Showing posts with label No on Prop 6. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No on Prop 6. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Analysis: Prop 6 Media Coverage

Corporate/Traditional: (Does NOT include articles placed by CMJ/CJNY)

Over the course of the campaign, CMJ’s research fellow monitored coverage of Proposition 6 and related juvenile justice and youth incarceration and crime stories (64 stories). We found most of the stories through Google Alerts, some Nexis searches and daily monitoring. The sample includes only a few of the stories placed by CMJ, which helped to push the voices of youth and youth advocates.

Bullet Summary:

- 92% of articles contained no youth voices.
- Victims of crime or their families are rarely quoted. In fact, they were only quoted in 6% of articles. The families of accused or incarcerated youth were only quoted in 8% of articles.
- Over 78% of articles surveyed mention race explicitly, and just 3% provide statistics related to race.
- Nearly half of the articles surveyed offer no solutions to the problems they write about (31 out of 64)
- 32% of articles provided no explanation of the root causes of crime. The next highest category was individual behavior, at 27%. 21% of articles offered lack of policing as an explanation. Because of this trend, those articles that offer no explanation will most likely lead readers to assume individual behavior as the major cause of crime. Only two articles cited lack of education as a root cause of crime, and only two articles cited pov-erty as a cause (although many mentioned poverty, few stated that poverty was a factor in creating crime).

- Stories focused on youth tended to be episodic (diamond in the rough) rather than thematic stories, which leaves readers with the impression that the thematic story is young people are criminals.

From CMJ Research Fellow Lucas Zucker:

In articles about juvenile justice, youth themselves are rarely quoted (over 92% of articles have no youth speaking). When they are represented, it is most often in the words of the reporter—only 80% of youth voices interviewed in the articles are directly quoted, a lower percentage than any other category interviewed. The perspectives most often given a voice in articles about juvenile justice are elected officials, law enforcement officers, and district attorneys. On a positive note, advocates and organizers who defend the youth perspective are frequently quoted, almost as much as police or politicians. However, it is worth noting that elected officials and police do not need to be represented by advocates in the media—they are allowed to speak for themselves. Rarely even are the victims of crime or their fami-lies quoted. In fact, they were only quoted in 6% of articles. The families of accused or incarcerated youth were only quoted in 8%.

These articles rarely mention race explicitly (over 78% do not). Virtually no articles give statistics involving race. Is this because of a genuine colorblind perspective in the media? Or does the reporter understand that readers will as-sume the race of those mentioned in the article? Furthermore, does this have the effect of making readers ignore or be unaware of the racial disparities in arrest and incarceration rates? This seems like an especially likely problem as only 3% of articles provide racial statistics. These two articles, out of the 64 surveyed, were both non-mainstream “ethnic media”. Presumably white readers do not need to hear about racial disparities, and statistics about them are only relevant to minorities.


These articles tend to depict the youth in them as essentially adults, whereas an article dealing with youth of the same age but focusing on academic achievement for example, would make the distinction that these are teenagers. This can cause the acceptance among the general public of youth being tried as adults and sent to prison with adults, as long as they are generally seen as adults within the context of their criminal activity. It also lends itself to the labeling of youth who have committed crimes as permanent criminals, rather than youth who have many years of development ahead of them.

Nearly half of the articles surveyed offer no solutions to the problems they write about (31 out of 64). On one hand, this may be a positive in terms of unbiased reporting. On the other hand, it may give readers the idea that there is no solution, and that violence is inherent in young people of color.

Some articles successfully show youth not as criminals, but as young people faced with difficult circumstances. However, often these articles focus on specific youth interviewed for the story (episodic) while implying that the rest of their peers are criminals (thematic). This gives the impression that the few good individuals who happen to have been interviewed for the article must survive amongst the overwhelming majority of their lawbreaking peers.


32% of articles provided no explanation of the root causes of crime. The next highest category was individual behavior, at 27%. 21% of articles offered lack of policing as an explanation. Because of this trend, those articles that offer no explanation will most likely lead readers to assume individual behavior as the major cause of crime. Only two articles cited lack of education as a root cause of crime, and only two articles cited poverty as a cause (although many mentioned poverty, few stated that poverty was a factor in creating crime).


In articles concerning Proposition 6, most editorials by far were opposed to the measure. However, it was often from a technical or a fiscal standpoint. When an editorial did challenge the idea that more incarceration was the most effective way to reduce crime, it was often simply a side note, with the major focus of the argument on other problems with the measure. Issues of race were rarely, if ever, mentioned. This seems to suggest that most of the writers agreed in general with the goals of Prop 6, just not with its exact methods or its timing during the budget crisis. If the ideology behind Prop 6 continues to fundamentally go unchallenged, we will only see more of the same later.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

No on Proposition 6 & 9 Announce Launch Of Third Statewide Radio Advertisement.

For Immediate Release: October 22, 2008

No on Proposition 6 & 9 Announce Launch Of Third Statewide Radio Advertisement

Contact: Lindsay Shoemaker
Communications Director
Lshoemaker@kaufmancampaigns.com

Sacramento, CA- The No on Prop 6 & 9 campaigns announces the launch of a third 60-second radio ad. The ad informs voters that “Newspapers throughout California all agree…Vote No on Propositions 6 & 9, calling them budget busters California can’t afford.” This ad began running on Wednesday, October 22 in media markets across the state.

“Proposition 6 will cost California taxpayers billions of dollars, and force cuts to education, healthcare, fire protection and other vital programs” says Sandra Jackson, spokesperson for the California Teachers Association.

“The so-called “Victim’s Bill of Rights” or Proposition 9 creates costly burden for prosecutors and police, holds out false hopes to crime victims, interferes with the orderly administration of justice,” states Los Angeles County District Attorney, Steve Cooley. “Its parole revisions are patently unconstitutional.”

The No on Prop 6 & 9 campaigns represent a broad coalition that includes teachers, firefighters, nurses, healthcare workers, taxpayer associations, major churches and civil rights groups. To hear the ad in it’s entirety as well as the first two ads please visit www.votenoprop6.com or www.votenoprop9.com .
###

Transcript of Radio Spot 3 – No on Props 6 and 9

It hardly ever happens… Newspapers throughout California all agree. They say Vote No on propositions 6 and 9 calling them budget busters California can’t afford. In fact, the Bakersfield Californian says “in these desperate economic times. Approving Props 6 and 9 would be pure insanity.”

They say “Prop 6 is a Christmas wish list for law enforcement” without any way to pay for it. It will require over a billion dollars in new spending. That’s right – a billion dollars. The Sac Bee says “Prop 6 means less money for schools, health care, parks, roads. We can’t afford it.”

The San Francisco Chronicle says “Prop 9 could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars every year.”

The Pasadena Star News says” Prop 9 would monkey around with the parole system.

Another says “Californians have harmed themselves before by adopting costly programs that drain state coffers. To do so again at this perilous point would be fiscal suicide.”

Vote No on 6 and 9…

Disclaimer
Paid for by No on Props 6 & 9, a committee for fiscal responsibility with teachers, firefighters, service employees and civil rights groups -- California Teachers Association/Issues PAC & California State Council of Service Employees Issues Committee.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Letter to Chron Editors goes unpublished...

But I thought I'd share it just the same...
RE: "Prop. 6 sets aside funds to go after gang-related crime" by George Runner.

This November 4th, Californians have the opportunity to decide the future for the state's children. Proposition 6 is part of a long history of expensive failed California initiatives that prey on public fears, often resort to distasteful racial stereotypes and inevitably result in budget cuts for schools and proven prevention programs rather than restore real public safety.

Proposition 6 is the latest in the line of this type of wasteful predatory public policy and dangerous thinking.

Amidst a financial and budget crisis, the fiscal arguments alone should defeat prop 6. But the debate is about much more than that. It's about changing a mindset that is content with sending our children to prison, a virtual criminal college, rather than creating strong social policies that lead to safe, stable communities and send our children to institutions of higher learning.

Prop 6 represents the tired, old politics and policies of the past. California's children are pleading for and demanding more opportunity, and all George Runner and Mike Reynolds have to offer are old ideas and prison beds.

This November, vote NO on 6 and say YES to California's children.
Karlos Gauna Schmieder,
86 Godeus, SF, CA, 94110
505 363 4962
karlos@centerformediajustice.org

Friday, October 10, 2008

Bay Area Youth Rally Against State Propositions

By: AsianWeek Staff Report, Oct 10, 2008

OAKLAND, Calif. - Over 150 high school students from Oakland and throughout the Bay Area gathered on October 4 at a conference organized by Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice, where they learned about the importance of voting and about issues on November’s California ballot.

“There are issues on the ballot that directly affect the health and opportunities of youth,” said youth organizer Amanda Wake. “Even though some of us can’t vote, it is still our job to understand how initiatives like Proposition 4, 6 and 8 affect our communities and to take action to ensure they don’t pass.”

Proposition 4 is the Abortion Waiting Period Initiative; Proposition 6 is the Safe Neighborhoods Act; and Proposition 8 is the Eliminate the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Initiative.

“Youth like me need health care, education, opportunities and support, not unrealistic laws that make it harder for youth to thrive,” said participant Maly Choeun, adding that she intended to encourage her family to register to vote and to vote “no” on Propositions 4, 6 and 8.

The “Youth + Power = Change” conference was endorsed by Oakland Councilmember Nancy Nadel and Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson.

NY Times says no on California Props 6 and 9

http:
Fiscal Disaster in California

The mandatory sentencing craze that has swept the country over the last 30 years did little to cut back the drug trade, but it drove up the prison population and pushed corrections costs to ruinous levels. The process was especially destructive in California, where a federal court has placed the prison system’s dangerously decrepit medical services under a receiver who wants the state to cough up $8 billion to bring that system up to constitutional standards.

The last thing California residents need at this point are new policies that land even more people behind bars and drive up prison spending further. But November’s ballot in California, the birthplace of irresponsible government by referendum, includes two costly initiatives that would do just that.

California voters need to reject Propositions 6 and 9.

Proposition 6, which is misleadingly titled the Safe Neighborhoods Act, recreates the failed criminal justice policies of the past. According to an analysis by the state attorney general, this proposal would make about 30 changes in criminal laws and would create entirely new crimes, some with the potential to produce additional life sentences.

It would expand the conditions under which juveniles could be tried as adults, flying in the face of federally backed studies that show that making it easier to try juveniles as adults causes more crime, not less.

It would cost Californians nearly a billion dollars, for starters, in spending on law enforcement, and prosecution — money that would be diverted from, among other things, health, education, parks and environmental protection. Over the years, Proposition 6 would drive the state deeper into the hole by requiring automatic funding increases keyed to inflation.

Proposition 9 is in some ways even more extreme. It would amend the constitution to give victims an outsize influence in criminal cases turning dispassionate justice into family vengeance.

It also would worsen prison overcrowding by restricting early-release programs, and it would undermine law and order behind bars by eliminating incentives for good behavior. According to a state analysis, this measure could potentially cost states and localities hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Californians have harmed themselves before by adopting costly programs that drain state coffers while providing for no new funding. To do so again at this perilous point would be fiscal suicide.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Press Advisory 9/24/08: Tomorrow's Youth Forum on California Propositions in Oakland Postponed


New time and date to be determined. YO's "As California Goes, So Does the Nation" Youth Forum will happen before the last day to register to vote.

Thanks for your patience and interest.

Contact: Karlos Gauna Schmieder, 510 444 0640 x333

Press Advisory 9/24/08: As California Goes, So Does the Nation

Youth Forum on California Propositions in Oakland on Thursday

What: The forum will address California ballot initiatives and feature a panel of youth experts, small group discussion and electronic polling. The forum will focus on CA Prop 4 (which would institute parental notification and a waiting period before a minor can terminate a pregnancy); CA Prop 6 (which would divert money from education to the criminal justice system, allow police to target and label youth as young as 14 as gang members and then punish them as adults) and CA Prop 8 (same sex marriage ban). Eligible students will also be registering to vote.

Where and When:
The forum is on Thursday, September 25, from 10am to 1:30pm at Swarm Gallery, 560 2nd St, Oakland, CA, in Jack London Square, located a few blocks from the Oakland City Center BART station.

Who: New America Media, YO!, Community Justice Network for Youth, Ella Baker Center, League of Young Voters, Planned Parenthood, Students from around the Bay Area, and more.

Contact(s):

Erricka X at 415-503-4170ph or ex@newamericamedia.org.

Karlos Gauna Schmieder at c.505 363 4966 or karlos@centerformediajustice.org

Monday, September 22, 2008

The Emmy's and the Prop 6 Double Dip

One catch phrase from TV land was missed by Emmy Awards producers Sunday night. The infamous "Double Dip" from Seinfeld's George Costanza.

Now another George has been caught double dipping into the state's already crunched budget.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008