| February 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
|
Monday, February 21
COUNTERPOINT EXTRA: Props to Media Matters for America
by
Trish Nelson
on Mon 21 Feb 2005 11:51 AM CST
Counterpoint Extra: Props to Media Matters for America
The rational counter to "The Point," "The Counterpoint"
critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's corporate
vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all Sinclair-owned television
stations across the country.
by
Iowa's Ted Remington
Before
resuming normal Counterpoint activity, I just want to take a moment to
publicly thank David Brock and the good folks at Media Matters for
America for having my back concerning Mark Hyman's attack on me. Not
only did Media Matters do a stellar job in pointing out the distortions
and falsehoods concerning me, but they thoroughly debunked Hyman's
smears of other college teachers he committed in the same commentary.
More
importantly, MMFA is taking a leading role in keeping the heat on
Sinclair Broadcasting, particularly in their participation in Sinclair
Action, a group of progressive organizations that are working to
educate people on the reality of Sinclair's business and "journalistic"
practices. They've just revamped their website, and it looks great. I
highly recommend that everyone take a look and take action.
Finally,
thanks to the posters to [the Counterpoint], anonymous and otherwise, for the
words of encouragement. They are truly appreciated!
Cheers,
Ted
Listen to Ted talk with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Michael Papantonios on Air America Radio's weekly program, Ring of Fire aired February 12.
 Click here to receive action alerts from Rapid Response - Iowa
Friday, February 18
Sinclair Broadcasting's Mark Hyman Attacks Iowa's Ted Remington
by
Trish Nelson
on Fri 18 Feb 2005 08:44 AM CST
Sinclair Broadcasting's Mark Hyman Attacks Iowa's Ted Remington
The rational counter to "The Point," "The Counterpoint"
critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's corporate
vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all Sinclair-owned television
stations across the country.
by
Iowa's Ted Remington
Now I know how Al Franken felt when Fox sued him.
Your
humble blogger actually gets singled out by Mark Hyman in his most
recent “Point” commentary. You’d assume that with everything I’ve
written, Hyman would be complaining about something I’ve said about him
on this blog. And in a way he is, but he doesn't have the courage to do
it directly.
Rather
than contradict anything that’s been said on this blog, Hyman does what
has become all too familiar to those of us who know him well:
misappropriate and misstate information about a political rival rather
than actually talking substantively about the issues.
In what
I’m sure is simply a coincidence [editor’s note: please drizzle several
ladlefuls of sarcasm over previous comment], less than a week after
being interviewed by "Ring of Fire" on Air America, Hyman includes
yours truly in a list of “out of touch” academics. That’s right—I’m
lumped right in there with the guy who compared 9/11 victims to Nazis.
What did I do to deserve such scorn? According to Hyman, I think
plagiarism is just fine and dandy. Here’s the exerpt:
The University of Iowa's Ted Remington cautions that while plagiarizing work shortchanges the student's own learning it doesn't really hurt anybody.
"While plagiarism is often defined as 'stealing' someone else's words or ideas, it is rarely the case that published writers or public speakers are harmed by having their words or their thoughts 'stolen' by a college student."
If you need to plagiarize would you at least turn your assignments in on time. I've got a latte waiting for me at the campus coffee house.
You know what’s coming, don’t you? Altogether now: I never said that.
Here’s
what happened. Apparently deciding that my little blog and 15 minutes
(literally) of Air America fame was a fly worth swatting, Hyman &
Co. went on a search for something he might be able to embarrass me
with. What he found was the course packet for the online rhetoric
course offered through the University of Iowa. I currently teach this
course, but I had nothing to do with the writing of the course
materials. Not a single word. I’m simply listed as an instructor.
Not
fazed by that, Hyman excerpted a portion of the standard statement on
plagiarism, the point of which is that plagiarism is bad not because it
does any major damage to an established author to have her or his words
cited without credit by a college freshman, but because it is stealing.
Here’s the excerpt in its full form:
Plagiarism
is a serious academic offense that entails presenting the words and/or
ideas of others as though they were original to you. While plagiarism
is often defined as "stealing" someone else's words or ideas, it is
rarely the case that published writers or public speakers are harmed by
having their words or their thoughts "stolen" by a college student. On
the contrary, the real harm of plagiarism is the harm that students do
to themselves. Encountering new ideas and information, thinking about
them critically, and finding effective language to express independent
thinking is the central activity of a college education. When students
"steal" the words or thoughts of another and present them as their own
original words and ideas, they shortchange themselves educationally. To
simply reproduce the form of something another has said or written is
to skip the mental processing (reflection, comparison, critical
evaluation, etc.) that is the essence of learning.
Such is the “fringe” thinking here at the University of Iowa’s Department of Rhetoric.
So
Hyman, in order to make his point, has not only misappropriated a
quoted source (plagiarism), but taken it completely out of context as
well. You know, Mark, we do a pretty good job here at Iowa of teaching
our freshman to cite sources correctly and how to use quoted material
in its proper context. There’ll always be a desk available for you in
my classroom if you’d like to stop by and learn something.
But it gets even better!
As I am
wont to do, I sent a copy of yesterday’s Counterpoint to the head
honchos at Sinclair. I received an email from Mr. Barry Faber, vice
president and chief legal representative of Sinclair. As you’ll
remember, yesterday’s Counterpoint responded to Hyman’s approval of
Maryland Governor Ehrlich’s edict banning reporters from the Baltimore
Sun from speaking with any member of the state’s executive branch or
attending press conferences. Mr. Faber wanted to know if I was aware
that one of the reasons for Mr. Ehrlich’s consternation was the fact
that an opinion columnist for the Sun had said made a remark about one
of the governor’s spokesmen “having trouble keeping a straight face”
when announcing a particular policy of the governor’s. The columnist in
question wasn’t even at the press conference, so (according to Mr.
Faber) he could not possibly know the actual facial expression on the
man’s face. Mr. Faber assured me that if anyone at Sinclair
misrepresented the facts in a similar way, he would personally
recommend that they be fired.
I
pointed out to Mr. Faber that “keeping a straight face” was obviously
used in a metaphorical sense (as it usually is) as a means of
suggesting that the stated policy was at odds with reality. It was
clearly not intended to state the physical reality of the situation.
But then
I saw the transcript of the most recent “Point,” and I can’t help but
compare the two incidents. The Sun reporter, for using a metaphor,
deserves to be fired. Hyman, on the other hand, willfully misquoted a
source and misrepresented its content to score political points against
a foe.
I’m just wondering, Mr. Faber: when will Mark Hyman be asked to clean out his desk?
And that’s The Counterpoint.
Mark Hyman
If you would like to express your views about this story, contact the following Iowa Sinclair Affiliates:
Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Dubuque: KGAN Channel 2
e-mail address:
kgan@kgan.com
Ph. 800-642-6140 toll
free or 319-395-9060
Ames, Des Moines: KDSM Fox 17
e-mail
address: comments@kdsm17.com
Ph:
515-287-1717 or FAX: 515-287-0064
 Click here to receive action alerts from Rapid Response - Iowa
Saturday, February 5
The Counterpoint: Social Security vs. Social Insecurity
by
Trish Nelson
on Sat 05 Feb 2005 07:46 AM CST
Social Security vs. Social Insecurity
The rational counter to "The Point," "The Counterpoint"
critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's
corporate vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all
Sinclair-owned television stations across the country.
[Update from SinclairAction:
"The Point," debuted a new format on January 31. Conspicuously absent
from the segment's new opening sequence is the word "commentary."]
by Iowa's Ted Remington
Both Mark Hyman and [pResident] Bush say Social Security is going broke. Both are lying.
At worst, Social Security will cover 75% of its intended benefits in
four decades. That’s with a very conservative estimate of the growth of
the economy, and assuming we do nothing to prevent this from happening
(such as undoing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which
would by itself keep Social Security fine and dandy for the foreseeable
future).
But [pResident] Bush and Mark Hyman say that privatizing Social Security
is the only answer. In fact, there are only two things wrong with
privatization: it won’t work and it’s immoral.
First of all, it’s inefficient. The overhead costs for managing the
funding for Social Security are less than 1% of total benefits.
Privatized funds would end up costing 12-14% of the total funds just to
pay for red tape and paper shuffling. This translates into up to a
20-30% reduction in benefits as compared with what Social Security can
do on its own. That’s not a deal; it’s a ripoff.
Hyman suggests that lots of retirement and pension funds involve
private investing. That’s exactly the point. Plenty of retirement and
pension funds have gone bankrupt or ended up paying far less in
benefits than what was promised. (How would you like to be an Enron
employee nearing retirement right now without the promise of Social
Security?) The whole purpose of Social Security is to provide an
insurance plan that all retirees will know is there for them, no matter
what the market does or whether the folks managing their funds do their
job properly.
Hyman also claims privatizing Social Security would end up creating some
sort of economic boom. But right now, Social Security funds are
invested in bonds, which in turn play a pivotal part in the economy,
precisely because they are secure. Privatizing Social Security doesn’t
suddenly add money to the economy; it takes money that’s already
supporting the economy and puts it at needless risk.
Moreover, it’s not likely that private accounts would return more than
Social Security now does. In fact, over the long haul, Social Security
is today providing retirees with as much or more money than they would
have received through investing in stock portfolios. In fact, other
countries have tried privatizing their versions of Social Security, and
the result has been an increase in poverty among the elderly that will
end up costing far more than simply leaving things alone would have.
Most importantly, privatizing Social Security fundamentally changes the
nature of the program. Social Security has been the most successful
insurance program in the history of the nation, keeping millions of
elderly Americans out of poverty. Privatizing it changes Social
Security from an insurance plan to an investment scheme which will
certainly have winners and losers. Are we as a nation comfortable with
the idea of a large increase in elderly men and women living in
poverty? That’s a certain result of any privatization scheme.
So why do conservatives want to privatize Social Security anyway? If
this is all so obvious (and it is), why are they pushing for it?
Because they don’t believe in the basic principle behind it: that
Americans owe it to each other to make sure no elderly person faces the
end of their life in debilitating poverty. Not in the richest country
in the world. Conservatives don’t simply want to partially privatize
Social Security. They want to do away with it and let the invisible
hand of the free market take over. They want to scare Americans into
handing over their guarantee of a modest but respectable old age so
that these funds can be put in the hands of Wall Street profiteers
who’ll make a killing on commissions while putting the futures of
millions of Americans on a giant craps table and rolling the dice.
In the conservative’s mind, that’s just fine: whatever puts money in
the hands who will risk it in the name of the free market is good for
the whole country. After all, we don’t really owe anything to each
other anyway, right? It’s everyone for themselves in this world.
There’s only one thing wrong with this position.
It’s a lie.
And that’s The Counterpoint.
Mark Hyman is not an Iowan. He is a corporate spokesperson for Sinclair Broadcasting in Baltimore, MD. If
you live in the KGAN or KDSM Fox 17 broadcast areas, watch Mark Hyman's "The Point"
tonight at the end of the 10:00 news. Then click here to take action.
Or write your local affiliate and ask them why Mr. Hyman is not
identified on the program as a Sinclair vice-president. Let them
know it is not in the public interest to present only ONE side of an
issue (Mark Hyman's side).
Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Dubuque: KGAN Channel 2
e-mail address: kgan@kgan.com
Ph. 800-642-6140 toll free or 319-395-9060
Ames, Des Moines: KDSM Fox 17
e-mail address: comments@kdsm17.com
Ph: 515-287-1717 or FAX: 515-287-0064
Mark Hyman
|
|
