Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Ladies and Gentlemen: We need to talk.
In a recent cover story, you asked the question, “How do we save the American newspaper?” In many ways, that’s a fair question. However, to my mind, you may have missed the broader story.
In your story, you suggested that online content should be paid for. True enough, given that we do, in fact, pay for single issues of the paper, and we also pay for subscriptions. It’s not out of line. The problem is, once paid for, what are we getting for our money?
I have a simple complaint regarding American Print Media: You aren’t doing your job.
Allow me to voice my bias here: I do not trust the Liberal Media. I do not trust the Conservative Media. What I trust is factual, objectively reported information. I don’t care what you think of a story, unless I’m reading the Opinion/Editorial pages. What I want when I pick up the paper is solid reporting that I can trust.
However, I find that’s not what I get.
Consider the past election, when John McCain wanted to voice his opinion in an editorial in the New York Times. As it is, for lack of a better description, the news organ of record for the nation, one might have considered that in the interest of fairness, the NY Times would have run this piece. They’ve certainly had no problem doing the same for Barack Obama.
However, the editorial was turned down. And in doing so, they provided fuel for those who have been crying “bias” for years, and with no small amount of justification.
Considering that McCain was running for the Presidency, one might have thought this editorial would have been without question. The Times would then have the opportunity in its Op/Ed pages to dissect what McCain had to say. They didn’t do that, and instead, with “news” stories that seemed to gloss over every detail of Obama’s proposals, and which practically hammered every detail of McCain’s.
I have friends with whom I discuss politics on a regular basis. We disagree on a great many issues, and I don’t expect them to be objective. The average person is not objective, but rather, bases their decisions on criteria of their own. On the other hand, I DO expect a newspaper, which provides the public record of its community, of the nation, of the world, to be objective, in the hopes that with objective information, we can take appropriate action when it is called for. It is a higher standard, and while it is not easy to achieve, it is, in fact, required. It is what we expect of our news media.
I’ll be quite blunt: I didn’t like either candidate from the major parties. I thought neither of them offered us much. But the perpetual wet dream from our local paper, the Sacramento Bee, on behalf of Barack Obama was a bit much. Even as he was promoting “Change,” there was little discussion about what kind of Change our new President had in mind while he was running for the office. Now that he’s in office, what has become clear is that there will be no substantive change at all, because in pushing through bail-outs for everyone, he’s keeping companies from going through bankruptcy that damned well should be. It’s allowing executives who have looted their employers to keep their jobs, even as their behavior should be brought into public light and reviewed, and preventing just action from the criminal courts – and most assuredly from the civil -- that would, in turn restore a degree of confidence to Corporate America.
In other words, President Obama has provided cover to people who not only don’t deserve it, but shouldn’t be getting it. There’s clearly a violation of the public trust, and he’s preventing us from getting to the bottom of it by saving these industries from the consequences of their leaders’ actions. No, it’s not fair, but worst of all, it’s unjust.
In recent days, we’ve learned that Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut was the one who helped AIG executives keep their bonuses, even as these same people were looting their employer. One wonders how this ties in with his sweetheart loan from Countrywide Mortgage, even as some of us who are Countrywide clients are struggling to keep our homes, and as AIG clients, we watch our coverage erode. In years past, there would have been investigative reports on Mr. Dodd’s activities, and the legislation he’s proposed and voted for.
No longer. In fact, Mr. Dodd, in recent stories, seems to be portrayed as something of a hero, avoiding potential lawsuits, or at its worst, he’s simply a dupe of AIG’s lobbying efforts. Somehow, this doesn’t pass the smell test. That we’re now learning that Congress knew last year this was going to happen, and is only now outraged by it, leaves us feeling manipulated.
I realize you’re the professionals in this area, but would you mind explaining to the rest of us just what it is the rest of us are missing? You see, that was supposed to be your job.
I suppose I could go into a discussion of your treatment of former Governor Gray Davis of California, a man who so botched the basics of his job we threw his sorry ass out of office. I could mention that it seems as though every time he shows up, he’s treated as a misunderstood martyr for the Democratic Party, instead of one of the most monumental incompetents ever to serve, (and this is in spite of many of your colleagues declaring that he was “the best prepared candidate, ever.”) I could go into some detail about how Bill Simon, while he was running against Davis during Davis’ second term, was so slandered by Davis’ campaign that his political career is over. It should also be noted that Simon has since been cleared of all claims made by Davis’ campaign staff, thus showing that not only is Davis an incompetent dope, but he has no character, either.
And to you folks, he’s a hero. What’s that say about you?
I suppose I could mention that during the “Grayouts,” while we were lacking basic electricity due to Davis’ lack of foresight and general unwillingness to undo some of the more bizarre regulations brought about under Pete Wilson, that I found it odd that the only person asking questions of Davis was a talk show host from KFBK, Mark Williams, or I could mention that there was little explanation within major media as to what actually went wrong. You seem to think that isn’t important. Nor do you seem to think that we need to know what the hell is happening in the legislature of a state which has the ninth largest economy in the world, and why they can’t seem to balance a budget, or why this mob of morons can’t seem to pass a budget, balanced or not, on time, in spite of having a two-year session, and in spite of their claims of how valuable experienced legislators are. To borrow from George Will, cheap rookies are starting to look pretty good.
I find it odd that some of you consider Geraldo Rivera a hero for reporting on projected troop movements. Never mind the fact that he risked getting one entire unit killed, one which had among its members friends of my older two sons. When a soldier who was a member of that unit found out that Rivera put his wife at risk, (yes, they were both in the same unit), it isn’t widely known, but an armed guard was placed to keep Rivera alive, because that young husband had made it clear: One open shot, and Gerry was toast.
Yes, I know names. And I’ll be damned if I’ll release them to anyone. I don’t trust you.
In fact, I find it odd that anyone trusts you. The POW Network has repeatedly revealed individuals who have been tramping around at veteran’s events in tattered fatigues, people you have reported to have been “Vietnam Veterans,” or decorated Gulf War Veterans, people who have claimed to have been SEALs, Rangers, Special Forces, are, in fact, frauds. In some cases, they were never in the military, in others, they were tossed out right after Basic Training, and in still others, they never received the medals they claimed they earned, they never had the training they claimed, and still more never endured the “hardships” or displayed the “heroism” you have reported. The evidence is there, but you’re too busy preening to investigate. (Sorry, but if you’re going to claim that there isn’t the money to look into it, I’d advise against. The POW Network’s information is free of charge, takes moments to look up, and is available to anyone with web access. That dog don’t hunt.)
It’s equally disturbing as I continue to read newspapers in California gushing about how wonderful it is that Jane Fonda is being honored by the State. Why? Have we completely forgotten what she did in North Vietnam? Who decided that was irrelevant? And why was that decision made? As the son of an actual Vietnam Veteran, I find it offensive that a person who placed themselves in a position to be used for propaganda purposes by the government of North Vietnam is now being treated as some sort of hero, when, in fact, she was simply being selfish and destructive, particularly as she called those who suffered within the walls of the Hanoi Hilton liars, even as the evidence was mounting that not only were they telling the truth, but the horrors were even worse than imagined.
Of course, the claim is that we’re in an age of Consumer Driven News. This is why word of Britney Spears takes center stage of our military’s activity in Iraq and Afghanistan, (the latter of which gets considerably less ink), or why you folks were so flat-footed when the economy went into the toilet.
This, of course, is crap. We are no more in an age of “Consumer Driven News” than we were in 1970. What we are getting is actually called Gossip. “Consumer Driven News” is what the National Enquirer is for. The news isn’t about what we want to hear. It’s about what we need to hear.
What it comes down to is not so much that you’re Liberal, but you’re sloppy. You run an above the fold story about Lindsay Lohan’s drinking, then wonder why no one reads what you publish. Why would we, when we can get real news for free, from the Internet, and from other sources? It’s not perfect, but if you actually gave a damn about improving the information available, perhaps we’d be a little closer to perfection?
Why would I pay for news from a newspaper when what I get is editorials on the front page, feature stories which belong in other sections of the newspaper, or the kind of dreck that passes for news, but is designed simply to get me to spend $.50 for a copy of the paper? What I see a lot of the times are feature articles which would illustrate the news, but they’re now the news themselves. It’s backwards, and it leaves me wondering if you’re actually in the news business anymore. It’s as if you people have taken a page from Loompanics, and you’re just out to find the latest “Hey, Martha!” story. Paging the Weekly World News…
If you want us to buy papers, to subscribe to them, to read them, just a few suggestions…
I know Geraldo Rivera said many years ago that the day of objective reporting is over. Maybe it is for him, but the rest of us, the ones who buy newspapers, think it isn’t. No, things weren’t perfect back in those “Good Old Days.” But there was an ideal present that the most important thing about the news was that it was about the facts, not about how we felt about them.
It would also be nice if we could have some in-depth coverage. Maybe if reporters actually got off their butts and went outside and talked to people, actually saw what was going on.
Along with that, perhaps a little less reliance on the AP, UPI, Reuters, and other wire services. Perhaps if our nation’s newspapers actually sent reporters to places like Afghanistan, or Iraq, and they spent some time there investigating what was actually happening. Why did we have to wait until some half-wits took it into their heads to send pictures of what was happening in Abu Ghraib to their friends at home before we found out? For that matter, why did you treat it as a brand new atrocity when the story broke, when military officials had known for months what had happened, and had almost completed dealing with it? Janice Karpinsky’s career was over long before you even showed up for the first press conference, and Lynndie England and her cohorts were already facing a court martial. All you did was fan the flames of a dying fire.
Maybe you could quit trying to create news? It’s a thought. It seems to me we hear far too much of polls, or “shocking” undercover reports of stories that really aren’t all that interesting.
We need our newspapers. It is my belief that any city with a population over 1,000 people should have one, and any city of 500,000 or more should have at least two, if for no other reason than they keep each other honest.
But there must be a commitment to be honest. If there isn’t, it’s not worth the time, and it’s certainly not worth the price of a subscription. I could care less what the ownership of the New York Times thinks about the news, as long as it’s kept to the Opinion and Editorial pages. At that point, when I’m interested in what they think, I’ll go there and read what they have to say.
But, perhaps the most powerful editorial is voiced by what isn’t said. Senator Dodd’s dealings in Washington ought to have been on the front page, above the fold, and investigated over the course of several pages. That the best we can hope for is a few inches of type, and more bellicose maundering about how awful AIG’s leadership is for shelling out bonuses they’d already declared they’d be paying, tells me that our newspapers have forgotten what they’re there for, that they are supposed to inform, and they are supposed to be accurate and objective. If newspapers can’t manage that, then perhaps it’s best that we find news from other sources, and we do our part to preserve our nation’s environment and quit wasting the damned trees.
And that goes for not only the Sacramento Bee, and the New York Times, but for Time and Newsweek, and any other “news” publication out there when it puts its own opinions above the needs of its readers.
We’ll miss you, but when it’s all said and done, we’ve been missing you for years. We’d like to see you back in the game.
In a recent cover story, you asked the question, “How do we save the American newspaper?” In many ways, that’s a fair question. However, to my mind, you may have missed the broader story.
In your story, you suggested that online content should be paid for. True enough, given that we do, in fact, pay for single issues of the paper, and we also pay for subscriptions. It’s not out of line. The problem is, once paid for, what are we getting for our money?
I have a simple complaint regarding American Print Media: You aren’t doing your job.
Allow me to voice my bias here: I do not trust the Liberal Media. I do not trust the Conservative Media. What I trust is factual, objectively reported information. I don’t care what you think of a story, unless I’m reading the Opinion/Editorial pages. What I want when I pick up the paper is solid reporting that I can trust.
However, I find that’s not what I get.
Consider the past election, when John McCain wanted to voice his opinion in an editorial in the New York Times. As it is, for lack of a better description, the news organ of record for the nation, one might have considered that in the interest of fairness, the NY Times would have run this piece. They’ve certainly had no problem doing the same for Barack Obama.
However, the editorial was turned down. And in doing so, they provided fuel for those who have been crying “bias” for years, and with no small amount of justification.
Considering that McCain was running for the Presidency, one might have thought this editorial would have been without question. The Times would then have the opportunity in its Op/Ed pages to dissect what McCain had to say. They didn’t do that, and instead, with “news” stories that seemed to gloss over every detail of Obama’s proposals, and which practically hammered every detail of McCain’s.
I have friends with whom I discuss politics on a regular basis. We disagree on a great many issues, and I don’t expect them to be objective. The average person is not objective, but rather, bases their decisions on criteria of their own. On the other hand, I DO expect a newspaper, which provides the public record of its community, of the nation, of the world, to be objective, in the hopes that with objective information, we can take appropriate action when it is called for. It is a higher standard, and while it is not easy to achieve, it is, in fact, required. It is what we expect of our news media.
I’ll be quite blunt: I didn’t like either candidate from the major parties. I thought neither of them offered us much. But the perpetual wet dream from our local paper, the Sacramento Bee, on behalf of Barack Obama was a bit much. Even as he was promoting “Change,” there was little discussion about what kind of Change our new President had in mind while he was running for the office. Now that he’s in office, what has become clear is that there will be no substantive change at all, because in pushing through bail-outs for everyone, he’s keeping companies from going through bankruptcy that damned well should be. It’s allowing executives who have looted their employers to keep their jobs, even as their behavior should be brought into public light and reviewed, and preventing just action from the criminal courts – and most assuredly from the civil -- that would, in turn restore a degree of confidence to Corporate America.
In other words, President Obama has provided cover to people who not only don’t deserve it, but shouldn’t be getting it. There’s clearly a violation of the public trust, and he’s preventing us from getting to the bottom of it by saving these industries from the consequences of their leaders’ actions. No, it’s not fair, but worst of all, it’s unjust.
In recent days, we’ve learned that Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut was the one who helped AIG executives keep their bonuses, even as these same people were looting their employer. One wonders how this ties in with his sweetheart loan from Countrywide Mortgage, even as some of us who are Countrywide clients are struggling to keep our homes, and as AIG clients, we watch our coverage erode. In years past, there would have been investigative reports on Mr. Dodd’s activities, and the legislation he’s proposed and voted for.
No longer. In fact, Mr. Dodd, in recent stories, seems to be portrayed as something of a hero, avoiding potential lawsuits, or at its worst, he’s simply a dupe of AIG’s lobbying efforts. Somehow, this doesn’t pass the smell test. That we’re now learning that Congress knew last year this was going to happen, and is only now outraged by it, leaves us feeling manipulated.
I realize you’re the professionals in this area, but would you mind explaining to the rest of us just what it is the rest of us are missing? You see, that was supposed to be your job.
I suppose I could go into a discussion of your treatment of former Governor Gray Davis of California, a man who so botched the basics of his job we threw his sorry ass out of office. I could mention that it seems as though every time he shows up, he’s treated as a misunderstood martyr for the Democratic Party, instead of one of the most monumental incompetents ever to serve, (and this is in spite of many of your colleagues declaring that he was “the best prepared candidate, ever.”) I could go into some detail about how Bill Simon, while he was running against Davis during Davis’ second term, was so slandered by Davis’ campaign that his political career is over. It should also be noted that Simon has since been cleared of all claims made by Davis’ campaign staff, thus showing that not only is Davis an incompetent dope, but he has no character, either.
And to you folks, he’s a hero. What’s that say about you?
I suppose I could mention that during the “Grayouts,” while we were lacking basic electricity due to Davis’ lack of foresight and general unwillingness to undo some of the more bizarre regulations brought about under Pete Wilson, that I found it odd that the only person asking questions of Davis was a talk show host from KFBK, Mark Williams, or I could mention that there was little explanation within major media as to what actually went wrong. You seem to think that isn’t important. Nor do you seem to think that we need to know what the hell is happening in the legislature of a state which has the ninth largest economy in the world, and why they can’t seem to balance a budget, or why this mob of morons can’t seem to pass a budget, balanced or not, on time, in spite of having a two-year session, and in spite of their claims of how valuable experienced legislators are. To borrow from George Will, cheap rookies are starting to look pretty good.
I find it odd that some of you consider Geraldo Rivera a hero for reporting on projected troop movements. Never mind the fact that he risked getting one entire unit killed, one which had among its members friends of my older two sons. When a soldier who was a member of that unit found out that Rivera put his wife at risk, (yes, they were both in the same unit), it isn’t widely known, but an armed guard was placed to keep Rivera alive, because that young husband had made it clear: One open shot, and Gerry was toast.
Yes, I know names. And I’ll be damned if I’ll release them to anyone. I don’t trust you.
In fact, I find it odd that anyone trusts you. The POW Network has repeatedly revealed individuals who have been tramping around at veteran’s events in tattered fatigues, people you have reported to have been “Vietnam Veterans,” or decorated Gulf War Veterans, people who have claimed to have been SEALs, Rangers, Special Forces, are, in fact, frauds. In some cases, they were never in the military, in others, they were tossed out right after Basic Training, and in still others, they never received the medals they claimed they earned, they never had the training they claimed, and still more never endured the “hardships” or displayed the “heroism” you have reported. The evidence is there, but you’re too busy preening to investigate. (Sorry, but if you’re going to claim that there isn’t the money to look into it, I’d advise against. The POW Network’s information is free of charge, takes moments to look up, and is available to anyone with web access. That dog don’t hunt.)
It’s equally disturbing as I continue to read newspapers in California gushing about how wonderful it is that Jane Fonda is being honored by the State. Why? Have we completely forgotten what she did in North Vietnam? Who decided that was irrelevant? And why was that decision made? As the son of an actual Vietnam Veteran, I find it offensive that a person who placed themselves in a position to be used for propaganda purposes by the government of North Vietnam is now being treated as some sort of hero, when, in fact, she was simply being selfish and destructive, particularly as she called those who suffered within the walls of the Hanoi Hilton liars, even as the evidence was mounting that not only were they telling the truth, but the horrors were even worse than imagined.
Of course, the claim is that we’re in an age of Consumer Driven News. This is why word of Britney Spears takes center stage of our military’s activity in Iraq and Afghanistan, (the latter of which gets considerably less ink), or why you folks were so flat-footed when the economy went into the toilet.
This, of course, is crap. We are no more in an age of “Consumer Driven News” than we were in 1970. What we are getting is actually called Gossip. “Consumer Driven News” is what the National Enquirer is for. The news isn’t about what we want to hear. It’s about what we need to hear.
What it comes down to is not so much that you’re Liberal, but you’re sloppy. You run an above the fold story about Lindsay Lohan’s drinking, then wonder why no one reads what you publish. Why would we, when we can get real news for free, from the Internet, and from other sources? It’s not perfect, but if you actually gave a damn about improving the information available, perhaps we’d be a little closer to perfection?
Why would I pay for news from a newspaper when what I get is editorials on the front page, feature stories which belong in other sections of the newspaper, or the kind of dreck that passes for news, but is designed simply to get me to spend $.50 for a copy of the paper? What I see a lot of the times are feature articles which would illustrate the news, but they’re now the news themselves. It’s backwards, and it leaves me wondering if you’re actually in the news business anymore. It’s as if you people have taken a page from Loompanics, and you’re just out to find the latest “Hey, Martha!” story. Paging the Weekly World News…
If you want us to buy papers, to subscribe to them, to read them, just a few suggestions…
I know Geraldo Rivera said many years ago that the day of objective reporting is over. Maybe it is for him, but the rest of us, the ones who buy newspapers, think it isn’t. No, things weren’t perfect back in those “Good Old Days.” But there was an ideal present that the most important thing about the news was that it was about the facts, not about how we felt about them.
It would also be nice if we could have some in-depth coverage. Maybe if reporters actually got off their butts and went outside and talked to people, actually saw what was going on.
Along with that, perhaps a little less reliance on the AP, UPI, Reuters, and other wire services. Perhaps if our nation’s newspapers actually sent reporters to places like Afghanistan, or Iraq, and they spent some time there investigating what was actually happening. Why did we have to wait until some half-wits took it into their heads to send pictures of what was happening in Abu Ghraib to their friends at home before we found out? For that matter, why did you treat it as a brand new atrocity when the story broke, when military officials had known for months what had happened, and had almost completed dealing with it? Janice Karpinsky’s career was over long before you even showed up for the first press conference, and Lynndie England and her cohorts were already facing a court martial. All you did was fan the flames of a dying fire.
Maybe you could quit trying to create news? It’s a thought. It seems to me we hear far too much of polls, or “shocking” undercover reports of stories that really aren’t all that interesting.
We need our newspapers. It is my belief that any city with a population over 1,000 people should have one, and any city of 500,000 or more should have at least two, if for no other reason than they keep each other honest.
But there must be a commitment to be honest. If there isn’t, it’s not worth the time, and it’s certainly not worth the price of a subscription. I could care less what the ownership of the New York Times thinks about the news, as long as it’s kept to the Opinion and Editorial pages. At that point, when I’m interested in what they think, I’ll go there and read what they have to say.
But, perhaps the most powerful editorial is voiced by what isn’t said. Senator Dodd’s dealings in Washington ought to have been on the front page, above the fold, and investigated over the course of several pages. That the best we can hope for is a few inches of type, and more bellicose maundering about how awful AIG’s leadership is for shelling out bonuses they’d already declared they’d be paying, tells me that our newspapers have forgotten what they’re there for, that they are supposed to inform, and they are supposed to be accurate and objective. If newspapers can’t manage that, then perhaps it’s best that we find news from other sources, and we do our part to preserve our nation’s environment and quit wasting the damned trees.
And that goes for not only the Sacramento Bee, and the New York Times, but for Time and Newsweek, and any other “news” publication out there when it puts its own opinions above the needs of its readers.
We’ll miss you, but when it’s all said and done, we’ve been missing you for years. We’d like to see you back in the game.
