So, the Super committee failed.
I had a plan, you know, to post here the day after it happened. To do my "told you so" dance while I sipped a glass of wine alone in my dark room.
But that didn't happen. Instead I'm sitting here still doing my "told you so" dance, but it lacks the gusto associated with doing said dance on time. And the glass of wine. Writing about the damn committee is so much easier with a bit of mental lubrication.
Oh well. You can't win them all.
Anyways, they failed and now the triggers that will slice $1.2 trillion from the budget over the next 10 years will go into effect in January 2013.
All of that doom and gloom (mostly gloom) I spoke of earlier will start kicking our ass two winters from now. To what degree will that ass kicking be? Well, $1.2 trillion over 10 years is about roughly $54.7 billion dollars from defense and domestic spending a year, according to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (I totally called this guy...OK, I'm lying) and The Washington Post (they did call him...I hope).
On the defense side: That means defense contracts will be nullified, civilian workers will be fired and they will scale back purchases. That last one isn't so bad, since we do spend more than -- oh I don't know -- the WORLD in military spending. (Ok, so it isn't the world, but Christ do we spend a lot of money on the military).
On the domestic side: This means less money given to Medicare payments. Meaning? Insurance companies and doctors will be reimbursed less for seeing Medicare patients. Less money for them means businesses that rely on heavy Medicare patients (larger hospitals) could see a drop in revenue.
More domestic goodies: Less money for infrastructure building, border patrol, EPA, IRS (eff those guys anyway), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That last one is important. They play a big role at OU and give us a nice chunk of research dollars.
The time is here. Our Congressmen/women failed to put a deal together, so the guillotine they locked the public in for motivation is set to come crashing down. The problem? The blade is rusty and dull. It isn't going to cut through in one swift fall. It will have to take a few swings (10 to be exact) each year to finally make the cuts it wants to.
It is going to hurt. Once the triggers go into effect, people are going to get fired. Pay is going to freeze. Governments (which as much as Republicans don't want to admit it, DO employ people) will stop hiring while they layoff droves of workers.
It is going to get worse for 10 years before it gets better. Our economy hasn't been in the best health, but that doesn't mean we need to take its medicine away, and then punch it in the face for good measure.
There is no justification to make these cuts, and I dare any of you to tell my otherwise. Actually, I want you to tell me otherwise because this is what we are stuck with.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Homework: Privacy and ethics in an internet age
The booming era of the internet has posed one important question to the masses huddled over their keyboards, what is our reasonable expectation of privacy?
It is an even trickier question for journalists. Our realm is the public. We are constantly using the laws and rules allowing to gather public information lawfully (most of the time) in an effort to redistribute that information back to the people.
The rise of Facebook, Twitter and other social media goodies has unlocked a new journalistic cache of tools. Now we can look at what other people are thinking and doing in their respective social circles.
But journalists begin running into problems when trying to harness the potential energy of the information on display (sometimes locked) on social media websites.
Do we use the information to further our stories? It's for the public, right?
Or do we leave the information there, perhaps to be mined by another less ethical journalist.
The same mentality applied to physical world information gathering doesn't directly translate into the digital world. But a journalist's obligations to his/her sources does.
Bailey's responsibilities to Del Rocco is to protect her privacy as a citizen as much as possible while trying to get the information she needs for a story. Bailey was correct in approaching Del Rocco on Facebook (incorrect for not saying she was a reporter from the onset) and asking for an interview.
After that? If she says no, the journalist should either attempt to coax the source into talking or find other avenues to collect information without violating a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Can Bailey use the Facebook posts? If I was her editor, I would say no. This isn't a perfect metaphor, but I liken it to a conversation. Del Rocco's "friend" acceptance was like letting Bailey stand next to her while she talks to her friends. None of you would use something overheard in a conversation, so why use the Facebook posts?
Also, there are several factors Bailey needs to weigh before using the posts. What is the actual value to the readers in this situation? And that value, how does it weigh against protecting Del Rocco and her reasonable expectation of privacy?
Also, how in the hell do you even PROVE that Del Rocco is operating that Facebook account? The internet is the bastion of anonymity. Yes, it is REASONABLE to assume Del Rocco is operating that account based on the posts in the article. But if I am reporting on something as dire as murder allegations, any kind of assumption should be off the table.
As journalists we must remember that we are humans first and journalists second. From our conversations in class, you probably think I am some robotic asshole. Most of that is probably true, and I can always use a great element of humanity to draw me back in.
In our quest to get and tell stories we quickly forget to protect the people we are trying to help.
Using Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and other posts should only be done when that information is given to the reporter, or the publication of that information is in the public's supreme best interest.
Unless you are a public official, then your shit is fair game.
It is an even trickier question for journalists. Our realm is the public. We are constantly using the laws and rules allowing to gather public information lawfully (most of the time) in an effort to redistribute that information back to the people.
The rise of Facebook, Twitter and other social media goodies has unlocked a new journalistic cache of tools. Now we can look at what other people are thinking and doing in their respective social circles.
But journalists begin running into problems when trying to harness the potential energy of the information on display (sometimes locked) on social media websites.
Do we use the information to further our stories? It's for the public, right?
Or do we leave the information there, perhaps to be mined by another less ethical journalist.
The same mentality applied to physical world information gathering doesn't directly translate into the digital world. But a journalist's obligations to his/her sources does.
Bailey's responsibilities to Del Rocco is to protect her privacy as a citizen as much as possible while trying to get the information she needs for a story. Bailey was correct in approaching Del Rocco on Facebook (incorrect for not saying she was a reporter from the onset) and asking for an interview.
After that? If she says no, the journalist should either attempt to coax the source into talking or find other avenues to collect information without violating a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Can Bailey use the Facebook posts? If I was her editor, I would say no. This isn't a perfect metaphor, but I liken it to a conversation. Del Rocco's "friend" acceptance was like letting Bailey stand next to her while she talks to her friends. None of you would use something overheard in a conversation, so why use the Facebook posts?
Also, there are several factors Bailey needs to weigh before using the posts. What is the actual value to the readers in this situation? And that value, how does it weigh against protecting Del Rocco and her reasonable expectation of privacy?
Also, how in the hell do you even PROVE that Del Rocco is operating that Facebook account? The internet is the bastion of anonymity. Yes, it is REASONABLE to assume Del Rocco is operating that account based on the posts in the article. But if I am reporting on something as dire as murder allegations, any kind of assumption should be off the table.
As journalists we must remember that we are humans first and journalists second. From our conversations in class, you probably think I am some robotic asshole. Most of that is probably true, and I can always use a great element of humanity to draw me back in.
In our quest to get and tell stories we quickly forget to protect the people we are trying to help.
Using Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and other posts should only be done when that information is given to the reporter, or the publication of that information is in the public's supreme best interest.
Unless you are a public official, then your shit is fair game.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Crunch time
It is getting close to the end of the line for the supercommittee.
On Nov. 23, the committee has to vote on a plan to submit to Congress. The committee's plan must cut the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion.
(I've harped on this before, but a reminder never hurt anyone)
The Washington Post put together a great graphic to illustrate what the committee has to do.
A month after that (after the bill has been submitted to Congress and the public) Congress — oh the lovable Congress — will then have to decide on the bill.
The catch here is that Congress can't amend the bill and the Senate can't filibuster anything. That takes away the two major strengths of both the House and the Senate. So it's either a yes or no vote.
There are a few places here that the bill can hit a snag. As I have mentioned before, it is possible the supercommittee won't agree on a damn thing and nothing will be submitted to Congress. The triggers will take effect and the federal offices and private companies with government contracts will have to deal.
The bill also could get caught up in Congress. Remember, we have a Republican House of Representatives and a Democrat Senate. It only takes one group to shoot it down.
It is possible President Barack Obama could veto the bill if it makes it to his desk. That's a stretch though because if both houses agree on the cuts it would be political suicide for Obama to actually take a stance (one of the few times he would in his presidency) and kill the bill.
There is still a long road to go. If I was making any bets, I would bet the supercommittee fails to put anything together and it doesn't make it out of committee.
There will be more political positioning as both parties attempt to blame each other for the failure (I bet some of the committee members lost their seats in the following elections).
I hope I'm wrong. The country's financial infrastructure needs to be changed. I just don't think the people we have elected to do it have the capability.
On Nov. 23, the committee has to vote on a plan to submit to Congress. The committee's plan must cut the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion.
(I've harped on this before, but a reminder never hurt anyone)
The Washington Post put together a great graphic to illustrate what the committee has to do.
A month after that (after the bill has been submitted to Congress and the public) Congress — oh the lovable Congress — will then have to decide on the bill.
The catch here is that Congress can't amend the bill and the Senate can't filibuster anything. That takes away the two major strengths of both the House and the Senate. So it's either a yes or no vote.
There are a few places here that the bill can hit a snag. As I have mentioned before, it is possible the supercommittee won't agree on a damn thing and nothing will be submitted to Congress. The triggers will take effect and the federal offices and private companies with government contracts will have to deal.
The bill also could get caught up in Congress. Remember, we have a Republican House of Representatives and a Democrat Senate. It only takes one group to shoot it down.
It is possible President Barack Obama could veto the bill if it makes it to his desk. That's a stretch though because if both houses agree on the cuts it would be political suicide for Obama to actually take a stance (one of the few times he would in his presidency) and kill the bill.
There is still a long road to go. If I was making any bets, I would bet the supercommittee fails to put anything together and it doesn't make it out of committee.
There will be more political positioning as both parties attempt to blame each other for the failure (I bet some of the committee members lost their seats in the following elections).
I hope I'm wrong. The country's financial infrastructure needs to be changed. I just don't think the people we have elected to do it have the capability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)