projo – RI Future

September 13, 2016October 4, 2016

ProJo 6/10 editorial wrong on basic facts

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Providence Journal editorial board posted a piece praising Governor Gina Raimondo for her decision to ignore the public process and the recommendations of national and local experts to fast-track the reconstruction of the 6/10 Connector.

The Projo is, as a journalistic entity, free to make whatever statements it wants on any issue. The problem with the Projo’s editorial is that it is wrong on basic facts that all parties agree to. Quoth the Projo:

Gov. Gina Raimondo, thus, did the right thing by responding boldly to new evidence that bridges along that stretch are in perilous condition, putting the public’s safety at risk. She announced Wednesday that the state must repair these crumbling structures as quickly as possible.

In doing so, she had to pull the plug on an extravagant $595-million state Department of Transportation plan to cap the highway and knit back together neighborhoods that have been disconnected for decades with a new surface boulevard. That plan would have taken longer and cost more than simply fixing the bridges.

Three plans have been considered during the 6/10 Connector public process: rebuilding the highway as-is, rebuilding the highway with a cap over it at certain crossings, and a surface boulevard. The “rebuild with a cap” option, though better described as a highway plan, has been labeled by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) as a “highway-boulevard hybrid.” Hence the confusion.

Everyone agrees that the surface boulevard would be the cheapest option of the three. That option, as outlined by community group Fix the 6/10, would cut down the amount of infrastructure spending needed to complete the project, while restoring the grid to drivers:

Rebuilding a highway in the 6/10 corridor, especially if it involves a cap, will cost at least $600 million, hundreds of millions more than a surface alternative. A surface option will cost taxpayers much less, making resources available for other projects throughout the state. Further, the ongoing maintenance costs of the highway option will burden our children with billions of dollars of maintenance and replacement costs. A surface road option will also unlock dozens of taxable acres for development, improving the region’s fiscal health.

In a Cranston public forum on the 6/10 Connector, Eco RI news documented that RIDOT officials intentionally spun the capped highway option as best, holding information that would favor the surface boulevard close to their chest unless specifically grilled on it:

RIDOT officials routinely downplayed instances where the boulevard option compared favorably to the capped-highway idea. At the meeting in Olneyville, it wasn’t until ecoRI News asked about the relative costs of the options — more than an hour into the meeting — that RIDOT revealed the boulevard option would cost taxpayers less. The difference remains undetermined, as RIDOT hasn’t calculated the cost of the boulevard option.

If the Projo had made such an error in a news article, it would be a problem. But for an editorial whose thesis is that the governor is making the tough decisions needed to save money, mistaking two of the three options on the table for one another, and then getting the costs of the options wrong calls for a full retraction.

~~~~

August 11, 2016August 26, 2016

Attorney Sinapi denies conflict of interest

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

About a half hour before Tuesday evening’s Harrisville Fire District and Water Board meeting started, attorney Richard Sinapi was engaged in semi-private conversation with board chair Ronald Slocum and vice chair James Scotland Sr inside the meeting place. Sinapi was apparently selling Invenergy’s idea to open a new well in Harrisville to cool its power plant to the commissioners, essentially telling them that Harrisville would lose out on $10 million if they did not accept the deal.

I arrived at the meeting site about a half hour early. Outside was Burrillville resident Robert Woods. Woods is a recently appointed member of the Burrillville Planning Board. An outspoken critic of Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant, he recently recused himself from planning board business concerning Invenergy out of “an abundance of caution.”

Woods told me he could see inside the building, where Harrisville attorney Richard Sinapi was talking to the chair and vice chair of the Harrisville Water Board. The door to the offices were locked but after knocking, Woods and I were let in. Attorney Sinapi, as seen in the video, was engaged in conversation with two members of the board.

“I don’t know what plan C is, it’s very secret,” said Sinapi, “All I know is that it’s a lot more expensive than the ten million dollars… So… It’s ten million dollars.”

“Gentlemen,” said Robert Woods, “it seems like this is a little out of order, no? The meeting hasn’t started…”

“I’m the attorney, the meeting hasn’t started,” said Sinapi, “and there’s no quorum.”

“I realize that but you shouldn’t…” began Woods, before Sinapi wheeled around on him.

“There’s no quorum, and the meeting hasn’t started yet,” snapped Sinapi, “and I’m the attorney.”

“I realize you’re the attorney,” said Woods, “you’re talking about that to members of the board, I don’t know, I’m not an attorney but it just seems a little out of order to me, that’s all.”

“You’re entitled to your opinion,” said Sinapi.

“That’s why I’m voicing it,” said Woods.

Fifteen minutes later, and about ten minutes before the start of the meeting, Sinapi took another commissioner into an office, where he could be seen speaking privately. What they were talking about is not known.

The laws governing open meetings are complex, but on the face of things, Sinapi seems to be correct. His advocacy on behalf of Invenergy’s proposal does not seem to have violated the Open Meetings Act. Certainly there was no quorum, but if Sinapi was having this conversation with multiple commissioners in small groups over time, it might constitute what is called a “rolling quorum.” But of course, I’m no lawyer.

There are, however, other considerations at play. Many Burrillville residents have told me that they feel that Sinapi should have recused himself, since he is not only the lawyer for Harrisville, he is also the lawyer for the New England Mechanical Contractors Association. In that capacity Sinapi has apparently advocated for Invenergy’s power plant at the State House.

In his capacity as Harrisville’s lawyer, should Sinapi have been advocating for Invenergy’s proposal to the water board? Sinapi says that there is no conflict of interest. I spoke to Sinapi by phone. He maintains that in his capacity speaking for the Mechanical Contractors Association at the State House, he was working to “defeat a bad bill that would be bad for business, not to support or oppose the power plant.”

In his capacity as attorney for Harrisville, Sinapi says his job is to protect the Harrisville water supply and the financial integrity of the water board. If “Invenergy brings water into town, through a pipeline,” said Sinapi, “it could render the Harrisville supply redundant. We provide half the water to Pascoag.”

While he had me on the phone, Sinapi wanted to correct me on two points. I listed the Harrisville Water Board vote against Invenergy’s proposal as 5-1 (and the ProJo reported it as 6-1) but Sinapi claims the vote was 5-2 in favor of turning Invenergy’s offer down.

Sinapi’s other objection to my piece was my contention that a lawyer for the Harrisville Water Board “should have known” more about MTBE than his testimony at the State House seemed to indicate. According to Sinapi, water containing up to 40 parts per million MTBE is acceptable for drinking. In Connecticut, up to 70 parts per million is acceptable. Though MTBE is dangerous, said Sinapi, “it’s not like Benzene or something.”

June 28, 2016June 28, 2016

ProJo news story corrects Projo op/ed misinformation

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

How misleading are Providence Journal editorials on public education and specifically charter schools? The news department ran a front page story this morning overtly correcting misinformation found in its editorials.

This from the second paragraph of the story ‘Bill would not end expansion’ on page A1 this morning (web version):

And this is from the ProJo Editorial Board on June 18:

BVP was also used as an example in a June 9 editorial by the Providence Journal. A June 26 letter to the editor from former WPRO radio host Steve Kass, who also worked for Republican Don Carcieri, lauded and parroted the editorial’s focus on BVP.

The ProJo editorial board has a long history of using – and misusing – Blackstone Valley Prep to represent all charter schools in Rhode Island. Many Rhode Islanders, even some charter school supporters, think the Journal editorial writers are purposely deceiving their readers in an attempt to improve public perception of charter schools.

In the same editorial, the Providence Journal writes, “What sin did the academy commit, in the eyes of the legislature, that necessitated its loss of funds? It is not unionized. And it tried to focus its spending on serving the students rather than providing costly benefits to adults.”

Even the most ardent charter school supporters know there are more valid reasons than this to better regulate charter school expansion. Objectively, charter schools divert critical funding from the vast majority of public school students. The ProJo editorial board never mentions this more salient point. The all-white, conservative-leaning editorial board only seems to care about inner city students when charter schools are involved – and charters serve only 5 percent of overall public school students.

But don’t confuse that with a hyper focus on charter schools. The ProJo editorial board has had nothing to say on a recent scandal at BVP involving teachers sending disparaging emails about students. But when a teachers’ union official was found innocent of cyber-harassing a state legislator, the op-ed board still called for the official to be fired.

If the editorial board is banking on the fact that most readers don’t pay close enough attention to see the nuance behind its obstructive and often misleading editorials, it is committing a gross miscarriage of journalism. Thankfully, the news department seems to be fighting back.

June 14, 2016

CLF: Invenergy lied to public at EFSB hearing in Burrillville

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

John Niland, director of development for Invenergy, knowingly mislead both the public and the EFSB, the board tasked with deciding the fate of the Burrillville power plant proposal, at a public hearing on the matter, according to the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) today filed two expert witness testimonies with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that reveals Invenergy representatives knowingly presented false facts and figures at a public Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) hearing in Burrillville attended by 700 people.

The CLF testimony also provides further evidence that the electricity produced by a proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel burning power plant in Burrillville is not needed in New England.

Invenergy’s estimates of consumer savings from the proposed plant are grossly inflated and inaccurate, says the CLF. Invenergy claims the power plant will save between $118 to $120 million for ratepayers. The actual number, according to CLF’s witnesses, is between 0 and $36 million.

Christopher Stix, first witness

The first testimony is from Christopher Stix, a volunteer financial analyst for the CLF providing financial and market analysis for CLF’s energy initiatives, specifically in the area of power plant licensing and electric and gas transmission. The testimony is lengthy and technical (and can be downloaded at the link above) but the actual conclusions of the testimony are fairly easy to present.

False Facts

Stix claims in his testimony that Invenergy knowingly presented false information at the March 31, 2016 EFSB hearing at the Burrillville High School.

“…on March 31, in front of 700 people, Invenergy presented in two different ways… information that Invenergy knew, at the time, was false. First, the words “$280 million in Savings” appear in big, green letters on Slide 12 of Invenergy’s presentation… Second, the false information was emphasized by Invenergy’s John Niland, who said, “Talking about ratepayer savings, the analysis we’ve done looks at what happens to the cost of power to the region when you put in a plant like this. – – [T]hat’s really what the $280 million number represents.” [EFSB March 31, 2016 Hearing Transcript. page 16, lines 8-11; 15-17.)

“…eventually Invenergy backed off its wrong assertion of $180 – $120 million in capacity savings in just FCA-10. In Ryan Hardy’s April 22 testimony, page 13, lines 20-21, Invenergy touts ‘Capacity cost savings to Rhode Island ratepayers . . . to be $170 million from 2019 to 2022, or $42 million annually on average.’ It is important to note here that in his testimony, Mr. Hardy gives no specific figure at all for projected capacity savings from just FCA-10. Instead, he sticks with a vague average over a period of several years.

“Mr. Hardy does not acknowledge in his April 22 testimony that his figure had changed radically from his sworn testimony before the EFSB on January 12, 2016, when he stated under oath that ‘the savings from capacity costs alone is nearly 212 million…’” [January 12, 2016 Transcript. page 164, lines 6-14; and Slide 24.]

“Third, and importantly, nothing changed between March 31, when Invenergy publicly presented figures that were grossly wrong, and April 22, when Invenergy presented very different figures. The relevant FCA had occurred on February 8. Invenergy acquired no new information between March 31 and April 22. Thus, there was absolutely no reason for Invenergy to have presented inaccurate information to the EFSB and Burrillville residents on March 31.”

Power plant not needed

Early on, Stix was asked if the New England electricity grid needs the proposed Invenergy plant.

Stix replied, “neither the New England electricity grid, nor the ISO, needs Invenergy in order to keep the grid reliable. Overall, in FCA-lO, the ISO procured fully 1,416 MW more than its ICR. Even if you subtract all 485 MW of the CSO acquired by Invenergy, the ISO would have still over-procured 931MW. And, here in the SENE zone, the ISO procured 1,321 MW more than its LSR Again, even if you subtract all 485 MW of the CSO acquired by Invenergy, the ISO would still have over-procured 836 MW in the zone The result of FCA-10 shows that the generation capacity that the Invenergy plant would bring to the electricity grid is not needed in Rhode Island, and is not needed in New England.”

Inaccurate consumer savings

Stix testified that “[t]he irrefutable, bottom-line fact is that Mr. Hardy and [PA Consulting Group] wrongly predicted savings to Rhode Island ratepayers,just from capacity, and just from FCA-l0, to be between $118 and $120 million dollars. The actual figure was somewhere between zero and $36 million. Mr. Hardy’s projected figure was 272% of the actual figure, and maybe much, much more than that. To put it another way, it is just not true to say that a predicted result of $118 million in ratepayer savings in one year “is very close to” ratepayer savings of between zero and $36 million. I doubt very much if Rhode Island ratepayers consider $118 million in one-year savings to be “very close” to zero to $36 million. And I doubt that the PUC will view it that way, either.”

Robert Fagan, second witness

The second witness testimony presented by the CLF today is from Robert Fagan, a Principal Associate at Synapse Energy Economics, a research and consulting firm specializing in electricity industry regulation, planning and analysis.

Fagan also says the proposed power plant is not needed in both the short, medium and long terms. He says there is no “near-to-medium term reliability need for the proposed Invenergy plant,” pointing out that “existing and projected energy efficiency and behind-the-meter solar PV resources in New England more than supplant the energy output of the proposed plant and support a reliable electric sector in Rhode Island and New England without the proposed plant” and “there is no longer-term reliability need for the proposed plant.”

Fagan says that “Rhode Island and New England net loads… exhibit declining trends, contrary to the applicant’s assertions.” Invenergy claims that the ISO-New England Forward Capacity Markets indicate need, but as we have seen, they do not.

Further, Invenergy offers, “no evidence of any longer-term reliability or other need for the proposed plant. They incorrectly inflate the energy forecast need for Rhode Island and New England. Their narrative on alternative energy resources, including energy efficiency and renewable energy resources, is completely absent of any quantitative analysis of the effect of a portfolio of energy efficiency and renewable resource supply as an alternative to the proposed plant.

Looking to the longer term future of energy in Rhode Island, Fagan says, “When considering energy efficiency and alternative new resources including behind-the-meter solar PV, other solar PV (utility scale), onshore wind, offshore wind, Canadian hydro, demand response, and storage alternatives – in addition to existing capacity resources and a recently strengthened New England transmission system – near-term and long-term reliability of Rhode Island and New England electric power sectors can be assured without reliance on the proposed power plant.”

Fagan also says that, “The applicant’s failure to present any evidence of a long-term reliability need for the plant is significant, because absent such a need, I don’t see how this proposed plant fits with Rhode Island state energy policy that, according to the applicant, emphasizes increasing energy efficiency, integration of renewable energy into the system, and achieving reductions in greenhouse gases.”

June 7, 2016June 8, 2016

ProJo’s Burrillville bill editorial, annotated

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

It’s little wonder a Providence Journal editorial would shill for a fossil fuel company while ignoring the people of Burrillville. The once-trusted op/ed board has a long history of engaging in climate science denialism and valuing the will of corporations over the will of the people. But while the ProJo is entitled to its own opinions, it isn’t entitled to its own facts and today’s editorial deriding the Burrillville power plant bill being voted on today contains several errors, omissions, half truths and flat out lies.

I’ve annotated the editorial here. (Editor’s note: The Providence Journal changed the url on this editorial after it was annotated. Here is a new url. We will update this post again if the ProJo again changes the url. )

Click on the yellow highlighted phrases to find out what they really mean, or what the author should have written.

May 5, 2016May 5, 2016

ProJo employees protest corporate greed, shrinking newsroom

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Providence Journal employees publicly rebuked their out-of-state bosses with a noontime demonstration outside of the once-venerable institution’s now increasingly vacant offices and newsroom on Fountain Street.

“Now that they own us there is no effort to invest in us,” said Journal reporter John Hill, who is the president of the Providence Newspaper Guild, said of Gatehouse Media, a media conglomerate that bought the ProJo two years ago and still has not agreed to a new contract with newsroom and other employees.

More than 100 people marched outside the Journal building during today, Hill said. “It was at lunch hour,” he said, “so people didn’t have to leave work. We’re not trying to disrupt anything. Nobody abandoned their desks.”

It was the latest in an increasingly public labor rift between the people who produce Rhode Island’s paper of record and the corporation that owns it. “Everything that goes on the website of value is made and put there by our people, and we get squat for that,” Hill said.

ProJo reporters and other staffers have been working without a contract since Gatehouse bought the business from Belo in 2014. Because it was an asset sale, Gatehouse “was able to void pretty much all the contracts, not just the union ones.”

They’ve been in on-going negotiations, but Hill says management is unwilling to bend. “These guys have a track record of being willing to outsource work,” he said.

The demonstration was the latest example of workers in Rhode Island standing up to an increasingly skewed economy that is squeezing more and more middle class people.

April 19, 2016

Sheldon Whitehouse talks climate change denial Friday at URI

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

One side of the debate concerning climate change denial has been represented recently in Wall Street Journal and Providence Journal editorials, with both conservative op/ed boards taking Senator Sheldon Whitehouse to task for suggesting Big Oil should be held liable for lying about climate change.

“Under Presidents Clinton and Bush the Department of Justice brought and won civil lawsuits against the tobacco industry for its coordinated, fraudulent campaign to sow doubt about the potential harms of its product,” Whitehouse told RI Future. “I have asked whether similar inquiries should be made into the climate denial scheme that is steadily being revealed.”

The URI professors’ union (AAUP) is holding an Earth Day round table discussion on Friday to continue revealing the facts, and delve into the opinions. The event is called “Climate Change Science in an Age of Misinformation.”

Whitehouse will be there, as will former New York Times science editor Cornelia Dean, Kenneth Kimmell, the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, J. Timmonds Roberts, a Brown University professor of environmental studies and Lee McIntyre, a philosophy fellow at Boston University. The public is invited to attend.

But what is climate change denial? The Wall Street Journal and Providence Journal pieces make it seem like Whitehouse wants to punish people for simply disagreeing with his position on climate change. Hardly, said Erik Loomis, a URI history professor who helped organize the event.

“It’s corporate funded pseudo-scientific research that is intended to sow doubt in people’s minds about climate change so that the entrenched interests can continue to profit off of the current energy regime,” he said. “It’s disappointing but not surprising that newspapers owned by media conglomerates are defending this.”

Whitehouse also offered his perspective on why such newspapers are defending climate change denial.

“This drives the fossil fuel front groups crazy,” he said about holding Big Oil accountable in the same way Big Tobacco was held accountable. “So the Wall Street Journal and others are trying to saddle me with an argument I’m not making – because they don’t have a good response to the one I am making. It’s tough to convince people that the fossil fuel industry should be too big to sue, or that it deserves different rules than any other industry under the law, so instead the Journal repeatedly and falsely has accused me of seeking to punish anyone who rejects the scientific evidence of climate change. That is disproved by the tobacco case itself, which is one reason they don’t much like talking about it.”

Whitehouse will speaking at lunchtime. Dean and Kimmell are leading a panel in the morning. Peter Nightingale, who was once arrested in Whitehouse’s office protesting the senator’s lack of action against a proposed methane power plant in Burrillville is speaking in the afternoon about climate change activism and environmental justice. Bill McKibben is leading off the day-long event with a video recorded specifically for URI.

March 16, 2016March 17, 2016

Dear ProJo: Trump’s not the only presidential candidate

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In the latest Providence Journal good old Donald Trump was once again front and center. The March 11 editorial by Edward Fitzpatrick has a very one sided perspective of Rhode Island’s presidential campaign. If you follow the Journal you would think that Trump was the only candidate that was going to be on the ballot in this state. There is not the slightest attempt by the Journal to offer fair space to other candidates, including Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders has incredible support in Rhode Island, but one wouldn’t know it from reading the Journal. Has the Journal ever attempted to cover any of the many packed Bernie events throughout the state? Have they covered Sander’s message of justice anywhere near as much as they have covered the billionaire’s message of hate?

The Providence Journal should be more than a soundboard for the company that owns them, Gatehouse Media, and the conservative movement that it supports. Rhode Island is a state whose citizens are fiercely independent and the great majority has had enough with establishment politics and the status quo…

But Trump is not the answer.

The Journal owes it to the people of this state to be cognizant of the fact that Bernie Sanders campaign also is reaching out to people who are tired of politics as usual. The campaign has attracted not only the millennials, but the disenfranchised: feminists, minorities, moderate Republicans, progressive Democrats, Greens, unaffiliated and many more. Sanders represents all those who are sick and tired of being marginalized while corporate interests take over. It is time that the Journal does its due diligence to make that known to their readers.

March 7, 2016

ProJo editor admits paper of record did Bernie wrong

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Providence Journal Executive Editor David Butler said Rhode Island’s paper of record could have done a better job covering Bernie Sanders’ primary wins onSaturday.

“I would agree it deserved more and the paper was GOP heavy,” Butler said, responding to a Nicholas Delmenico post alleging the ProJo isn’t offering fair and ample coverage to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

“Though you must admit the GOP race has been much newsier – for better or for worse,” he added.

“Please note that Bernie Sanders’ caucus wins were mentioned in the second paragraph of the A1 Sunday AP roundup on the primaries,” Butler wrote in an email to RI Future. “Note that the lead story in the Monday paper was on the Clinton-Sanders debate.”

Butler, whose full email you can read here, said, “There is no blackout of the Dems.” Delmenico’s post does not allege a blackout of Democrats, but rather of Bernie Sanders.

Sanders supporters have grown more vocal recently about what they see as unfair treatment of their candidate from the so-called “mainstream media” a colloquialism for the large, influential and in most cases for-profit corporations that Americans rely on to become educated about their government.

Delmenico insinuated the Providence Journal has not adequately covered Bernie Sanders because it is owned by a corporation with ties to Wall Street.

Others have said too many media organizations include superdelegate campaign promises when comparing Hillary Clinton and Sanders delegate totals. Superdelegates are party insiders that get a vote in who the presidential nominee is. They are known to change their mind. In fact, they are known to change their mind against Hillary Clinton, who eight years ago held a similar superdelegate advantage over Barack Obama before many switched to support the eventual nominee.

Clinton has won 671 delegates to Sanders’ 476. But, according to the New York Times, Clinton also has 458 superdelegates who have said they will vote for her compared to 22 for Sanders.

March 7, 2016March 7, 2016

The Bernie blackout is real, and it’s happening at the Providence Journal

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The media blackout on U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders is real, and it’s happening with our home state newspaper. Please read further for the gruesome details.

On Saturday, March 5, 2016, Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in Democratic caucuses by voting margins of 35% in Kansas and 14% in Nebraska. He also lost by a margin of 48% in the Louisiana primary.

In the Providence Sunday Journal, there is not ONE headline mentioning any of these facts nor one article dedicated to the Democratic presidential race. A review of today’s “A” section reveals the following articles related to the 2016 presidential race:

Page A1 (above the fold): “Cruz gains ground – Beats Trump handily in Kansas, Maine”

Page A1 (below the fold): “Trump taps into fears of changing America – A champion to the disgruntled white working class, a ‘monster’ to the GOP elite”

Page A7: “Trump primary win roils Mass. GOP – But Democrats have left their party, too, to back the maverick Republican”

Page A8: “Clinton backers pursue ‘gender gap'” – an article that discusses the gender gap in Trump’s supporters and how a Trump/Clinton general election could feature the largest gender gap ever in a presidential election, again pushing the narrative that Trump and Clinton will be the nominees.

Page A9: “GOP points to Obama tenure as cause of party’s schism” with the featured quote “There would be no Donald Trump without Barack Obama.” – Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Page A9: “5 states will shape 2016 race on weekend” – it mentions that “both parties had contests in Kansas and Louisiana … and Democrats in Nebraska also vote” but made no mention of the results. In fact, the article also mentions that these states “possess the power to make Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump closer to unstoppable.” The bias here is frightening, and this is from an AP article. The article also gives the “delegate count” for the Democrats without noting that the count includes as of yet unofficial counts of superdelegates, another misleading tactic.

And in the “Commentary” section…

Page A13: “Clinton backers split on Trump strategy” – you guessed it, an op-ed on how Hillary should take on Trump in the general election.

Page A13: “Republican ‘takers’ take down the establishment” – a GOP-focused op-ed

Page A14: “Romney’s warning” – an editorial from the Providence Journal Editorial Board, again focused on the GOP and coming out against Trump.

Page A14: “Letters to the Editor” – even the ones included here are anti-abortion, about Ben Carson, and about John Kasich.

To top it all off, on the Providence Journal’s Facebook page, they posted, on March 6 at 9:10 am, an AP article whose headline insinuates that both Cruz and Sanders’ wins yesterday were meaningless.

What is going on here?

I will be calling the Providence Journal to complain about the lack of coverage of the Democratic nomination process. I will ask two questions:

Why were the Democratic results not given any consideration?
Will the Journal commit to giving equal consideration to the Democratic and Republican races, and give equal consideration to the only two Democrats in the race?

I will also email David J. Butler, the Executive Editor & Senior VP of News for The Providence Journal directly as his email is listed on page A2: dbutler@providencejournal.com.

As I do not expect to get satisfactory answers to my questions, I am left to do what you must always do when something doesn’t pass the sniff test: follow the money.

The Providence Journal is “a subsidiary of GateHouse Media, Inc.” according to page A2. According to Wikipedia, GateHouse Media (which went through a planned bankruptcy and is now part of the holding company New Media Investment Group Inc) is owned by Fortress Investment Group. Also according to Wikipedia, Fortress “was founded as a private equity firm in 1998 by Wesley R. Edens, a former partner at BlackRock Financial Management, Inc.; Rob Kauffman (businessman), a managing director of UBS; and Randal A. Nardone, also a managing director of UBS. Fortress quickly expanded into hedge funds, real estate-related investments and debt securities, run by Michael Novogratz and Pete Briger, both former partners at Goldman Sachs.”

Big surprise.

Please, contact the Journal and put pressure on them to do right by the people it serves and give equal consideration to the presidential races and publish articles and op-eds from all points of view, not just those that match their owners’ views.

Please call the Journal. Please email. Please share this post. Please do anything so that the corrupt influence of “big media” does not infiltrate the biggest paper in our little state.

(Editor’s note: This was originally a Facebook post)

February 2, 2016

Satellites and thermometers: Ed Achorn on truth, science and reason

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

It’s bad enough that Providence Journal editor Ed Achorn regularly runs op/eds from climate change deniers but its worse that he responds to those who question his decision to do so by accusing them of having a “totalitarian mindset” and of believing that “issues of vast public importance should not be debated.”

Achorn made his comment to me on Facebook, after I wrote that “publishing anti-climate change op-eds from conservative disinformation groups” is “completely irresponsible ‘journalism.’” I was referring to Herbert E. Stevens’ piece “Fuzzy data on warming” in which the meteorologist claimed that readings from surface thermometers that show the Earth is warming are less accurate than satellite readings of temperature that, Stevens claims, show “much less warming… than the surface data — and show no net warming of the planet over the past 18 years and 8 months.”

The piece seems innocuous enough, until you realize that it’s a piece in defense of Ted Cruz, Republican nominee for President, who repeatedly claims that there has been “no significant warming whatsoever for the last 18 years.”

As Chris Mooney ably demonstrates in his Washington Post piece, Cruz is seriously misleading the public when he makes these claims. He’s taking a minor (if interesting) debate about the accuracy of surface thermometers versus satellites when taking global temperature readings and using it as a way of calling into question the very existence of human caused climate change, which is not a seriously debated issue at all.

Nowhere in the op/ed does Stevens mention Cruz. He writes as if he is simply covering an interesting meteorological topic, apropos of nothing. But Stevens ideological bent is revealed when he includes obvious falsehoods, such as when he says, “Back in the early 1990s NASA recommended that satellite measurements be used as the preferred method of measurement because it was the most accurate method.”

The truth is that “Roy Spencer and John Christy, two satellite experts affiliated with NASA and the University of Alabama in Huntsville, argued in the prominent journal Science that satellite measurements are able to deliver “more precise atmospheric temperature information than that obtained from the relatively sparse distribution of thermometers over the earth’s surface.”

Two university experts “affiliated with” NASA is a far cry from an official NASA statement. But it gets worse. One of those experts, John Christy, is known as a climate “skeptic” and he’s one of the key people that Cruz seems to be depending on for his climate denial position, a position that Stevens seems happy to echo in the pages of the ProJo, without proper attribution.

The idea that satellites are more or less accurate than surface thermometers is not settled science, and that debate is interesting, but that’s not the context in which Stevens frames his article. Stevens wants us to believe that satellite data is more accurate and that this more accurate data somehow contradicts the idea that the Earth is warming. Therein lies his second falsehood.

Stevens claims that the data shows that there has been “no net warming of the planet over the past 18 years and 8 months,” ignoring the fact that we have satellite data going back to 1979, not just 1998. As Mooney points out in his piece debunking Cruz, 18 years gives us a starting point during the “very warm El Niño event of 1997/1998.” Starting in 1998 shows little to no warming, because our starting point is artificially higher due to El Niño. If we start in 1979, however, even the satellites show a warming trend that can only be caused by humans using fossil fuels.

Stevens has committed a serious scientific fallacy called cherry picking that even a climate skeptic like John Christy has disavowed. Stevens is only looking at the evidence that bolsters his claim, not the evidence that runs counter to what he’s trying to prove. That’s dishonest.

In response to Achorn telling me that I have a “Totalitarian mindset” I said, “Following the science, rather than the vested opinions of think tanks and cranks, is not totalitarian. Using that word [Totalitarian] against critics to silence them is.”

Instead of acknowledging my point, Achorn doubled down saying, “I strongly believe that discussion of major matters of public interest is healthy. I strongly oppose the totalitarian mindset that those who disagree with me must be silenced.”

Is disinformation masquerading as science contributing to the healthy “discussion of major matters of public interest,” as Achorn seems to be claiming? Is it “totalitarian” to demand something akin to the truth and honesty – even in a ProJo op/ed?

I wish I had taken the time to compose a better response to Achorn, but Facebook is a place of quick writing and off the cuff thoughts. Achorn graciously allowed me the last word, not responding to me when I wrote:

“Though as an editor, you choose all the time who to print and [who] to silence, by not printing their opinions. One of the qualifying rationales for accepting a[n op/ed] piece must be truth, as informed by reason and science. If not, what are you basing the decisions on? There are disagreements in the community of climate scientists, but these are not the subjects you traditionally cover. Instead, you print pieces by deniers following the same playbook as the tobacco lobby followed in the 50s, 60s and 70s. This does nothing to further the discourse, but instead hinders and reduces it.”

September 25, 2015September 26, 2015

Why David Carlin denies existence of white privilege

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“…Our white countrymen do not know us. They are strangers to our character, ignorant of our capacity, oblivious to our history and progress, and are misinformed as to the principles and ideas that control and guide us, as a people. The great mass of American citizens estimates us as being a characterless and purposeless people; and hence we hold up our heads, if at all, against the withering influence of a nation’s scorn and contempt.”
— Frederick Douglass

David R. Carlin recently shared his life experience through his September 20th commentary in the Providence Journal, as a youth growing up in Pawtucket, Rhode Island in the 1950s and recounted what it was like to live in a tenement on Beverage Hill Avenue, with no hot water, and having to sacrifice having a car in order to pay for a sick sibling’s medical bills. Unfortunately too many Americans of all backgrounds have similar stories of struggle, and today the widening of gaps between the classes is a pervasive societal issue. I have to admit I had nowhere near as arduous a life growing up in Rhode Island. My siblings and I were born and raised in a family of color in Newport with two educated, hardworking and loving parents.

Mr. Carlin recounted his experience as a youth without privilege to explain his belief that there is no “white privilege” in the greater American society. He contends that the conception he and other white Americans have been afforded certain opportunities solely based on their race, and that black Americans have been denied such opportunities, is mistaken. The whole of his essay can be summed up as this: white privilege is an excuse and black American’s are solely responsible for their current destructive experience and station in society.

As Mr. Carlin explains “if the average black is worse off than the average white in almost every category of well-being — health, wealth, income, education, high culture, gainful employment, etc. — this is chiefly because of an appallingly dysfunctional subculture that is pervasive among the black lower classes.”

What Mr. Carlin fails to understand is that white privilege is not explicit, and when you are the beneficiary, it is even harder to recognize its existence. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that drug use rates between white and black users are incredibly comparable. Yet while black people make up only 14 percent of regular drug users, they account for 37 percent of those arrested (via Human Rights Watch). Jeffrey Fagan, a Columbia University Law professor found that under New York’s controversial Stop & Frisk policy between 2004 and 2009 less than 1 perncet of stops recovered weapons, and of those found they were more frequently recovered from white people. But still, black people were disproportionately stopped as compared to whites and were 14 percent more likely to be subjected to force. It should not be lost on anyone as to why Stop & Frisk was recently ruled unconstitutional.

These are just some of the many data points which corroborate the fact that the United States has always had and continues to perpetuate a very real and dangerous problem when it comes to the lack of equality between the races. A fantastic source is Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, which details the history of our current criminal justice and prison systems and how they function to continually oppress Black and Brown citizens of this country.

I think the unfortunate reality is that people like Mr. Carlin too often are misinformed on what white privilege actually is, and also severely lack day to day contact with people of color.

Someone who denies white privilege is not necessarily racist, they are just ignorant to the reality we live in due to the privilege bubble in which they conveniently exist. So in the spirit of educating over arguing, I have made a quick reference list for Mr. Carlin and the others in denial so they too can be better informed and therefore, better equipped to discuss race in America.

White privilege is being sentenced to rehab for drug use because you’re “sick” and need to be treated, not incarcerated because you are deemed inherently dangerous.
White privilege is reminding people to always remember Pearl Harbor, The Alamo, The Boston Tea Party and both World Wars, but then asking why Black people can’t seem to put slavery behind them.
White privilege is not having people ask you why you “speak so well”.
White privilege is no one assumes your success in education or your career is due to athletic scholarships or affirmative action.
White privilege is sharing an opinion and not having it used as representative of all the other members of your race
White privilege is not having the justice system routinely incarcerate the men of your race at astronomically disproportionate rates for decades and therefore crippling your family structure for generations.
White privilege is having an interaction with law enforcement and being able to walk away with your life.
White privilege is David Carlin getting to tell an entire group of people that their centuries long struggle due to systematic social and political disenfranchisement is essentially their fault and their problem alone, and certainly not a problem that the greater society should tackle together.

Unfortunately it is the Carlins, Carsons and Trumps of the world that perpetuate the ongoing racial bias that divides our nation. If more time and effort was spent actually engaging people from the disenfranchised communities and trying to find a common goal of equality among races and classes, rather than finger pointing and victim blaming, we might actually have a chance at progressing as a society and as a human race. In 2015 it is terrifying to see how little has actually changed for black and brown people in America. What has changed is how the injustices are perpetuated and the true intentions camouflaged behind voting rights restrictions, public policy and policing.

What we cannot allow to go unnoticed is when a person abandons scholarship for rhetoric and then tries to pass the latter off as the former. The real issue here is that black and brown people in America are largely invisible to most whites. Like Mr. Carlin’s opinion piece, they talk about our lives, history and culture in a second person narrative, with little or no personal interactions or observations to validate their viewpoints. Today more than ever, there needs to be more sound discussions on how to move forward together; black, brown and white, and less of the guilt ridden, victim blaming that only serves to further divide us.

June 29, 2015June 29, 2015

ProJo recycles teacher trash talk with classic dump on public schools

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Ed Achorn, Providence Journal editorial writer

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015, at precisely 2:01 AM, an unidentified editorial writer representing the flailing Providence Journal crapped the keyboard and hit the Post button. Did it ever occur to him or her that the headline “Assault on Charters” was an exceedingly poor choice of descriptor for a school-based opinion piece?

Did he or she realize that the word “assault” in conjunction with any discussion of schools forevermore evokes the stark imagery of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre?

Probably. To channel the late iconic musician Frank Zappa’s observations on the crass corporate commercialization of America’s 1976 Bicentennial celebration, “…not only that, they’ve been planning it for a long time.”

An image is worth a thousand words. And added to the 459 word, boilerplate anti-union screed Projo’s designated keyboard commander unleashed in his predawn barrage, it makes for a kilometer’s worth of column inches, meeting the expectations of the corporate watchdogs who sign the editors’ paychecks.

Rhode Island’s only major newspaper, wholly owned by out-of-state interests, seems doggedly determined to exploit the ongoing charter school discussion for the purpose of deconstructing public education in favor of privatized, investor-based marketing schemes.

The corporate roots of the school privatization movement can be traced to The Edison Project, the 1992 collaborative effort of educational media entrepreneur Chris Whittle and former Yale University President Benno Schmidt Jr. These links provide an essential starting point for any discussion of the school privatization industry, but they are secondary to the most intrinsic, gut-level concerns families have: the health, safety and welfare of their children.

The school privatization industry – its conceptualization, commercialization, and corruption – is a massive topic that commands major resources within America’s most prestigious think tanks, the progressive Brookings Institute and its conservative counterpart, the Heritage Foundation. Go ahead, Google yourself to the brink of insanity. Been there, done that.

There is wide ranging disagreement concerning both the reliability and validity of measuring academic achievement levels in comparative studies of charter schools and traditional public schools. Regardless of the perennial debate, it is no mystery to teachers why charter schools are universally embraced by their clientele: 100% of the families who choose a given charter school are there because they want to be.

In the vernacular of cyber-age social networking, the stakeholders are “all-in.”

Traditional public schools should be so lucky. Their playing field is perilously rocky and meanders uphill all the way from start to finish. For public school teachers entangled in the bureaucratic typhoon of Race to the Top – U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s mythical epic voyage their daily regimen is rife with the Scylla and Charybdis of Public Education – Disruption and Distraction.

Students in virtually every classroom in every public school in America bear daily witness to the turmoil washing over their teachers courtesy of the twin terrors Disruption and Distraction. The narratives that trickle down to students’ homes scare the bejezus out of every parent and guardian, and rightly so. Hello, Charter Schools.

Over the next couple of months, this series of articles will explore the state of public education from the point of view of classroom teachers at both the elementary and secondary levels. Unless you are a public school teacher, you probably cannot grasp the nature of the current state of affairs. It’s hard enough for teachers to sometimes believe what is happening to their profession. Ask one sometime.

Editorial boards of newspapers aligned with the school privatization industry, such as our own Providence Journal, will necessarily reflect the political goals of their corporate parents. Journalism jobs are hard to come by. The professionals comprising the ProJo editorial board are serious writers. But they too live between a rock and a hard place.

Welcome to the club, people.

Robert Yarnall is a retired teacher, union activist, superb fisherman and regular contributor to Progressive Charlestown where this article originally appeared.

June 12, 2015

Ed Achorn, Union of Concerned Scientists debate ProJo editorial

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Providence Journal editorial page writer Ed Achorn is well-known in Rhode Island for stretching – and sometimes abusing – the truth in order to make a point. He sometimes defends his misstatements by labeling critiques as assaults on the First Amendment, but more often he ignores critics altogether.

But he didn’t ignore Aaron Huertas on Twitter recently. Huertas is a communications officer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that organizes scientists to come up with solutions to climate change. He took Achorn to task because a Providence Journal editorial misrepresented a recent Washington Post op/ed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse that said fossil fuel companies should be held accountable for lying about their product’s harm to the planet.

Since Achorn so infrequently defends the Journal’s seemingly unscrupulous editorials, I’ve collected the Twitter exchange between the two here.

https://twitter.com/aaronhuertas/status/609048776339288064

https://twitter.com/aaronhuertas/status/609083926733303809

https://twitter.com/aaronhuertas/status/609102514479316993

https://twitter.com/aaronhuertas/status/609104383868059648

https://twitter.com/aaronhuertas/status/609113052500381697

https://twitter.com/aaronhuertas/status/609370346827968512

https://twitter.com/aaronhuertas/status/609376008093962240

https://twitter.com/aaronhuertas/status/609386052655149056

https://twitter.com/aaronhuertas/status/609399842260000768

https://twitter.com/aaronhuertas/status/609386565731794944

Achorn eventually decided to ignore Huertas. But he didn’t seem to stop tweeting about the issue….

"All Ministers … who were Oppressors, or intended to be Oppressors, have been loud in their Complaints against Freedom of Speech." — "Cato"

— Ed Achorn (@Ed_Achorn) June 12, 2015

…Yeah, because the fossil fuel companies are being oppressed if they can’t lie about the product they sell…

June 7, 2015

ProJo’s op/ed uses misinformation to foul firefighter platoon debate

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

How did we get to where firefighters are treated like scoundrels trying to abscond with the public’s money?

Corporate-controlled media spewing out garbage like this to the masses, that’s how.

Of course, such a breach of journalistic ethic comes via a Providence Journal editorial about legislation that would prevent cities and towns from reducing the number of daily firefighter shifts from four to three supported by some blatant falsehoods and – of course – some grandiose overstatements of the issues importance.

“Rhode Island has suffered for too long from high taxes, a miserably poor business climate and high unemployment,” is actually the lede of the editorial. “Those who have suffered the most are members of the middle class, who struggle to get by, and the poor, robbed of the means to lift themselves out of poverty.”

Spare me the feigned interest in the poor and middle class.

The issue emanates from a longstanding legal feud in North Kingstown. No one in North Kingstown – or anywhere for that matter – is in poverty or will be lifted out of it depending on how many firefighters work on a given day. Fire departments throughout Rhode Island are funded through property taxes. And by and large it’s the rich – not the poor – who pay property taxes. It may seem generous to suggest slashing taxes for the benefit of the poor, but in this instance in particular it isn’t a very efficient way to produce the stated benefit. In other words, it’s at best shoddy economic logic. At worst, it’s deception.

The reality is the assault on firefighters in Rhode Island is being largely led by affluent small government activists, like Barrington Republican Ken Block and ProJo editorial writer Ed Achorn. The two seem to have an unofficial playbook on how to whitewash propaganda.

Block, under the guise of analysis, gins up a report to make it seem like government needs to be smaller. In this case, he cherry-picked random cities around the country and compared their first response costs with Rhode Island’s. First responders say he failed to account for different structures and other anomalies when he did so. Never-the-less, enter Ed Achorn’s role in the scam. The ProJo op/ed page then passes off the fuzzy math as gospel. Thus, despite very fair critiques of Block’s work, the ProJo op/ed page reports it as, “As has been well documented, Rhode Island’s fire costs are dramatically higher than in other states.”

The misstatements get worse. Much worse.

“Some in the Assembly have argued that changing shift structures to run departments more efficiently is an attempt to get free labor out of firefighters or threaten their safety, or the public’s.”

Reality: nobody thinks this is a conspiracy to injure firefighters or the public. Many people, however, think this is a penny-wise and pound foolish way to lower taxes by overworking first responders, which can have life or death consequences. If this is what the writer meant, he or she did harm to this very valid point. I fear that this was not botched writing but rather malevolent writing, intended to misinform the public and belittle an opposing viewpoint. I highly doubt “some in the Assembly” suggested as much; it’s more likely the writer thought a fake argument could be pinned on fictional legislators – a grave abuse of journalism.

“At the very least, this matter cries out for further study and full public debate before the Assembly acts,” reads a line towards the end of the op/ed.

Like all important political issues, this one deserve more than just study and public debate. It deserves honest study and honest public debate, the kind Rhode Islanders aren’t getting from the Providence Journal op/ed page anymore.

May 21, 2015May 22, 2015

ProJo passes tipping point

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The editorial staff of the Providence Journal claim to be “sympathetic” to the struggles of tipped employees and their families, yet they offer no solution for this subordinated “server” class of Rhode Island workers. They also fail to quote or offer any opinion from an actual waitress or waiter. The May 17 article pretends to speak for the actual staff of restaurants in Rhode Island (whose minimum wage is $6.11 less then every other legal citizen of our state) by printing a quote from Dale Venturini, “president and CEO of the businessfunded Rhode Island Hospitality Association”.

This is typical of what has been the public discourse on this subject. We have heard over and over again from people like Bob Bacon, major owner of the Gregg’s Restaurant chain, and Josh Miller, who is not only the owner of such local institutions as Trinity Brewhouse and Hot Club but is also a State Senator. These people always claim to have heard from many servers (in their employ) on the subject.

Having worked as a server in Providence for eight years leading up to the closure of Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, I can say that nothing from the May 17 editorial rings true to my experience working in the service industry. Nor does it corelate to the overwhelming majority of the personal stories that I heard while campaigning for this law around Rhode Island this year. I have met no one who has ever recieved compensation from an employer to make up the difference between the $2.89 subminimum and the $9 minimum wage. I have, however, personally spoken with hundreds of servers who have worked whole shifts and even weeks without earning minimum wage.

The article claims that the proposed bill would cause these workers to be “without jobs”, because “Many restaurants operate on very thin margins, and many go out of business.” But to back up this frightening claim, the article’s author offers no statistics. According to the Restaurant Opportunity Center, a tiny national and local lobbying group operating on a shoestring budget with an office right on Broadway in Providence, all of the states that have eliminated the subminimum wage for their workers have seen an increase in business for their local restaurant industries.

The Providence Journal trots out the same tired argument that in order to create jobs, the jobs themselves must suffer. But what good does creating a job do when working that job full time is not enough to support yourself and your family? Rhode Island taxpayers will have to continue to foot the bill of over $600,000 in food stamps that servers require every month. Working without a living wage makes everyone but the job “creator” suffer. Had the editorial staff of the Providence Journal looked at this important economic issue from the point of the servers, they may have realized how neccessary this bill is for not only the actual servers and their families, but for everyone in this state. The most successful owners in Rhode Island’s heralded restaurant industry claim that they won’t be able to stay in business if they have to pay their workers fairly. I have been inside the industry long enough to know better.

March 27, 2015April 14, 2015

ProJo misleads public on Employment Policies Institute

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Michael Saltsman lays out some specious reasoning and faulty arguments for why restaurant owners should be able to legally pay servers less than the minimum wage. That’s fine, as a public relations professional employed to advocate against low wage workers, that’s his job.

The Providence Journal, on the other hand, failed at its job and committed a journalistic sin by obfuscating the real origins of the op/ed. An editor’s note following the piece labels Saltsman as the “research director at the Employment Policies Institute, which receives support from businesses, foundations and individuals.”

In truth, the Employment Policies Institute is a front for a public relations firm funded by the restaurant industry and affluent conservatives to astroturf against low wage workers.

The New York Times last year profiled the Employment Policies Institute in an article titled “Fight Over Minimum Wage Illustrates Web of Industry Lies.” Here’s the first two paragraphs of that story:

WASHINGTON — Just four blocks from the White House is the headquarters of the Employment Policies Institute, a widely quoted economic research center whose academic reports have repeatedly warned that increasing the minimum wage could be harmful, increasing poverty and unemployment.

But something fundamental goes unsaid in the institute’s reports: The nonprofit group is run by a public relations firm that also represents the restaurant industry, as part of a tightly coordinated effort to defeat the minimum wage increase that the White House and Democrats in Congress have pushed for.

It goes on to explain how the Employment Policies Institute actually has no employees and was started by a pr pro who advocates for fast food and other corporate clients.

The Employment Policies Institute, founded two decades ago, is led by the advertising and public relations executive Richard B. Berman, who has made millions of dollars in Washington by taking up the causes of corporate America. He has repeatedly created official-sounding nonprofit groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom that have challenged limits like the ban on indoor smoking and the push to restrict calorie counts in fast foods.

In 2012, according to the New York Times, the Employment Policies Institute listed on its tax return just 11 donors, some of whom gave as much as $500,000. Most of that money either pays Berman’s pr company or purchases advertising beneficial to its clients. The website BermanExposed.org says Saltzman is an employee of Berman’s pr firm.

The Times writes the Employment Policies Institute is a “critical element in the lobbying campaign against the increase in the minimum wage, as restaurant industry groups, in their own statements and news releases, often cite the institute’s reports, creating the Washington echo chamber effect that is so coveted by industry lobbyists.”

Such astroturfing from powerful corporate special interests has become all too common in politics. Conservatives know the American people are opposed to their hope of keeping working class people in poverty, so they gin up voodoo economics to obfuscate the facts. The Providence Journal, on the other hand, should be in the business of educating not obfuscating and it committed a journalistic sin when it misrepresented Saltsman’s op/ed as unbiased economics.

August 19, 2014August 20, 2014

Magaziner campaign: RI is ‘excited’ about Seth

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Seth Magaziner, Democrat for general treasurer, is the big winner as WPRI and the Providence Journal trickle out the results of its long-sought new polling data.

Magaziner leaped 20 points to 43 percent while his rival Frank Caprio went from 29 percent to 31 percent.

The ProJo called it a “a striking turn of events.” for Magaziner.

“The poll confirms that Rhode Islanders are excited about Seth Magaziner’s commitment to bring new energy and fresh ideas to the Treasurers office,” said Magaziner’s campaign manager Evan England, “and to make a clean break from the insider politics and mismanagement that have held Rhode Island back for too long.”

England added, “It’s time for a Treasurer who will use the office as a platform for economic growth and invest more in Rhode Island so we bring jobs back to Rhode Island.”

Since the first poll, Magaziner released a popular TV ad that warns against insider politics. Meanwhile Caprio’s younger brother resigned as chairman of the Democratic party amid a scandal about a public concession stand contract he won after a sitting legislator withdrew a winning bid.

You can watch my recent sit down interview with Magaziner here.

August 5, 2014August 6, 2014

Bob Walsh, Ed Achorn debate free speech, bullying

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Charges were dropped last week against John Leidecker, but a Providence Journal editorial still wants NEARI official fired for sending crass – but not criminal – emails to then Bristol Rep. Doug Gablinske.

Ed Achorn, editor of the paper’s op/ed page, and Bob Walsh, executive director of NEARI, debated the merits of the piece this morning on Twitter.

July 25, 2014July 28, 2014

What did we learn from Gist’s dissertation?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In Deborah Gist’s dissertation, which the Providence Journal reports on this morning, Rhode Island commissioner of education writes that the firing of the Central Falls teachers was “the most difficult experience and greatest challenge for me personally and professionally throughout the case study period.”

She writes, “Trust was at the heart of the issue in Central Falls… There was also a lack of what is known as ‘collective efficacy’ in which each team member believes that the shared effort of the team will result in a positive result…”

So has Rhode Island’s often polarizing education chief learned much about building trust and engendering collective efficacy since studying this situation as part of her U Penn doctorate?

She lied to teacher and state Sen. Jim Sheehan about it in an email and then told me “I have already spent more time on this than I have or care to spend.”

But she managed to find some time now that Sheehan and I helped bring the matter to the Providence Journal’s attention. Gist gave an interview this week to the Journal this week, which reported the embargo has been lifted on her dissertation (I’m not sure that’s accurate). It’s a puff piece, replete with somewhat misleading passages such as this one:

“Critics have painted Gist as a leader who surrounded herself with like-minded thinkers. But the leader she describes in these pages wants nothing more than the trust of her staff and Rhode Island’s teachers. In fact, she talks about creating a work environment built around love, a place ‘full of joy where people laugh and have fun.'”

As a point of fact, Gist critics (and, really, anyone paying close attention to education politics) know she isn’t surrounded by like-minded thinkers at the Department of Education. Even the dissertation reports that Gist kept current RIDE staff instead of replacing them, as was suggested to her by the Broad Foundation (p. 76). And it’s well-regarded as fact that Gist done little in Rhode Island to create a place “full of joy where people laugh and have fun.”

To this end, Gist’s dissertation and the difficulty the public had in gleaning its substance, is a study in leadership.

Indeed, Gist herself thought to include in her dissertation a quote attributed union leader Marcia Rebak: “Commissioner Gist, teachers in the state of Rhode Island have trust issues with you.”

You can read most of Gist’s dissertation below, save for about 40 pages I wasn’t able to obtain:

Gist Dissertation Select Chapters

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387