Media bias? Tennessee church shooting missing from ABC’s GMA

I can't fathom that the coverage is in any way affected by the ideological leanings of the church.

Liberal media is the biggest myth still going around. The media carries the water for the gop and demeans the democrats. They have been like this for 20 years.
But, to ignore the story, one of a crazed gunman shooting people in church while children were performing onstage is just irresponsible no matter your politics.

Who knows what the explanation is. I am sure, though, that with the media, anything is possible. These are powerful corporations exercising theri power to influence the news, politics, and society. Their minions are often so glaringly lakcing in basic intelleigence skills, many of them could be led by the nose without realizing what's going on. Others know exactly what's going on, and they make very good money by exploiting the possiblities.

Considering the coverage school shootings get, I do find this very peculiar.

Strangely enough, I'm glad the national media is going light with this story. We need room to mourn and grieve and the media is a real pain in the neck. The local media is enough.

You're expecting too much if you insist the media be obscessed with this story.

The media are liberal, not conservative, despite frequent lies to the contrary.

A liberal shooting conservatives might make additional news, as it's "man bites dog."

If you want a wingnut/netroot/truther type answer, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channon_Christian

If the media makes a big deal of this shotting, the rightwing pundits will attack the media for ignoring the murder of whites by blacks. the media would be accused of highlighting a murder that makes conservatives look bad while ignoring a murder that makes liberals look bad.

Maybe it is the religious aspect of this. . .and not the ideological.

I note, for example, the media avoiding like the plague the implications of the Seattle shooting of Jews by a lone madman who happened to be Muslim. Just a lone lunatic, we were told.

This guy seems to have had a hatred for liberal churches like Elrod's. There seems to be a radical conservative religious agenda at play. If he had gunned people down at a secular institution...like a school...it would be totally different.

Covering this story would upset lots of potential viewers and advertisers.

Just my opinion...but referencing churches and religion makes the US media nervous at the best of times.

"If the media makes a big deal of this shotting, the rightwing pundits will attack the media for ignoring the murder of whites by blacks."

??? I suspect instead they would just harp on the media using this as an excuse to bash all conservatives, guns, and _right_wing_pundits_ some of whose best known works were found in the shooter's home. No, not everyone who bothers to listen to those people or read their books is another Evil Gun Owner And Likely Fundamendalist Dunce, but it's tempting when something bad actually happens to proceed with full force hype and hysteria. (Less neurotic but predictable would be cheap shots of all kinds about the pundits on lefty talk radio.) They might link this shooting to the Timothy McVeigh bombing in Oklahoma City, for example. Was there no copy of The Turner Diaries or Report from Iron Mountain in the shooter's home, too?

Ok tthis is OT---maybe its also just a coincidence that a few months ago there was a local station blackout in parts of Alabama during CBS' 60 Minutes coverage of the Rove/Siegelman controversy!

I admit it -- I have become much more paranoid about collusion between government, corporate and media entities since 2000!

Standing against violent rhetoric is a great first step.

Today on my own blog, There Will Be Truth, I drew a connection between Animal Liberation Front bombers the Unitarian Church shooting, abortion clinic bombers, and Earth Liberation Front arsonists etc.

They are all domestic terrorists rooted in the same phenomena that have destroyed political discourse and consensus in American politics. Those roots would be:
<ul>
<li>The refusal of individuals to compromise their personal concepts of right and wrong in order to further the common good.</li>
<li>Insular, intellectually segregated groups of people who create and self-confirm extreme beliefs and their entitlement to act on them regardless of the impact on others.</li>
</ul>
Like many people, I have puzzled over the vicious, polemical extremes that dominate politics today. Discourse about differing opinions has been replaced by demonizing those who disagree. Both Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans resort to rants rather than persuasion.

The lack of moderation, and the permission granted by political leaders for their followers to engage in scorched earth tactics, inevitably incites the mentally unstable to acts of violence.

A newly published book, The Big Sort, by journalist Bill Bishop, sheds some light on why all this is happening now.

According to the book, "In the 95th Congress (1977-1979), 40 percent of the 435 members were moderates," Bishop writes. "By the 108th Congress (2003-2005) this moderate bloc had be whittled down to 10 percent."

Further, the book states that, "In 1976, less than a quarter of Americans lived in places where the presidential election was a landslide." The authors define "landslide" as winning by 20 percent or greater. "By 2004, nearly half of all voters lived in landslide counties."

Nothing illustrates this schism better than the county-by-county maps of presidential voting from 1976 to 2004.

Along with this, the book documents how, over the past three decades, Americans have chosen to segregate themselves in ways that avoid contact with people who might disagree with them politically.

Now, the match that ignites all this gasoline: <The Big Sort presents numerous studies proving that people isolated from differing opinions become more extreme, especially with regard to political issues. In effect, people in homogeneous groups trend toward political extremes as they try to prove they have drunk the common Kool-Aid. They do not tolerate dissent or discussion. Moderates then must decide whether to comply with the group or allow themselves to be driven away.

A study published in 2006 by Penn political scientist Diana Mutz found that only 23 percent of Americans have regular discussions with people they disagree with politically. And the more education a person has, the worse this gets.

Moderates willing to work together for a common goal despite their differences have been replaced by tinhorn demagogues trying to stir up hatred and intolerance for anyone they disagree with.

The self-sorting polarization of the electorate is why both political parties have abandoned any attempt at trying to sway moderates -- there are damn few left. Instead, campaigns focus on inflaming their supporters' passions, encouraging them, to intimidate the opposition and make sure they go to the polls.

This is how both the Nazis and Communists came to power. It invigorates the ideological psychos on the fringes and gives them permission to burn, bomb and kill.

The political "leadership" of America is responsible for extremism that leads to death and violence.

Buy this book. Read it. Study it. It has no answers of its own, but knowledge is power and acknowledging a problem is the first step to solving it.

One thing I have noticed is that you can no longer talk to anyone with an opposing political viewpoint ( in real life) without almost coming to blows. People seem to either be almost totally apathetic or ridiculously extreme in expressing their opinions.

Tolerance is at an all-time low- probably due to the examples set by our leadership and by cable news shows.

Fox News ignored the police news conference to carry a segment on the missing year old in Orlando. Is Natalie Holloway still missing...

Shhh --

Don't tell anybody, but Barack Hussein Osama Obama had Natalie Holloway kidnapped in the Caribbean and brought to his harem to be one of his sex slaves.

American Catholic Lay Groups and Transatlantic Social Reform in the Progressive Era (review) - The Catholic Historical Review 88:4 The Catholic Historical Review 88.4 (2002) 806-807 American Catholic Lay Groups and Transatlantic Social Reform in the Progressive Era.
------------------------------
valrossie
Tennessee Alcohol Addiction Treatment

The Five Years of the Petersen Presidency: From Start to Resignation
By George Krieps

I would like to thank Dr. John Petersen for extending to the Seymour Herald the first opportunity to reflect on his five years as President of the University of Tennessee up through his resignation, and comment on higher education in the State of Tennessee.

This interview is not intended to tell both sides of the story; I did not wish to seek opposing views or detractor comments, as these have been amply covered by other news media. Dr. Petersen would not address rumors, statements, and innuendo from any source, as to do so would only result in further controversy and would not undo any harm inaccuracies might have caused. This is an interview with an individual that this reporter considers to be honest, intelligent, and a credit to the University of Tennessee, and academia as a whole.


Q: What was your motivation and interest in applying for the presidency at UT?

JP: I had begun as a faculty member and went up the ranks of administration over a 20 year period. ; I always enjoyed the breadth of programs as I increased my responsibility for oversight from a chemistry department to a science college and then to all academic programs in my university. A step like the move to Tennessee was a logical step in my career. As a faculty member and also as an administrator, I ran a research pro gram in Solar Photochemistry supported by the Department of Energy. I had always felt that the National Laboratories had tremendous equipment and facilities but were short on scientists. Universities, on the other hand, have people as their strength but often lack the facilities and equipment to be competitive. I felt that more collaboration between the academy and the National Labs would benefit the country. Since Oak Ridge National Laboratory was jointly managed by the University of Tennessee and Battelle Memorial Institute, coming to Tennessee was an added bonus for me.

Q: What challenges did you encounter in the position?

JP: UT had undergone a rapid turnover in two presidents that led to a five year period where there were two presidents and two acting presidents between searches. Many of the senior administrators were poised at retirement age, a long-awaited capital campaign was in a holding pattern, and there was a flat profile in research funding at the Knoxville campus and the Health Science Center in Memphis where almost 90% of the research dollars are generated. The State Legislature needed to see stable leadership at U T and feel that they could trust and work with the leaders at the university. Internal and external communication was a problem identified by many during the search process. We worked very hard in the first two years making sure that the message reached and engaged as many of our internal and external constituents as possible. Ou r system-wide strategic plan and branding campaign made this more successful. There was a lot to accomplish, during a time when many of the senior people were retiring. The most important place to begin was to start the push forward in key areas that are measures of success for higher education institutions. We needed to increase the graduation rates of students on all campuses; we needed to step up the ability to generate private dollars for our programs across our campuses; we needed to generate a system-wide Strategic Plan that would be a template for our work over the next few years; and we needed to recruit and retain excellent people to our faculty, staff and administrative levels across the system. Most importantly, we needed to make our Strategic Plan outcomes pertinent to the needs of the State of T ennessee.

Q: Were you and your team successful in accomplishing your goals?

JP: Yes, after reviewing the material in my five year self evaluation, we accomplished much more than I thought we would be able to move forward. Our Strategic Plan involved six general areas: student access, student success, research, econ omic development, outreach and globalization. We increased our number of students and increased our graduation rate every year. Our research programs generated more funding, a greater number of faculty publications, and economic development was increased by a number of partnerships generated with the help of our elected officials. We generated partne rships with the State of Tennessee that led to an additional $10 million/year commitment to hire joint faculty between one of the UT’s campuses and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ORNL committed to match these dollars with equivalent resources. Funding for a Joint Institute for Advanced Materials came from the work of our Federal Delegation with $20 million coming from the Congress and an additional $10 million from the state for construction of the building, in addition to $32 million from the state for the utility and road infrastructure for the development of the Cherokee Farm Research Park where the building is to be located. A Biofuels Initiative to convert the cellulose in switchgrass to ethanol was supported by the State of Tennessee with $70 million to help establish a new technology which is projec ted to ultimately generate an additional $400 million/yr. revenue stream for the state. This commitment also allowed UT to help ORNL compete for and win one of the three Bioscience Centers funded by the Department of Energy that will bring $125 million dollars to the Center over the next 3 years. Both pieces enabled us to secure DuPont/D anisco as a technology and financial partner to build the demonstration plant and help enhance the technology for the greatest success in the future. In outreach, the numbers of individuals and businesses that were touched and problems that were solved by the people in our organization increased substantially every year as did the economic impact of tho se contacts. However, in order to finance this growth, we needed to generate private money to supplement State appropriations and tuition. The “Campaign for Tennessee: A Spirit, a Vision, a Plan” took a fund-raising effort of under $100 million/year and generated over $800 million in four years. The seven-year campaign should exceed the $1 billion goal even with the economic issues we are facing.

Q: With all this success, there was still some turmoil on the Knoxville campus. Why?

JP: As I mentioned before, the organization I inherited was unique in higher education. The fact that the offices of the UT System and the UT Knoxville campus are in the same building blurs the distinctions between the two entities. Neit her the general population nor some within our organization understand the differing roles required of the chancellors and the president. All of the major campuses, Knoxville, Memphis, Chattanooga and Martin have chancellors that are responsible for the vision, planning, management and the personnel issues on their respective campuses. Each campus is u nique, yet we tried to consolidate those services we could provide more economically for all, such as payroll, information technology, human resources and others. It wasn’t the job of the president to engage in the direct management of any of the campuses. The decisions for what they would do, not do and who they would hire were=2 0theirs. Major decisions involved more oversight by the System and approval by the Board of Trustees as prescribed by the state. Program termination is one of those decisions. The Knoxville Campus proposed to cut the Audiology program just over one year ago. They felt that the tuition of 100 additional students was paying for the overruns in Audiology and they couldn’t afford to do this with the budget cuts. The System agreed but asked that another model, involving the migration of the Audiology program to the Health Science Center be considered. A plan was formulated, approved by both campuses, the System and the Board of Trustees. There are still people who don’t understand that it was the decision of the Knoxville Chancellor and administration and NOT the President’s20Office to initiate this change. I supported the decision because they had suggested a budget cut that was least harmful to the most people. Fortunately, shifting the Audiology program to the Health Science Center seems to be working for all.
There is another concept that isn’t understood by many inside or outside our organization. The Higher Education Commission develops formulas for funding for the public universities. The percentages that go to each campus of the University of Tennessee, as well as the Tennessee Board of Regents campuses are predetermined, to the most part, before the State Budget is passed. There should not have=2 0been any internal competition between UT’s various campuses for achieving success. The larger the appropriation, the more each campus received, proportionally. Because of the geographic distribution of our campuses and institutes throughout the state, we had a presence in every legislative district in Tennessee, State and Federal. The better we could be on every campus, the greater voice we had in driving the budgeting process. Each unit played a different part of the higher education picture, but all contributed to each other by the political connections they brought to the University of Tennessee System. Everyone throughout the system recognizes that UT Knoxville is the flagship campus. It is the largest and has the strongest programs and proves to be a tremendous asset for the other campuses.& nbsp; But having the other campuses in the system plays a positive role for UTK politically, in driving undergraduates into UTK’s graduate programs, and in minimizing the total dollars spent on information technology, distance education, alumni participation and public and governmental relations by sharing the cost among all campuses.
When I joined the University of Tennessee, there was a mandate to move the organization forward, but no mandate to change the organization structure. I was more interested in focusing on building for the future by enabling the pieces of the organization to work together in concert. Most of these pieces had a state-wide reach and had been placed years ago under the president for that reason. One piece was the major role in the UT-Battelle partnership that manages ORNL. There is faculty in many of the University of Tennessee’s units that are contributing to the work with ORNL and not just those from the Knoxville campus. The chancellor of the Knoxville campus had a key role on the UT-Battelle Board, but the president represents all of the units. The second piece was the Institute of Agriculture. This unit has four major areas, three of which have no overlap with the Knoxville campus and a presence in all 95 counties in Tennessee. The Institute of Agriculture and the Knoxville campus work very well together and serve the state well in a seamless structure. The third area was the ath letic programs in Knoxville. This area has reported to the system president for many years. This may be a time for the administration and the Board to look at the situation before a new president is selected, because the opinions are split and it would be very difficult for a new president to need to deal with this issue.

&nb sp;
Q: Why did you resign from the position of President of the University of Tennessee?

JP: I spent almost five years in the position. We assembled the most talented team I have ever worked with in higher education. Our accomplishments in research and economic development partnerships, fund raising, expanding the visibility and conn ection of UT with constituents in the government, the state and across higher education were recognized as a substantial gain in stature for the State of Tennessee. Budget cuts were difficult but were being managed well, and our partnerships across the state and nation were growing. I had a very aggressive agenda. There were opportunities: the Capital Campaign, the strengthening of ORNL as a world power in many science and technology areas, the revitalization of our Health Science Center, the solidification of our programs in Chattanooga and Martin, and finding the best programmatic fit for our Space Institute. They all needed immediate attention. The more decisions you make in an organization, and the more programs you initiate, you continue to build some friction from those who20would prefer the status quo. At some point, you spend more time putting out fires than building new programs. I worked very hard to build strong relationships throughout the state and the nation for UT. I am proud of the accomplishments this organization has achieved in the last five years and thank the Board of Trustees for the opportunity to l ead this large and complex state-wide system. However, I still have more new to build somewhere.

When he accepted the job as university president he was offered no specific mandate. In his words, “One can move slowly and deliberately forward and maintain most of the status quo, or one can set aggressive and far-reaching goals to imp rove the system. I chose the latter, however it does not come without a toll. Most are not aware there are 6 organizational entities and many stakeholders involved in the UT system’s decision making process. If you make 20 decisions it is likely that many of the decisions will not be acceptable to one or more of the entities…now multiply that by thousands over four and a half years.”
.
His goals as president were to increase student access, graduation , research and economic development especially with private industry, and finally, to consolidate direction and decision making to fewer individuals to make faster and more sound decisions for the educational system.

Unfortunately, a university president’s accomplishment are not measured as easily as a fo otball coach. There are no clear win-loss records. A measuring tool does exist, but not all facets of the position are accounted for. For example, approximately 25% of his time was spent raising public and private dollars for all 4 of the campuses and institutes. Dr Petersen’s administration doubled the amount of private dollars raised comp ared to his last two predecessors.


Dr. Petersen was born and raised in Los Angeles, and was the first family member to attend college. After high school attended the local state college, California State University-Los Angeles, for his BS degree, then enrolled and graduated from the University of California- Santa Barbara with his doctorate=2 0in chemistry.

Dr Petersen was hired by Kansas State, where he served as a faculty member. He spent almost 15 years at Clemson University as a faculty member, Associate Dean of Research and Department Head of Chemistry in the College of Science. From there he spent time as Dean of Science at Wayne State University, and Chancellor/ Provost at the University of Connecticut before moving to UT.

The Future Plans of Dr. John Petersen?

Ideally, he would like to find a position in which he can further contribute to higher education in a leadership capacity. He is also interested private sector research project…but for now he calls himself a “program builder in waiting.”