Category Archives: Media

Seattle PI Comics Undercuts Editorial Board

The Seattle PI on Sunday editorialized on the plight of African elephants again being slaughtered in large numbers for ivory. Research done right here in Washington State by the University of Washington’s Center for Conservation Biologyshows elephants are again being slaughtered for their ivory tusks.”

Meanwhile on the “Kids’ Page” of the Seattle PI Comics, the Mark Trail hunter friendly comic strip emphatically states that “The very animal (elephant)that is considered one of Africa’s most valuable assets has become one of it’s biggest problems.”
Let’s look a little closer at the truth of what “Mark Trail” says. “The two main killers in East Africa are HIV/AIDS and wild animals, particularly elephants. Because of their large appetites and migration habits, elephants are destroying crops , killing farmers and terrorizing neighbors.” Right below this sentence we see what looks like a white skinned man being tossed in the air over the elephant’s head.

God, this sounds pretty horrible – AIDS/HIV and elephants!! Only problem is it’s not true that elephants are the number two killer.

The World Bank in a 2006 414 page report entitled “Disease and Mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa” reports that out of some 10,788,044 deaths in 2000 the following breakdown occurred.

1 HIV/AIDS………………………………….20.4% = 2,200,761
2 Malaria………………………………………10.1% = 1,161,662
3 Lower respiratory infections………..9.8% = 700,573
4 Diarrheal diseases……………………….6.5% = 550,190
5 Perinatal conditions…………………….5.1% = 442,310
6 Measles……………………………………..4.1% = 442,310
7 Cerebrovascular disease………………3.3% = 336,005
8 Ischemic heart disease…………………3.1% = 334,429
9 Tuberculosis……………………………….2.8% = 301,785
10 Road traffic accidents ………………..1.8% = 194,184
11 Pertussis…………………………………..1.6% = 172,609
12 Violence …………………………………..1.2% = 129,337
13 COPD………………………………………..1.1% = 118,668
14 Tetanus…………………………………….1.0% = 107,780
15 Nephritis and nephrosis………………0.9% = 97,092
16 Malnutrition ……………………………. 0.9% = 97,092
17 War …………………………………………0.8% = 86,304
18 Syphilis ………………………………….. 0.8% = 86,304
19 Diabetes mellitus……………………… 0.7% = 75,516
20 Drownings ……………………………… 0.6% = 64,728
21 All other specific causes…………..23.2%= 2,502,826
* numbers are calculated from %’s taken from table on page 77 in report cited above.

So where are the figures for deaths caused by wild animals particularly elephants in this breakdown. National Geographic in a documentary entitled “Elephant Rage” stated that about 500 people worldwide each year are killed by elephants. Even falsely claiming these deaths would all be in Africa, they would comprise only .000046% of the year 2000 deaths.

So where does macho hunter “Mark Trail” get off on claiming elephants as one of the two main killers in East Africa. Car accidents in the above table alone killed some 194,000 people. Measles some 442,000. After AIDS/HIV, the number two killer was a mosquito, killing some 1.16 million people.. But I guess mosquitoes are hard to shoot with guns, so they don’t qualify as killers.

The next drawing in the ‘Mark Trail” cartoon depiction shows 3 large elephants charging what again looks like a white skinned person who has his hands up in the air, like he’s trying to surrender. The commentary is “Their increase in population is a problem in many parts of Africa as they are turning farm ecosystems into desert areas. The elephant’s fondness for sweet potatoes and other cultures crops has made them a nuisance to some farmers.”
It’s a curious turn of phrase to call what was once a wild natural ecosystem that was populated by elephants as now a farm ecosystem and blame the elephants for turning it into desert areas. The website Bagheera: In the Wild notes that:

The African elephant once roamed the entire continent of Africa, and the Asian elephant ranged from Syria to northern China and the islands of Indonesia. These abundant populations have been reduced to groups in scattered areas south of the Sahara and in isolated patches in India, Sri Lanka, and Southeast Asia.

Demand for ivory, combined with habitat loss from human settlement, has led to a dramatic decline in elephant populations in the last few decades. In 1930, there were between 5 and 10 million African elephants. By 1979, there were 1.3 million. In 1989, when they were added to the international list of the most endangered species, there were about 600,000 remaining, less than one percent of their original number.”

The World Wildlife Fund notes that

In both Africa and Asia , elephant habitat is being replaced by agriculture – both by small-scale farmers and international agribusiness such as palm oil. Not only are the animals being squeezed into smaller and smaller areas, but farmers plant crops that elephants like to eat. As a result, elephants frequently raid and destroy crops. And after being persecuted for decades and hunted almost to extinction, a wild elephant’s reaction to a human can be similar to our reaction to a mosquito – swat it. So while many people in the West regard elephants with affection and admiration, the animals often inspire fear and anger in those who share their land.”

In a New York Times article last year where they discuss ‘‘Elephant Breakdown,’’ a 2005 essay in the journal Nature, Bradshaw and several colleagues argued that

“today’s elephant populations are suffering from a form of chronic stress, a kind of species-wide trauma. Decades of poaching and culling and habitat loss, they claim, have so disrupted the intricate web of familial and societal relations by which young elephants have traditionally been raised in the wild, and by which established elephant herds are governed, that what we are now witnessing is nothing less than a precipitous collapse of elephant culture .

It has long been apparent that every large, land-based animal on this planet is ultimately fighting a losing battle with humankind. And yet entirely befitting of an animal with such a highly developed sensibility, a deep-rooted sense of family and, yes, such a good long-term memory, the elephant is not going out quietly. It is not leaving without making some kind of statement, one to which scientists from a variety of disciplines, including human psychology, are now beginning to pay close attention. “

Unfortunately spreading falsehoods and depicting the threatened elephant as a killer because that is how hunters like to view their sport of killing wild animals only helps to further erode efforts to not have the wild elephant’s only future be a trophy head on someones wall like of old or ivory trinkets in someone’s jewelry box. It’s time for Mark Trail to go the way of the elephant hunter of the past. The Seattle PI should cancel the strip.

Molly Ivins Warned Us About Shrub Part II

Back in 1999 Molly Ivins co-authored with Dou Dubose a book entitled Shrub The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. What she said then still rings true today.
Take for example the following:

“…he owes his political life to big corporate money; he’s a CEO’s wet dream. He carries their water, he’s stumpbroke – however you put it, George W. Bush is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. …We can find no evidence that it has ever occurred to him to question whether it is wise to do what big business wants. He is perfectly comfortable, perfectly at home, doing the bidding of big business. These are his friends, and he takes care of his friends …”

As well as this:

“Where Bush is weak is on the governance side of politics. From the record, it appears that he doesn’t know much, and doesn’t care much about governing…. In fact, given his record, its kind of hard to figure out why he wants a job where he’s expected to govern. It’s not just that
he has no ideas about what to do with government- if you think his daddy had trouble with “the vision thing,” wait till you meet this one. For a Republican, not wanting to do much with government is practically a vision in itself. Trouble is , when you aren’t particularly interested in the nuts and bolts of governing, you end up with staff-driven policy.”

Or policy written by your Vice-President and corporate America.

McCranium.org to the Rescue – My Honor is Saved!

Seems Tri-City Herald reporter and blogger Chris Mulick last Friday lumped me in the same category as Tim Eyman when I pointed out in a recent blog on Referendum 65 how the news media is in bed with Tim Eyman. Referendum 65 is an attempt to repeal recently passed legislation in Washington state banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mulick touted back in his blog that I’m the one in bed with Tim Eyman. Now isn’t this getting interesting?

Jim McCabe over at McCranium caught Chris Mulick’s blog, entitled “Eyman, Zemke agree on one thing, maybe” He responded with an excellent rebuttal entitled “Chris Mulick, Ya Gotta be kidding me…” Jim does an excellent job of clarifying what the issue is really about. It’s not that the media is the enemy, its that they help Eyman by giving him coverage many other issues and campaigns never get.

Now I’ve been in a few beds but not Tim’s. See I’m old fashioned and I believe in love before going to bed and Tim and I have no love for each other. I like to at least think that the other person I’m in bed with is sincere and honest and won’t lie before we crawl under the sheets, while we’re under the sheets or afterwards.

Now the news media, that’s a different story. The thing is I’m not calling the news media liars. You’ve probably heard the phrase of “putting the paper to bed”. It’s newspaper vernacular such as used in this interesting aside if you really want to get diverted from this story at this point. See The Morning News “Talking Dirty with the Gray Lady

Anyway, on my blog post last week entitled, “Evangelical Churches and News Media Aid Eyman on Referendum 65″ my point was that there is a narrow line between reporting news and making up news or believing something is news because a press release is put out. And this is the case with Referendum 65. By writing about Eyman’s reaching out to the churches to save his bacon and keep his initiative business going, trhe media winds up promoting his efforts. They have got another story “to put to bed” hoping that it will grab their readers tomorrow when they open their morning paper.

There have been many other initiatives that have struggled to get signatures but because Eyman is such a mediagenic guy, he becomes a story for some of the media in this state just because he said something. Frequently its an easy story because they quote verbatim from an Eyman press release and don’t even bother to check whether what he is saying is true or not. Opposing vierwpoiunts get short shift. He may get contact information while the other side isn’t even mentioned.

Others reporters have, over time, taken a different position, realizing that writing about any of Eyman’s campaign struggles or stunts before he has gotten his signatures would be helping him get his signatures by giving him increased exposure and credibility.

I can remember in the past numerous comments from reporters in the press and media that an initiative wasn’t a story until you turned in your signatures. They basically had a hands off policy on an initiative only being a major story when the initiative campaign actually secured enough valid signatures. It didn’t matter how many endorsements you released or testimonials and studies you supplied supporting your campaign. If you didn’t have the signatures to show then you hadn’t reached the required threshold level of public support to get media attention. These days it seems some reporters ignore that distinction regarding Eyman’s campaigns and give him coverage no matter what, while at the same time ignoring other initiative campaigns that are worthy and could use media attention.

They do this partly because Eyman can be obnoxious and taunting to the media and he captures their attention. But he doesn’t hate the media as Chris Mulick seems to suggest. In fact he loves the media because they are an integral part of his initiative business. He has worked them enough so they know him. In fact I’m sure some like him because he is irreverent to them. Meanwhile Eyman loves the attention he gets and it works to get him the exposure he needs to keep his for profit initiative mill going.

He knows that by being respectful and matter of fact, he isn’t going to get coverage. But his “in your face” showmanship sound bites fit just what the media wants. It helps them to sell papers. It also makes for 30 second sound bites. One could call it media grabbing theatre.

All I said in my blog, and this is what Jim at McCraniyum.org responded to, is that the media is really doing Eyman’s work for him. How many other campaigns are also struggling to get signatures? Do they get a front page headline in the Seattle PI or a large story in the Yakima Herald? No. They aren’t showman Tim Eyman. Some in the media seem to need Eyman as much as he needs them it seems.

To connect to those who oppose Eyman’s effort to place Referendum 65 on the Washington ballot this November go to Washington Won’t Discriminate.

Evangelical Churches and News Media Aid Eyman on Referendum 65

A headline in the Seattle PI this morning blares out that “Eyman, Churches Link Up – Initiative King seeks out evangelicals’ help to repeal gay-rights law

The story behind the story is that the news media once again teams up with Eyman to support his business and right wing issues. Eyman’s picture and proclamation that he is some “Initiative King” is all part of the myth building that the media does to sell newspapers and get viewers and listeners.

I first heard the story yesterday on, of all places, KUOW. Google pulls up KIRO TV, KATU-Portland, and KEPR in the Tri-Cities as links.

A more truthful headline might read “Bigot Teams up with Right Wing Religious Fanatics in Effort to Repeal Law Banning Discrimination”

The measure in question is Referendum 65 filed by Tim Eyman. Below is the official ballot title and summary as listed on the Secretary of State’s website

Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2661 (ESHB 2661) concerning Washington human rights commission jurisdiction and discrimination law revisions [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].

Concise description: ESHB 2661 would add “sexual orientation” to the state’s law against discrimination in employment, housing, credit, insurance, and certain contracts. “Sexual orientation” includes

heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and gender expression, identity, appearance and behavior. Should this bill be: Approved [ ] Rejected[ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
ESHB 2661 amends the state’s law against discrimination to prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation” in employment, housing, credit, insurance, health maintenance contracts, public accommodations, and commercial boycotts or blacklists. “Sexual orientation” includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. State marriage laws are not modified, employment goals or quotas are not required, nor any specific belief, practice, behavior or orientation endorsed. Religious organizations and owner-occupied dwelling units are exempt from this law.
Click here to read the complete text of Referendum 65.

Referendum 65 is an attempt to overturn HB 2661 passed in the last session of the Legislature.The key to understanding this issue is simple – the law passed would “prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation” in employment, housing, credit, insurance, health maintenance contracts, public accommodations, and commercial boycotts or blacklists.”

Now what is confusing is what you must do if you support this ban on discrimination.

1. You must not sign Referendum 65 . Signing it would place it on the November ballot.

2 If Referendum 65 gets on the ballot you must vote to “approve” it. By voting to “approve” it, you will keep in place ESHB 2661 prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This may seem confusing but Eyman and the right wing churches need signatures to place Referendum 65 on the ballot. Once on the ballot you must vote to “approve” Referendum 65 to keep ESHB 2661 state law.

For more information on the campaign opposing getting Referendum 65 on the ballot go to Washington Won’t Discriminate.

Referendums only need half the signatures initiatives do to qualify for the ballot. R-65 only needs some 112,440 valid signatures. The deadline is June 6th.

Remember it is perfectly within your rights to engage in public discussion with other citizens regarding Referendum 65. If someone is asking people to sign the referendum, you can ask them not to sign.

As in any other conversation do not harass, threaten or intimidate anyone, including the petitioner. You only hurt your cause and rightfully can be subject to laws regarding harassment. That is the last thing you want on this issue.

The petitioner is exercising his right to ask people to sign the measure. Respect that but you don’t have to give up your First Amendment right of free speech if you disagree with what they are saying.