News Media Piles on Banks for Charging ATM Fees for Non-Customers

I wonder how many of us remember life before the ATMs (automated teller machines).  The only time you had access to your money was when your bank or other type of financial institution was open.  And if you wanted to cash a check at a bank where you didn’t have an account, you usually weren’t allowed to do so.  The premise was logical. Why should the bank offer a cash checking service for people who don’t have accounts there?

Because technological advances have brought us the amazing ATMs, we consumers have access to our money on a 24-hour basis no matter where we are.  Yet, according to our modern day media, no one should have to pay for this tremendous convenience even if they don’t have an account with the financial institution that is bearing the cost of providing this great service.

Last week, many news media outlets, like ABC World News Tonight, did stories on major banks testing $4 and $5 ATM usage fees for non-customers in Illinois and Texas.  As the news media too often does, it provided stories that were opposed to the fees.  In fact, it seemed that all the interviews were with whiners and complainers who were upset that they would be charged for the convenience of using an ATM by a financial institution where they did not usually conduct their business.  If you wanted to get the whole story, you would have to read one of the good business publications, like The Wall Street Journal.  How many people do that?

It’s not surprising to see our mainstream media files such biased reports on the ATM issue because most reporters really don’t understand business or economics.  Did you hear any of the reporters from the major networks tell you that it costs a financial institution about $12,000 to $15,000 a year to maintain each ATM?  Given this cost, the media thinks it is unreasonable to charge fees to non-customers for the great convenience these provide?  Of course, most of these institutions do make money on the fees they charge.  Why shouldn’t they?  They are incurring the cost for the purchase and maintenance, not the non-customer who is complaining that they should be afforded this service free of charge.

There are believed to be roughly 464,000 ATMs worldwide.  These machines provide a tremendous convenience for customers of these financial institutions.  You not only can have access to your money, you can also take advantage of numerous other banking services by using these devises.  In addition, most major financial institutions have ATMs all over the place, so no customer should really have to go very far to find a device from their own financial institution.  My bank actually put an ATM at the corner drug store.  Talk about convenience!

 Unfortunately, we have an ignorant and biased media that believes the whiners and complainers in our society should win the day and never have to pay for any service if they don’t believe it’s fair.  My only questions to the financial institutions that are now charging non-customers for using their ATMs is what took you so long?

Despite Recent Problems, Life is Getting Much Better

The Middle East is still in turmoil, and for most people, we are still in difficult and uncertain economic times.  However, I can make a great case that life is much better than it used to be, but you would never know that by watching most television news shows.

Last week, there was an announcement by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that there were 32,788 traffic fatalities.  Now, that is too many, but what may be surprising is that this was the lowest number of traffic deaths since 1949.  A variety of factors have probably contributed to this drop in vehicle deaths.  We have safer cars, better roads, and dare I say, probably safer drivers.

Are you ready for another piece of good news?   Last year, the city of Chicago recorded 436 murders, and my condolences go out to the families of the victims.  Nevertheless, as a young reporter, I covered the police department for a regional daily newspaper in Chicago in 1974 when the city recorded 970 murders.  I clearly remember when I would go to the Fourth District Police Headquarters every morning, how the police officers and I would be speculating on whether or not the city would top 1,000 murders.  Think of it. The murder rate in Chicago has dropped by more than 50 percent since I was a young reporter.  By the way, the 970 murders in 1974 still stand as a Chicago records.

Now, I know these promising statistics are small consolation to the families and friends who have lost loved ones to traffic accidents and violent crimes, but life is getting better in so many ways that we often don’t hear about in our doom and gloom news media.  For instance, life expectancy in the United States is now up to 78.4 years, and deaths due to many life-threatening diseases such as cancer are going down every year.  The advances in medical technology promise a future of longer and healthier lives for American.

My desire is not to condemn the modern-day media for often ignoring or minimizing good news.  I really don’t think there is any intent to create a sky is falling mentality.  Instead, I attribute much of the negativity that people feel from the news media to the tremendous technical advances in news gathering and reporting.

If you look back about 40 years, there were no 24-hour cable news stations, and there were no mini-cams and satellite trucks that could beam the wreckage of a major vehicle accident or the tragic aftermath of a multiple murder right to your living room.  Add the invention of the Internet, which now allows people to watch these distressing videos over and over.  This new technology basically enables the electronic news media to rub every aberration of human behavior and nature in your face on a continuous basis.  No wonder people often think the world is going to hell in a hand basket.

I am not trying to become another Mr. Rodgers and claim that every day is “a beautiful day in the neighborhood,” but there are many reasons to believe that life in general is getting better than it has ever been.  Soak up some of the good news and celebrate.  I hope this positive information helps all of you to put life in better perspective and proportion the next time you watch a doom and gloom newscast.

Muslims Can Riot and Kill, But Christians Should Accept Any Desacration of Their Religion

Let’s get started by my stating that Gainesville, FL, Pastor Terry Jones is an idiot for burning the Quran, or is it the Koran.  There are so many different spellings in the media that I’m not sure, but I will use Koran for this post.

The Koran is the holy book of the Muslim religion, and it is sad to see anyone burn any religious book in a vicious attempt to belittle and berate the believers of a faith.  In this case, Pastor Jones insensitive act has led to violent protests in Afghanistan, resulting in the deaths of at least 20 people, including a few workers from the United Nations.

Now, this posting is not really about the burning of the book or the violent reaction to it.  The focus of the media coverage is what always intrigues me every time there is a violent reaction in the Muslim world to any perceived slight of their religion.  The United States is a predominantly Christian country, and those of us who are Christians have always been lectured by the American media to accept desecration of anything we hold dear as part of life in a free society.

 Do you remember when an artist painted a crucifix partially submerged in a jar of urine?  That painting appeared in an art Museum, and Christians were condemned by our tolerant media for even peacefully protesting this defilement of one of Christianity’s most sacred symbols.  Those who protested were characterized by many in the media as intolerant, unsophisticated rubes who don’t understand the art world.

Yet, when there is any perceived slight of the Muslim religion, there are often very violent reactions in Islamic countries.  The media reaction in our country is usually to condemn those who orchestrate the insult to Islam and excuse the violent reaction as a normal, rationale response to such an affront.

Think of all the violent responses to anything Muslim view as offensive.  In November 2004, European film producer Theo Van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam by a person who has been described as an Islamic radical.  Van Gogh’s offense was to produce a movie critical of what he considered the brutal way Muslim’s treated women.  Some American media pundits actually said that Van Gogh should have expected some form of retribution for as one said “sticking a poker in the eye of the Muslim religion.”

Just about a year ago, the creators of the adult cartoon series "South Park" were warned about their depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in a bear suit.  A radical Islamic website posted this warning to the creators of the cartoon, "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show.  This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

These are just two small examples of the many violent reactions that occur across the world anytime there is anything done that is even remotely considered a slur against the Muslim religion.  Yet, if you were to believe the mainstream media in the United States, people with strong Christian beliefs are intolerant to anyone who doesn’t agree with them, while Islam is the religion of peace.  OK….I guess the cow really did jump over the moon

Where Is The Outrage about the Media Matters Campaign?

It has been a almost a week since reporter Ben Smith of “Politico,” a website that covers politics, broke a story about the liberal so-called media watchdog group, Media Matters, launching an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

Now, I am a new junkie, but I obviously can’t see every television newscast or hear every radio broadcasts. With the exception of Sean Hannity, who is a target of this campaign, I haven’t heard anyone else in the media refer to the “Politico” report or take an editorial stance against such despicable action.

By the way, “Politico” is considered a fairly mainstream political reporting website.  Ben Smith is not about to make something up negatively about Media Matters.  He quotes David Brock, the founder of Media Matters as saying the new strategy at his website should be considered a “war on Fox.” The opening quote regarding “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” is also attributed to Brock.

Where is the outrage in any area of the news media?  I’ve heard little or nothing from liberal or conservative media outlets.  I would like to ask all veteran news reporters, how is what Media Matters is professing to do any different than what the news media condemned the administration of Richard Nixon for doing in the early 70s?

For those of you who aren’t old enough to remember, political operatives of the Nixon Administration engaged in a comprehensive campaign in the early 70s to undermine and discredit anyone they viewed as opposing the policies and methods of the then President Richard Nixon.  It involved breaking into breaking into the Democratic Party Headquarters in 1972 in the Watergate office complex in Washington D.C.  The burglary evolved into the scandal named after the building, and Watergate became the all encompassing name for everything that the Nixon administration did before and after the incident.  Eventually, the Watergate scandal resulted in Nixon’s resignation.

Every news media outlet at that time was obsessed with focusing on everything Richard Nixon did and with good reason. In 1971, Nixon operatives even broke into the psychiatrist’s office of Daniel Ellsberg, the former U.S. military analyst who released papers on the unpopular Vietnam War.  Ellsberg gave what came to be known as the “Pentagon Papers” to The New York Times for publication.  These formerly secret documents were a great embarrassment to the John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Nixon administrations, and Nixon operative were hell bent on finding information to discredit Ellsberg.  

Nixon’s campaign to destroy his perceived enemies marked one of the truly dark periods of American politics.  Fortunately for the country, Nixon was forced to resign as President in August 1974 and remains the only United States President to resign from office.

OK media!  Where is the similar coverage of what Media Matters has openly declared?  Where is the outrage about professed methods and tactics that virtually mirror those of the Nixon Administration?  Is it possible that many in the mainstream media are cheering for Media Matters to succeed because they are getting their brains beat out in the ratings by Fox, and Fox doesn’t conform to liberal media orthodoxy?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Just Wondering?...Orlando Sentinel Sets the Record Straight

Yesterday, I wrote about Scott Powers, the Orlando Sentinel reporter who was locked in a closet during a fundraiser that Vice President Joe Biden attended in central Florida.  I wondered if the reporter would have left the closet incident out of the initial story if aides to former Vice President Dick Cheney had locked him in the closet.

The Sentinel responded with information I didn't know, and now it is my obligation, as it should be for anyone who posts anything publicly, to set the record straight.

The Orlando Sentinel certainly did not play favorites in this event.  In fact, the newspaper had pictures of the closet posted on its website before the event was over.  Evidently, the reporter was able to use his cell phone device to take a picture of the closet and transmit it to his editor.  The reporter also was featured on ABC's "Good Morning America," which did a story on the embarrassing incident.

One thing I have always believed during my career as a journalist and as a professional communicator is that when you have new information, you don't hide it; you report it and correct the record, or, at least, update it.  I did not have all the information I have now when I posted my blog yesterday on the Florida scenario.  Now that I do, I have reported it, and I would like to thank the wonderful people at the Orlando Sentinel for responding in  a very professional manner and enabling me to update the story.

In my opinion, a journalist’s first obligation is to go where the facts lead you, no matter where they lead, and if you can’t do that for whatever reason, you should ask to be taken off the story, so another reporter can pick up the pieces and move on.  If I may be so bold to add my own definition of journalism, I believe journalism should really be a never-ending search for the truth, and I mean never-ending because we will always find with new information that can change what we once believed to be the truth.

I’m not suggesting that journalists and bloggers cannot draw conclusions before they have scoured the universe for every last piece of information on a subject.  That would lead to an unreasonable intellectual paralysis.  But they should be open to exploring every avenue of information.  If one becomes an advocate or participant for any point of view—liberal, conservative or otherwise—that person is more likely to become intellectually invested in a certain outcome and tend to ignore or marginalize any evidence that counters his or her advocacy position.

I admit to having a certain point of view.  However, I am obligated to you, the reader, to never let that point of view keep me from writing what I know to be correct.  As a blogger, I should adhere to the same axiom that I expect journalists to follow, and so I have.  If I were to find out more information in the future on this incident, I will post another story on it.

Can You Imagine if Dick Cheney's Staff Locked a Reporter in a Closet?

I often said that hypocrisy and bias in the media is old news, but can you imagine the firestorm that would have erupted if the staff of former Vice President Dick Cheney locked a reporter in a closet during a fundraiser?  Well, that's what happened to an Orlando Sentinel reporter last weekend, except it wasn't Dick Cheney's staff; it was Vice President Joseph Biden's staff.

The incident was covered by most media outlets, but not extensively.  Therefore, in case you missed it, reporter Scott Powers was the pool reporter covering a fundraiser in Florida for Democratic Senator Bill Nelson.  Vice President Biden was the main speaker at the fundraiser, and his staff decided to lock Powers in a closet for roughly an hour and fifteen minutes.

Now, most of the media reported the situation after reporters found out about it, but they didn't find out from Powers.  In the report he filed on the fundraiser, Powers made no mention that he was locked in a closet by Biden's staff for most of the event.  For the record, Biden's staff has apologized profusely for what happened, and so did the homeowner where the fundraiser took place.

It doesn't surprise me at all that most of the media has downplayed this scenario.  As I have often written in my posts, liberal bias in the media is old news.  What troubles me is that Powers didn't report what happened to him in his story, or at least do a humorous side bar story on the incident.  I am a former managing editor, and I would be quite angry if I had to hear about what happened to one of my reporters from another media source.

Unlike most people in the news media, I can't read minds and hearts, so I am not going to speculate on whether or not Powers is a supporter of Democratic politics and didn't want to embarrass Biden.  Nevertheless, I would like to hear from Powers if he would have written his account of the fundraiser the same way if he was locked in a closet by an aide to Dick Cheney?  Just wondering.

Why Didn't Whoopi and Joy Walk Out on Donald Trump?

I've never watch "The View" television show before last week.  It's just not the kind of television show that would interest me.  Nevertheless, Donald Trump decided to appear on the show, and since he is considering running for President, I decided to tune in.

Much to my surprise, Trump took on the so-called "birther" issue and he asked why doesn't Barack Obama produce his original birth certificate and put the question of whether or not he was born in the United States to rest?  What surprised me even more was that Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar didn't walk off the show as they did when Bill O'Reilly appeared a while back.

When O'Reilly, the controversial Fox News host, appeared on "The View,"  he stated an indisputable fact that all the terrorists that attacked us on September 11, 2001 were Muslims. O'Reilly didn't say that all Muslims were terrorists; he just said the ones that attacked us on that infamous day were all Muslims.  It didn't matter because Whoopi and Joy became so enraged they walked off the show.

Now, a short time later, Trump comes on the show and says something that equally enrages Goldberg and Behar, but they don't walk off the show.  I wonder why not?  O'Reilly stated a fact.  Trump engaged in speculation.  I can't read minds, but I suspect that Goldberg and Behar might have been looking for an excuse to embarrass O'Reilly and, in turn, Fox news.

I'm not suggesting that the women should have walked out on Trump because he did raise some interesting questions.  One was why doesn't Obama just produce his birth certificate?  The other was why is the President spending so much in legal fees to keep his birth and school records sealed?

Before the show with Trump, I was becoming annoyed by the whole birther controversy.  I figured Obama was born in Hawaii, so let's get onto issues that are really important and not waste anymore media time on the birther distraction.  Now, I have researched some of the stories regarding the amount of money Obama has spent on hiding his records, and I wonder why?  I still think he was born in the United States, but the fact that he seems to be spending so much to hide his records is beginning to make me wonder.

This whole situation regarding Obama's place of birth underscores what is wrong with a media that is so dominated by advocates and not journalists.  A journalist would have no problem asking the President why he is spending so much money to avoid the issue.  The advocates in the media, who have expended so much of their professional credibility supporting Obama, won't ever ask such a question.  Yet, the public deserves the answer.