Casper Star Tribune Sinks to New Journalistic Low

Fair and Balanced reporting of the news helps people learn the necessary facts and make day to day decisions in an informed manner.

Unfair and unbalanced reporting harms people by leading them to make decisions without access either to accurate information, or to a fair representation of all points of view.

In Evanston, Casper and most Wyoming towns, citizens are subjected to a news monopoly. If their newspaper does not fairly and accurately inform its readership of the news they need, those citizens are harmed substantially, and the community is worse off as a result.

For these reasons, the fourth estate, must maintain high ethical standards. Without them, they abuse their public trust.

Walter Cronkite

Back in the day when we had only three television networks (for you youngsters, they were ABC, NBC, and CBS) there was a heightened sense of ethical integrity among the news producers. We can argue about how well they lived up to their own ethical standards, but it is inarguable that they wanted us to believe they did.

As cable TV came on the scene, two things changed. First, the advent of 24/7 news required the creation of more and more news content. Stories that were merely local news, and that would never have made the national news on the three major networks, suddenly became huge news stories.

O.J. Simpson

Who can forget watching O.J. Simpson’s white Ford Bronco driving down an L.A. Freeway followed by a posse of police cars? Interesting? Sure. Newsworthy? Only as a carnival attraction.

This glut of irrelevant content led to a second change. How does a cable show gain a following when everybody is watching all the same irrelevant content? Rupert Murdock answered by tailoring the news for a particular audience.

Between CNN and Fox, let’s not get into the argument of who became partisan first. The point is that partisan news is now a reality – and has been for quite some time. Other players have since entered the fray and created ever more partisan news.

The gloves have come off. The strict ethical line between reporting the facts and advocating for a world-view has been erased. Advocacy journalism has replaced objective reporting. While the networks each still claim to be the paragon of journalism, nobody really believes it. Rather, cable news has become just as partisan as the parties themselves.

Before the advent of cable news, we could all watch the same three networks without serious argument. The only rule of thumb was that it was impolite to talk politics in public. Now, cable news has become so politicized that we have a new rule of thumb. It is impolite to watch your favorite cable news channel in public.

We have become tribalized, and cable news has been a huge contributing factor. That is a bad thing.

But what is worse is when the degradation of journalistic standards on cable news bleeds over into local news. At least there is an economic explanation for why cable news has gone tribal. They are each trying to make a profit and so seeking out a niche of news consumers.


But in markets that have only one newspaper, there is no profit in partisan attacks on the subscriber-base, especially when that party is 70%-90% of the voting public. Such newspapers should be seeking the broadest possible respect. Editors and publicists alike have an economic interest in scrupulously cultivating the public’s trust.

This means journalistic ethics. Ethics are not laws. They are not enforceable in a court of law, nor should they be. The freedom of speech is too valuable of an asset to run the risk of shutting it down by judges and politicians.

Journalistic ethics have been developed by journalists themselves for their own protection. They are guidelines on how to earn and keep the public’s trust. They have been learned in the school of hard knocks by journalists who violated them and lost the respect of their readership.

Journalists once learned to apply strict rules to themselves so that their own party politics would be subordinated to the journalistic task. But, alas, those days are over. Today it’s “monkey see, monkey do.”

Journalistic ethics in cable news has fallen so far that cable news can no longer be consumed in mixed company. In just the same way, we are witnessing our own local newspapers devolve into the same partisan screeds.

Arno Rosenfeld, Star-Tribune

Take, for example, a pair of articles recently printed in the Casper Star Tribune. The first one was written by Arno Rosenfeld. The title begins, “Wyoming GOP county chair shares article...” “Shares article,” it says, referring to Facebook. The entire article is an expose̒ of the Facebook feed of a Campbell County woman who was recently appointed to fill a vacancy in the county Republican Party.

The article takes her to task for the crime of hitting the “share” button after reading an article from the National Review written by Lloyd Marcus, a nationally syndicated columnist. As is obvious from the title, the Casper Star is intent on using the opportunity to tar and feather the Wyoming GOP.

That is, of course, their prerogative. If the editors of the Casper Star want to use their print-monopoly to advance partisan politics at the expense of a housewife whom they deem to be a “public figure,” that’s their business. But it’s bad for business. They have squandered any remaining legitimacy they might claim as a non-partisan news-source for the citizens of Wyoming.

They have abused their public trust. If you doubt me on that point, try this thought experiment. Imagine if the Casper Star had published a front-page article critiquing the Facebook page of Sheila McGuire, the Uinta county Democrat chair, or Karl Allred, the Republican chair. That would be the local equivalent, and it would be outrageous.

On a Facebook forum, I asked what would happen if every county chair in Wyoming had a letter to the editor written about their own Facebook feed. Fellow Christians rebuked me for suggesting something unethical. They were right.

Such exposes would be unethical as letters to the editor, much less as front-page stories. The editors of the Casper Star Tribune ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have sunk to a new low in journalistic ethics.

The Monday after their partisan screed filled the front page, Arno Rosenfeld, the author, announced that he was no longer employed by the Star Tribune. This gave me the stirrings of hope that they had seen their ethical lapse and were taking corrective action.

Vicki KIssack, Facebook photo

But alas, no announcement confirmed this thought. Rather, the following Sunday, the Star Tribune editorial board doubled down on their bullying tactics. Mrs. Kissack was again castigated as a “public figure” who said, “something inaccurate.” (Public figures must be mindful of their words, May 20, 2018).

In the inaccuracy-laced editorial that followed, her particular inaccuracy was never cited, only (mis)characterized. Nevertheless, they ended by advising her: “keep your opinions to yourself.” They apparently missed the irony of opining that certain opinions shouldn’t be allowed.

Let’s be clear. The only people who can apply journalistic ethics are the journalists themselves. The rest of us can sense when they are broken, but we can do nothing about it when journalists break trust with us. Most people vote with their feet.

Newspapers, which once thrived, are dying. I don’t think this is a result of cable news. I think it is a result of newspapers imitating cable news. If local journalists are smart, they will relearn the ethical lessons that made them thrive. In so doing, they could also become a unifying force in our communities, rather than creating further division.

Memorial Day Can Still Unite Us

Memorial Day, unlike Veterans Day, is not about military service in general, but about those who died in battle. Next Monday, as Evanston observes the day, it will be the 150th anniversary of this national tradition.

In 1868, General John Logan, commander-in-chief of a veterans’ organization for Civil War soldiers, called for an annual “Decoration Day” to adorn the graves of Union soldiers with flowers. This proclamation regularized a practice that began in the early days of the Civil War and had become widespread after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865.

Early decoration days were centered on cemeteries filled with more than 600,000 Union and Confederate soldiers who had fallen on battlefields, mostly in the South. The two most noted were at Gettysburg, Pa. and Arlington, Va.

Initially, decoration days in the South focused on Confederate graves, while those in the North decorated Union graves. But there were always those in both North and South that decorated the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers alike. These respectful observances helped knit together a bitterly divided nation.

By the fiftieth anniversary of the Civil War’s bloodiest battle, July 1913, veterans of both North and South gathered at Gettysburg for a four-day observance called “Blue-Gray Reunion.” There, among parades and re-enactments, Woodrow Wilson, the first southern president since the Civil War, delivered a speech. Thus southern and northern versions of Decoration Day were unified into a single national holiday celebrated annually on May 30.

After World War II the name, “Decoration Day” gradually gave way to “Memorial Day.” As this name became official, Congress marked the 100th anniversary of Memorial Day by moving it from May 30 to the last Monday in May. This was intended to make a convenient three-day weekend. Its unintended consequence was to undermine the very meaning of the day, according to the V.F.W.

As we approach the 150th anniversary, let us in Uinta County respectfully prove the V.F.W. wrong and take time to observe the true meaning of the day. For myself, I want to begin by offering some reflections here.

I am moved, first of all, to learn that Memorial Day is most directly associated with the aftermath of the Civil War. More than 600,000 sons and fathers out of a population of more than 31 million were killed in that war. That is proportionally equivalent to the loss of 6 million men in today’s population.

Imagine the devastation and resentment that the two sides of our own culture wars would feel if one out of every fifty people that you know were killed by a fellow American. Imagine the number of widows and orphans, grieving parents and decimated communities.

Considering this monumental rift, it is an absolute miracle that America was ever unified again. But it was. The peace and tranquility of Norman Rockwell’s America came after the horrors of the Civil War. This gives me great hope that America, divided as we seem to be, is not beyond repair and unity.

The reunification of America following the Civil War was tied to Memorial Day and the joint remembrance of both Confederate and Union soldiers. Those who honored the humanity of both sides, saw the truth and led the way to unity.

So also in our day, the acrimony and divisions seen on cable TV and social media are tied to stubborn refusals to acknowledge the humanity – and thus the universal human rights – of all people. It was a sad irony that southern states were fighting for the right to ignore the rights of others. It is our own sad irony that the same thing is going on today. The language of “rights” is regularly used to take away “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Many people in the South were of noble intent. They had legitimate concerns and disagreements about how best to bring slavery to an end without devastating the economy or destroying states rights. But, in the face of all these concerns, there remained one fixed star. The humanity of the slaves must no longer be denied.

So also today, there are a great many disagreements about how best to love and care for all people and how to guard their rights without taking away rights from others. People of good will and noble character can and must engage in thoughtful conversation about all of this.

But at the center of all conversation, there must remain one fixed star. The humanity of the unborn must no longer be denied. Our own unity as a nation will either rise or fall in direct proportion to our ability to recognize the humanity of our own fellow countrymen. This “self-evident” truth must become self-evident again.

As the nation began to heal after the Civil War, Memorial Day became less internally focused and more about soldiers killed on foreign battlefields like Normandy and Iwo Jima, Korea and Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq. In all these places, and many more, Blue and Gray fought side by side. But they fought for the same reason.

They fought to uphold the fixed star that all human beings have intrinsic value. They fought against the dehumanizing values of the Nazis, the Communists and Militant Islam. It is true that these wars were fought to protect American interests, but in most cases, American interests coincided with the defense of a principle, that all men are created equal.

It is also true that, as a Nation, we still fight our own demons. Dehumanizing people based on race, creed, age, ideology and any number of invidious reasons is a constant temptation. We also have had vigorous disagreements about when military action to stand for those dehumanized is warranted and when not. We did nothing in the face of the Communist and Rwandan genocides, but intervened in Germany and Viet Nam.

But on Memorial Day we set aside these arguments about particulars and focus on the underlying principle. The underlying principle, enshrined in the Declaration of Liberty and the U.S. Constitution, declares that all men are created equal. God has made us. All human worth and dignity comes from that natural fact.

Memorial Day remembers individual human beings who answered the call of duty and reported to the front lines. They put their lives in jeopardy and made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of this truth. They died on battlefields, foreign and domestic, to defend people they would never meet – Germans, Koreans, Vietnamese and Iraqis – people who were their contemporaries and people yet unborn.

We honor their sacrifice by honoring the people for whom they died. We remember their principle by recognizing the humanity of all our neighbors. That is the heritage they bequeathed to us by their sacrifice.

Next Monday, let us take time to gather as a community and meet those who knew these patriots on the battlefield. The Veterans Board is hosting a Bar-B-Que at the Beeman-Cashin Building from 11:00am until 2:00pm. For $5.00 you can get a lunch and mingle with some of Evanston’s own heroes.

The 150th anniversary of Memorial Day is an excellent time to remove our hats in reverence and thanksgiving. It’s a time to thank God not only for the people around us, but also for preserving among us that one principle that unites us all: One nation under God.

Answer the Question, Don't Shut Down Debate

Terry Snyder, Riverton High School Superintendent

Recently (April 25, 2018), a ten-minute interview on Riverton’s local radio station created a dust-up across the state. So far, Wyoming’s liberal news site, WyoFile, has written three articles about it. The Casper Star Tribune has published three; and numerous other outlets around the state have weighed in. Two weeks after the interview, new articles just appeared yesterday and today, May 10-11.

Not only is the conversation ongoing, it is yet another one-sided lambasting of every Wyomingite who cares about what our children are being taught and how they are being encouraged. Like most of you, I wish we weren’t constantly talking about these things in public.

Families are wearied of headlines saturated with salacious details that they would prefer be shielded from the eyes and ears of their young. We would much prefer to talk about heroism, bravery, courage, great feats of human endeavor, poetry, love and God.

But we are daily faced with a terrible dilemma. Either enter into the public discussion of sexual matters that is better talked about by parents in the home, or let the public conversation be dominated by only one point of view. I am reluctant to wade into the mire, but there are some things that need to be said.

The controversy started with two paintings on the walls of Riverton High School. Photographs were shared with the school board of the rainbow flag artwork declaring “Love is Love,” and a black heart dripping hate standing opposed to a red heart emblazoned with “LGBT.” (Reportedly, these have since been painted over.)

When John Birbari, a Riverton radio host, was interviewing the superintendent of the High School, Terry Snyder, he asked whether it is appropriate for a high school to be promoting homosexuality. Snyder responded by talking about tolerance and acceptance, but he did not answer the question that was posed.

Birbari restated the question asking if it is wise to encourage a lifestyle so strongly correlated with an increased rate of disease and suicide. Again, Snyder side-stepped the question. Instead, he said, “as you know, we can’t discriminate against those classes. That’s a personal opinion that you have there…”

There are two things that are striking about this response. First, notice how Snyder characterizes facts reported by the CDC and every other reputable study as, “personal opinion.” An educator should know better.

Also, the authors of the articles taking Birbari to task and praising Snyder should know better. They all admit that Birbari is stating a fact, not a personal opinion. For instance, WyoFile reported, “The Center for Disease Control reports increased health risks for members of the LGBTQ community,” (Former GOP leader and radio host suspended for homophobic rant, May 3, 2018).



Andrew Graham, WyoFile

However, after reporting it, most of the slanted articles inserted an opinion. Here’s how that same article in WyoFile sought to explain away the fact, “Those risks are driven by ‘stigma and discrimination’ in addition to sexual behavior.” This is certainly an oft-repeated opinion, but there are no data to back it up.

In 1994 the US Department of Health and Human Services looked at the issue and concluded, “…that while factors such as social stigma and discrimination are widely believed to place homosexual men at higher risk for developing substance abuse and other difficulties, existing research fails to document this belief.” (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals). In the decades since, research has still not confirmed it.

We should also note the words, “…in addition to sexual behavior.” These admit that behavior does indeed have something to do with the increased health risks. Stigma and discrimination are only suggested as factors that might explain a higher incidence of substance abuse and suicide.

Nobody has ever suggested that they explain the significantly higher rates of STDs, AIDS/HIV, intimate partner violence, experience of infidelity and other mental and physical health risks associated with risky sexual behaviors. In fact, the risks of these behaviors have absolutely nothing to do with the “sexual orientation” of the person at all. They would all be just as unhealthy when shared between people of the same sex as people of different sexes.

We live in a world that especially educates our children to avoid health risks of all sorts; and we prohibit all sorts of encouragement to unhealthy behavior. It is illegal to post cigarette advertisements on school grounds, or even to use a cartoon character that might appeal to the young. No school would ever allow a sign on school property that encouraged the consumption of alcohol.

On the contrary, we have ads reminding high school students to wash hands, don’t use drugs, don’t text while driving, look both ways when crossing the street, eat well, get plenty of sleep, and a thousand other encouragements to engage in healthy activities. There are even schools that forbid the sale of junk food and soda pop.

So why is it that when it comes to unhealthy sexual behaviors, discouragement and education are demonized? Wouldn’t all people of every sexual orientation benefit from these? Isn’t it the very definition of discrimination to withhold education from certain classes of people for ideological reasons?

It has become fashionable to shut down honest discussion of issues and behaviors by changing the subject to people and identities. That is the second part of Snyder’s response that is noteworthy.

Birbari asks about behaviors with no reference to classes of people. But the superintendent speaks only of classes of people, with no reference to behaviors, saying, “We can’t discriminate against those classes of people.”

This disconnect epitomizes the state of today’s conversation. It is as if everyone who expressed concern about the health risks of smoking were shouted down as one who wanted to kill smokers. In fact, just the opposite is true. Again, it is as though a doctor were telling his patient that over-eating can lead to heart disease and his license were revoked for allegedly hating fat people. That would be utterly ridiculous.

But that is exactly what Snyder did to Birbari. Is it possible that a highly trained educator was unable to tell the difference between a question of behavior and a question of identity? I doubt it. Educated people know quite well when they are changing the subject.

Mr. Snyder, please answer the question. Don’t bow to those forces that would stifle the discussion. The Riverton High School deserves better. The students who are being led and encouraged deserve educators with the courage to discern between healthy behavior and unhealthy. The people of Wyoming deserve better. Let’s respect all people—even those who ask unpopular questions.

Policies, Police and Politics at the University of Wyoming

Last Saturday (April 21, 2018), the Wyoming Republican Party held its biennial state convention in Laramie. To date, nothing of what they did has been covered by the press. Rather, what happened before the gavel has dominated the headlines.

University of Wyoming police chief, Mike Samp, asked Uinta County resident, Lyle Williams, to disarm. When he declined and pointed to the state law that permitted him to carry (Wyoming Statute 6-8-401), the officer issued a citation for criminal trespass on private property.

Of course, this is not about an exchange between a solitary officer and a solitary non-credentialed observer. There had been both meetings between Republican Party leadership and university leadership as well as meetings between university leaders and law enforcement. When Samp went to the convention hall in search of someone to cite, he was apparently carrying out the direct orders of university president, Laurie Nichols. The Laramie Police Department was conspicuously absent.

Lyle Williams

Williams wasn’t a lone-wolf either. Dozens of attendees were openly carrying firearms, many of whom were standing with Williams while the citation was written. In fact, numerous eyewitnesses have told me that they were literally lined up before the officer with drivers’ licenses in hand, asking to receive citations of their own. They were denied their own citations because Samp judged that only one was necessary to bring the matter before the court.

Why were so many women and men openly carrying firearms on the university campus? There are several reasons. Most of these women and men exercise their right to bear arms every day, as a matter of course. I sat with Mr. Williams at the last convention and observed that he was carrying then as well. So, it was nothing new that he should be carrying a gun.

Wyoming GOP convention delegates

But it was unusual that so many were carrying their weapons in plain sight. It would be incorrect to think that this was sheer provocation, just to be obnoxious. The reason they were carrying openly was actually a concession to state law. Wyoming Statute 6-8-104(t)(vi) prohibits conceal carry permit holders from concealing a firearm on school property.

A second reason many were carrying firearms is due to the statistical threat posed by gun-free zones. A disproportionate number of school shootings occur where school policies prohibit firearms.

A third reason that many were carrying was to challenge UW Regulation 2-178 concerning the use of buildings and grounds. This regulation prohibits the possession of “any firearm, ammunition, explosive, paintball gun, airsoft gun, taser or other electronic restraint device, sling-shot, mace or pepper spray container in excess of 1 ounce, knife (blades 3” or longer except in the apartments or for cooking purposes only), precursor for explosives, brass knuckles, blowgun, dart gun, bow, arrow, and martial-arts weapons such as a star, sword, nunchuck, club, etc..”

These prohibitions seem to run afoul of Wyoming Statute 6-8-401(c). “[N]o city, town, county, political subdivision or any other entity shall authorize, regulate or prohibit…carrying or possession of firearms, weapons, accessories, components or ammunition except as specifically provided by this chapter.” The University of Wyoming, as an entity of the state, would not have jurisdiction to make firearms laws more restrictive than the state's laws.

UW Police Chief, Mike Samp

I wondered if the University administration considered itself an entity of the state, subject to this law. When I tried to talk to Chief Samp, his office directed me to University Spokesperson, Chad Baldwin (a former editor of the Uinta County Herald). He told me that the University of Wyoming is a “unit of state government,” and that they are the owners of the property where Williams was cited for trespassing.

All of this could have been avoided. The first cause of the clash was the Republican committee that decided to hold the convention on the UW campus. They failed to consider that many delegates carried personal firearms on a daily basis. By locating the convention in a gun-free zone, the party put its delegates in a position where they would be asked to disarm.

That problem has been addressed. Among the items of business passed at the convention, was a resolution prohibiting future conventions from being located in gun-free zones.

Of course, if the delegates had meekly followed the UW disarmament regulation, the conflict could also have been avoided. But the university administration also had a way to head off the problem. The delegates applied for a temporary waiver which could be granted under UW Regulation 2-178. If the University had granted their request, the whole matter would have been avoided.

UW President, Nichols

The fact that President Nichols refused to grant these prior requests for a two-day waiver, means that the administration was spoiling for a fight long before Mr. Williams came to town. It takes two to tango, and the university was a willing participant in this dance.

Why? I have outlined the reasons why dozens of delegates were openly carrying and willing to risk a citation to challenge the policy. Why was the university administration just as obviously willing to spend time and money to defend it?

I am not quite sure, but I will venture a guess. Looking at the policy itself, I am at a loss to understand its list of prohibited items. Remember, it’s not just about guns. It is about a long list of implements—from kitchen knives to nunchucks, from bear spray to blowguns. How a loose bullet in my pocket is a threat to anyone, or how a plastic pellet shot by a spring-loaded pistol could be a more dangerous weapon than a three-inch knife baffles me.

But let’s set that aside for the moment and focus only on the gun. That, after all, is the issue of the day. In fact, it’s not even the gun itself that is the issue. University policy makes it plain that guns are indeed allowed on campus, but only when carried by police and military.

“The Wyoming legislature,” on the other hand, “finds that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right … [and] affirms this right as a constitutionally protected right in every part of Wyoming.” (W.S. 6-8-401(a)) This is the statute that the UW administration wishes to overrule in its own part of Wyoming.

The university administration is engaging a fight to assert that when it comes to the Second  Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it can make laws independent of the state legislature that funds it. Not only that, as an entity of the state of Wyoming, it seems in open defiance of Wyoming Statute 6-8-401 altogether.

A week ago Friday two men smiled cordially and exchanged handshakes as one gave a ticket to the other in front of the UW conference center. Behind these two men, and unseen to the naked eye, was a deliberately sought conflict between the University of Wyoming and Wyoming’s elected representatives.