Heel has an easy-to-use voters guide, but it lacks information on the school board elections.

The Orange County Board of Elections web site has a complete list of candidate filings, of course, but links to the candidates are for email addresses, not candidate web sites.

What about local blogs? OrangePolitics.org has the usual comment from a handful of local activists. A new blog, Chapel Hill Watch, takes a more moderate approach and contains some interesting discussion about local politics and local news media. Neither blog is much help in comparing candidates.

All indications are the local elections next week will set a new record for low voter turnout. That is the fault of voters, who have the responsibility of getting informed about each candidate and then getting themselves to the polls. Indy did a professional job of helping voters find needed information on the candidates. Posted by Leroy Towns

When it comes to ethics and confidence in public institutions, appearances of propriety are just as important as whether public officials are in fact acting honestly and ethically.

Thus, the messages that public officials send should inspire confidence in governmental institutions.

It is a lesson that North Carolina has been slow to learn.

The latest example comes in a Daily Tar Heel story revealing that UNC System President Erskine Bowles “leads the board of directors of the company that was chosen to develop University Square through a closed process.”

The University Square property in downtown Chapel Hill was recently purchased by the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, a private group that manages assets and property for UNC. To develop the property, that group hired a for-profit group, Cousins Properties, whose board is headed by Bowles. Negotiations and contracts in the deal are private and not subject to public scrutiny or review.

And when asked about the appearance of propriey, the answer was, “trust us.”

“He has recused himself from any involvement in any doings related to the University,” said Joni Worthington, vice president for communications for the UNC system. “He will have no impact and no involvement,” the DTH reported.

Bowles has served North Carolina honorably and without scandal. And while the University Square arrangement appears to be cozy, as pointed out by the DTH, no one is suggesting that anyone involved is doing something wrong.

But “trust us” is not a political message that inspires much-needed confidence in North Carolina’s public institutions, especially given the track record of state government officials over the last several years.

In governmental ethics appearance is everything. Posted by Leroy Towns

Big-foot political journalists in Washington rarely get past reporting the words of players in major controversies like health care. As a result, citizens are ill-served and politicians get away with rhetoric, lies and damned lies.

The Associated Press, as it often does, broke out of that trap with a fact-check story on profits of the insurance industry. Insurance has been beaten up pretty badly recently, especially by the Obama Administration and Congress, which use it as a foil to prove the need for health reform.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls insurance industry profits “obscene,” the AP reports, and a MoveOn ad says, “Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.”

The AP found:

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would “keep insurance companies honest,” says President Barack Obama.

Such facts would seem to be a vital part of any debate on health care. But news outlets don’t seem especially interested. The N&O, for example, buried the story on Monday. Posted by Leroy Towns

The news value of any piece of political journalism must be judged on how it informs the community and whether it gives citizens information on which to make decisions.

The N&O recently published a breathless page one expose revealing that State Highway Patrol Commander Randy Glover had an extramarital affair 22 years ago. The young trooper was given another assignment in the wake of the the affair. The strong implication of the story is that Glover should be disqualified from serving as commander of the scandal-plagued patrol. The N&O also criticized Gov. Beverly Perdue for not disclosing Glover’s affair.

Does the N&O story meet the basic test for political journalism?

Absolutely not, says Governor Perdue, who strongly backs Glover. Further, she is highly critical of the N&O’s journalistic judgment in publishing the story, as reported by the Charlotte Observer:

She noted that the affair happened “nearly 25 years ago” and that Glover was serving as a lieutenant colonel at the time she appointed him.

“That’s pretty close to the top, and so regardless of the articles you continue to write, this is a man who is lieutenant (colonel) of the Highway Patrol, he had an affair nearly 25 years ago, he’s married with two beautiful little daughters, and I really, really am disappointed in this kind of journalism,” Perdue said. “And did I disclose it? I will have to be very honest with you, I never once in any interview for any position ask anyone about their sexual preference, their sexual orientation, or their past marital history.

“I didn’t figure it had a thing to do with the job they could do for the people of North Carolina.”

That response is something rather rare these days in politics: Here is Governor Perdue, a public official with the courage to defend an action and call out a newspaper for a serious lapse in news judgment.

While news judgment often boils down to the whim of an editor, it is difficult to defend the placement and tone of the N&O’s original story and its dogged attempts to keep the story alive by insinuating Perdue did something wrong in not disclosing the officer’s long-ago affair.

Even in this sex-obsessed world, it is difficult to make the case that a simple affair, conducted a quarter century ago, should disqualify anyone from a job.

If extramarital affairs are a new standard of disqualification, businesses, state government and even the N&O newsroom, it is presumed, will empty out in a hurry. Posted by Leroy Towns

The difference in the way North Carolina’s two McClatchy newspapers handled recent news of buyout offers is like night and day. In Raleigh, the N&O Ignored the story. But in Charlotte it was included as a news item in Monday’s edition of the Observer.

It is important to note the world did not turn upside down in Charlotte.

And of course the N&O’s refusal to run the story did not keep the story from being told. The McClatchy Watch Blog posted an item last week and the news received extensive coverage elsewhere as well. Failure to publish the story, however, creates a perception that the N&O is willing to run everyone’s bad news but not its own.

The NY Times announced Monday it was making newsroom cuts.  A few readers offered to pay for content. Reader comments, both at the NY Times and at Charlotte, are interesting. Posted by Leroy Towns

There seems to be no end to the addled thinking about the current state of American journalism. The latest comes from a lofty perch at the Columbia Journalism School in a report entitled “The Reconstruction of American Journalism.” As reported by the NY Times, the report (available here) was written by Leonard Downie Jr., former executive editor of the Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, a professor whose background is sociology and who is noted for work in civic life and journalism.

Like too many old media types, the authors cannot even entertain the possibility that accountability journalism can exist without traditional–make that newspapers–news gathering operations. (Read Jan Schaffer’s Columbia Journalism Review First Read take on the report. She makes excellent points.)

Thus, they present six recommendations, all designed to prop up traditional media. While the report presents an interesting analysis of the total current media landscape, it downplays emerging models of journalism that have at least the possibility of providing useful news for citizens. And They pretty much ignore the concept that readers and advertisers have deserted traditional journalism. Let’s take recommendatons one at a time.

Six recommendations

1. The report suggests revamping tax laws to encourage more nonprofit news operations. There are many ways that could work, but one might be to allow newspapers to spin off their money-losing newsrooms into nonprofit operations. Such a plan would certainly make the rest of the media company more valuable.

2. The report suggests raising more money from individuals and foundations for nonprofit journalism. Foundation money is not without limits. More charitable giving to new journalism ventures most certainly would be felt in other areas, such as education. The short answer here is that there is not enough money in America to make enough difference in local, state and national reporting.

3. The authors want universities to supply more students to do reporting for news organizations. Newspapers long have regarded journalism schools as employee training operations. Now, apparently, news media would have students doing most of their reporting for free.

4. Better data base access to make reporting easier. This one makes sense.

5. Because they claim public radio and television do little local reporting, the authors want increased funding with increased mandates and control by government. Additionally, they suggest using existing and new fees on commercial broadcast, internet and telecom companies so that the government could:

6. Subsidize news reporting, most probably for newspapers.

In these last two recommendations, the authors illuminate both their biases and their lack of understanding about the 21st century knowledge-based economy.

Public radio and public television provide little local news coverage? Don’t tell that to Laura Leslie of WUNC, one of the best statehouse reporters in North Carolina. Don’t tell that to UNC TV, which provides extensive coverage of local issues and elections. Or don’t tell it to the many other public radio and television stations covering their states and communities. Indeed, some of the evidence presented in the report about public broadcasting contradicts their own recommendation. Print people never have had a high regard for electronic media. This is simply an extension of old thinking.

Government subsidized news media? This one flunks both civics 101 and journalism 101. The benefits of an independent press are so obvious, the dangers of a government subsidized press are so clear, that they won’t be discussed here. But those benefits and dangers apparently escape the authors. The NY Times quotes Downie as saying:

“We are just suggesting that certain kinds of reporting are a public good and should be funded as such,” Mr. Downie said. “There are plenty of precedents and I don’t think that government support necessarily means government control.”

The press and government

That statement is most ironic, coming from an editor whose stump speech always has been the virtues of separating government and media. In fact, Downie has opposed even the notion of reporters voting in elections, lest such action taint their objectivity. Additionally, he has adamantly held the position that news organizations have no stake in the government they cover, notwithstanding the fact the media’s franchise comes from constitutional freedoms–and thus their stake in democracy is huge.

This is a report that should be viewed for what it is: just a couple of old media types wishing the world could be the way it was in their youth. Posted by Leroy Towns

The late Jesse helms must be smiling. He might get his fence around Chapel Hill, after all.

Helms, the conservative U.S. Senator, once quipped during debate on whether the state should build a state zoo, ”Why build a zoo when we can just put up a fence around Chapel Hill?”

To Helms, of course, Chapel Hill already was a “zoo” and he wanted to keep all the liberal creatures penned up. But now it is the Chapel Hill council that is talking up a fence around the town, this time to keep wild things out.

Council member Mark Kleinschmidt brought up the idea of a fence to keep deer out of town, said the Chapel Hill News:

“If the deer aren’t thinned they’re going to die in another way,” he said. If deer are traveling along certain corridor, the town could even consider a physical barrier like the “Rabbit-Proof Fence,” he said, a reference to the 2,000-mile long fence Australia built in the early 1900s to keep rabbits out of the western part of the country…

Deer represent a real problem for the council, which always is reluctant to disturb any creature with the possible exception of taxpayers. In addition to the fence, the council discussed deer birth control, presumably on a massive scale, and rejected the idea of an archery season.

Good fences, it is said, make good neighbors. What they keep out they also keep in. Ol’ Jesse would approve. Posted by Leroy Towns