We presented a piece a couple of weeks ago on the political affiliations of the Capitol press corps. We posted a list of several reporters who were registered as Democrats. Now that's not a crime within itself, or, even suggests that these fine reporters aren't capable of writing stories without inflicting their personal biases. But a story yesterday by Tulsa World reporter Barbara Hoberock, makes us seriously question her motives behind her Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson puff piece. OKPNS fully understands that reporters do not write the headlines for their stories, but the following headline for Hoberock's story gives you a gist of the angle of the piece: "AG Gave Advice on Abortion Bill" with the sub headline: "Henry Was Told About Problems With a Hotly Debated Abortion Measure." Why does a story of the attorney general performing his duties - dispensing legal advice to the governor and other state agencies - warrant a 15 paragraph story? Many could surmise that this story is meant to deflect from the question of the morality or immorality of abortion, and instead, turn Henry's controversial veto last week into a question of legalities only. Martin Luther King wrote about obeying "just and unjust laws" in his famous letter from a Birmingham jail. "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all" Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." We can't imagine aborting a fetus or a baby "squares with the moral law or the law of God."

Labels: AG, Brad Henry, Press Bias, Tulsa World

Posted at 4/23/2007 08:24:00 AM |

Below is a quote from Daily Kos, the most popular and influential left wing blog on the Internet. The site averages over half a million hits a day. Today they gave their assessment of the Democrats chances of picking up additional Senate Seats in '08. Senator Inhofe's re-election is in the "could get interesting" category.

"Races that are or might be interesting by Election Day 2008. The first thing that surprises is that out of 33 races this cycle, a full 20 have the potential of turning into real races. Given that 14 of those are Republicans, it's a great map for Democrats. If ridiculously popular Gov. Brad Henry runs, this is a race....2010 presents a better chance for him when crazy Tom Coburn faces his first reelection battle. A January Tulsa World poll (essentially a Republican outfit) gave Inhofe ratings of 56/27, and George Bush 47/47."

The Tulsa World a "Republican outfit?" PLEASE!! RELATED: Tulsa World Endorses Henry. What????

Labels: Brad Henry, Decision '08, Sen. Inhofe, Sen. Tom Coburn, Tulsa World

Posted at 3/30/2007 08:08:00 PM |

TULSA, Okla.(AP) A spokeswoman for Congressman John Sullivan says the Oklahoma Republican is apologizing for describing critics of his Tulsa Race Riot legislation as -- quote -- "bigots." Christina Tuff says Sullivan chose to apologize in a letter to the editor that was published in the Sunday Tulsa World because of previous letters the newspaper had published on his comments. Sullivan's apology grew out of reactions to comments he made last month when he introduced a bill to make a memorial to the 1921 riot part of the National Park Service. During an interview on the legislation, the congressman conceded that some people in Tulsa resist that plan and said about them -- quote -- "they are either bigots or they don't understand." The remarks generated a host of letters to the newspaper, prompting Sullivan to issue an apology.

Labels: Cong. John Sullivan, Tulsa World

Posted at 3/06/2007 11:53:00 AM |

Democratic Party infighting took center stage on the national stage last week. Presidential aspirant Sen. Hillary Clinton called for Sen. Barak Obama to apologize for disparaging remarks made by an Obama contributor towards the Senator and her husband. The over-reaction by the Clinton campaign was coupled with a report that Sen. Joseph Lieberman is considering changing parties due to his party's position on the war. Now it seems that same intraparty squabling is occuring withing the ODP as well. In another "can't see the forest for the trees" piece, The Tulsa World reports that Attorney General Drew Edmondson claims Claremore Sen. Sean Burrage had a "conflict of interest" when he voted last week for a bill declaring that animal waste is not hazardous. Sen. Burrage's law firm has had Tyson Foods as a current and former client. The attorney general is correct in his assertion of a conflict of interest, but his action of throwing a fellow democrat under the bus on behalf of the poultry suit; and the World still ignoring alleged charges of corruption and harrassment within the attorney general's office, only produces more questions of conflicts of interests between the World and the attorney general. Chairman Pryor used the Utilitarian philosophy for damage control in an aptly named post today called, "The Greater Good" on the ODP blog:

"Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson has repeatedly taken the position that his job is to protect the citizens and resources of our great state --- his position is a personal conviction and is inherent in his constitutional oath of office. I am very pleased that his walk matches his talk and that he continues to pursue every option available to protect our water resources for the greater good of the people of Oklahoma. Let's make sure that anyone who personally benefits from or directly represents the poultry producers does the right thing and abstains from this vote on the floor...."

Labels: AG, Decision '08, Drew Edmondson, OK Media, Tulsa World

Posted at 2/26/2007 12:29:00 PM |

Paper still has head in the sand when it comes to real scandals We almost made it through the week without the need for issuing a "Hypocrisy Watch." Mick Hinton of the Tulsa World, has written the talking points memo for Oklahoma Democrats' today, under the guise of "objective journalism." The piece reports that Speaker Cargill is "summon[ing] key lobbyists" to "special meetings" outside the capitol for fundraising activities. Now usually when one thinks of a summons, you think of a court of a law and a judge mandating you appear. Was this a deliberate choice of words Mick? We've copied every quote from a lobbyist in the piece. You'll notice a familiar, recurring theme in every comment. Remember, this is every lobbyists quoted in the piece, so we're not purposely omitting positive quotes:

"Lobbyist Bobby Stem confirmed that he met with the speaker on Tuesday at an office outside the Capitol." "It was the friendliest fundraising meeting I've ever had, and you can quote me on that," said Stem, a prominent lobbyist during Democratic administrations." (What would you expect from a Democratic lobbyist?) "Stem said there was no strong-arming for contributions, although he said it was "very pro-active" with money raising emphasized in several ways." "One lobbyist said he felt uncomfortable going to the "un-neutral" site, while another said it was "cheesy." Both spoke on the condition that they not be identified." "After leaving the office, lobbyist Jim Walker acknowledged that he had just talked with the speaker, but said "it is no different than what used to occur at the Capitol, from time to time."

"But others said they felt compelled to comply with the speaker's wishes. They said that has been the case in the past, but the methods were different this time around."

Hey Mick, how about investigating the attorney general and the poultygate scandal going on "five minutes from the Capitol?" What about the Chairman of your newspaper contributing money to the AG while his paper is endorsing him. We'll re-use the analogy we made earlier this week regarding your paper's lazy reporting. This piece was akin to a reporter covering the Superbowl and only writing about Prince's new shoes! What about the fact that it was held in plain view away from the Capitol? What about the angle that it illustrates the reforms Cargill is looking to initiate?

Labels: Ethics Reforms, hypocrisy watch, Press Bias, Spkr. Cargill, Tulsa World

Posted at 2/23/2007 04:41:00 PM |

Labels: AG, Drew Edmondson, OK Media, Poultry Lawsuit, Press Bias, Tulsa World

Posted at 2/22/2007 07:51:00 PM |

Yesterday we commented on the Tulsa World congratulating themselves on their wins in the "B" category of newspapers. An alert reader notified us that the World had actually been named the state's top newspaper in the "A" category. The Community World - an insert to the the World - had the wins in the "B" category. Our reader surmises that the insert - that is not a separate newspaper - was deliberately entered to compete against smaller, independent newspapers to "hike its win count." They continue by offering enlightening comments on the Tulsa World and plagiarism, conflicts of interests, and lazy journalism: "Plagiarism--the World loves to put other news organizations' work in its pages, but won't credit the source even if it was a major investigation. Don't see that problem with real newspapers--just last night the Telegraph in London credited the New York Times for a key international story, even though the Times' contribution was relatively minimal. The World is a swamp of conflicts of interest, ethics violations and, most sinister, editorial crusades designed to line the pockets of the publisher's family and save them from their bad real estate investments. The Gaylord family is cleaning up its act; the Lorton family is a disgrace. Nice catch." They continue: "Ask anyone who works in emergency services how often the newspaper runs material two days after the fact, without using the updates provided by the agency, then refuses to correct the resulting errors. It is a standing joke!"

Labels: OK Media, Press Bias, Tulsa World

Posted at 2/20/2007 01:45:00 PM |

Labels: Press Bias, Tulsa World

Posted at 2/19/2007 09:05:00 AM |