The Citizens for Tax Repeal, with the help of Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, is working feverishly to end the sales tax increase. Its motivation for doing so and the positive effect it will have on Ohio's strained budget is a mystery.
The 1 percent sales tax increase instituted last July 1 in order to make up for a $1.1 billion budget deficit is set to expire on July 1, 2005. The Citizens for Tax Repeal is looking for it to be eliminated this coming December to save Ohioans from a whole seven months of paying an extra penny on every dollar they spend. While cutting taxes is always a good election ploy - Blackwell is one of the Republican front-runners in the 2006 gubernatorial race - the tax-cut hawks do not seem to be considering the disastrous ramifications a repeal would have on the state's flagging finances. The estimated losses from a seven-month early repeal are about $800 million. Still, with more than 150,000 petition signatures the repeal likely will be debated in the General Assembly or, with additional signatures, could be put on the November ballot. Opponents, led by the Ohioans for Fiscal Responsibility, are working to see the misguided initiative never sees the light of day.
Seven months of a slightly improved economic climate for consumers pales in comparison to the budgetary constraints that would be imposed on Ohio if the sales tax is repealed prematurely. The sales tax was an unfortunate but necessary measure to help plug the gaps during a budgetary crisis. Its likely expiration makes it unnecessary to end it at such a late point in its two-year run. If the tax is repealed, money likely will be taken from Medicaid and higher education in order to re-connect the budgetary dots. Blackwell's shameless electoral power play must not be indulged. Whether the repeal appears in the General Assembly or on the ballot, legislators and voters must see the sales tax through to its expiration.
Donations lessen reporter credibility
When students enter the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, or any other journalism program across the United States, they are immediately bombarded with the expectations and standards of their chosen profession, such as avoiding plagiarism and maintaining credibility. Unfortunately, some news organizations unknowingly may be allowing the latter to slip away.
Members of several large media organizations are on record as donating money to political candidates and campaigns, according to a report in The Washington Post. People named in the report range from writers for The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal to reporters on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN. Amounts donated vary from a few hundred dollars to several thousand. Among others, NBC Chief Executive Robert Wright has contributed $8,000 to various Democratic and Republican candidates and bodies since 1999, and Fox's Neil Cavuto contributed $1,000 to a George W. Bush fundraising dinner in 2002.
Public trust in the media has waned in recent years. From right-wingers referring to CNN as the Clinton News Network to accusations of a conservative slant on Fox News to Jayson Blair's rocking The New York Times by writing fictional articles - the average person has many reasons to distrust the coverage they are seeing and reading. While donations made by private individuals to political campaigns may seem innocuous, the implication of bias can have a grave effect on the perception of coverage. The news organizations in question all have differing views on donations and have taken different stances on them. The New York Times banned the practice last year, while Fox News Vice President John Moody responded to Cavuto's donation by circulating a flier strongly discouraging such actions without banning it.
The difference between credibility and mistrust lies on such a thin line in the media game. Ensuring the audience can trust one's organization is vital. While as citizens anyone can put their money into the political arena, media members and organizations must be especially wary to conceal their personal feelings. No matter how unbiased a person can be in his or her professional capacity, public knowledge of one's personal political beliefs along with personal monetary backing effects the person's credibility. Such public preferences do not augur well for the credibility of the reporter or the organization he or she represents.
17 Archives
