If you’re looking to get into journalism for anything you can get out of it, you should question yourself. In the time I’ve spent studying journalism, I’ve found that why you do something is as important as what you do, and that only when you submit yourself to some intellectually honest scrutiny can you hope to find any purpose in your line of work.
Many secular journalists have the wrong motivation for entering their chosen field. When you, as a student, let someone know that you are studying journalism, many react with, “Oh, so I’ll see you on TV!” People think of the celebrity personalities of CNN and Fox News when they think of journalists — they envision reporters standing in front of the camera in expensive suits, interviewing famous celebrities or political figures.
But that’s not reality for the majority of journalists.
Anyone seeking to enter the industry for the fame and recognition journalists occasionally receive will likely be disenchanted. The typical online reader will spend an average of only a few seconds skimming any story. The reporter, who may have spent hours reporting and writing, rarely has the satisfaction of knowing that even one person thoughtfully read his entire piece and seldom receives credit or congratulations for his work.
To get into journalism, you need to have a clear idea of why what you are doing is important, otherwise you will become discouraged. Journalists are notoriously overworked and underpaid. Because of this, the most successful writers are the ones who are passionate about their work. Your enthusiasm, however, should not be directed at gaining fame and celebrity. Such journalists will be disappointed.
The lack of clear vision and purpose often leads to cynicism in the newsroom, which is dangerous in a country where truth is relative. Journalists become lazy — sometimes they are some of the laziest people in the world — letting sloppy writing or slanted reporting go unnoticed because, hey, the truth doesn’t matter anyway. It is very easy for a journalist to get by doing the bare minimum when he doesn’t feel like he is striving to fulfill a higher calling. After all, there’s no immediate reward for doing an outstanding job. All that matters is getting the story in on deadline. The pressures of the job and low incentive for going above and beyond can quickly turn the most idealistic young reporter into a lazy and skeptical hack.
So what is the higher calling? Maybe it’s that journalism is invaluable for the continued existence of a free society. It is true: those in power need someone to hold them accountable. Historically, journalists have often been the only ones standing between the planet’s evil and power hungry villains and their evil goals. Journalists are seekers of justice and defenders of America’s voiceless weak.
It can make you proud to be a journalist — to know that you are one of the few, underappreciated champions of liberty that saves the day in the end, using only the power of the pen and his mind as weapons. Where would we be without the Woodwards and Bernsteins of journalism? Journalists provide the information that people need to make informed decisions about how they will be governed. Ideally, they do this in a fair and objective way so that readers always get both sides of the story, driving them back to your publication time and again for their news. And, if you’re lucky, you turn out an Eliot Spitzer every once in a while.
Still. All this expanding of our “mental maps” — and for what? Sure, we would like to see conservatism in America preserved with the help of good journalism by hardworking reporters, but far too many Christians fall into the trap of believing that any one of our planets problems can be solved politically. We can see some of the side-effects of this mentality in the Bush presidency: a lot of Christians thought, “We have our guy in office,” and they grew complacent, joining in with our materialistic culture on a binge of consumerism while the important battles of the culture war were lost.
The higher calling can’t really be saving our conservative heritage. Inside, we can all affirm that journalism is indeed necessary for a well-informed public in a democracy, but if you look at the actual results of what Christian journalists have achieved in America you will be disillusioned. The higher calling can’t be political.
Saying that Christians make the mistake of fighting all their battles politically is the same as saying they rely too much on reason and not enough on faith. If a Christian journalist wants to make a difference, then his ultimate purpose is spiritual in nature, not political. Jesus set the example. When he came to earth, he spent his time with the poor, caring for the sick. Jesus wasn’t concerned with the social injustices and violations of God-given human liberty carried out by the Roman government of his day. He was concerned with the accumulation of dust on the feet of his disciples. If there was ever one man who had the power to right all the wrongs of society, be perfectly objective, to have perfect information, to completely fill in the blanks in everyone’s mental maps, it was Jesus — but he got down on his hands and knees and washed his disciples' feet.
That’s not to say that the political battles aren’t worth fighting. Some people are called to politics, some to journalism. Jesus was a carpenter. We don’t have exactly the same vocation on earth that Jesus did. But we should imitate him in the way he went about achieving his goals. Jesus stooped down and made himself nothing so that we could become something. That is the example we want to follow.
A Christian journalist should be a humble public servant. That’s where you find satisfaction, and, in the paradoxical fashion that seems to characterize our universe, it’s also where you gain all the extras that the rest of the world is chasing after.
The difference between a secular journalist and a Christian one is an inner choice. A Christian journalist goes about his job in basically the same way that anyone else would, but his motivating passion comes from another source — the desire to be a servant. For this reason, humility is key. Unlike most other professions, everything a journalist does is subject to public scrutiny, which is usually ruthless. Journalists are attacked publicly, and even in the context of the newsroom they receive regular correction from their coworkers. Going into the job with humility makes all the difference.
That’s one way that Christians can be better journalists than their secular counterparts. Christians recognize that their purpose is one of service to the reader. Journalists aren’t the “media elite.”
An attitude of service gives new meaning to tired words like “objectivity” and “fairness.” For secular journalists, these things don’t have much meaning beyond their utility in selling newspapers. In the end, however, it doesn’t matter how fair your story was as long as it kept the viewers interested, hence the rise of Bill O’Reily. In post-modern America, the loss of objective truth makes meaningful Lincoln-Douglas-style debate pointless. Our nationally televised presidential debates are watered down to two-minute sound bites. A candidate can get away with saying as little as he wants, provided he doesn’t sweat too much on TV.
The application of a biblical worldview to journalism, however, counteracts the negative effects of the TV age on the industry. Objectivity and fairness are ideals worth striving for because Christians believe that there is always a right answer somewhere, even if neither side has it at the moment. For a Christian, objectivity is about more than which side of the debate received more air time — it is the opposite of “subjectivity,” implying that real truth is at stake.
Christian journalists can even have a fuller understanding of the issues due to the eternal perspective they gain from the Word of God. Christians understand the reality of man’s sinful nature. That doesn’t make Christians experts, but it does help to put what the experts are saying into context. Societal problems like divorce, abortion, and homosexuality can’t be explained or solved by secular journalists — they are just statistics, and it is becoming increasingly rare for these issues even to be seen as “problems.” The Christian journalist, in this example, has a higher understanding of the nature of the family and its place in society, making it possible to distinguish disorder from order.
Bringing a biblical worldview to journalism, however, should feel different than using a sledge hammer. Christian journalists let the facts speak for themselves. Part of the reason why so many Christian commentators can’t find a message that resonates with their secular audience is that they spend too much time putting their own spin on the story, ignoring the powerful influence that simple truth-telling can have.
If we believe, as Christians, that we can know truth and it does actually “set you free,” then our journalism should only require that we convey it as accurately as we can. In the end, people don’t want to hear a writer’s opinion. Skillful writing lays all the pieces of the puzzle on the table for readers to assemble themselves. If you, as a reporter, have made the effort to collect all the pieces and present them to your audience, they will have no trouble arriving at the complete picture. Christians can be better journalists than secular reporters because the Word of God reveals eternal truth that places all journalistic concepts, including objectivity, fairness, and the anecdotes of our society, into a broader context.
But the day-to-day work of a Christian journalist is not that much different from that of a secular journalist. The methodology each reporter uses is the same. Secular reporters still cling to the ideal of objectivity and acknowledge their own failure to reach it in every piece. Even in a post-modern society, journalists still do believe in the truth and that it is worth finding. The fact that we did have the Watergate story is evidence of that. Some secular journalists are so committed to finding the truth that they will risk their lives for it. The difference, therefore, can’t be found in the journalist’s passion for finding and telling the truth. The difference between a Christian journalist and a secular one is in the heart of the individual.
We have read a lot about the ultimate purpose of Christians in journalism — that our role in life is to tell the truth. This is true, but it is only part of the complete picture. God is truth and journalists, as truth-tellers, are constantly seeking after the fullest representation of a reality that is defined by him. Thus, to the extent that we are successful in finding truth, we find God. This is what allows many secular journalists to be so successful and valuable in their work, and it is also why saying that the ultimate purpose of a Christian journalist is to be a truth-teller is only half the story.
The fact is that journalists in the secular community can report just as well as Christians. As Christians, we have the ultimate source of truth in the Word of God, but that doesn’t always make us better journalists. There are many reasons why a biblical worldview can contribute to a Christian journalist’s work, giving him perhaps greater potential than his secular counterpart, but it would be arrogant to presume that this is always the case. Christians are fallible just like everyone else, and a biblical worldview does not guarantee better journalism.
Christian journalists understand the world’s disorder in a context that few others have: we understand the sinfulness of man and the need for redemption through Christ. But how often do Christian journalists make use of this knowledge in the newsroom? During the Puritan era, a writer could attribute the cause of a murder to the perpetrator’s sinfulness and chalk it up to moral weakness, calling upon the community to publicly repent. In today’s news industry, however, there is no place to describe murders and suicides in the same terms used by our predecessors.
This same calling to pursue and expound biblical truth still exists for today’s journalists, but how can a similar interplay of faith and reason exist in a relativistic, modern newsroom? The difference is often subtle. To the secular reporter, the latest murder-suicide is a terrible tragedy that cannot be explained except by the killer’s violent family background, poor education, or some other environmental factor. The Christian, however, recognizes the event for what it really is — a sin resulting from the personal moral failing of an individual who ought to be held personally accountable.
A proper understanding of human nature through a biblical worldview can be applied in the journalistic context to any topic that a reporter covers. The current worldwide economic crisis is a perfect example: few are willing to admit that the economic collapse is the result of irresponsible policies combined with a materialistic society that is unwilling and unable to govern itself, thus power must be centralized in the banks and in government. Christian journalists should be the ones to recognize the fallen state of man in every area of life.
Ultimately, our biblical worldview allows us to recognize that, although our efforts to contribute to the well-being of society may bear little fruit, nothing is outside the sovereignty of God. You learn to accept that as a student and as an intern. In college or at the entry-level position, there is very little a journalist can do that has a direct impact. You’re lucky if anyone reads your story.
When I entered into the journalism program in college I was mainly interested in the field because I had to pick something and I thought I might be a good writer. It also seemed like that was where all the fun people were at, but I had no dreams of being a reporter growing up. I soon learned that journalism isn’t the place for people who aren’t passionate about it. The constant deadlines of my internships helped to push me to think about why I was doing what I was doing and find a reason to keep going.
The reason came in service to others. I learned the lesson that hard work pays off, when you give your boss an exceptional story and put out the extra effort. The journalist doesn’t get anything out of it, except a byline. One of the best things you can do as a Christian in the newsroom is simply to live as a Christian, striving to serve the people in your office. Christians also need the humility to recognize that everyone in the newsroom thinks differently and that some of them are better at it. My boss at the local newspaper didn’t believe the same things I did about God, but she could definitely write a better lead than I could.
But I like to think that I made a difference in that newsroom because I made a conscious decision that I would be a servant to all, to be all things to all people, no matter how difficult the job could be. We are called to love one another, and that’s something that applies to every Christian whether you are a journalist or not. Love, through service, is the ultimate fruit of the interaction between faith and reason. To the extent that you can do that, you are fulfilling the highest calling and purpose of a Christian journalist.
If you want to be a journalist, and if you want to make a difference, then you absolutely have to grasp this truth. In all the debate over how our Christian faith ought to interact with human reason, and how we ought to carry that forward into whatever walk in life we are called to, Christians have forgotten that the answer has already been spelled out for us:
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:1).
Our words will fail and our journalistic abilities will disappoint. Graduating from college as young Christian journalists, as we are stepping closer to maturity and beginning to “put away childish things,” it should be reassuring to know that our calling is greater than merely becoming the next byline in the paper or anchor on TV.
The journalists who can apply this to their work are often the most effective and well-respected in their field. When asked how being a Christian had affected his journalism, Fred Barnes once said, more or less, “It didn’t.” He meant, of course, that being a Christian doesn’t change the conventions of the industry — one’s faith doesn’t make the lead the bottom graph or un-invert the inverted pyramid. And it doesn’t mean that the writer may now inject opinion into the story. A Christian journalist writes and reports in much the same way as any other reporter, but his drive is different. The purpose is service, in imitation of Jesus.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Obama Administration Drops "War on Terror" Rhetoric
In March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that the Obama administration has stopped using the phrase “war on terror,” favoring instead “overseas contingency operation.” Clinton did not explain why the phrase was dropped, but the event is an important indication of the president’s stance on the war and may mark a turning point in the struggle against radical Islam.
During the week of March 25, the government agency that reviews the public statements of administration officials before dissemination informed employees of the U.S. Defense Department in an E-mail that “This administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘long war’ or ‘global war on terror.’ Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”
Clinton said, “The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself.”
The change in rhetoric was noted by commentators. Reza Aslan, writing for the Washington Times, noted that the change is important because the “war on terror” was more ideological than actual. While there has been a very real struggle in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations, the war on terror was explained from the start as a conflict of ideologies. Aslan wrote, “It is a rhetorical war, one fought more constructively with words and ideas than with guns and bombs.”
After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush introduced the U.S. to an unprecedented foreign policy doctrine of pursuing terrorists and their supporters in whatever country they might be found, but the phrase war on terror was always problematic for his administration. Critics argue that the phrase was never meant to describe a war on terrorism per se, otherwise the conflict would have involved dozens of other countries.
Bush first used the phrase “war on terror” nine days after Sept. 11 in an emergency address to Congress. “Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there,” he said. “It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”
The war on terror led by the Bush administration targeted a specific kind of terrorism employed by Islamic extremists, which allowed it to include people who were not directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. The war on terror was directed at any Muslim group that used terrorism as a tactic.
Opponents say the Bush doctrine assumed that such Muslim groups were a united enemy with a common agenda and ideology. Aslan wrote, “The Bush administration seemed to be making a blatant statement that the war on terror was, in fact, ‘a war against Islam.’”
Many in the Muslim world believe that U.S. goals in the region are hostile to Islam. In a 2009 WorldPublicOpinion.org poll, large majorities ranging from 62 percent in Indonesia to 87 percent in Egypt said they believe that the United States seeks “to weaken and divide the Islamic world.” In a 2007 poll from the same source, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they believe that the purpose of the war on terror is to “spread Christianity in the region” of the Middle East.
In nearly all nations polled more than seven in 10 say they disapprove of attacks on American civilians, but large majorities simultaneously endorse the Al Qaeda’s goal to push the U.S. and its military bases out of all Islamic countries, including 87 percent of Egyptians, 64 percent of Indonesians, and 60 percent of Pakistanis. Across eight Muslim publics on average, 66 percent said that U.S. naval bases in the Persian Gulf are a bad idea; only 13 percent called it a good idea.
Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, commented, “The U.S. faces a conundrum. U.S. efforts to fight terrorism with an expanded military presence in Muslim countries appear to have elicited a backlash and to have bred some sympathy for al Qaeda, even as most reject its terrorist methods.”
The U.S. has lost popularity in non-Muslim countries as well. A 2008 BBC World Service survey of 23 countries, including Russia, Australia, Pakistan, Turkey, France, Germany, Britain, the U.S., China and Mexico, found that nearly 60 percent of respondents said the war on terror had either no effect or made Al Qaeda stronger. Forty-nine percent said that neither side was winning, while only 22 percent believed that the U.S. had gained the upper hand.
Under the Bush administration, the battle for global popularity seems to have been lost, especially in the Muslim world. Obama’s foreign policy so far is intended to reverse the Bush doctrine, fundamentally changing the mission of the U.S. military in Iraq: end the war. The new change in rhetoric by the Obama administration signals that the new president will take steps to reverse that defeat, seeking to win the hearts of Muslims.
But this hasn’t happened so far. Time recently reported that the Taliban is winning the propaganda war in Afghanistan. After Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s office announced that it would begin holding peace talks with the Taliban, the militants dismissed the announcement as an attempt to make the Taliban appear divided.
According to a report from the International Crisis Group, a think tank that monitors conflicts, the Taliban has successfully tapped into Afghan nationalism by exploiting the policy failures of the Kabul government and its international supporters, resulting in weakened public support for nation-building, even though few support the Taliban.
The dilemma in Afghanistan might seem to legitimize President Bush’s often-criticized style of dealing with enemy combatants—radical groups like the Taliban are not interested in negotiating with the U.S. or its allies. But the lack of popular support for the U.S. in the Muslim world also suggests that the new administration would be wise to carefully evaluate its rhetoric, since public opinion can be a decisive factor in war.
Simply switching from “war on terror” to “overseas contingency operation” might not be enough for the Obama administration to win over the Muslim world. One Indian columnist recently wrote that Obama’s administration has sent mixed signals on the war on terror and is “clearly torn between realists and the extreme left of the Democratic Party.” Secretary of State Clinton recently infuriated Pakistanis by telling a congressional hearing that the Islamabad government had “abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists” in a dangerous situation.
Declaring “war” on an issue has been part of U.S. political language since the 1960s when President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964 and President Richard Nixon launched a war on drugs in 1969.
According to some legal experts, however, the combined term “war on terror” is much more problematic, and the new approach by Obama’s administration might be a key to precisely defining “international terrorism.” Terrorism rhetoric has been used by governments for many years seeking to suppress opposition and avoid international scrutiny. Since the Sept. 11, 2009 attacks the term “terrorist” has been used by governments such as China and Russia to stifle dissent in Tibet and Chechnya, respectively.
Noah Bialostozky, an attorney in New York who serves on the United Nations Law Committee of the International Law Association, recently argued in the Christian Science Monitor that the term terrorism is not useful without a definitive meaning, noting that there are 12 different definitions of the word in various international treaties.
The new U.S. approach in Afghanistan could help restrict the use of the term “war on terror” and hopefully be a step toward undoing some of the damage it has done. Bialostozky wrote, “The indiscriminate use of ‘terrorist’ not only has been devastating to groups to whom the label has been unfairly attached, but it also has damaged efforts to isolate those who deserve international condemnation as terrorists.”
While the rhetoric has changed, however, many foreign policies have stayed the same under Obama, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, according Mark McKinnon, a former Bush media adviser. “At the end of the day,” McKinnon noted, “this administration won’t be judged on the rhetoric but really on the results and what progress they make.”
During the week of March 25, the government agency that reviews the public statements of administration officials before dissemination informed employees of the U.S. Defense Department in an E-mail that “This administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘long war’ or ‘global war on terror.’ Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”
Clinton said, “The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself.”
The change in rhetoric was noted by commentators. Reza Aslan, writing for the Washington Times, noted that the change is important because the “war on terror” was more ideological than actual. While there has been a very real struggle in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations, the war on terror was explained from the start as a conflict of ideologies. Aslan wrote, “It is a rhetorical war, one fought more constructively with words and ideas than with guns and bombs.”
After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush introduced the U.S. to an unprecedented foreign policy doctrine of pursuing terrorists and their supporters in whatever country they might be found, but the phrase war on terror was always problematic for his administration. Critics argue that the phrase was never meant to describe a war on terrorism per se, otherwise the conflict would have involved dozens of other countries.
Bush first used the phrase “war on terror” nine days after Sept. 11 in an emergency address to Congress. “Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there,” he said. “It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”
The war on terror led by the Bush administration targeted a specific kind of terrorism employed by Islamic extremists, which allowed it to include people who were not directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. The war on terror was directed at any Muslim group that used terrorism as a tactic.
Opponents say the Bush doctrine assumed that such Muslim groups were a united enemy with a common agenda and ideology. Aslan wrote, “The Bush administration seemed to be making a blatant statement that the war on terror was, in fact, ‘a war against Islam.’”
Many in the Muslim world believe that U.S. goals in the region are hostile to Islam. In a 2009 WorldPublicOpinion.org poll, large majorities ranging from 62 percent in Indonesia to 87 percent in Egypt said they believe that the United States seeks “to weaken and divide the Islamic world.” In a 2007 poll from the same source, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they believe that the purpose of the war on terror is to “spread Christianity in the region” of the Middle East.
In nearly all nations polled more than seven in 10 say they disapprove of attacks on American civilians, but large majorities simultaneously endorse the Al Qaeda’s goal to push the U.S. and its military bases out of all Islamic countries, including 87 percent of Egyptians, 64 percent of Indonesians, and 60 percent of Pakistanis. Across eight Muslim publics on average, 66 percent said that U.S. naval bases in the Persian Gulf are a bad idea; only 13 percent called it a good idea.
Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, commented, “The U.S. faces a conundrum. U.S. efforts to fight terrorism with an expanded military presence in Muslim countries appear to have elicited a backlash and to have bred some sympathy for al Qaeda, even as most reject its terrorist methods.”
The U.S. has lost popularity in non-Muslim countries as well. A 2008 BBC World Service survey of 23 countries, including Russia, Australia, Pakistan, Turkey, France, Germany, Britain, the U.S., China and Mexico, found that nearly 60 percent of respondents said the war on terror had either no effect or made Al Qaeda stronger. Forty-nine percent said that neither side was winning, while only 22 percent believed that the U.S. had gained the upper hand.
Under the Bush administration, the battle for global popularity seems to have been lost, especially in the Muslim world. Obama’s foreign policy so far is intended to reverse the Bush doctrine, fundamentally changing the mission of the U.S. military in Iraq: end the war. The new change in rhetoric by the Obama administration signals that the new president will take steps to reverse that defeat, seeking to win the hearts of Muslims.
But this hasn’t happened so far. Time recently reported that the Taliban is winning the propaganda war in Afghanistan. After Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s office announced that it would begin holding peace talks with the Taliban, the militants dismissed the announcement as an attempt to make the Taliban appear divided.
According to a report from the International Crisis Group, a think tank that monitors conflicts, the Taliban has successfully tapped into Afghan nationalism by exploiting the policy failures of the Kabul government and its international supporters, resulting in weakened public support for nation-building, even though few support the Taliban.
The dilemma in Afghanistan might seem to legitimize President Bush’s often-criticized style of dealing with enemy combatants—radical groups like the Taliban are not interested in negotiating with the U.S. or its allies. But the lack of popular support for the U.S. in the Muslim world also suggests that the new administration would be wise to carefully evaluate its rhetoric, since public opinion can be a decisive factor in war.
Simply switching from “war on terror” to “overseas contingency operation” might not be enough for the Obama administration to win over the Muslim world. One Indian columnist recently wrote that Obama’s administration has sent mixed signals on the war on terror and is “clearly torn between realists and the extreme left of the Democratic Party.” Secretary of State Clinton recently infuriated Pakistanis by telling a congressional hearing that the Islamabad government had “abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists” in a dangerous situation.
Declaring “war” on an issue has been part of U.S. political language since the 1960s when President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964 and President Richard Nixon launched a war on drugs in 1969.
According to some legal experts, however, the combined term “war on terror” is much more problematic, and the new approach by Obama’s administration might be a key to precisely defining “international terrorism.” Terrorism rhetoric has been used by governments for many years seeking to suppress opposition and avoid international scrutiny. Since the Sept. 11, 2009 attacks the term “terrorist” has been used by governments such as China and Russia to stifle dissent in Tibet and Chechnya, respectively.
Noah Bialostozky, an attorney in New York who serves on the United Nations Law Committee of the International Law Association, recently argued in the Christian Science Monitor that the term terrorism is not useful without a definitive meaning, noting that there are 12 different definitions of the word in various international treaties.
The new U.S. approach in Afghanistan could help restrict the use of the term “war on terror” and hopefully be a step toward undoing some of the damage it has done. Bialostozky wrote, “The indiscriminate use of ‘terrorist’ not only has been devastating to groups to whom the label has been unfairly attached, but it also has damaged efforts to isolate those who deserve international condemnation as terrorists.”
While the rhetoric has changed, however, many foreign policies have stayed the same under Obama, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, according Mark McKinnon, a former Bush media adviser. “At the end of the day,” McKinnon noted, “this administration won’t be judged on the rhetoric but really on the results and what progress they make.”
American Public Earns "D Minus" On Economic Knowledge
If the American public were being graded on its knowledge of basic facts pertaining to the current financial situation, we would be getting a “D minus.”
A recent “News IQ” survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 26-29, asked 1,003 adults a series of 12 multiple choice questions about current events and people in the news, and respondents answered an average of 7.4 questions correctly—that’s about 62 percent. Even so, Pew concluded that the American public was “reasonably well-informed” about basic facts pertaining to the current economic situation.
About 83 percent knew that government bailout money is aimed at getting banks to lend more money, not less money, and 71 percent correctly identified China as the foreign country holding the most U.S. government debt.
More Americans knew the current unemployment rate than the current level of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, with 53 percent correctly estimating the unemployment rate at about 8 percent and only 40 percent correctly estimating the level of the Dow at about 8,000.
The economy is an admittedly confusing issue for many Americans. Before taking the Pew survey, people were asked to rate their understanding of the economic situation and the government’s economic policies. Roughly 49 percent said they understood the current situation and government policies fairly well, 20 percent said not too well, and 7 percent said not at all.
About 24 percent said they understood the current situation and government policies very well. The Pew survey results, however, indicate otherwise—only 6 percent got a perfect score by answering all 12 questions right. Still, a large majority (71 percent) answered at least half the questions correctly.
A recent “News IQ” survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 26-29, asked 1,003 adults a series of 12 multiple choice questions about current events and people in the news, and respondents answered an average of 7.4 questions correctly—that’s about 62 percent. Even so, Pew concluded that the American public was “reasonably well-informed” about basic facts pertaining to the current economic situation.
About 83 percent knew that government bailout money is aimed at getting banks to lend more money, not less money, and 71 percent correctly identified China as the foreign country holding the most U.S. government debt.
More Americans knew the current unemployment rate than the current level of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, with 53 percent correctly estimating the unemployment rate at about 8 percent and only 40 percent correctly estimating the level of the Dow at about 8,000.
The economy is an admittedly confusing issue for many Americans. Before taking the Pew survey, people were asked to rate their understanding of the economic situation and the government’s economic policies. Roughly 49 percent said they understood the current situation and government policies fairly well, 20 percent said not too well, and 7 percent said not at all.
About 24 percent said they understood the current situation and government policies very well. The Pew survey results, however, indicate otherwise—only 6 percent got a perfect score by answering all 12 questions right. Still, a large majority (71 percent) answered at least half the questions correctly.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Nuclear Energy Industry Looks for "Rebirth"
Now that the meltdown at Three Mile Island has faded from memory, the nuclear industry is claiming that the incident was actually a success because the radiation was contained. Following the 30-year anniversary of the disaster, some suggest that lessons learned have poised the energy industry for a nuclear rebirth.
The energy industry has been wary of nuclear power since the early morning of March 28, 1979, when water pumps failed in the Unit 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant along the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg, Pa., melting the radioactive fuel rods in the core and leaking radiation into the surrounding environment.
As radiation spread into local communities, regulators scrambled to place monitoring equipment and the governor of Pennsylvania eventually ordered the evacuation of pregnant women and children. The accident crippled the nuclear industry, costing over $100 billion and burning the fear of “meltdown” into the national consciousness. No more nuclear plants were ordered in the United States following the accident and none started after 1974 were completed.
The nuclear industry, however, says that it has learned from its mistakes and will place a sharper focus on safety, noting that reactors can generate electricity without the carbon emissions produced by coal-fired generators. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has applications from 17 companies to build 26 reactors—including a PPL proposal to build a plant in Berwick, Pa., near its Susquehanna plant.
Although no new nuclear plants have been constructed, the industry has spent $4 billion and created 15,000 jobs as part of a ramp-up over the last few years. The cost of building a nuclear plant has risen from a projected $4 billion to $5 billion a year ago to $6 billion to $8 billion now.
The NRC, which oversees the nation’s 104 civilian nuclear power plants, is reviewing proposals to construct new reactors. The industry has asked Congress to guarantee loans to pay for the construction costs. The estimated time from proposal to construction is 15 to 20 years. Experts in the industry expect the construction of six to eight new plants.
In Senate testimony this week, NRC Chairman Dale Klein emphasized his agency’s actions since the accident to tighten safety regulations. Industry leaders note that nuclear plants have operated for 20 million hours since the 1979 accident without an emergency of that magnitude. Nuclear plant designed have been strengthened, control room monitors have improved, and operators are given “what if” emergency training. Other plant protection plans were enacted to ensure against terrorist attacks, following Sept. 11, 2001.
The Obama administration has not been overly optimistic about nuclear energy, but he and his advisers say they support it. “I believe in nuclear power as a central part of our energy mix,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently told Congress. However, a push to include tens of billions of dollars in insurance for new nuclear reactors failed during the stimulus debate. The Obama administration also decided this month against storing nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada. Next week, the Senate Energy Committee will begin debating a bill that will decide whether nuclear power will be treated as a renewable energy source—it is currently not considered renewable, and would not be part of the Democrat’s proposed “Renewable Electricity Standard.”
Opponents say that those hoping for a nuclear renaissance are overlooking some obvious problems. The NRC fact sheet on the Three Mile Island incident acknowledges that the accident released a significant amount of radiation. According to the NRC, 10 million curies of radiation escaped the reactor’s core (1 curie = 37 billion radioactive atoms), but independent nuclear engineers have estimated that up to 150 million curies might have escaped.
The severity of the accident, and the government’s inability to evaluate the situation, illustrate some of the dangers of nuclear power. A 1997 study found that lung cancer and leukemia rates downwind from Three Mile Island were two to ten times higher than cancer rates upwind of the accident. Commentators point out that, although the industry would like to sell reactors as clean and safe, nuclear power can be dangerous and deadly.
The energy industry has been wary of nuclear power since the early morning of March 28, 1979, when water pumps failed in the Unit 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant along the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg, Pa., melting the radioactive fuel rods in the core and leaking radiation into the surrounding environment.
As radiation spread into local communities, regulators scrambled to place monitoring equipment and the governor of Pennsylvania eventually ordered the evacuation of pregnant women and children. The accident crippled the nuclear industry, costing over $100 billion and burning the fear of “meltdown” into the national consciousness. No more nuclear plants were ordered in the United States following the accident and none started after 1974 were completed.
The nuclear industry, however, says that it has learned from its mistakes and will place a sharper focus on safety, noting that reactors can generate electricity without the carbon emissions produced by coal-fired generators. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has applications from 17 companies to build 26 reactors—including a PPL proposal to build a plant in Berwick, Pa., near its Susquehanna plant.
Although no new nuclear plants have been constructed, the industry has spent $4 billion and created 15,000 jobs as part of a ramp-up over the last few years. The cost of building a nuclear plant has risen from a projected $4 billion to $5 billion a year ago to $6 billion to $8 billion now.
The NRC, which oversees the nation’s 104 civilian nuclear power plants, is reviewing proposals to construct new reactors. The industry has asked Congress to guarantee loans to pay for the construction costs. The estimated time from proposal to construction is 15 to 20 years. Experts in the industry expect the construction of six to eight new plants.
In Senate testimony this week, NRC Chairman Dale Klein emphasized his agency’s actions since the accident to tighten safety regulations. Industry leaders note that nuclear plants have operated for 20 million hours since the 1979 accident without an emergency of that magnitude. Nuclear plant designed have been strengthened, control room monitors have improved, and operators are given “what if” emergency training. Other plant protection plans were enacted to ensure against terrorist attacks, following Sept. 11, 2001.
The Obama administration has not been overly optimistic about nuclear energy, but he and his advisers say they support it. “I believe in nuclear power as a central part of our energy mix,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently told Congress. However, a push to include tens of billions of dollars in insurance for new nuclear reactors failed during the stimulus debate. The Obama administration also decided this month against storing nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada. Next week, the Senate Energy Committee will begin debating a bill that will decide whether nuclear power will be treated as a renewable energy source—it is currently not considered renewable, and would not be part of the Democrat’s proposed “Renewable Electricity Standard.”
Opponents say that those hoping for a nuclear renaissance are overlooking some obvious problems. The NRC fact sheet on the Three Mile Island incident acknowledges that the accident released a significant amount of radiation. According to the NRC, 10 million curies of radiation escaped the reactor’s core (1 curie = 37 billion radioactive atoms), but independent nuclear engineers have estimated that up to 150 million curies might have escaped.
The severity of the accident, and the government’s inability to evaluate the situation, illustrate some of the dangers of nuclear power. A 1997 study found that lung cancer and leukemia rates downwind from Three Mile Island were two to ten times higher than cancer rates upwind of the accident. Commentators point out that, although the industry would like to sell reactors as clean and safe, nuclear power can be dangerous and deadly.
More Conservative GOP May Hurt Specter in Pa.
An increasingly conservative GOP in Pennsylvania could hurt Sen. Arlen Specter’s (R., Pa.) chances for re-election in 2010. The state has trended Democrat in recent elections, and the party has a 1.2 million statewide advantage in voter registrations. Last year, 239,000 Republicans switched parties, and a recent poll indicates that most of these defectors are moderates – voters who have historically comprised the core of Specter’s support. Specter will likely face a strong challenge from former Rep. Pat Toomey, a conservative popular with the more conservative GOP electorate in Pennsylvania.
Specter has long had a rocky relationship with the conservative wing of the GOP. The latest flare-up stems from his support of the stimulus. He was one of only three Republican senators – and the only one up for re-election in 2010 – to back it.
Specter has long had a rocky relationship with the conservative wing of the GOP. The latest flare-up stems from his support of the stimulus. He was one of only three Republican senators – and the only one up for re-election in 2010 – to back it.
Few Pa. Legislators Using State Car Fleet
Fewer Pennsylvania legislators are driving taxpayer-subsidized vehicles. Pennsylvania and California are the only states that offer legislators subsidized cars. In the House, 82 of 203 members drive fleet cars, and so do 18 of 49 sitting senators. Besides a base salary of $78,315, lawmakers also get up to $158 to cover meal and lodging expenses each day they show up to work in the Capitol, a pension program, and health benefits.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Obama Administration Creates Soaring Deficits
Obama’s budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the amount for Republican George W. Bush’s presidency. This new Congressional Budget Office figure is $2.3 trillion worse than the deficit predicted by Obama’s administration last month. The White House said the deficit will be down to $533 billion by 2013. According to some, this is unlikely to happen, since the stimulus package included health care and other spending that will create permanent new federal spending. Some experts say the 10-year cost of Obama’s health care initiative will be twice the projected cost of $634 billion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)