Balanced News? Don't Ask Me

Preface
This started out to be a post on Congress and ineptitude. Then it was about Congress taking over too much power. Then I wanted to write about both parties in Congress saying no to the Exec. Branch. (Rants)
But the more I researched an article I'd read the more I saw another post all together. Then even that changed to what you find below.
Sorry, this is a very long post but I don't want to shorten it. I thought about making it two posts but I don't want to interrupt the flow. I am not really sure how to break it up either. Consequently, the post is extremely long and time consuming. Just what a post should not be. Time is a valuable commodity these days.


Even when you try to get truly balanced news, you end up in a conundrum. (More Circles of Confusion) How does one tell which coverage is balanced? Don't ask me. I don't know. I am actually asking you.

Let's agree for purposes of this post that over-the-air TV and the 24-hour, cable or satellite, coverage is generally short and sweet. But they may give you enough information to seek out more in other news venues. The morning talk shows, the cable, satellite, “news” shows, will sometimes give another little piece of information whether right, center, or left. Now you are on your own. So you read papers or you go on-line and you take a time to check a little more for yourself. Yet, how do you know which article or writing is even trying to be balanced? You may find as I did you'll end up reading an article, trying to find more by and about the author of the article, trying to figure out who his/her real boss is, trying to find out for what the boss really stands(mission statements, other outlets, etc.). Too there are the weekly news magazines and “news” shows but I don't think you want me to get into that.

You could well spend a day or more doing all that investigation and determine you cannot find one person, place or thing that does not have an agenda, thereby a slant when covering the same news item. Of course I remember about psychological testing having, can't help but have, some subjective bias. With the use of statistics, use of large samples, and use of tests that can be replicated, the bias is lessened. However in reporting, writing, and editing, I figure there is bias-No matter how hard the people involved try to give balanced reporting. The reasons are many and the bias not always intended. The reader too comes to each article with a certain bias.

Now on with my search on a story about the Senate passing a bill on Iran Sanctions. The House had passed their version earlier. The two bills must be reconciled in the House-Senate Conference before going to the President.

While reading the NY Times on-line the other day, I saw this coverage: Senate OK's Sanctions on Iran's Fuel Suppliers. link Here is the first paragraph to get you started:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate on Thursday approved legislation that would let President Barack Obama impose sanctions on Iran's gasoline suppliers and penalize some of Teheran's elites, a move aimed at pressuring Tehran to give up its nuclear program.
(Note the use of the words “let President Barack Obama...”)
Please read the article further. At least read the other restrictions section near the end of the article.

I will give you one restriction as it pertains to some of the other articles I found:
Require the Obama administration to freeze the assets of Iranians, including Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, who are active in weapons proliferation or terrorism;
(Note the use of the words “Require the Obama administration...)

Remember these two quotations were found in the same news item.

Now look at this one from Baptist Press: Senate OKs tougher sanctions on Iran.
Here is the first paragraph:
The U.S. Senate approved increased sanctions on Iran's oil-related imports Jan 28 in a move intended to help prevent the extremist Islamic regime from developing nuclear weapons.

Further into the article :
The Senate's action came two days after Land and 45 other Christian leaders wrote to members of the body asking them to follow the example of the House.
(Land is Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. For further on the letter and those 45 others go here

From an articleYESHIVA WORLD NEWS: Schumer Announces Passage of Iran Sanction Legislation that Strengthens Efforts To Stop Iran From Getting Nukes
first paragraph:
Today, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer announced that the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009 has unanimously passed the Senate. The Iranian regime has engaged in serious human rights abuses against its own citizens, funded terrorist activity throughout the Middle East, pursued illicit nuclear activities posing a serious threat to the security of the United States, the Middle East Region, and our allies. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act strengthens sanctions and supports the President as he pursues a dual track of engagements and sanctions. Schumer, in his role as a Banking Committee member, was instrumental in seeing the bill come to the floor for a vote. The House passed a much narrower sanctions package in December while the two bills now have to be conferenced, Schumer is vowing to fight to ensure the stronger Senate Language prevails.
(Note these words “strengthens sanctions and supports the President...”)

The article mentions a Sense of Congress on human rights and the like.

Turns out Sen. Schumer signs letters to the President also.
Two weeks ago, Schumer signed onto a letter from Senator Even Bayh urging President Obama to consider using sanctions on the books. (I think they meant to consider using the sanctions he had at hand)

You can read the whole letter at the end of the article.


Catholic press 
A very short one paragraph coverage by one of the Catholic press. Mainly it refers to Catholic leaders Bill Hudson and Bill Donahue, members of the above mentioned Christian Leaders for a Nuclear-Free Iran, and they supported and will continue to work for a nuclear free Iran. They do get two links to articles they wrote on the subject.

At this point I looked for world-view items. HereAl Jazeera English had an older article.
First Paragraph:
The US lower house of congress has approved legislation to levy sanctions on foreign companies that help supply fuel to Iran, as part of efforts to punish Tehran over its nuclear programme.

Further on there are interviews with Congresspeople about the bill. Issues are raised about the “concerns” of “U.S. Trading partners and allies...” And an interview with “Afshin Rattansi, a journalist based in Iran, told Al Jazeera: "I think what is happening in the House of Representatives demonstrates yet again a complete lack of comprehension of what is happening in the Middle East.”

There are more interviews with “supporters” and more reporting on the world views as well as a little of the Iranian views of its “nuclear programme”. The article ends by naming some of the companies involved and how they are reacting.

IPS, Inter Press Service News Agency,-The Story Underneath, had a lengthy article.
US: Obama Losing Control of Iran Policy
Here is the opening paragraph:
In a surprisingly swift move on Thursday night that could have wide-ranging implications, the U.S. Senate passed a bill containing broad unilateral sanctions to punish foreign companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its domestic refiner capabilities.

These paragraphs relate back to the words “let” and “require” as mentioned in the NY Times article:
The contents of the bill require the president to impose the wide-ranging sanctions, restraining the traditional presidential foreign policy waiver to a line-by-line exemption that forces Obama to spend political capital. ... Another aspect of the Dodd bill raising eyebrows is the codification into law of an embargo against Iran by Pres. Bill Clinton in the 1990's. The Dodd bill requires Congress to approve the lifting of the embargo.

This writer, reporter, goes into more on the “human rights” debates. (I recommend you hunt that part.)
The article has much explanation of the maneuvering and has quotations from both Democratic and Republican Senators along with “neoconservative independent Joe Lieberman”. There are interviews with a member of the National Iranian American Council and other groups that support engagement with Iran.

So there you have it 6 articles from 6 different news agencies. Now you tell me which one we should declare as “fair and balanced”. (speaking of “fair and balanced”, I couldn't find much on the Senate passage subject on FOX news I found the AP item and so far 3 anti-Obama comments. If you find more feel free to comment.) I did not search the British news for this post. I am sure it would be interesting, but I really do have a little daily life.



(For a fun look at reporting from the BBC go to sobeale blog and watch the video posted on January 31.)

Hereis a serious look at the state of journalism.

The Supreme Court Revisits Corporations as Persons

JUST SEE HOW THE COURT WAS IMPORTANT  BUT MAYBE NOT NOW.  Sept 3 2025 edit for fb post.  Thanks to Copilot for finding a way.

The Supreme Court will be hearing a very important case the 9th this month. They are going to revisit an old case. Why? Because The Right wants them to do so? No, because Roberts and Scalia want to do so.

At issue is whether the court should overrule a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates. Re-arguments in the Supreme Court are rare, and the justices’ decision to call for one here may have been prompted by lingering questions about just how far campaign finance laws, including McCain-Feingold, may go in regulating campaign spending by corporations.

Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary by Adam Liptak, August 29, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com

The words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/1.html ).

I found this on wikipedia.org, in a case from 1886 Santa Clara County V Southern Pacific Railroad Company corporations Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

Now I know that there is a term "Legal Person" supposedly different than "natural person". But, I believe we have seen the lines blurring. I feel corporations, the boards, will keep attempting to blur those lines as it suits them to do so for personal gain,and personal political agendas, whether for profit or because they know they are more capable than the peon classes. Such as Insurance companies deciding what care you should receive, when you should receive it, and where you should receive it. (Oh but isn't that what the claim is against government run health care?)
Basically remember the first amendment is the free speech, religion, press, petition the government, and assembly amendment. The fifth amendment is, among other things, due process, double jeopardy, and compensation for properties seized for the public good.
According to other sources I read in the last few days, before this case The John Marshall Court had previously declared a corporation was a person. Since the Court likes to use precedent, when it suits a particular Court, maybe this is one precedent that needs revisited or thrown out. I believe it was really to do with business across state lines as well as state charters and taxation.
There are arguments that state the Court did not actually say the part about corporations being “persons” that the Court reporter actually inserted in a head note the part about corporations are persons therefore equal under the law to persons.
Since then Corporations have often sought their “persons” rights in various cases. http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person.htm The attempts result from some financial, profit, motive. In the case of a licensing issue in VA. And a N.Y. Insurance company, Paul vs. VA, the State Supreme Court basically said Insurance did not fall Interstate Commerce so often used by Congress to legislate. I believe that lasted until 1944. Insurance companies prefer to be under federal regs that lets them sell from and in state to state without meeting the state requirements imposed. How interesting is that? One moment corporate America is yelling about too much Federal regulation yet, when it suits them they want to be under Federal regulation. States rights or no states rights which shall it be? Strong, “invasive” Federal Government or States Rights?
Now I wonder when a corporation will also get the “right to keep and bare arms” as in the second Amendment. How would that play out? As individuals already have the “right to carry” would the corporation now buy the weapons. How will they apply for permits? Who will be the one checked? Or will all of the Corporation and its stockholders and employees have to apply? What if an employee would not normally get a permit? I wonder too why a corporation as a person cannot have its own religion and therefore a tax-exempt status. By the way did you know that some corporations and universities now own patents to some of your genes. Yep they really do.

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/usc_sec_35_00000101----000-.html
Title 35 section 101.
Will we change the way corporations are taxed? As a person shouldn't they be taxed as individuals as well as a separate person. Believe it or not there are discussions about the very taxation problems.

Arguments for and Against Corporations as Persons
According to proponents, in a capitalistic society the government is not a regulator of corporations but has a duty to protect the rights of corporations. They may also argue that forming a corporation is an inalienable right. On the one hand the corporation is made up of individuals with the rights of the individuals. (Opponents argue that the corporation gets rights of an individual and the individual has rights thus now the individuals involved are no longer individuals but get the rights of two people.) On the other hand it is argued that the investors are only liable to the extent of their investment. That the stockholders should not be held responsible for decisions they do not make but that are made for them by the boards, CEO, managers, and employees. That is awfully close to saying the voters should not be held responsible for the decisions made for them by their elected officials. If that were true, the voter should pay no more than the initial investment. The voters are held responsible for paying the bills and paying for the wars decided for them in an ongoing fashion. The soldier is certainly held responsible by the use of his or her very life. Now I begin to see how some could use these arguments as a way to avoid paying taxes.
Other proponents of corporations as “legal persons” do say that the corporation is only entitled to parts of the 1st and 5th amendments. They only mention the right to speak on Commercial Matters, the right to privacy of trade secrets and internal corporate decisions, the right to be paid for government confiscated properties, and the right to do business without undue regulation. Who decides? Judges and lawyers. Let us hope they are fair and uninfluenced. If that is true then why the revisit to a case from the 90's.
Other proponents of corporations and their place in a capitalistic society believe that in regulations come stagnation. That regulation is the block to creativity and drive in the business sector. Yet I am sure of stories of large corporations buying small businesses that would offer competition only to keep the new ideas from seeing further light of day. I give you the purchase and dismantling of public transportation systems by a certain auto-manufacturer by any means. http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm Now many urban areas are struggling to come up with the funding and the votes to build systems that is pretty much an expanded versions of the same system again. I think corporations themselves often times stifle creativity and drive.
When speaking or writing against corporations as “persons” one is reminded that a corporation is given infinite life, reside in more than one country, and though officers may, corporations cannot go to jail. Also it is argued that corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution. Some corporations use their rights to deny rights to others. (Insurance companies?)
So much to learn so much to take in and understand. I believe I will put these issues on my “keep researching” list for future reference. I have a feeling by the time I begin to get the full scope, pros and cons, everything or nothing will change. Depending on what corporations want. Sorry, I really feel our capitalistic society has gone a little far.
If you know of some great or not so great information on campaign reform or corporations as persons let us all in on it. Though I doubt anything will be done especially under the Robert's Court.
And this my friends is why I voted for a Democrat-The Supreme Court. We are stuck with Bush appointees for years, Chief Justice Roberts is only 54. Justices stay pretty much for life but hopefully keeping a few not-so-liberal-liberals on the court will help. Sotamayor, to me, is another of Obama's pragmatisms. If this President gets to appoint another Justice, I hope he puts a “lefty” up but then he has been warned by the Right that he will not get far with that. The Right will control whether they are in the majority or the minority.