Category Archives: ethics

Debates and Journalism

Posted on by
Reply

Howard Kurtz, of Media Buzz, had a couple of thoughts. Which means that so do I.

[W]e’re hearing that some campaigns want to vet the moderators, approve the on-screen graphics, limit the scope of questions or decree that all candidates be asked the same questions. Sorry, but those are editorial decisions to be made by journalists.

I’ll leave aside the blatant rumor-mongering that that “we hear” opening is, and that is so demeaning to what used to be a profession of journalism.

Kurtz’ journalists “decisions” on those are driven by personal and station TV ratings, not by the purpose of the debates. On-screen graphics? The CNBC failure demonstrated that journalists can’t be trusted with them. It may be too much for the candidates to vet their own graphics, but journalists need oversight, badly.

Limit the scope of the questions? Of course. A proper debate focuses on an area—as that CNBC thing agreed in advance to do, and then they welched on their agreement. Trust journalists on this?

All candidates be asked the same questions: what is it about “debate” that’s unclear to Kurtz? How is it a debate, exactly, if all of the candidates aren’t challenged to lay out their views/policies on the same subject? If that limits the number of questions there’s time to ask, well, there’s that focus thing, again.

Then there’s this from Kurtz:

The danger for the candidates is that they will be seen as overreaching, as wary of facing challenging questions.

There’s Kurtz’ own, and deliberate, distortion. The candidates will seem overreaching and fearful of tough questioning only as journalists, including Howard Kurtz, choose to paint them that way. Wary of facing challenges? Where is that demonstrated in the push to have all the candidates asked the same question? In fact, it’ll be exactly that challenge for those candidates who are in some way unprepared for the question because they’ve not yet formulated or articulated a position on a question’s subject.

Kurtz’ piece is a clear demonstration of why the public—and the candidates—cannot trust them.

Teaching Arithmetic and Common Core

Posted on by
Reply

Teaching arithmetic under Common Core Standards—teaching arithmetic at all—requires the teacher first to understand arithmetic. Teaching any subject requires the teacher first to understand that subject, come to that, but in this article, I’m interested in arithmetic.

Below is an image from a Fox News Insider piece about a third-grader’s math problem: solve the problem “5 x 3 = ?.” The student wrote his answer in pencil; the teacher marked the answer wrong and wrote his version of the correct answer in red.CommonCoreMath_Crop

Of course, anyone with an actual third grade education knows that both versions are correct. What’s the problem here?

The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics has this suggestion for teaching a third-grade multiplication problem:

1.  Interpret products of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 5 × 7 as the total number of objects in 5 groups of 7 objects each.

Thus, 5 x 3 might be interpreted as five groups of three objects each, as our student’s teacher has written. Except that by marking the student’s representation of three groups of five objects each as wrong, the teacher has shown he’s interpreting Common Core’s suggestion as a requirement, as the only right way to solve the problem.

The fault here is not in Common Core Standards; those are just setting a performance standard and suggesting a mechanism for achieving it.  No, the failure here is in the shocking arithmetic illiteracy—innumeracy—of this person presuming to “teach” third-graders their numbers.

“Justice” Redux

Posted on by
Reply

It turns out the Secret Service Director, Joseph Clancy, not only can’t keep his Secret Service straight, he can’t even keep his own stories about what he heard about his Secret Service’s misbehavior straight. The AP has reported, via Fox News, that Clancy’s claims of when he heard “rumors” of his agency’s illegal search of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz’ personnel records keeps changing.

What’s interesting to me about this, though, is what the AP buried at the end of its article.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Friday that his department will proceed “expeditiously” to determine whether any laws or policies were broken. To avoid a conflict of interest, Johnson said the determination about accountability will be made by him and not Clancy.

DHS will decide whether any laws were broken? Whatever happened to DoJ and its role in determining whether any laws were broken?

Oh, wait….

“Justice”

Posted on by
Reply

The Justice Department announced Friday afternoon that it will not bring criminal charges against Lois Lerner or any other IRS official involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups[.]

There’s a surprise. Why would anyone think President Barack Obama’s DoJ would prosecute anyone in Obama’s IRS for their abuse of IRS—of Executive Branch—power in the IRS’ persecution of groups of Americans of whom Obama disapproves?

Lies of the Democrat

Posted on by
Reply

Or of the proud Progressive who wants to be President.

From the just concluded Benghazi hearing interview of Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, we learned this:

At 11:12 pm on the night of the attack, Sept 11, 2012, Mrs Clinton emailed her daughter Chelsea that, “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al-Qaeda-like group: the Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w[ith] a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

And this:

…a State Department summary of Mrs Clinton’s call the next day, Sept 12, with Egypt’s Prime Minister. “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest,” Mrs. Clinton said. The call summary then blocks out a comment by the Egyptian, to which Mrs. Clinton replies, “Your [sic] not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

Compare that with her public statements in the immediate aftermath that it was a YouTube video that was responsible, and compare that with her statements on meeting the coffins of the murdered Ambassador and three of those who tried to protect him, repeating her claim that it was a YouTube video that was responsible.

Remember that display of Clintonian…integrity…in a year and a month.