Media Watch--Tasering Side By Side

It's been a while since I've decided to compare how various papers cover the same story, but when I saw the TV coverage of the tasering of a pro gun protester on the State House lawn, I thought...boy, what fun we'll have putting the Union Leader and Concord Monitor side by side to see how this was covered.

Sure enough, there was a world of difference.

Both papers ran the story, an embarrassment to gun toters for sure, on the front page, but guess what?

The Union Leader ran it as a one column story, headlined "1 arrested as rally gets rowdy", and with only a few inches on the front page before the story was jumped to page A8.  Tim Buckland was the reporter.  The story's subhead was "Gun rights:  Feelings ran high at 'No More Names' event outside State House."

The Monitor devoted more than a third of its front page to the story including a three column extra bold headline "Mayhem at gun rally" and not one but two color pictures including one of tasee Daniel Musso, 52, of Brentwood.  Jeremy Blackman was the reporter.

The Monitor also went with a second story, also on page one, headlined "Witnesses say police Tasered arrested activist".

Let me know if you've seen how the Nashua Telegraph or any other paper covered this story.

How would I have covered it, you might ask (my first career was in the newspaper business, and I made such decisions on a weekly basis for eight years or so albeit admittedly the decision at times was whether to highlight Santa’s Village or Six Gun City on page one…a bit of self deprecating humor never hurts).

Keep in mind that yesteday was a fairly big news day with numerous committees of conference meeting on everything from the capital budget to the regular budget with the contentious Medicaid posturing by House and Senate conferees.

Even with all the other big stories, I would have opted for a Monitor-type big bold headline although the one good picture of the tasing would probably have sufficed.

Only a cynic would think that the Union Leader downplayed this story because it made pro gun people look bad and the Monitor played it up big for the very same reason.

Lest you think that the gun person didn't look all that bad, consider that even Jack Kimball, former GOP Chair and the biggest of all big gun people, could not defend Musso's antics on Channel 9.

Also, I happened to catch Bulldog (107.9 FM), another big gun supporter, on the radio this morning (10 am-ish) and while he had good things to say about those protesting their second amendment rights, he was quick to add (and he was on the scene personally) that Musso deserved the tasing, that he in fact put not one but both hands on a policeman, never a smart thing to do.

I support both your right to carry a gun and your right to free speech...although it certainly gives one pause to think that someone as reckless as Mssr. Musso might have been packing heat.  Talk about a black eye for gun rights proponents.  That eye now has a name, and it's Musso.

Also while I support free speech, Musso proved especially boorish in moving right up to one of the anti gun speakers and attempting to shout him down during the rally.  This isn't free speech but rather something we would have seen on the streets of Wedding, a district of Berlin, Germany where reds and brown shirts faced off on a regular basis in the late 20s and early 30s.

Civilized people don't act as Mssr. Musso did.

Game, set, and match.

On this battle of the papers, score one for the Monitor...in my humble opinion.

Here's the photo from the Monitor web site (concordmonitor.com).

UPDATE: Police confirm man arrested at Concord gun rally was restrained with Taser

The man arrested at yesterday’s gun control rally outside the State House was hit with a Taser, the Concord police confirmed this morning. Daniel Musso, 52, a gun-rights advocate who …

Media Watch--Don't Trust Channel 9 On The Capital Budget

Sure, game six of the NBA championship series went into overtime and ran even later than usual (I'm rooting for San Antonio; actually for anybody but Miami), but that's no excuse for Channel 9, WMUR-TV, to screw up its report on the capital budget.

Sure, it was well after midnight, and most people weren't watching, but call me a night owl; you can't be late enough with the 11 o'clock news for me to miss it...although I certainly miss WBIN's 10 o'clock news.  Just when I was getting used to that excellent report, it was dropped...most likely for monetary reasons.

But here I was around 12:30 a.m.  I wasn't even bleary-eyed (as I say, I'm a night owl), and on came the report about an agreement being reached between House and Senate conferees on the capital budget.  Channel 9 even offered bullet points to go along with the verbal commentary, so even I certainly did not simply mishear the reporter.

The women's prison was agreed upon as part of the capital budget; good, I thought.  Having recently toured the Goffstown facility, I support a new prison for women, and it's a legitimate (albeit expensive at $38 million) capital expense.  Hey, that’s what capital budgets are for, expensive projects, buildings and projects that have long-term implications.

Bullet number two--three new liquor stores were approved; good, I thought.  Liquor stores make money in the long run, so it's a legitimate capital expense.

But then came bullet number three.

A new contract for state employees was agreed to as part of the capital budget, the Channel 9 reporter told us.  Not only that, she said that a raise hasn't been agreed to in five years.

Hold everything, I thought.  Since when do we fund salaries as part of a capital budget?

If that's in the capital budget, count me as one vote against it, I told myself, but quickly thought that even the Hassanite desperate for money would not think of putting such an expense in the capital budget.

Sure, enough, it's not part of the capital budget.

Upon reaching the State House today, I began asking around.  Could it be true that the House and Senate have agreed to fund pay raises as part of the capital budget.

The first few people I asked hadn't heard such a thing; after all, it was very late...so I went directly to the House Democratic and Republican offices.

Both assured me that no such thing had happened.

Channel 9 not merely screwed up last night, but they were running with the same story again this morning...time after time.  I spent most of the night reading the new Churchill biography, from D-Day to Yalta and the deaths of FDR and Dolf in a fast-paced hundred pages, so I fried up a few eggs waiting for the 5 a.m. report to see if Channel 9 still insisted we were funding salaries as part of the capital budget.

Sure enough; the report, including the three bullets, had not changed.

This is the kind of error you might expect from some low-cost public access station, not that I mean to denigrate the great people who do public access.

For Channel 9 to run with the same erroneous story time and again is...well, it's more than one strike against this station which claims to be where New Hampshire turns for news/

Salary raises are being discussed today for either HB1, the budget bill, or HB2, the so-called trailer bill which makes the budget work.

What About That Tasering?--One other thing, on the initial Channel 9 report, I believe I witnessed actual footage of that pro gun heckler being tasered by police on the State House lawn in Concord, but then every other time I saw the story, the tasering was no longer there.  Was I seeing things or did Channel 9 perhaps, just perhaps, decide to sanitize the story and simply refer to the tasering without again running the actual footage which it in fact had shown us earlier?

If so, that would be more than strike two in a single late night report for the station New Hampshire apparently cannot trust with its news.

Yes, that would be the same station that sent its number one State House reporter Josh McElveen to Foxboro to cover the big "news" story of Tim Tebow joining the Patriots and the same station which was so desperate for real news reporters that it used a sportscaster to fill in reading news at 5 a.m. for an entire week.

You just can't this stuff up, but apparently Channel 9 is making stuff up!

Channel 9 is in desperate need of an ombudsperson; it gets worse and worse by the day.

Without WBIN News, I would recommend Channel 7 out of Boston as the best around these days.  If the New Hampshire story is big enough (or silly enough), they'll cover it, and they will be carrying the Bruins tonight...hopefully not until after midnight.

Judge John Lewis Is Exactly Right In Striking Down Education Tax Credit

Cue up my four favorite words in the English language (only kidding).

I

Told

You

So.

No, I'm not talking about the Bruins winning the Stanley Cup.  Sports pessimist that I am, I'm still not sure they'll win two more, but I sure wouldn't bet against them.

Those four words came to mind this morning as I read the headline "NH education tax credit axed."

Duh?

Was there any question that it would be?

Was there ever any doubt, that Republican graybeards and so-called pundits like Charlie Arlinghaus notwithstanding, this tax credit violated no one but two sections of the New Hampshire Constitution?

I

Told

You

So.

There's a certain beauty to those four words, and don't for a minute buy the Arlinghausian logic that the Supreme Court will overturn the ruling because "no education tax credit has ever been struck down by a Supreme Court in any state."

Rather than exhausting himself with case law research, Mssr. Arlinghaus should do one of two things--either read the New Hampshire Constitution (those two sections in particular) or stick to running your fancy numbers.

Judge John Lewis provided plenty of indications that he was about to strike down this unconstitutional law with the tone of his questions during the trial, but court followers have long since come to realize that you can't always tell which way a judge is leaning by the tone of his questions.  (Think back to Chief Justice Roberts in the Obamacare case).

The fact that it took a bit longer than expected for this ruling was somewhat disconcerting.  In fact, as I was thinking Bruins over the weekend, the thought also flashed through my mind that a decision on the tax credit case is overdue.  Don't even try to figure out how things run through my mind. 

I've been reading the new 1100-page biography of Winston Churchill's war years and the thought keeps running through my mind that when considering how Republicans will retake the New Hampshire House in 2014, "the soft underbelly" of the state will likely be Nashua.  But that's a story for another day.

I digress.

Now that Judge Lewis has struck down this clearly unconstitutional law (have you ever heard the four words, "I told you so"?), the pertinent question is will the Senate remove the House-passed repeal bill from the table and pass it or simply let nature take its course.

Only Senators Odell and Stiles cold answer that.

Since I've written detailed analysis of this bill time after time (and year after year), a few quotes from Judge Lewis will suffice here.

I borrow from Union Leader reporter John DiStaso.

"New Hampshire students and their parents certainly have the right to choose a religious education.  However, the government is under no obligation to fun religious education."

I agree completely, but would quickly add what Judge Lewis himself quickly added, "Indeed the government is expressly forbidden from doing so by the very language of the New Hampshire Constitution."

Maybe other state constitutions would allow such a tax credit (Charlie Arlinghaus and graybeards take note), but our Constitution clearly does not.

Democrats understand that.

Judge Lewis understands that.

I (and a few other Republicans) understand that, but the saddest thing is that the very Republicans who brandish the Constitution when it suits their ends are quick to ignore the Constitution when it goes against them.

As I said in my speech on the House floor, the Constitution is not a sword which can be brandished against your enemies.  You can't pick and choose which sections of it you believe should be upheld.

The entire Constitution must be followed.

If you don't like a particular provision (in this case two provisions), the Constitution itself provides the means for change.  It's the amendment process; it's not easy nor should it be, but it's there.

Rather than huffing and puffing like an Arlinghaus, Republicans and conservatives should rediscover fidelity to the constitution.

Again as I said on the House floor, it's not that I love education tax credits less, but that I love the Constitution more (Shakespeare with Marc Antony and Caesar and Rome teed that quote up so it can be borrowed for just about anything). 

It's not that I love writing this blog less but that I love saying "I told you so" more.

Only kidding...about a subject that's deadly serious, fidelity to the supreme law of the land.

Thanks Judge Lewis; you enhance my faith in the judicial process.

By the way, if you’ve got some time on your hands, the Churchill book (part three of “The Last Lion” started by William Manchester and finished by  Paul Reid) is highly readable.  Here’s just one gem of Churchillian witticism, “Buggars (no, that’s not a typo) can’t be choosers.”

Here's the Nashua Telegraph online story on the tax credit including a link to the text of the Lewis ruling; it's 45 pages.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Judge rules portion of ed tax credit program unconstitutional

By DANIELLE CURTIS

Staff Writer

Enlarge

Click here to read Monday's ruling from Stafford County Superior Court Judge John Lewis regarding the constitutionality of the state's education tax credit.

A New Hampshire judge ruled Monday that the state’s education tax credit program could not provide scholarships to students to attend religious schools, calling that portion of the program unconstitutional.

“New Hampshire students, and their parents, certainly have a right to choose a religious education,” wrote Strafford County Superior Court Judge John Lewis in his decision. “However, the government is under no obligation to fund ‘religious’ education.”

Kate Baker, the executive director of the state Network for Educational Opportunities, the organization managing donations for the private school scholarships, said she was disappointed, but not surprised, by the ruling.

“My goal is to increase the options available to parents, and the scholarships are given to parents to enable them to make choices,” Baker said Monday. “I think they should be able to make whatever choice is right for their children.”

The state legislature adopted the tax credit over the veto of then-Democratic Gov. John Lynch last year. The law went into effect in January, allowing up to $3.5 million of tax credits in the first year and $5.1 million in the second.

The credits are provided to businesses that donate to the NEO scholarships, with money going to low-income students to attend private schools, public schools outside their district, or home-school programs.

Baker said NEO already has raised about $250,000 in donations for scholarships and has received about 1,000 applications for the money from local families.

A bill to repeal the tax credits, labeled a voucher program by its critics, was killed in the legislature this spring.

The superior court case was filed in January by three civil liberties groups, claiming the tax credit violates the state constitution by giving public money to religious schools.

Critics and supporters of the program spoke out about the court decision Monday.

Barbara Keshen, staff attorney for the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, said, “We believe that everyone has the right to practice according to his or her own religious beliefs, but taxpayers should not bear the expense of educating school children about religious beliefs that they don’t share.”

“This is a victory for local schools, public education in New Hampshire, as well as Granite State students and their parents,” New Hampshire Democratic Party communications director Harrell Kirstein said in a statement.

Supporters of the tax credit program said the scholarships should be permitted for use at religious schools, saying the scholarships are funded by donations from private companies.

“I am appalled by this decision,” said Ashley Pratte, executive director of Cornerstone Action. “The Education Tax Credit was carefully established to work within New Hampshire law … It is not derived from taxpayer funds and is, in fact, a charitable program working to the benefit of our most vulnerable families in the Granite State.”

But Monday’s decision, while ruling scholarships to religious schools unconstitutional, does not dismantle the tax credit program entirely, allowing scholarships to be used at nonreligious private schools, out-of-district public schools and home-school programs.

In New Hampshire, however, where the majority of nonpublic schools are religious-based, it could severely limit students’ choices, said Attorney Dick Komer, of the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, who represented NEO in the court proceedings.

Komer said he believes Monday’s ruling equates to religious discrimination, a notion that Lewis argued against in his ruling.

“All private schools are attended by private families,” Komer said. “They get to exercise their religious liberty without interference by the state.”

Komer said the decision will be repealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Charlie Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, said Monday that no education tax credit has ever been struck down by a Supreme Court in any state.

In the meantime, Baker said she’ll continue to work to raise money and awareness for the tax credit scholarships.

“I expect that justice will prevail and that families will be able to use the scholarships as they are intended, to increase choice in New Hampshire,” she said. “All of this work has been to eliminate obstacles for families … I do see this ruling as attempting to limit people in making choices.”

Danielle Curtis can be reached at 594-6557 or dcurtis@nashuatelegraph.com. Also, follow Curtis on Twitter (@Telegraph_DC).

Media Falls For Clown Candidacy

We might have expected it from Monitor columnist Ben Leubsdorf, who in a short year has displayed an amazing tendency to throw barrels of ink at non-stories, but who would have thunk it from the insightful dean of New Hampshire reporters, Kevin Landrigan of the Nashua Telegraph?

Careful now...I must attempt to remain faithful to my New Years resolution of not even mentioning ten individuals whom I find so loathsome as to completely ignore them, but this is just too silly to believe.

Both Landrigan and Leubsdorf have been taken in by the person who tops the loathsome list, a Representative whose clown status is so high that not merely does he top the list of my ten worst, but when Republican leader Gene Chandler actually seated me next to him, I immediately asked for (and received) a seat change.

When a fitting tribute was made to the late great Warren Rudman, this clown Rep actually embarrassed himself and the House as an institution by standing to vote against the remarks being printed in the House Journal!

That's just the tip of a very big iceberg of clownlike antics!

Whew!  No names for sure!

That should honor my resolution and at the same time make it clear that the media has gone bonkers in deciding to focus on this most dishonorable Representative as a potential candidate for governor.

Hey Kevin, hey Ben...what does it take to run for governor?

No, it doesn't require popularity or any type of appeal.

A hundred dollars and seven years of New Hampshire residency is enough. 

If you've lived here seven years and you're willing to part with a hundred bucks, you too can run for governor.

Even if you haven't lived here seven years, you could try to run.  It wouldn't be the first time; remember how another clown, Fergus Cullen, illegally tried to run for a state senate seat without meeting the residency requirement.  Does the Litchfield clown even meet the seven year qualification?  Maybe Ben and Kevin ought to check that out.  Yes, the clown has been a Rep for three years, but the qualifications are more stringent to run for governor.

Double, whew, I've made it nearly to the end of this piece without naming names.

Regular readers here know well that I believe Democratic spinmeister Harrell The Humorless Hack Kirstein ranks right up there with Cullen as those most quoted with the least to say, but the Humorless Hack has hit pay dirt this time with his assertion that the potential candidate touted by Kevin and Ben "would fit better in a circus ten than he would in New Hampshire's corner office."

Score one for the Humorous Hack.

By the way, lest you think the media is obligated to waste ink on anyone who decides to run for governor, ask the very thoughtful Tim Robertson, D-Keene.  I'd put Manchester's Frank Sullivan in the same category, but alas after his unnoticed run for governor, he moved on to that great amphitheater in the sky.

To paraphrase some song which is stuck in my head...clowns to the left of me; clowns to the right; here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

Hey, how’s that for skating around yet maintain the Top Ten List resolution?

This Week's Trivia--No Republicans Need Apply

In an attempt to ascertain how next year's United States Senate races are shaping up, I visited University of Virginia guru Larry Sabato and discovered one fantastic trivia question.  It's so good, I never would have thought of it, and if anyone can prove it wrong, be my guest.  Until then, we'll take Sabato at his word that since women were granted the right to vote, about a century ago, one certain Senate seat, in a state which one would normally think of as rather Republican, has always been held by a Democrat.  White Republicans have held the other Senate seat in this state, only Democrats have held the one in question.

Which highly Republican state would that be, a state in which Democrats have ruled as far as this Senate seat is concerned?

Hint--The incumbent Democrat is not running again in 2014, but that could actually be good news for Republicans.  The 36-year and rather powerful Democrat was expected to face a tough race had he chosen to run.  A former Democratic governor is actually given a better chance to hold the seat.

Would that state be?

A--North Dakota

B--South Dakota

C--Idaho

D--Montana, or

E--Wyoming

The incumbent Democrat is chair of Senate Finance, Max Baucus.  The former governor is Brian Schweitzer.  The state is Montana, not a state one would think of when imagining a hundred years of Democratic control.

Thanks Larry Sabato.

By the way, most pundits think Republicans will automatically pick up two seats, West Virginia and South Dakota (Democrats can't even find legitimate candidates to replace retiring Senators Rockefeller and Johnson).  Democrats will also be hard pressed to hold Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana, maybe even North Carolina as well as Montana, so it's conceivable that Republicans could pick up six seats to grab control of the Senate.  None of the Republican-held seats are in play; Saxby Chambliss is retiring in Georgia, but no one expects a Democrat to win there.  I would have though the Minnesota funny man would be in trouble, but apparently Democrat Franken is safer than many other Dems!  Go figure.