Within hours of the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, dozens of news networks were reporting erroneous information, but why? What can be done to minimize inaccurate reports following breaking news? And, with Susan Rice bowing out of the running for Secretary of State, who will succeed Hillary Clinton? Plus, what do you really need to know about the fiscal cliff? All that and more in today's AirTalk.
How should the media cover horrific news events like the Connecticut shooting?
In the days since the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that took the lives of 20 children and 6 adults, media outlets have given the story nearly wall-to-wall coverage. However, not all media coverage is created equal. Early on, there were mistakes in the reports which misidentified the shooter and incorrectly painted his mother as a teacher at the elementary school. This is not uncharacteristic of early coverage in the wake of a story of this magnitude.
The media made mistakes beyond just factual information, there were also issues taken with matters of taste. For instance, even KPCC itself was suspect. While some listeners praised the station’s reporting for its passion and sensitivity, it was also harshly criticized by some who felt carrying the CNN feed of children being interviewed constituted a “pornography of suffering.” When it comes to stories like this, some people believe they shouldn’t be covered at all, as all they do is glorify the killers. But other swaths of the public want and need to know what happened for their own peace of mind.
So how should the media best deal with this? What would you like to see more or less of in your news coverage? What crosses the line? What doesn’t go far enough?
Guests:
Craig Curtis, program director and managing editor of news programs, KPCC
David Folkenflik, NPR's media correspondent based in New York City
With Rice bowing out of the running for Secretary of State, who will succeed Clinton?
With Rice bowing out of the running for Secretary of State, who will succeed Clinton? Last week, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice officially withdrew her name from consideration for Secretary of State. Once her name began to be floated, Republicans in Congress threw up strong opposition, questioning her leadership skills in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in Libya. In her withdrawal letter to the President, Rice said she had become “convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly,” and an unwelcome national distraction.
Massachusetts Senator and former Presidential candidate John Kerry has long been considered a frontrunner to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and would likely meet with GOP approval. He’d have big shoes to fill - the list of illustrious past holders of the title goes back to John Jay, and includes Henry Kissinger, William Jennings Bryan, Madeleine Albright and Thomas Jefferson.
The position of Secretary of State requires expertise in international affairs, experience with diplomacy and an effective working relationship with the Commander-in-Chief; many agree that Clinton has done an admirable job during challenging times.
Who should be nominated to the post for President Obama’s next term? How will he or she shape foreign policy going forward? How will the U.S. navigate this period of Middle Eastern conflict, European economic woes and threats from North Korea? What qualities make a great Secretary of State?
Guest:
Edward Mihalkanin, Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas State University, author of “American Statesmen: Secretaries of State from John Jay to Colin Powell,” (2004, Greenwood)
Shared housing at risk in Los Angeles County
Last week, the Los Angeles Public Safety Committee unanimously passed the Community Care Facilities Ordinance. The proposal, put forth by L.A. City Councilman Mitch Englander (District 12, San Fernando Valley) would severely limit or outright eliminate shared housing in certain areas of Los Angeles. The main focus is on neighborhoods with single-family homes, which are mostly found in suburban areas, many of which are found in Englander’s San Fernando Valley district.
The new law would change the city’s definition of “boarding house” to include any homes with three or more leases, requiring them to obtain a license, and it would force more oversight on licensed group homes housing seven or more people. Many community groups and neighborhood authorities applaud Englander’s measure, as these types of living situations often bring along headaches for the neighbors. But critics feel that the proposal disenfranchises former inmates, those with disabilities, the impoverished and people seeking drug rehabilitation, all of which are groups that live in these shared houses because it’s the best they can do given their financial situation. Opponents also cite how Englander is targeting L.A. suburbs in the Valley, but would still allow for these homes in Downtown, South and East Los Angeles, all of which have less single-family homes.
Critics are crying foul, saying that this is classic NIMBY-ism. Furthermore, they have accused Englander of exploiting the recent Northridge shootings which were committed by a former felon who lived in one such boarding house. This proposal has been tabled for five years, but opponents are convinced that Englander is simply stoking fear to get it back on the books. It faces a full council vote in January.
Where do you stand on this issue? Has your community been negatively affected by these types of living conditions? Do you live in shared housing? Who are the major players on both sides?
Guests:
Adam Murray, Executive Director of the Inner City Law Center, the only provider of legal services on Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles, ICLC combats slum housing while developing strategies to end homelessness.
David Reid, Hollywood resident living next to a shared living house with 18 people, and member of Melrose Action, an informal neighborhood authority
How will falling off the ‘fiscal cliff’ impact average Americans?
As Americans prepare to put 2012 behind them and ring in the new year, one big, dark, looming, uncertainty still remains on the horizon… the fiscal cliff. Earlier today, House Speaker John Boehner’s recommendation for a fallback plan to avoid the cliff was rejected by the White House.
In recent months, there has been more frequent speculation, punditry, and dooming predictions about what could happen if Republicans and Democrats in Washington D.C. are unable to agree on how to avoiding the fiscal cliff before January 1. But what exactly is the fiscal cliff and what would falling off of it mean for average Americans?
Simply put, the fiscal cliff is a series of tax increases and government spending cuts set to automatically take place in January, in the event that no other fiscal policy is enacted before that time. If this happens, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Institute, tax rates would increase by an average of 4 percent or $3,346 (depending on the tax bracket); at least tens of thousands of American jobs would be lost; and the average paycheck would be lowered by about $50 per month due to the expiration of Social Security and Medicare tax reductions.
Jobs that are primarily paid for by federal revenue would be most at risk for elimination, including 7,240 Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security officer jobs, 2,200 air-traffic controller jobs, and 6,800 Border Patrol jobs among others, according to Representative Norm Dicks (D-Wash), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. Estimations of how the Aerospace industry would be impacted by defense spending cuts vary, but as many as 500,000 jobs in that sector could be cut, many of which are based in Florida.
Are Congress and the White House overlooking how the fiscal cliff will impact the average citizen? How would the U.S. economy be able to persevere if it does fall off of the fiscal cliff?
Guests:
Doyle McManus, Washington Columnist, covering national and international politics, Los Angeles Times
Matt DeBord, KPCC Reporter; writes the DeBord Report KPCC.org
Does yoga have a place in public schools?
Is teaching yoga in public schools a violation of the separation of church and state? The Encinitas Union School District is launching what is believed to be the country’s largest public school yoga program, but the district already faces the threat of a lawsuit.
Parents opposed to the yoga program say they believe their children could be indoctrinated into eastern religion, and that yoga is not just a regular P.E. exercise. The yoga program began in several Encinitas schools in September, and will reach the rest of the district in January.
Full-time yoga instructors will teach 30-minute classes to about 5,000 students – the size of the Encinitas program is revolutionary – other public school yoga programs are limited to after school classes or are unique to individual schools and classes.
Those who support the yoga curriculum argue that yoga is a great way to increase strength and flexibility, and that it can help with stress and focus. Even though instructors have omitted any references to eastern religions, some parents still say that the yoga classes are “inherently spiritual,” and go against their religious beliefs.
Is yoga a religious practice? Where is the line between spirituality and religion? Is a curriculum centered on spiritual meditation appropriate in public schools?
Guests:
Wehtahnah Tucker, lawyer and EncinitasPatch freelance reporter who was in the school board meeting on December 4th
Russell Case, director, Jois Foundation, Encinitas, a nonprofit that is funding the grant for the school district’s program
Dean Broyles, president and chief counsel of the National Center for Law and Policy, which handles constitutional law cases regarding free speech, religious freedom and parental rights. He’s the attorney for the parents’ group opposing the Encinitas yoga program
UPDATED: Does Instagram plan to sell your photos for ads?
UPDATE: In response to public concents, Instagram has released a statement clearing up confusion about their new policy. Read the statement here.
On January 16th, the social media photo-sharing site Instagram could get a lot less fun. Instagram has long been successful amongst users (there are over 30 million accounts and 1 billion photographs have been uploaded thus far), due to its ability to capture, enhance and share images on the Internet.
Through the use of an app, a smartphone’s camera and Instagram’s many different image filters, users have been able to take photos that are as aesthetically pleasing as those taken with expensive, professional cameras. But a recent announcement made by the company could cause people not to be so fast with the shutter finger. On January 16th, 2013, Instragram’s parent company, Facebook, will legally be allowed to license all public Instagram photos to companies and other organizations. That’s right, Facebook will be able to sell your photos to companies, which in turn can use them for marketing and advertising purposes, without providing you with any monetary compensation.
In practice, this simply turns Instagram into the world’s largest compilation of stock photographs. But wait, the people in the images may not want to be considered stock, and the users which took the pictures probably feel some sort of ownership over the content and don’t want them being sold without their permission and without getting anything out of it. For now, it looks like if you don’t like Instagram’s policy, you need to disable your account, as there is no opt-out option. As one might expect, users are not happy.
How is the company responding to the intense public criticism of its new rules and regulations? Are you fine with your images being used without your permission? Is that simply the new normal given today’s technological landscape? How awkward is it going to be when a company uses one of your Instagram photos to advertise to you on Facebook?
Guest:
Declan McCullagh, Chief Political Correspondent for CNET - tech news website