The Grand Island Independent Forums

I don't care who, what or where I'm getting news, I expect places, like NEWSPAPERS, to write their own work (or get it from other reporters through the AP or other wire services) and NOT pass of press releases from politicians as their own.

Case in point - a recent article about Adrian Smith and a Cybersecurity bill that passed. Afterwards, Smith put out a press release written, of course, by his staff.

The morning the release was sent out, the GI Independent posted the "news" on it's website (and printed it in the paper the next day). There is no "author", but there is nothing either the says it's a press release. Matter of fact, they clean it up slightly to flow right, but the "news" was written by the staff of Adrian Smith.

The BOLD areas were the words written by Smith's staff.



If the GI Independent has done their job, they'd have found several things to add to the story:

1. It wasn't "Smith's Bill". It was a committee bill. The Sponsor was Rep. Daniel Lipinski. Cosponsors were Reps. Vernon Ehlers, Bart Gordon, Ralph Hall, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ben Lujan, Michael McCaul, Steven Rothman, David Wu and Adrian Smith.

2. Beside the fact that not one word in the release mentioned all the others involved (some of whom have been working on this issue long before Smith came along), it also didn't list the fact it was a bipartisan bill. Lipinski, Gordon, Johnson, Lujan, Rothman and Wu are Democrats.

3. If one simply goes to the report from the House Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Smith is the Ranking Member, but David Wu is the Chair of the committee and lead the discussion and final passage of the bill out of the Committee. Wu gave credit to Smith and they worked in a bipartisan manner to get it through.

4. Not one mention is made that the bill passed the House on a 422-5 vote. The only 5 "no" votes were from Republicans - and no, that's not a dig. The ones who did can usually be expected to do so. One was Ron Paul - a man I can find little to agree with, but have a tremendous repect for because he doesn't talk in talking points, and stands up consistantly for what he believes in. Good for him.

5. While not even mentioning the work of the members of Congress, Smith listed off a select list of select Washington interests. Especially the US Chamber of Commerce. All have a major lobbying presence. He left out others that don't necessarily match his agenda.

Now, here's an article that gives the FULL STORY:
http://www.waterworld.com/index/display ... y-R-D.html

The article not only lists the Sponsor and all cosponsors, it lists the groups/businesses that support it.

If the Independent had done their job, it would have been a good story, telling the full story, and Smith still would have come out looking okay. But instead it was a printing of a press release passed off as news, and the "rest of the story" was completely ignored. Shame on the Independent for continuing this practice. It's a disservice to the people who depend on them to get accurate, fair and balanced news with all the facts.

Here are many BETTER articles with more information:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... WSB4Dmr01w

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?d ... 0003290507

http://www.informationweek.com/news/gov ... =222601110

It's a press release that had NO false information in it!

If it puts in ALL the information, it would take up more space...........and it's a local Nebraska paper, so why not give props to a Nebraska guy for his work?

As a coach, I give the press information about every game, but I don't expect a detail by detail account of EVERYBODY that contributed in the game.

Sorry, but there's just absolutely no reason to get all fired up about the article...........or to have started this thread in the first place IMO.

If the Independent was up front and honest, they'd indicate it's a "press release". Nothing says it is. It's presented as a news piece. I could care less if they printed all press releases from all politiciansm, but it should be in a section that says "Press Releases".

What's worse is that they've done this repeatedly. A couple years ago there was a press release from Smith they printed where he actually claimed credit for a bill as the "sponsor". He mentioned "Tom Udall of Colorado" as a "cosponsor". I knew who Tom Udall was and knew immediately this had to be all wrong. So I checked.

You see, Tom Udall was, at the time, a Representative from NEW MEXICO, not Colorado. The Congressman connected to the bill was actuall MARK Udall of Colorado. And Udall wasn't the "cosponsor", he was the sponsor. Smith had only signed on as a cosponsor AFTER it had already been introduced. It was a bill Udall had been working on before Smith was even elected. But the press release was printed by the GI Independent WORD FOR WORD, and actually had a reporters name tagged on it. Funny how that reporter wrote the same exact words with the same mistakes as Smith's press release.

That's where my issue is. If a newspaper wants to focus on a local pol, fine. If they don't want to add even a paragraph that explains the full story and ONLY print press releases, then be honest with the readers and say it's a press release. Don't pass it off as a news article written by reporters.

Lisa,

Often I disagree with your comments. However this is not one of those times. I think passing on press releases as news opens up the paper for political manipulation instead of political reporting.

Thank you. That was my point. It doesn't matter the politician or the party, either. It's happened with others. It's one thing if they write an opinion piece and the GII publishes it with the politicians name. It's also one thing if they decide to publish all the press releases as long as they are clearly labeled coming from that politician. But when its published without notice it's not written by a journalist but by the politicians spin/communcations office, that's disingenous and misleading to the average voter/reader. Smith's press release was a clear example of trying to make himself look good, but it left out the full story that could have been presented by providing one or two paragraphs explaining the bill, the sponsors and the vote.