CT Blue

A few days ago the Day ran a headline stating that Glenn Beck drew hundreds of thousands of people to his rally for suckers, a claim belied by the article itself and the only scientific attempt (Approximately 87,000 attendees) to determine the numbers. I said nothing.

But I can no longer hold my tongue. Today, on the front page-that’s right, not in “Living”, not in the comics, not even in “Religion” the Day features an extensive article on some religiously loony Ghostbusters calling themselves the East Coast Angels, who are dedicated to getting rid of ghosts in Jesus name, Amen.

Perhaps I’m thick. Perhaps I’m missing the irony. But I can’t find a syllable of skepticism in the entire article. It is straight reportage on ghosts, and the idiots who believe in them, along with their truly scientific methods for detecting and expelling them. I mean, they don’t even take the standard approach most reporters take to scientific questions these days. You know, where they balance the overwhelming scientific evidence against one crank. In the Day, we only hear from the cranks.

Why cover the news, when you can give the idiots what they want?

How long before we start burning witches, with the Day giving a respectful hearing to the witch burners?

UPDATE: A commentor refers us to this article, which discusses the fact that the push to drive internet traffic is behind the dumbing down of the American newspaper. I had actually read that article recently, possibly following the same link from Colin McEnroe, but I didn’t connect the dots when I read the Day’s article. I certainly should have, since my wife said she got a “tweet” from the Day with the teaser line “Do you believe in ghosts?”. I guess something like that is more likely to generate traffic than, “Do you think Congress should raise the payroll tax ceiling instead of cutting social security?”, which, I concede, is probably too long to tweet.

Ken Mehlman, former head of the RNC, and architect, along with Karl Rove and a host of others, of various gay baiting and gay hating Republican initiatives, has come out as gay. This was an open secret at the time he was stirring up hate, but that’s another matter.

Here’s what the New York Times has to say:

Mr. Mehlman was in Mr. Bush’s inner circle in both presidential campaigns and ran his campaign in 2004, when the party courted Christian conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage. But Mr. Mehlman, in his work as chairman of the Republican National Committee and as head of Mr. Bush’s campaign, tended to personally avoid social issues.

You might get a bit more perspective here, where his coming out was first announced, or from Michaelangelo Signorile in the video below, via Americablog. (Ignore the Republican apologist).

Signorile makes the fundamental point. You don’t need to be gay to realize that demonizing gays is deeply and profoundly wrong. Being gay and actually engaging in, or enabling, the demonizing doesn’t make it more wrong, only less understandable. The Times account elides the central issue, and grossly minimizes Mehlman’s role in the hate campaign. He may have “personally avoided” social issues, but when called upon to assist in the war on whatever group was the demon of the week, he joined in.

GIven Fox’s central role in stirring up this phony mosque issue, why does it take a comedy show to expose this:

Perhaps for the same reason that the media, including Fox, can’t quite figure out why so many people think Obama is a Muslim. It certainly couldn’t be because their compatriots are telling people that he is. After all, it’s not the media’s fault if people are uninformed.

This morning the Day devoted much of page 2 (with a teaser on page 1) to an anti-mosque (here we must be reminded that they’re not really even building a mosque) demonstration in New York City, which according to the Day (I couldn’t find the article on-line) drew “hundreds” of people.

I have often noted how the media seems to find any gathering of two or more wackos news, but ignores massive anti-war or pro-immigrant demonstrations. But isn’t this getting a little ridiculous. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that hundreds means that there were a thousand people at this demonstration. Probably a stretch. The present population of New York City, according to Wolfram, is 8,364,000.00 people with the metropolitan area containing about 19 million. That means this demonstration drew .011956001913% of the city’s population, which rounds off to zero. That in a city where it’s pretty easy to get around, and anyone really interested could have showed up. New London has a population of 26,184, which means a proportionally sized demonstration in the Day’s home town, if I have my math right, would have drawn three people. Why is this news?

For reasons unfathomable, our news organizations have come around to accepting that the racists among us are a downtrodden minority. If three or more of them gather, attention must be paid with understanding and respect. If today’s press had been covering Martin Luther King they would have devoted gallons of ink to the stress and strain to which those dog handlers were exposed in Birmingham, not to mention that the March on Washington would have been totally ignored.

This may sound like carping, but this phenomenon has real life implications. The media dances to the right wing tune, covering stories that at best are trivial, at worst are inflammatory, and always are diversions from the real problems we face.

This morning’s New London Day has a puff piece about the three Republicans vying to get crushed by Joe Courtney in November. This sentence caught the eye of my vigilant spouse, and impressed me as well:

Along with fellow Republicans, they want to reverse Democratic policies like the health care reform bill, enacted by Obama and Democrats in Congress earlier this year, decrease federal spending and restore the Bush tax cuts to reduce the federal deficit…

Now I realize that we are living in an age where many journalists consider themselves mere stenographers, but isn’t this a bit much? There’s not a word in the article that questions the efficacy of balancing budgets by reducing revenue.

Perhaps Joe should tell the Day that he proposes increasing spending by a trillion dollars (roughly the cost of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy over the next 10 years) over the next 10 years in order to reduce the deficit. Would the Day swallow that whole without gagging, or would they point out that Joe was losing his mind? I should add here, parenthetically, that unlike the three Republicans, he does have a mind to lose.

The ironic thing is that, given present conditions, increased spending now would mean lower deficits over the long haul, depending, of course, on what you are spending the money on. Giving tax breaks to those least likely to spend the money is a proven deficit creator. Those seeking further proof are referred to the 1980s and the Bush years, respectively.

This all reminds me of these lines from Lewis Carroll’s Hunting of the Snark:

“Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true.”

The Republicans have told us that tax cuts lower deficits about 3 million times, and apparently, at least for the Day, that makes it true.

By the way, I can’t supply a link to the Day’s article, because as I write, the Day’s website is down. You’ll have to trust me on the quote, and my assertion that the reporter, Matt Collette, expressed not a word of wonder at the arithmetically absurd position of all three candidates.

UPDATE: Here’s the link.

From Today’s Globe:

Senate Democrats yesterday revived an extension of unemployment benefits for 2.5 million Americans, managing to break through a GOP deadlock rooted in deep disagreements over the economy.

There is not a shred of reliable evidence that the deadlock was “rooted in deep disagreements over the economy”. The deadlock resulted from a purely political decision, made by the Republicans, that it would be to their long term political advantage to block these benefits. While the Republicans may say that they have some sort of philosophical problem with extending unemployment benefits, that position is undercut by the fact that they voted for these extensions as a matter of routine in the past. It is wrong to report as fact what is, at best, highly debatable, and is, in actuality, beyond doubt untrue.

On one thing, both the left and the right can agree. The press in this country is dysfunctional. One can argue about the overarching narrative that dysfunctionality protects, but not really very convincingly. To the extent reporters are stenographers, they reinforce corporate and governmental messages.

Huffington Post reports that Lara Logan has criticized Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings for breaking a confidentiality agreement that she presumes he must have made, though apparently the only evidence for that is the word of a person who refused to be identified. Logan is good reporter, who has the guts to put herself in harms way and actually inform herself on the issues about which she reports, but even she has bought into a destructive ethos.

She denies that real reporters, reporters like her, treat their sources with kid gloves in order to preserve access so that they can continue to write stories in which they treat their sources with kid gloves. But the access issue is real, as is the fact that too often the big media reporters identify with the people they cover.

At times, I’m discouraged by the fact that the internet is destroying conventional newspapers and, more hopefully, broadcast “journalism”, but perhaps the development has nothing but a bright side. Something will arise in its place, and there’s always the chance that journalism in the internet age will, at least for one brief shining moment, be committed by and to the type of reporter that existed before the current crop became fat and lazy transcriptionists. The framers, I truly believe, gave the press freedom because they wanted the press to be a burr in the side of politicians, not enablers or amplifiers. They did that knowing full well that they themselves would feel the heat of the press that they had protected. Witness the attacks endured by Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Of those four, only one, to his everlasting shame, ever took steps to shackle the press, and it’s hard to believe that Adams went to his grave believing he should in fact have signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Were the American press only the mainstream media not a single politician would ever even pine secretly for a return of the Sedition acts. In truth, the American people are not safe if the press is content simply to preserve its prerogatives.

You can watch the video of Logan, who is certainly not anywhere near the worst on this issue, at the link. It’s interesting that she speaks so highly of McChrystal, and bemoans the fate of this fine man. How many people in this country know that the man in charge in Afghanistan was complicit in the Pat Tillman cover-up, a fact he has admitted. Not just complicit, really, but the man most responsible. Logan surely knows, but it doesn’t seem to occur to her that perhaps that fact tells us something about the man. In any event, it’s a fact that should have been more widely known, something the insider press is much too unlikely to assure. After all, you can’t keep reminding the public of an uncomfortable fact about a man, if you are trying to preserve access to him or his flunkies. Rolling Stone did us a favor. If they can take down Petreaus, (who, unbelievably, is dubbed a “liberal favorite” by Howard Kurtz, the host of the show) they will really do the country a favor. Maybe if Obama runs out of generals he’ll get out of Afghanistan.

Prologue:

After I wrote this, but before I posted it, I watched last Wednesday’s Daily Show, which I hadn’t seen last week. Here’s Jon Stewart, who convincingly demonstrates that access is all that’s on their minds. By the way, if you haven’t seen it, it’s well worth watching for the Fox and Friends takedown near the end.

I was asked to plug this upcoming forum, which I’m more than happy to do. The press release follows

Public Forum: “Democracy vs. the Propaganda State:
Why We Must Support Independent Media and Build
a Real Alternative to Corporate Power”

John Nichols, The Nation magazine Washington correspondent and co-author

of the new book, “The Death and Life of American Journalism:
The Media Revolution that will Begin the World Again”
will discuss the crisis in U.S. media at a June 19th public forum in New
Haven, CT

The Nation magazine’s Washington correspondent, John Nichols, is coming to
New Haven, CT’s Center Church on the Green’s Parish House on Saturday,
June 19th, where he’ll discuss his new book, “The Death and Life of
American Journalism: The Media Revolution that will Begin the World
Again,” co-authored with Robert McChesney, which examines the crisis in
U.S. journalism and proposes a rescue plan that looks back to our Founding
Fathers to save the nation’s endangered daily newspapers, investigative
reporting and democracy.

In this public forum titled, “Democracy vs. the Propaganda State: Why We
Must Support Independent Media and Build a Real Alternative to Corporate
Power,” Nichols will argue that journalism should be seen as a public
good, much like education and defense spending. He believes the federal
government should intervene to assist the ailing newspaper industry –
plagued by closings and layoffs — as a free press and an informed
electorate are among the most important elements in a well-functioning
democracy. Democratic nations economically equivalent to ours, such as
Canada, Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany,
Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden etc. spend between $8 billion to $45
billion on public media and other subsidies. The U.S. government spends
only $400 million.

The forum, sponsored by locally produced Between The Lines Radio
Newsmagazine, will be held from 2 -4 p.m. Saturday, June 19th at the
Center Church on the Green Parish House (Pratt Hall), 311 Temple St., New
Haven, CT. John Nichol’s talk will be preceded by a press conference
between 1 and 1:45 p.m. at the Parish House. A Q&A session with the
audience will follow Nichols’ talk along with a booksigning and reception
with light refreshments.

John Nichols comes to this Connecticut event after serving as the keynote
speaker at The International Federation of Journalists 2010 World
Congress, May 25-28, 2010, in Cadiz, Spain where they launched the IFJ
report on the future of journalism.

John Nichols and Robert McChesney are co-founders of the nation’s largest
media reform organization, Free Press www.freepress.net. Free Press works
to promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media,
quality journalism, and universal access to communications.

Net proceeds from this public forum will benefit Squeaky Wheel
Productions, nonprofit distributor of Between The Lines Radio
Newsmagazine, broadcast on 50 radio stations in the U.S. including WPKN
89.5 FM in Bridgeport and WESU 88.1 FM in Middletown. Suggested donation
is $15, $5 for students. Seating is limited, advance reservations
recommended. For tickets or more information call 1-(203) 268-8446 or
visit www.squeakywheel.net or www.btlonline.org. Media sponsors of this
event are WPKN Radio 89.5 FM, The New Haven Advocate and Fairfield
Weekly.

This is quite timely. This morning’s Times carried a story about the FTC, which is itself looking in to the issue, and trying to come up with ways to save American newspapers. Among other things, they are looking at whether it would be advisable to change the antitrust laws as a means toward this salutary end.

For what it’s worth, I’ll once again pass along my thoughts.

Start from the proposition that the future is on the internet. My son, who writes for a newspaper, does not get a paper newspaper, and that is true of most younger people these days. We get three, but I get most of my news on my Ipad.

Like most people, I’m happy to pay for content, so long as it is convenient and reasonably priced. When I am surfing the net and I click on a link, I don’t want to be met by a barrier and a toll if I want to read an article on a newspaper site to which I might otherwise rarely go. I propose treating content providers like TV channels in a cable system. For one monthly fee I can visit any channel I like. If I want premium channels, I pay a little more. You could do the same with newspapers, magazines and other periodicals on the internet. It wouldn’t take rocket science to figure out a reasonable way to divvy up the money. My suggestion would be that a disproportionate share of a subscriber’s payment should go to local media. In my case, the New London Day might get a fairly large cut of my subscription fee. The rest could be allocated by hits, or in some other fashion that makes sense from the industry perspective. It would be important to make sure the system allowed for new entrants. The fee would simply be added on to the regular monthly internet bill. If you didn’t want access to news on the internet, you wouldn’t have to pay it, but you’d be kissing the New York Times or any other participating paper good-bye.

At the moment, newspaper sites are either free, or subscription based, like the Wall Street Journal. The subscription covers a single publication. That’s a bit like providing cable television, then making you pay through the nose for each channel you might want to have the privilege to watch. The one fee for universal access, or tiered fees, makes a lot more sense.

Seems that Carly Fiorina dissed Barbara Boxer’s hairstyle, which trivial incident is worthy of a front page article in the New York Times, which appears dedicated to the proposition that the incident is both totally trivial and monumentally important. Personally, trivial or not, I hope it hurts Fiorina, but I’m a partisan hack.

What I find interesting is the length some reporters will go to to get ridiculous “expert” quotes that prove or disprove the meme they are trying to push. What’s amazing about this one is that the reporter in question is a woman. Yet, take a gander at this:

“If you are dissing their hair, you are dissing their personality and their lifestyle,” said Billy Lowe, a celebrity stylist who owns a hair salon in Los Angeles. “It is probably the one thing a woman spends most of her time on every day. It’s always on their minds. Your hair is your personality.”

Of all the people in California to ask about women’s relationship to their hair, who does she pick: a high end hair stylist who makes a living off of narcissistic women who may, in fact, have the money and idle time to obsess about their hair. His customers self select. It’s all he sees so he extrapolates and tars all women.

I don’t know a single woman who obsesses about her hair. My wife is a woman. I can’t get inside her head, but judging by her words and actions she spends “most of her time” thinking about her job, her kids (they’re gone but she still worries), politics, her garden, organizing political functions, etc. Hair is unlikely to make the top 100 on her list of concerns, and I’m sure she’s not alone. Most women, as opposed to those who go to celebrity stylists, are struggling to get by in a world that the husbands of women who go to celebrity stylists have rigged against them. They don’t have time to think about their hair, which is one of the accidental benefits of being in the class of people who are getting screwed by the people who have wives who can afford to obsess about hair.