Yes, this is the same Republican party that was tossed so far out of power in the last two elections that it now is unable to pass the time of day.

Never mind that recent polls show independents are flocking to the GOP and that the only route back to leadership for Republicans is through the help of independent voters.

The NC GOP’s theory is that independents who vote in the Republican primary might select moderate candidates. The proposal to limit participation is opposed by GOP legislators, the ones who have to get elected.

Duh.

Remember when liberal Democrats in Connecticut tossed out Sen. Joe Lieberman in the primary, only to see Lieberman come back and win as an independent and make a new career of sticking pins in the Democratic backside?

In the 21st century, the politics of exclusion are a sure way to the politics of extinction, as it should be. A political party that cannot do the basic math to add up the votes does not deserve to get the votes. So here is a math lesson for both parties: more votes are better than fewer votes. Posted by Leroy Towns

Answer: Pick on a conservative woman.

The Newsweek cover of Palin in running shorts is the best evidence yet that the media not only take a pass when sexist attacks are levied against Palin, but participate as well. The Columbia Journalism Review sees no problem with the Newsweek cover, even as it reports on the outrage of several other writers and Palin herself. Here’s a sample of CJR’s deep thinking on the subject:

While, sure, the cover de- (and then re-)contextualizes the image in question—and, yes, Palin in running shorts in the pages of Runner’s World makes sense in a way that Palin in running shorts on the cover of Newsweek does not—the irony of the latter context works, if anything, to diminish Palin as a politician, not as a woman. There’s a big difference, after all, between sexism and satire.

But there’s also the far more basic—and far more significant—fact in all of this: that depicting a woman’s legs, bare and clad though they may be in shorts of the verging-on-Daisy-Dukes variety, is simply not inherently sexist. Indeed, to suggest that it’s so is also to suggest that women, aesthetically, are inherently sexualized. Which, to my mind, is a far more insidious proposition than showing a woman who’s showing a little leg.

I am not sure what writer Megan Garber means with that mangled prose, but I do know this: If that were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the magazine cover “showing a little leg,” there would be howls of outrage all across the land, including, no doubt, from Garber.

From the very beginning, women–especially liberal women–were Palin’s toughest critics. Last fall, for example, it was not unusual to hear women complain about Palin, “She flirts,” or “She’s pretty.” In other words, don’t take her seriously.

During the presidential election, I believed such dismissives were the ultimate put-down. I was wrong. Newsweek’s bare-legged portrait tops them all.

This time, however, the sexist dismissal of Palin is a sexist put-down of women everywhere. Posted by Leroy Towns

Rather, the problem comes from the near-total disregard with which Chapel Hill politicians view voters.

For evidence of that, read the Chapel Hill News report about how most candidates in the recent election missed deadlines to disclose their campaign finances before election day or ignored the deadlines altogether. Message to voters: “It is none of your business.”

The most important campaign information voters can have before any election is an accounting of who gives what to who and how it is spent.

Lack of transparency may be the most corrupting factor of all in elections and Chapel Hill has lack of transparency in abundance.

Elements of reform

Thus, useful reform would be hard reporting deadlines before election day, with tough legal penalties for any candidate who does not comply. Reports should be timely. They should be a complete accounting of spending and contributions. Hard copies should be on file at Chapel Hill government offices and at the Orange County Board of Elections. Additionally, reporting should be online via the NC State Board of Elections and reporting should be timely and up to date. There should be no way for candidates to hide behind “postmarks” or the fact a web reporting site is down for a few hours. There should be no grace periods for reporting that extend past election day.

Those are simple requirements. They do not represent a burden on candidates. These requirements, in fact, are in place in most other elections around the country.

The goal here is simple: give voters information and trust them to make a decision.

But instead of trusting voters, or working to get information into their hands, the Chapel Hill council has fiddled with taxpayer financing of candidates while railing against candidates who are able to raise their own funds to inform voters.

How much spending is too much?

Council members apparently believe only they are equipped to judge how much campaign spending is too much.

Defeated candidate for mayor Matt Czajkowski raised $30,000 and spent $27,000. Winning council candidate Penny Rich says that is too much, according to the Chapel Hill News:

“This is what voter-owned elections are supposed to curb,” said leading Town-Council vote-getter Penny Rich, who spent about $4,300 on her campaign. “$30,000 to become mayor? It’s just an outrageous amount of money.”

But maybe someone else would consider her $4,300 an “outrageous amount of money” and seek to prevent her from doing it again.

That is exactly why the U.S. Supreme Court has guarded closely the connection between campaign spending and free political speech.

Good elections do not result from forcing a limit on the right of candidates to speak,

Good elections start with transparency of the process and end with trust of the voters. Posted by Leroy Towns

That statement simply means this: Burr is not Dole, it is not a presidential year, and massive dollar support of a Democratic challenger by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is far from certain at this early date.

Veteran political reporter Rob Christensen reports in the N&O that state and national party officials are working hard to get N.C. Rep. Bob Etheridge to enter the race against Burr. As always, the carrot being held in front of the potential Senate candidate is money–lots of it–supplied by the DSCC, which in 2008 spent more than $11 million in behalf of Sen. Kay Hagan in her successful race against Sen. Elizabeth Dole. It is a tactic used by both national parties to recruit Senate and House candidates. Their pitch is “don’t worry about money, we’ll get you plenty.”

Promises, promises

Promises are one thing, but the money showing up in campaign coffers is yet another.  The dust of political history is littered with disappointed candidates who got nothing or less than they were promised by their national parties.

The reality is that candidates usually only get the promised money if, sometime in the late summer or early fall of 2010, it is determined a) the other candidate is really vulnerable and b) the challenger is in a strong position to win. In other words, national parties throw money at an incumbent only if they are confident their challenger has a better than even chance of winning. That will take a good amount of polling and other research next year.

In spite of popular perception, campaign money available to national parties always is in short supply and there is considerable analysis involved in deciding how to spend it to the best advantage.

North Carolina is an expensive state in which to wage a U.S. Senate campaign. As was reported here exclusively last November, the Dole-Hagan race was the most expensive media race in the nation in 2008. The candidates and their supporting groups spent $34.2 million on television advertising. The biggest spender on TV by far was the DSCC, which spent $11 million for ads. The DSCC, in fact, was a major factor in the race, given the fact Hagan herself waged a fairly lackluster effort.

Who will get cash?

An added factor is that of the 37 U.S. Senate seats up for grabs next year, Democrats will be defending 19 of them. Politico recently looked ahead to the 2010 Senate elections and came up with a list of 10 seats most likely to flip parties. North Carolina was not on the list, even though Burr’s poll numbers at this point are less than stellar, as Christensen reports. Burr consistently polls favorably against whatever Democrat is matched with him, however.

But neither yesterday’s poll numbers nor today’s promises count for much in a race that is a year away. The traditional advice not to count on a contribution until the check clears still is good advice. Posted by Leroy Towns

That question comes in the wake of revisions to accrediting standards adopted at a recent meeting of the the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC). The revisions contained on the group’s web site make it clear that ACEJMC plans to more aggressively begin accrediting journalism programs in countries outside the United States and has revised standards language to make it possible.

ACEJMC Executive Director Susanne Shaw says the accrediting group wants to play a role in improving journalism education in a new global environment and has been working toward that goal for several years. “We are in a position to help them and that will benefit us as well.”

Historically, ACEJMC has accredited only one program outside the United States. Accreditation of journalism programs in other countries can be problematic because those nations often do not have protections for free expression and a free press and because other nations may allow or encourage discrimination based on gender, race, religion or other factors. ACEJMC long has demanded adherence to principles of free expression and diversity as it accredited U.S. programs.

But to accomplish accreditation in other nations, ACEJMC has loosened its accreditation language across all standards that programs must meet. For example, this language is newly added to the preamble:

ACEJMC will apply its standards and indicators in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and, where appropriate, with religious or cultural prescriptions and practices.

That new language might allow wide leeway in forgiving laws and customs that are at odds with the U.S. principles of free expression and individual rights.

Said one university professor who teaches journalism ethics, “It sets up a classic case of situational ethics. Cannibalism is ok if you are a cannibal.”

Shaw, however, says it is too early to predict exactly how the accrediting process will work in other countries. She predicts there will be four areas of controversy: free press, women’s rights, diversity (especially of faculty) and a liberal arts and science requirement for accreditation.

“I do not see any religious issues that would cause a problem.”

Says Shaw, “The council does not sit in judgment of free speech and free press issues in other countries.”

Poynter Institute Senior Scholar Roy Peter Clark sees value in assisting journalism programs in other nations to pursue U.S. journalistic ideals.  But whether journalistic principles will be diluted by the new standards language “depends on how they will be enforced,” he says.

It could mean that journalism education programs in totalitarian nations could receive accreditation, as could programs in countries with laws allowing or even encouraging discrimination against women and minorities. For example, one standard now says that to receive accreditation a journalism program must have (new language in caps):

A climate that is free of harassment and discrimination, IN KEEPING WITH THE ACCEPTABLE CULTURAL PRACTICES OF THE POPULATION IT SERVES, accommodates the needs of those with disabilities, and values the contributions of all forms of diversity.

The changes are not mandates. But the very existence of the new language strongly suggests programs in other nations will be judged differently than programs in the United States and that traditional journalistic principles might be defined differently or ignored overseas.

The following is the complete text of the changes as taken from the web site. New language is in capital letters. Posted by Leroy Towns

Revisions to Standards Language — Fall 2009

1. “Preamble” to “Accrediting Standards” on page 40 in the booklet:
The Accrediting Council does not define specific curricula, courses or methods of instruction. It recognizes that each institution has its unique situation, CULTURAL, SOCIAL OR RELIGIOUS CONTEXT, mission and resources, and this uniqueness is an asset to be safeguarded. The Council judges programs against the objectives that units and institutions set for themselves and against the standards that the Council sets forth for preparing students for professional careers in journalism and mass communications IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN OTHER NATIONS. ACEJMC WILL APPLY ITS STANDARDS AND INDICATORS IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, WITH RELIGIOUS OR CULTURAL PRESCRIPTIONS AND PRACTICES.

2. Page 42, under Professional Values and Competencies, first bullet:
•understand and apply the principles and laws of freedom of speech and press FOR THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THE INSTITUTION THAT INVITES ACEJMC IS LOCATED, AS WELL AS RECEIVE INSTRUCTION IN AND UNDERSTAND THE RANGE OF SYSTEMS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AROUND THE WORLD, including the right to dissent, to monitor and criticize power, and to assemble and petition for redress of grievances. [The same change will apply to the bulleted list of professional values and competencies on pages 14-15.]

3. Page 42, third bullet:
•demonstrate an understanding of GENDER, RACE, ETHNICITY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND, AS APPROPRIATE, OTHER FORMS OF DIVERSITY IN DOMESTIC SOCIETY IN RELATION TO MASS COMMUNICATIONS. [The same change will apply to the bulleted list of professional values and competencies on pages 14-15.]

4. Page 42, add new bullet below the one above:
•DEMONSTRATE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIVERSITY OF PEOPLES AND CULTURES AND OF THE SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF MASS COMMUNICATIONS IN A GLOBAL SOCIETY. [The same change will apply to the bulleted list of professional values and competencies on pages 14-15.]

5. Page 45, (b) to read:
(b) The unit’s curriculum fosters understanding of issues and perspectives that are inclusive in terms of gender, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, INCLUDING INSTRUCTION IN ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES IN A RANGE OF DIVERSE CULTURES IN A GLOBAL SOCIETY IN RELATION TO MASS COMMUNICATIONS.

6. On page 45, revise (e) to read:
(e) The unit has a climate that is free of harassment and discrimination, IN KEEPING WITH THE ACCEPTABLE CULTURAL PRACTICES OF THE POPULATION IT SERVES, accommodates the needs of those with disabilities, and values the contributions of all forms of diversity.

Online Knowledge and Competency
Standard 2. Curriculum and Instruction Indicator (c) Instruction is demanding and current (emphasis added)...

Standard 4. Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty Indicator (c) Credentials of the faculty represent a balance of professional and scholarly experience and expertise kept current (emphasis added) through…

Standard 8. Professional and Public Service Indicator (a) The unit is actively engaged with alumni, professionals and professional associations to keep curriculum and teaching current (emphasis added)…

That basic rule of human behavior was illustrated clearly in the recent Chapel Hill council election, the first to give tax money to candidates. Mark Kleinschmidt was one of two candidates who accepted public financing and his race for mayor against Matt Czajkowski, who did not, was extremely close.

A big loophole

Thus, in the closing days of the campaign it is no surprise that Klenischmidt supporters came to his rescue with money outside the public finance system. It came in the form of a mailing against Czajkowski signed by a mysterious and unregistered group named “CHC PAC.” Former Councilman Cam Hill fessed up after the election. Apparently, the law allows such anonymous and privately financed efforts in the closing days of a publicly financed campaign as long as the spender registers within 10 days–after the vote.

Voters had no way of knowing who was spending the money. A candidate accepting public financing got the benefit of using tax funds plus secret outside support as well. You can read more about it here and here.

And candidates can always count on someone to assist. For example, part of the success of Republicans nationally in the 1980s and 1990s was due to the help they received outside the campaign finance system from socially conservative churches. Politics in the pulpit might raise questions, but fliers on windshields when the flock heads home highlighting candidates approved by the church are difficult to prohibit–and highly effective. Trouble is, that effort goes unreported for the most part.

Free speech is protected

While local law obviously needs to be changed to force timely disclosure of such last-minute efforts, it would be most difficult to outlaw such spending. The U.S. Supreme Court has held repeatedly that using money to exercise free speech in political campaigns is protected by the First Amendment. Free speech, especially political speech, is one of our most basic human rights.

If private money in campaigns cannot be halted, how can it be regulated to ensure public confidence in the system?

Anonymous and secret spending in political campaigns may be the most corrupting behavior of all. But it can be controlled. The current system of campaign finance is based on a very simple concept: Put reasonable limits on contributions, then fully disclose dollars raised and dollars spent. Finally, trust voters to make the decision. Disclosure must be extensive and enforcement must be rigorous, however.

Political candidates are, after all, the company they keep. And it is far easier to count up a candidate’s friends when contributions are allowed and disclosed than when contributions are from tax money.

Chapel Hill voters are not entirely sold on public finance of local elections. A Public Policy Polling survey just before the election showed just 51% in favor of candidates having the public finance option, 31% opposed and 17% unsure. Polling on campaign finance is difficult and highly influenced by how questions are asked and whether there is an attempt in the poll to objectively educate respondents, who for the most part do not fully understand the issue.

Are voters concerned?

Campaign finance is almost never at the top of voter concerns. The issue has much more traction with insiders and the media than it has with voters. Chapel Hill Polling before the election put the council’s approval rating at just 40%, with 49% disapproving and 11% undecided. It is a sure bet that the issue of public finance had little to do with those numbers.

Nor did campaign finance have anything to do with another number: 16.84%. That figure is voter turnout in the recent election. Of 70,143 voters, only 11,814 bothered to cast a vote.

Now there’s a real problem in search of solution. Posted by Leroy Towns

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.

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

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

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