Ms. Musings has the full story. In a nutshell, however: An Ariizona Fox News station reported on a U of Arizona feminist group’s “Get Out Her Vote” effort with a quote from a local official “who said that students can’t register to vote where they attend college. The word ‘felony’ was used.”
(Fox somehow neglected to inform viewers that the Supreme Court answered this question a quarter century ago – students have – or should have – the right to register to vote where they attend college.)
It turns out – according to the local official Fox quoted – that Fox used out-of-context quoting to distort his meaning. From Katha Pollitt:
“So it’s a subjective thing?” I asked. “You look into your heart?”
“That’s right,” he said. “You look into your heart.”
Can you imagine the fuss if CBS lied about the law in a blatant attempt to drive down Republican voter registration?
(And while I’m on the subject, do read through People for the American Way’s report on GOP attempts to keep black voters away from the polls. Or Salon’s article on the same issue, via Mouse Words).
I think you’re off-base on this one, Amp. Sure, “the word ‘felony’ was used,” but despite this cagey phrasing, it was used by the local official, not by the Fox reporter. Neither you nor Ms. Musings provides a quote to show exactly how Fox reported the “felony” comment (and I’m not going to go to the trouble of registering on the Arizona news site to find out), so we don’t have any way to judge whether the Fox report is misleading. Ms. Musings presents the registrar’s after-the-fact attempt to explain (or perhaps re-characterize) why he used the term “felony”, and he claims that he was quoted out of context, but we don’t know how Fox quoted him, so we don’t know whether to believe him. And claiming that you were quoted out of context is so often just a way of saying, “I didn’t think about how that would sound, and I wish I hadn’t said it.”
More generally, when a local official uses the term “felony” in answering questions about a feminist vote drive, is that not a newsworthy event that should be reported? Think of it this way: If that comment had not been reported, wouldn’t you be accusing Fox of sanitizing the local official’s comments by omitting a controversial comment? Something like: “Local official calls feminist voter registration drive as a ‘felony’, but Fox doesn’t think that’s news.”
Um, yeah. Because I am a moron, the comment above didn’t work very well. The first paragraph is me quoting Tom T. The next paragraph is what I was trying to say.
These anti-student laws are completely ridiculous. A student has to “intend” to stay there? Most students live in the cities they study in for 4 years at bare minimum. It’s unfair to the districts they moved out of to have non-residents voting there because they can’t establish residency in their new districts.
One thought:
Since Fox viewership leans right, quite possibly, Fox’s program might lead conservative students to not register, and then fail to vote!
As to Fox’s responsibility for airing mis-information by a politician. In my opinion, since they are a large news organization, and likely know it’s mis-information, they ought to run a disclaimer and mention that it’s not a felony for students to register to vote at their school districts. (And chances are, Fox has many, many possible statements they could have aired, and picked that one. That makes them somewhat responsible for disseminating mis-information.)
I’m actually curious. There’s a big bipartisan voter-registration drive going on right now on my campus, and nobody has mentioned that students can only register here if they intend to stay. Is that really the law, or is it just the registrar’s opinion? For the most part, it wouldn’t matter, since it’s hard to prove intention, but there may be evidence that some students don’t intend to stay if, for example, they’ve already accepted a post-graduation job out of state. It seems to me that if that really is the standard, it should be more widely publicized.
Is that really the law, or is it just the registrar’s opinion?
My understanding: It is absolutely positively NOT the law that students can only register if they plan to “stay”.
The Supreme court ruled on this. Students can register where they live NOW. Just as waitresses can register where they live now, even if they plan to move a year from now. Local municipalities often like to give the opposite impresion, but student can vote where they live now, today. As in: At school, where the dorm is located.
I tend to agree with some of the previous comments the Fox News affiliate appears to be being blamed for comments by an inept local government official. In New York State we’ve had similar problems, with college students and vacationers who move into another area on a temporary basis and register to vote. Board of Election officials were instructed to “notify” voters, and potential voters, that they “had to choose” where they wished to vote. Thus, if you want to vote where you reside (with your parents) then you register there and continue to vote absentee from there, at all times. If you want to vote where you go to college, or vacation, even if it’s only once a month, than you must re-register there and continue to vote from there via absentee ballot.
If you don’t and reregister at multiple locations (when you go home, then when you go back to school, etc.) than there is a potential for the person to be “flagged” as voter fraud. Thus, the potential for a felony charge. I hope that made sense? I’m not sure that’s where the Fox News report was going, but that sounds like it. I’ve heard many election inspectors tell potential voters, “if you don’t intend to be here when election can comes, then you really shouldn’t register here,” because in essence you could block yourself from voting where you are actually residing.
And, it is only my personal observation, but I truly do not see Fox News as “right-leaning.” Sensationalized and “news magazine-ish” without question, but right leaning. You’d have to get Dan Rather to forge some more CBS News exclusive documents to prove that one.
This isn’t really a hard issue. You move to a new locale. You register in your new locale. You don’t have to un-register in your old locale, all you need do is NOT VOTE at the old locale. The old locale’s elections board goes through the voter rolls once every 2 years or so, sends postcard to addresses that have been inactive for 4 years, asking you to return the postcard if you don’t want to get purged. Yes, it is possible to vote in person at the new locale and by absentee at the old place (or v.v.), but how many people do so? Criminey, it’s hard enough to get most people to vote ONCE. ;)
Really. We are such a mobile nation. Why are college students regarded as exceptionally mobile and exceptionally fraudulent? Armed forces folks move more often. Many businesspeople in large corporations move more often.
I am completely talking out of my ass here, but here’s my thought. I’m not sure that students are considered especially mobile or fraudulent. I think it may be that the law has generally tried to take into account their in-between status, and that this has usually been done for the benefit of students. For instance, you’re ordinarily required to apply for a new drivers’ license if you live in a new place for a few months, but I went to college out of state and never changed my license. I think this was allowed, because my primary residence was still my parents’ house. It’s been a long time, and I’m not sure about this, but I think I continued to pay taxes in my parents’ jurisdiction, rather than in the state where I went to college. It wasn’t just voting: there were a lot of ways in which my civic identity continued to be in my old state, not the state where I went to college. If I’d moved to the new state under other circumstances, I’m pretty sure this would all have been illegal.
Incidentally, is this even an issue for most people? I assume that most American students go to college in the state where they previously lived.
This isn’t really a hard issue. You move to a new locale. You register in your new locale. You don’t have to un-register in your old locale, all you need do is NOT VOTE at the old locale.
That’s the way it works here.
Generally, student can decide whether their primary residens is their parents or the university. They can then register, and vote in one place.
Whether or not the officials at your parents recieve take you off their list of eligible voters is their problem, not the student’s. As long as the student only votes in one place, there is no felony.
The Supreme court decreed that it’s the student’s choice, not the registrars! So, scarying the students with some sort of “felony” alarm is, generally, a tactic to prevent them from making their own choice to vote where they wish to vote. I think it’s somewhat disingenous for a registar to claim they are doing the students a favor by giving them incorrect advice. (or, at best, advice that is so wildly incomplete as to be incorrect in the context.)
And, as to the pro-cative “if you don’t intend to be here during the polls ” advice? Most students are at school the first and second weeks of November, and most registrars know this. It’s not as though major elections are held in summer when the students might be vacationing with their parents!
The thing is that you have to decide on a permanent residency, like lucia says. For some students who are completely supported by parents, they may treat college like a boarding school. For most students, though, they support themselves enough to consider themselves local residents.
I have a dumb question–shouldn’t the Motor Voter act take care of a lot of this? Can’t you just use the address on your driver’s license? Most students use a local address, don’t they?
fox news not right-leaning? HAHAHAHAHA.
In all my compulsive Fox News watching, I somehow missed this bit. Doesn’t sound like Fox was trying to use this erroneous info to make a point, and I’m not sure how it harmed lefties anyway.
As for their lack of disclaimer, that happens all the time I never like it. For example, no one ever corrects Hillary Clinton for saying that George Bush is all for banning stem cell research, nevermind that his administration has funded stem cell research and he has spoken in favor of stem cell research (sans new embryos). She’s either misleading us on purpose or she’s so biased she can’t see the difference. Neither is a good thing and should be corrected.
For example, no one ever corrects Hillary Clinton for saying that George Bush is all for banning stem cell research,
What are you talking about? I googled and the first article I found was this: CBSnews writes to correct a statement ina speech by Sen. Clinton. the second ranked article is Slate.com which also runs a correction and/or clarification (depending on what you mean by a ban. There is a ban on research using new embryo lines. That means there is a partial ban. )
So, in fact we see that the news media did correct (or clarify) the incorrect (or partially incorrect) statement, almost immediately after the speech. They provide the same information Jen does: There is a partial ban.
Lucia: How exactly did you google the stem cell goof? I tried several different combinations and did not have the same results for top sites. I did however find several transcripts without any such disclaimer (NYTimes, Washington Post, for example). Also, your link goes to CNSNews (Cybercast News Service) not CBSNews. How many Americans get their news from CNS or Slate, I wonder.
Jen, could you provide links to the “transcripts” you’re talking about, please? Thanks.
Amp, I’ll do my best.
The NY Times transcript is what pulled up first for me. The rest of these take of the majority of the first 1.5 pages of finds. See NYTimes,
a site called America 2004 Democratic Convention, USAToday, Fox News, and The Washington Post for details.
I don’t doubt that the nature of transcripts is to merely state what was said; however, the point of this is to say the truth is not found at a glance, in this case.
Opps, I should have listed the terms. Naturally, I don’t remember right now. I think I googled
(“Hilary Clinton” stem cell ban)
That’s not quite right– it doesn’t bring up the Slate but it brings up the CNS article. (You are correct, I did misread, and wrote cbs, when it is cns).
I just did (Hillary Clinton stem cell ban) (without the quotes, around her name) and now I find the Wall Street Journal with their clarification on the first page of results. (I happen to subscribe to that paper, and I am under the impression it is nationally distributed and read their article when it came out.)
But, I modified a bit and found editorials appearing to correct or clarify Hillary’s statement here: The Washington Post ( a widely read publication), News-Argus
philly.com and A yale student newspaper.
If googling finds the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post clarifying/correcting, I think it’s fair to say at least “someone” corrected Hillary. I think Slate is read by a fair number of people. I’ll admit it’s not the NY times– but it’s not exactly just “joe’s blog”. And, heck, if Fox news didn’t correct or clarify Hilary, well, maybe they aren’t as thorough as viewers might like! :-)
Jen, your examples are irrelevant – of COURSE articles that consist of nothing but complete transcripts of a Hillary Clinton speech don’t contain anything pointing out her “error” – they don’t contain anything but her speech, period.
The point is, as Lucia has shown, when news organizations do quote her in a news story (as opposed to a transcript), they do give some context to her remarks, rather than just letting the remark stand unchallenged – as the Fox reporter did with the out-of-context quote about out-of-state voters.
The links you provided aren’t news stories; they’re transcripts. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
amp, you asked me to list the transcripts, so I did. I mentioned them b/c they are prevalent among the first pages of finds in my google searches instead of CBS, a major network. It does appear that some newspapers/broadcasting companies made corrections. I should have chosen a less popular example that didn’t receive the outcry, which prompted the correction. My bad. It’s tricky, though, b/c 24 hour news channels have so much “panel discussion”, where they can repeat false information and each instance is not corrected.
just something it looks like you guys missed:
it wasn’t “Fox News” that did the story, really. that would be a cable channel, and cable channels don’t have local affiliates.
it would be, the news, on a Fox affiliate.
it’s the “simpsons! malcolm in the middle! bernie mac! disposable reality show! then the news” type of fox news.
that doesn’t mean it ISN’T politically motivated and in error (it’s definately the latter, and probably the former)
it may ALSO be rightward leaning, but not all fox affiliates are.
to review: Fox news channel, bad!
fox affiliate in arizona, maybe bad, but definately wrong.
Tom, even after the law was clarified by Road’s boss, who statedq quite plainly on September 9 that out-of-state students may vote, the Fox affiliate continued to spread misinformation.
From the Pollitt article:
But despite demands from the students and from Feminist Majority, [Roads] did not publicly clarify his comments on Fox News. That was left to his boss, F. Ann Rodriguez, a Democrat, who finally stated on September 9 that out-of-state students may vote. Fox has not only failed to correct its original report; it has continued to suggest on the air that out-of-state students who register in Arizona are breaking the law and could end up in big trouble.
And, not to be a stickler, Karpad, but many all news channels do have affliates, but not ones that broadcast their signal 24/7. Case in point, MSNBC has the NBC affliates, CNN has various stations which claim affliate status (in addition to their networks) and of course Fox News has the Fox Broadcasting Company (FBC) affliates, as they used to be called, but YOU are correct Karpad, local Fox affliates rely very heavily on local talent and stories. Thus, Fox affliates have a tendancy to be very sloppy.
And, I think Jen’s point is well taken. So-called news services that print or broadcast entire transcripts are horrible, exactly because they don’t question or correct inaccurate and misleading information. Which is why a reliable news service is so important, and many networks are proving they’re not up-to-the-job, like CBS, they’re becoming nothing for then national editorials and opinion pages.
Correction: “they’re becoming nothing more than national editorials and opinion pages.”
Doc, you’re a bit off.
MSNBC is a cable affilate (they have a couple) of the NBC corperation, which in turn has local broadcast affiliates. now, most of the networks have national news programs on their affilliate network stations (60 minutes, 20/20, Nightline, Peter Jennings, etc.) Fox and CNN (which is Warner or TBS, depending on how you break it down) do not have broadcast national level news like the other networks. depending on the local fox affilliate, the news can be very good or very bad, but neither has ANYTHING to do with the Fox name being on the building.
you’re forgetting that the cable news channels are the new ones. the news empires did not sprout from cable news’ seedlings, but the other way around, and local affilliates draw their reputation for reliability not from who they sign up with, but through advertising and management of their own local name. this is why, when you watch the local networks, you’ll see constant ads about which channel has the best weather radar and who has the niftiest helicopter, who has the face that’s been reading the local news longest, and things like that. that’s how they get their credibility.
local TV affilliates have more in common with newspapers than cable news channels.
And, I think Jen’s point is well taken. So-called news services that print or broadcast entire transcripts are horrible, exactly because they don’t question or correct inaccurate and misleading information.
In my opinion, newspapers do a service when the publish transcripts of all speeches at national conventions. This permits us to read them and know exactly what is said so we can interpret them ourselves.
I also like the fact that editorials are also included in papers, and I like the fact that the papers also include analysis of the speeches. It seems to me the major news services provided all three in a timely fashion. That seems entirely appropriate to me.
I don’t see how things would be improved if the papers failed to run the transcript, but instead substituted their analysis or revisions only. How would I, as a reader, be able to decide which news service provided the better analysis?
Back to the students voting… Although it plays a part in national politics, whether or not students are alloweddiscouraged, refused, etc. at their local polls, I would think the big reason many local juristictions don’t want college students voting at college is because it can affect local politics so much. If you’re in a small college town where half the population consists of students, the more permanent residents, and the local powers-that-be may well not like to have students voting. And frankly, it takes awhile in a new town to get a grip on the local politics.
It still doesn’t mean that any doofus that’s new to town or won’t be there very long shouldn’t be able to vote on localm satte, or national matters. Hopefully they’re smart or ethical enough to learn about the local stuff before voting on it, or abstaining.
Pingback: Long story; short pier
Pingback: penn