Steve Urquhart

Deseret News Fabricates Story

2008-08-19T20:12:00.004-06:00

In my last post, I noted that Big Media’s stories largely are “made-up stuff or very-poorly-sourced-and-heavily-slanted stuff intended more to incite or excite than to enlighten.”

Right on cue, the Deseret News completely made up a story today. No one in Legislative leadership is talking about changing the referendum process. Here, for example, is what I last publicly said about the process. Yet, the Deseret News, um, “reports:”

Get ready for GOP legislative leaders to take on the state’s referendum law – and a big fight with Democrats who vow to protect the current system.

It’s 100% fiction. There won’t be a “big fight,” because no one is proposing a change. The D News completely made that up. Facts aren't important to Big Media. The thing that is important to veteran reporter Bob Bernick – is that there will be an election. And anything he and other cracker jack reporters can do to influence it against Republicans – including making up stories – is fair game.

Republican leadership in Utah isn’t perfect. We get some things right, and we get some things wrong. We deserve our fair share of criticism. But, completely making up stuff does a great disservice to the public and to the health of political dialogue.

Editorial board meetings are recorded. If the D News can show me where any “GOP legislative leader” said we’d “take on the state’s referendum law,” I’ll print this entry and post a YouTube video of me eating it, saying, “Bob Bernick does not make up news,” between every bite. To the contrary, you would hear legislative leaders saying the exact opposite of what the D News reports; they would hear those leaders saying that Utah has the referendum balance in the right place.

I want the recording of that editorial board meeting made public. That would be a big story – showing how Big Media completely makes up stories to fit its agenda and to influence elections. Let us hear the recording, Bob, so we can test the veracity of your stories.

I’ve put a lot of effort into trying to promote factual political dialogue concerning legislative issues, so that more people might be encouraged to participate. I’ve had enough of the “professionals” acting like they work for tabloids. No offense to tabloids.

Hello? Is Big Media There?

2008-08-13T21:26:00.003-06:00

I pointed out that misleading information had been published on a policy issue by (1) special interests, (2) bloggers, and (3) Big Media. The ACLU, JM Bell, and Brown Views all accepted my invitation to respond. The point of public discourse isn’t for them to admit that I’m right (though I always am). The point is to have the discourse – and allow the public to watch and, ideally, participate in that discourse. That way – even if the ride is a bit bumpy – we reach a good outcome or at least one most of us can stomach.

It is interesting that Big Media won’t go there. They talk. We listen.

Yes, Big Media blogs. Sort of. But the aristocracy of the Fourth Estate rarely, if ever, mixes with the plebes in the comment threads. Why not? Because it is a lecture, not discourse. They talk. We listen. Sure, we can talk among ourselves while we await their next proclamation, but the Earls and Dukes won’t actually reason with us. They refuse to defend their veracity, their reasoning, and their conclusions. As a result, they are increasingly ignored.

A writer from a major newspaper recently remarked how his industry holds tabloids in contempt. To an increasing number of people, it’s all the same: made-up stuff or very-poorly-sourced-and-heavily-slanted stuff intended more to incite or excite than to enlighten. Newspapers could have such a great role in public discourse. But in these wonderful, disintermediating times they would have to actually engage in discourse, and that’s a leap they seem unable to make.

Workers Compensation and Illegal Aliens

2008-08-12T16:47:00.002-06:00

Special interest groups, blogs, and Big Media are lambasting the Utah Legislature and the Utah Labor Commission for a bill and rules (p. 127) concerning workers compensation benefits. The Tribune reports, “Thanks to the Republican, employer-friendly and developer-heavy Utah Legislature, [etc.].” Golly. Those information outlets argue that the statute and rules will unfairly hurt illegal aliens.

The reality, however, is that the bill and the rules won’t change a thing for illegal aliens regarding workers compensation benefits. Not a single thing.

Currently, an injured worker’s immigration status only matters (slightly) in permanent, total disability (PTD) cases (where the worker claims that his injury makes him unable to perform any work reasonably available). If other work is found to be reasonably available, the worker (illegal or 10^th-generation American) does not receive PTD benefits. The only difference between illegal and legal workers would be that in the case of a worker with legal status, the insurer would present a witness who would say, “Worker A can work at business X. He has the proper education, training, work experience, etc. He could start Wednesday.” In the case of a worker lacking legal status, the insurer would present a witness who would say, “Worker B could work at business X. He has the proper education, training, work experience, etc.. But, he lacks legal status to be hired there.”

So, how will that scenario change under the Morley bill and the Labor Commission rule? Well, it won’t.

So, the relevant inquiry to this little drama is – why the misinformation? Is it mistake or agenda?

To determine the ultimate reliability of sources of information, it is helpful to see how they respond when they were in the wrong and they misled the public. So, I’ll invite the ACLU, JM Bell, BrownViews, and the Tribune to print whatever rephrasing or retractions they deem appropriate to garner the same amount of attention, in order to illuminate, rather than mislead, the public.

Utah's Budget

2008-07-25T16:58:00.000-06:00

An important part of successfully riding out a storm is to be prepared before the storm hits. Obviously. During the boom years, there was great pressure on the Legislature to grow government. We did – actually, by a lot. But, to great opposition, we also took some fiscally-responsible actions that did not grow programs; specifically, we cut taxes, we appropriated cash toward capital projects, and we socked away money in rainy-day funds.

Governments get themselves in trouble during the good times, by building programs that can’t be sustained during economically bad times or flat times – leading to cuts and serious economic dislocations. As Sen. Hillyard reports, the State of Utah is doing okay. So far. We’ll see where the economy will head from here, but citizens and business owners can take some comfort in the fact that the State’s budget is holding together well for the time being.

You’ll notice that I said it is difficult to sustain programs in economically flat times. With Utah’s tremendous growth, we have to appropriate additional tens of millions of dollars every year, if we want to merely maintain level funding for programs. Think of increased student numbers and Medicaid and CHIP enrollees, for example, not to mention cost escalations and inflation.

One additional observation. Because it is always tough to move away from the status quo, governmental fat typically is cut only when it has to be. Sad, but very true. So, economic downturns invite/force Legislatures to get even tougher on prioritizing spending decisions. This is one reason why it is such a shame that the federal government has no qualms about running massive deficits; there never is a strong push to cut/reform fat governmental programs. Instead, making Enron look responsible by comparison, the federal government avoids tough decisions and foists pain on future generations.

Transparency and Performance

2008-07-22T16:40:00.002-06:00

When I entered the Legislature 8 years ago, information was hidden from voters. Though the Legislature had an advanced website, the decision was purposely made to not make Legislators’ votes readily accessible on the site. Why not? With straight faces, legislative leaders would say, because such information, taken out of context, could confuse voters.

Fortunately, we quickly changed our tune, and offered the public access to lots of information. Everything I have available – in terms of access to bills, voting records, floor and committee speeches – the public also has. I am not aware of any state doing better in terms of access, and I am aware of most states doing worse.

I believe a correlation exists between this transparency and the fact that Utah is widely recognized as the best-managed state in the Nation. Giving people direct access to information has 3 consequences. One, officials pay closer attention to their actions. Two, people can more readily hold officials accountable for their actions. And, three, officials can be bolder in their actions. The first 2 points are obvious. I’ll discuss the third point.

Transparency allows officials to be bolder, because they have a closer, more-informed relationship with constituents; and, in any event, there is no place to hide. Where good information is lacking, drivel flows back and forth between constituents and their elected officials; officials can hide behind aphorisms, and the public has a difficult time digging them out with a rehash of the week’s editorials. Available information, however, allows people to dig in more on their elected officials; likewise, it allows officials to cite to specifics in the record, to explain actions that contradict the wishes of the editorialists.

I believe we’ll see a shift in voters’ concerns, at least to some degree, away from the litmus of liberal or conservative toward a litmus of "conversative" or "non-conversative," with the conversative candidates having the advantage. Constituents don’t expect their representatives to vote like they would every time, but they do expect their representatives to dialogue with them and bring them into the process. Now, of course, this is nothing new; but, the ability of constituents and their elected officials to exchange information is accelerating at a staggering pace. And, I believe that this openness signifies great things for representative democracy.