Category: Journalism

Christie’s Criticism of Trump Not New; Don’t Assume It’s in Preparation for 2024

Last Friday NJ.com published another unlabeled1 editorial displaying once again the Star-Ledger‘s disdain for former New Jersey governor Chris Christie. While critical of any Republican who expresses any support for former President Donald Trump, they now attribute Christie’s recent less than kind comments to preparation for another presidential run himself.

I have no idea if Christie is going to run again and nothing in the editorial (I’m sorry, article) suggests that the Star-Ledger has inside information to confirm that he will. While the Star-Ledger is quick to remind its readers that Christe was an early Trump supporter when he dropped out of the 2016 race, it is less quick to remind them (or perhaps tell them for the first time) that Christie was never an election denier in 2020 as he made very clear in his book Republican Rescue: Saving the Party From Truth Deniers, Conspiracy Theorists, and the Dangerous Policies of Joe Biden.

Jay Bohn

November 28, 2022

  1. In response to feedback on its decision to erect a paywall around certain content, NJ.com previously promised that it would “better label opinion pieces.” ↩︎

Will the Media Make 2024 Just Like 2016?

In 2016 there were seventeen major candidates seeking the Republican nomination, including eventual winner Donald Trump. We don’t get very good coverage of issues by the professional media most of the time, so it would have been fantasy to believe that there could have been extensive coverage of the positions of all of these candidates. In the end Trump got much more than his proportionate share of media attention, I believe, although based entirely on my own speculation, for two reasons: (1) his candidacy created the most “buzz” and therefore coverage of him would attract more “eyeballs” and thus benefit the media companies’ bottom lines and (2) as the mainstream media tend to be left of center, they wanted our first Black president to be succeeded by Hillary Clinton as the first woman President and they thought Donald Trump would not be a strong opponent.

Now that Trump has announced his candidacy for 2024, I fear history will repeat itself. Just as a fire can consume all the oxygen in a room, Trump will become the focus of press attention for the same reasons, preventing any other Republican candidate from gaining traction.

Jay Bohn

November 24, 2022

Whether a Hug or a Handshake, Christie’s Greeting of President Obama During Post-Sandy Visit Did Not “Change” American Politics

In a pretty good piece yesterday, NJ.com/the Star-Ledger((The Star-Ledger’s article was called “How ‘The Hug’ changed American politics.” NJ.com’s version was entitled “Unforgivable” and summarized by the following lines: “‘The Hug’ changed American politics. How a Chris Christie-Barack Obama greeting signaled the death of civility.”)) discussed that greeting between then President Obama and Governor Christie when the President arrived to view the damage caused by Superstorm Sandy ten years ago today.

According to the piece, “‘The Hug'((It uses this term despite very clearly stating that it was merely a handshake with some presidential shoulder pats, a characterization supported by video evidence.)) remains an inflection point that stained Christie’s political career, symbolized the death of bipartisan politics and foreshadowed the hyper-divisive Donald Trump((Donald Trump didn’t cause the polarization, but he has used it to his advantage.)) era of political incivility.”

I’m not so sure that this incident coincided with greater political polarization and it certainly did not cause it. Oh, I remember the complaints made by some when Governor Christie was courteous to the President, who was six days from his re-election. I thought the reaction overblown and the suggestion that Christie’s action affected the presidential election laughable. No way New Jersey was going to go for Romney and little chance that Christie’s influence would affect many voters elsewhere. Is the vitriol we see today markedly worse than the insults hurled at Ronald Reagan?

No, it probably didn’t help Christie politically, but if his there is one cause for the lack of success in running for President in 2016, it was Bridgegate.((Not that anyone ever presented any proof that he ordered the bridge lanes closed in an act of political spite, and I’m sure they looked, but because people who worked for him must have thought he would find that conduct acceptable; that they could have thought so means that he did not clearly communicate the proper ethical tone.))

Certainly, politics are now more polarized than before, and part of the blame belongs to the “mainstream” media. If a newspaper like the Star-Ledger wants to be widely read and respected, its articles must report news, not just thinly disguised opinion. It must be, and be seen to be, much more objective in its reporting.((The Star-Ledger, like this blog, is entitled to whatever viewpoint it wants to express in its labelled opinion pieces.)) Readers are forced to look elsewhere and truly objective reporting is pretty hard to find.

Jay Bohn

October 31, 2022.

Special Treatment for Newspapers Would Impair Their ‘Watchdog’ Role

The Star-Ledger‘s efforts to exempt the newspaper industry from labor laws that apply to everyone else is the gift that just keeps on giving, at least in terms of materials about which to blog. First, I responded to an  opinion piece by Richard Vezza (the Star-Ledger‘s retired editor/publisher and current government affairs chairman for the New Jersey Press Association), entitled “Our state newspapers are on the brink,” which was published on September 22, 2022. Then just a few days ago I had this to say about the Star-Ledger Editorial Board’s editorial on NJ.com “This fresh blow to newspapers — and our democracy — must be stopped,” (subscriber exclusive).

For those who need a bit of catch-up, physical newspapers are delivered for the Star-Ledger (and apparently just about every other newspaper in New Jersey) by one company for home delivery and one other for retail. These companies classify the people who do the actual delivery as independent contractors, not as employees, which means that the workers get fewer benefits and they cost the delivery companies less money. Under New Jersey’s version of the ABC test, this classification is incorrect and the employers face the prospect of being forced to reclassify the workers as employees (and presumably pay fines or other penalties). The additional cost, it is said, will lead to the layoff of the few reporters remaining or even the closure of some newspapers.

This is the same issue faced by every other industry, but the Star-Ledger argues that newspapers are special: they are watchdogs, and the strict enforcement of the regulation will damage our democracy. I do in fact agree on the importance of a free press (even one I often criticize) for democracy. And it is precisely for that reason that I oppose special treatment for newspapers. If politicians do this favor for newspapers, they (the politicians) will undoubtedly expect something in return, or perhaps threaten to undo it. Last summer NJ.com called a bill that would have permitted the substitution of the sheriff’s website for a newspaper advertisement as notice for a foreclosure sale a ‘vendetta against newspapers.’ I replied that the proposal to provide notice by means other than newspaper advertising should be evaluated on its effectiveness as a tool for notice, not its economic impact on newspapers.

Assume that NJ.com was right that the purpose of that bill was to punish newspapers. I think that’s all the more reason why newspapers should not seek, or be given, special favors. They must be treated like every other business, so their coverage is not affected (or even seen to be effected) by fear or favor.

Jay Bohn

October 6, 2022

Newspaper Industry Must Find Way to Improve ABC Test For all Industries, Not Just Seek Exemption for Itself

Yesterday the Star-Ledger Editorial Board published an editorial on NJ.com “This fresh blow to newspapers — and our democracy — must be stopped,” (subscriber exclusive) which doubles down on the  opinion piece by Richard Vezza (the Star-Ledger‘s retired editor/publisher and current government affairs chairman for the New Jersey Press Association), entitled “Our state newspapers are on the brink,” which was published on September 22, 2022, and was the subject of last Monday’s post “Importance of Newspapers Does Not Justify Special Exemption From Labor Laws.” The recent editorial displays just a bit of discomfort at being a player rather than just an observer, but nonetheless seeks special accommodation to allow the newspaper industry (or the companies it hires to undertake the delivery of newspapers) to classify the delivery persons as “independent contractors” rather than “employees” and thus not have to pay unemployment and disability taxes. At least, as the editorial says, “The solution wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime.” (Although its impact on the workers, for whom the the Star-Ledger is usually solicitous, would be something else.)

The editorial is on firmer footing in its criticism of some elements of the ABC test used to determine if workers are contractors or employees. The Star-Ledger should editorialize on changes to, or the replacement of, that test, which would apply to all industries and could be judged on their merits, rather than seeking special treatment only for theirs.

Jay Bohn

October 3, 2022

Importance of Newspapers Does Not Justify Special Exemption From Labor Laws

When I read it, I just knew it was blog fodder. Last Thursday the Star Ledger/NJ.com prominently published an opinion piece by Richard Vezza, its retired editor/publisher (and current government affairs chairman for the New Jersey Press Association), entitled “Our state newspapers are on the brink.” The story asserts an existential threat to many newspapers (and the potential of massive layoffs at others) caused by the enforcement of New Jersey’s law regarding the classification of the people who deliver those newspapers as employees rather than independent contractors and urges the governor and leaders of the senate and assembly to change the law (as California and New York have) so that newspaper delivery people can remain independent contractors.((As the piece explains, many newspapers contract out the delivery of their newspapers to just two companies for delivery to homes and retailers; these companies in turn rely upon individuals who are classified as as independent contractors rather than employees. If they were employees, the companies would have to pay more for their services (the piece  estimates the increased cost to be between 86% to 128%), which costs would be passed on to the newspapers. That is the issue.))

Tort law has a doctrine known by the Latin term respondeat superior under which the master (employer in modern terms) is liable for the torts of the servant (employee) based upon the master’s legal authority to control the servant’s conduct. This vicarious liability does not apply to the master’s “independent contractors,” whose moment-by-moment conduct is not subject to the same degree of legal control.

Over time, and with the benevolent government’s increasing altruistic concern for the welfare of workers expressed by the mandating of benefits (for which someone else is paying), the distinction has become significant (and this is the current issue) in terms of whether those benefits must be provided and the liability and payor-identity of certain taxes. Independent contractors are not entitled to the minimum wage, overtime, unemployment compensation or other benefits that the employer or government (at partially or totally the employer’s cost) provides. To the extent a employer’s workers are independent contractors, there will be no obligation on the part of the employer to pay overtime, a share of social security, unemployment and perhaps other taxes or to provide benefits (such as health insurance) which its employees get.((At least some of these taxes are then supposed to be paid by the independent contractor, but collection becomes more questionable if not deducted at the source.)) Thus, in many cases an employer reduces its labor cost significantly by classifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees.((The classification is not always just done for this purpose. If the Star-Ledger calls in an outside IT firm to fix its computer network, that relationship is quite correctly one of an independent contractor rather than employment, but “freelance” journalism is probably an entirely separate question.)) The government does not let the employer’s classification, or even a specific agreement between the employer and the worker, be the last word. Instead, it applies what is typically called the “ABC test.”((For anyone particularly interested on what the ABC test is (and the specifics and desirability of that test is beyond the scope of this post), see how the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development phrases it.))

Independent contractor status benefits some workers for whom it provides greater flexibility and the opportunity to earn more by working for more than one employer. Vezza claims that newspaper delivery people are among them:

Most independent delivery people in New Jersey work 2-4 hours per day in the mornings and then have the flexibility to seek other work or take time for themselves and/or their families and loved ones. They set their own hours, are not supervised, and they may (and often do) hire others to perform their work. Their only obligation is to deliver the work product for which the company has contracted.))

Although I haven’t talked to any of them, I really doubt such satisfaction with their lot is a widespread view. Their ability to set their own hours is (or better be) fictional, otherwise my week’s worth of morning papers might be delivered Sunday afternoon. I don’t see how the classification impacts the time actually necessary to do the job or any of the other listed advantages.

Thus, we are left with the primary beneficiaries of a special exception to New Jersey’s labor laws being only New Jersey’s newspapers. Why are they deserving of this largesse? Vezza’s answer is: “to preserve the flow of information to the public, save jobs((The piece stresses that union jobs are at stake. I doubt those who are up early in the morning to deliver the papers are unionized; that probably one of the benefits that only employees get.)) and, most importantly, maintain government transparency.” I would imagine that any other industry that sought such an advantage — and to the expense of what must be its least-favored workers — would be editorially accused of padding its pockets on the backs of its workers or some other mixed metaphor.((I cannot actually accuse the Star-Ledger of the same degree of hypocrisy as I did with respect to the $15 minimum wage because I cannot find that it has taken an editorial position on this issue.))

In June 2021 I wrote: “Although I appreciate the importance of old-fashioned printed newspapers to an informed citizenry (and I subscribe to several), I cannot agree with the position that legal advertising should be mandated for the purpose of their economic support.” I feel the same way about giving them a special exception from a generally prevailing labor law.

Jay Bohn

September 26, 2022

Border State Busing Exposes “Sanctuary City” Hypocrisy

Immigration is a complicated issue and has been a matter of contention since the founding of the republic.((Remember the Adams-era Alien and Sedition Acts from American history? The Sedition Act got the most attention, but three of the four laws, one of which remains in effect, were aimed at non-citizens.)) We cannot even agree on terminology. The phrase “illegal aliens,” common a few decades ago, is criticized on the ground that “no person is illegal.” (True, but the phrase does emphasize that these people’s entry into, or continued presence in, the United States is contrary to law, whereas the substitute “undocumented aliens” suggests that it is simply a question of lost paperwork, much like not having your car’s registration and insurance card in your glove compartment when stopped by the police.) Now even the word “alien” is unacceptable and being replaced by “non-citizen.”

For years some states, like Texas, have been pushing for the federal government fully to enforce existing immigration laws while presidents (who are constitutionally responsible to enforce those laws) decline to do so because they disagree with them from a policy perspective.((I too would prefer a more open immigration system than current law provides, but as the hypothetical reader of this blog may have gathered, I am always concerned about process issues. Immigration policy is a matter for legislation by Congress, subject to the presidential veto. Picking and choosing what laws to enforce encourages disrespect for all law.)) Many cities have declared themselves sanctuaries and refuse to cooperate in immigration enforcement activities. But these cities do not bear the same burden as do communities along the border. These “sanctuary cities” are able to pretend to the moral high ground because, to put it in economic terms, someone else is paying.

Thousands of migrants cross the border. Once in the country, even if caught by immigration officials, they claim asylum (which will be granted to so very few that the claim itself is essentially a fiction)((Asylum protects those with a well-founded fear of persecution, not the vast majority who simply want the better life they foresee in the United States.)) and are released until they receive a hearing. In the meantime they are, as the Southwest Airlines ad puts it, “free to move about the country.” Texas Governor Greg Abbot has responded in a politically brilliant way by creating “Operation Lone Star” in which willing migrants((See this CNN story: Texas is bussing migrants to New York and DC for free — many want to go .)) are put on busses that take them to Washington, New York, and, more recently, Chicago.

While mouthing platitudes about being welcoming communities, the mayors of these destination cities are seething about having to bear the economic cost of food and shelter for the migrants. The mayor of Washington complains that the federal government will not mobilize the National Guard; the mayor of Chicago created her own bussing program and sent the migrants to a hotel in a Republican suburb.

And what would a blog post be without a complaint about the professional media? It’s hard to find facts as most of the coverage is either partisan (in the sense of pro or anti immigration) or more interested in political conflict.

Jay Bohn

September 15, 2022

On the Waterfront (Commission)

In 1953, partially in response to a series of articles in The New York Sun that exposed the grip the mob had on commerce in the ports around New York City,((“On the Waterfront, a Mob Watchdog Is Fighting to Survive,” New York Times (online) January 17, 2018.)) the States of New York and New Jersey, with the consent of Congress, entered into a “compact” which created the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor (the Waterfront Commission), to regulate the harbor.

In 2018 New Jersey passed a statute (Chapter 324) to withdraw from the compact and terminate the Waterfront Commission. This past March, just before the withdrawal was to take effect, New York sought leave to file a rare original action in the United States Supreme Court and a motion for preliminary relief to enjoin the withdrawal during the pendency of the action. The Supreme Court quickly granted preliminary relief and a few months later granted New York’s motion to file a bill of complaint. At the same time the Court granted the States’ joint motion to file cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.

Last week the New Jersey Globe scooped NJ.com/the Star-Ledger in reporting that the United States had filed an amicus brief in support of New Jersey’s position.

Kudos to the New Jersey Globe for reporting the story, but it got the procedural history wrong. The end of the Globe’s article states that the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the bill of complaint to be filed “stay[ed] a Court of Appeals decision that sided with New Jersey.” This is inaccurate. What happened is that after Chapter 324 was passed the Waterfront Commission itself sued New Jersey in federal district court, which sided with the Waterfront Commission on the merits.((Waterfront Comm’n of N.Y. Harbor v. Murphy, 429 F. Supp. 3d 1, 3 (D.N.J. 2019).)) On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the State of New Jersey under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.((Waterfront Comm’n of N.Y. Harbor v. Governor of N.J., 961 F.3d 234, 236 (3d Cir. 2020).)) The Supreme Court denied review. 1 Thus, the Third Circuit’s holding that the district court does not have jurisdiction over the State of New Jersey in a suit brought by the Waterfront Commission remains in effect. The Supreme Court’s unquestioned jurisdiction to entertain a suit brought by the State of New York is an entirely different matter.

As far as I could find, NJ.com has only published one story with any level of detail on the merits of New Jersey’s attempt to withdraw from the compact, a 2021 editorial The only reason to break up the Waterfront Commission: Politics. Not politics really though, the editorial contends that the New York Shipping Association and the “mobbed-up” International Longshoremen’s Association have bought New Jersey. If NJ.com believes that, where are the hard-hitting investigative pieces, like those that lead to the creation of the Waterfront Commission in the first place, proving it to be so?

I don’t know if New Jersey can or will root out any corruption infecting the 80% of harbor business that flows through the state, but I do not for one moment believe that New York’s opposition to the termination of the compact and the Waterfront Commission reflects only that concern. Like other bi-state agencies, the Waterfront Commission is a source of patronage spoils in the form of lucrative jobs and contracts split between the two governors, although I suspect that, as usual, New York gets more than its fair share.

Jay Bohn

September 8, 2022

  1. Waterfront Comm’n of N.Y. Harbor v. Murphy, 142 S. Ct. 561 (2021). [↩]

Grateful for Geographic Accuracy

Yesterday NJ.com published an updated survey of New Jersey’s 50 greatest hole-in-the-wall restaurants (behind the paywall unfortunately). Listed among them was Toby’s Cup, correctly described as being in Lopatcong Township rather than in nearby Phillipsburg (a point specifically made in the text of the article).

While I applaud the geographical accuracy, I note that it was missing in last month’s roundup New Jersey’s 25 best vineyards and wineries, the ultimate guide (also behind the paywall), which incorrectly listed Alba Vineyard as being located in Milford (a borough in Hunterdon County) rather than Pohatcong Township, Warren County, not even adjacent to Milford.((I understand that Alba is served by the Milford post office and therefore has a Milford mailing address, but that’s a different issue for another day.))

Especially if I’m paying for information from the professional media, I expect factual accuracy and attention to detail. As the converse of the biblical parable of the talents,((Matthew 25:14-30.)) fail me in small things and I will not trust you with greater.

Jay Bohn

September 5, 2022

Professional Media Need to Take Some Responsibility for “Misinformation”

Especially since the 2020 election, the mainstream media have been complaining about mis- (or dis-) information being spread, particularly by means of social media. A similar complaint is made by NJ.com’s editorial Misinformation campaign over sex ed carries on was was published on August 26, 2022.

Misinformation is best combatted by (accurate) information. I thought that was the job of the news media, particularly newspapers. That’s why I subscribe to several. But they’re not doing their job.

It seems to be that most writers are less interest in reporting facts than in pushing their point of view. I have many times (here and here for example) complained that many “news articles” are really editorials in disguise. To misquote Joe Friday, “Just the facts, ma’am.” It may not be the most glamorous or exciting part of journalism, but I suspect that why those who subscribe do (or, to put it in current perspective, what gets the eyeballs and mouse clicks).

A similar problem is the lack of details, which was the subject of one of my earliest posts.

To use as an example NJ.com’s complaint about misinformation related to sex education, the problem is that the public does not have a report of what is being taught. Where is the public supposed to get the information? Isn’t it newsworthy enough? The very on-line editorial ends with a request for support for journalism. Maybe better quality would get better support. (I suspect the real answer is that the education establishment is just as uninterested in providing the information as the news media are to report it. “It’s not the public’s business; don’t worry your pretty little heads over it. It’s our job. We know best.”)

Another example is the 2020 presidential election itself and the allegations made about whether it was stolen. Did any news outlet lay out details of the allegations to support the labelling of the claims as false? Not that I saw. The only detailed discussion I ever found was the was the July 2022, report prepared by conservatives outside the media: Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden won the 2020 Presidential Election.

If the news media are not going to provide their customers with accurate information, they need to take responsibility for a large measure of the ability of others to spread misinformation.

Jay Bohn

September 1, 2022