Polls show we're not doing our job

This morning, North Country Public Radio just did a news brief, about 30-ish seconds, about (what else) a pol -- this time,l showing that hardly any New Yorkers knew anything about the primary challengers to NY Democratic US Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. I have heard similar polls relating to Massachussetts' Democratic US senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's primary challengers. Is it possible that this is because the mainstream media refuses to do any actual reporting on said primary challengers?

Graphic opinions of the day: funding your own persecution, how news really works and bigots and their money are soon parted

 I've often said that gays and women are essentially forced to fund their own persecution.

 "Journalism" American style

"Tattoo of Leviticus 18:22 forbidding homosexuality: 200 pounds. Not knowing that Leviticus 19:28 forbids tattoos: priceless." -From @pochontasshole on Twitter

Disclaimer: none of these are created by me. Credit is given when known.

Why America needs multipartyism

The Liberal Ironist had an essay on the origins of partisanship in Washington. Like most analyses, it seems to be based on the erroneous premise that there was little or no partisanship in Washington prior to the 1990s. Anyone actually familiar with American history knows there have been several times when the country and the Congress have been far more bitterly divided than it is now: the late 18th/early 19th century, the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Vietnam years.

The current hyperpartisanship is really the result of the convergence of the two major political parties on economic issues. Since Reagan's reign, BOTH major parties have veered sharply to the right on economic issues. And while liberals comfort themselves by blaming Republicans, even Democratic presidents have pushed the conservative economic orthodoxy of deficit reduction, tax cuts, heavy cuts to social services and the fraud mislabeled “free trade.”

Because the two parties have so heavily converged on economic issues, the only real difference remaining between them is on social issues. Since this is really only a small handful of issues – primarily whether gays, women and Hispanics deserve to be treated as human beings or deserve to be treated by 14th century standards – the two parties play these up to the hilt. 

It's called the psychosis of small differences. They already agree on so much, they can't compromise on the few things they disagree with or else they will be completely identical. The illusion of choice in our corporatacracy depends upon these few differences being hyped up as much as possible so as to rally the bases.

You now have a Democratic president who’s campaigning on his health insurance scheme... a scheme originally conceived and implemented by his Republican opponent... who’s now attacking what he created. 

I can’t think of anything that demonstrates the convergence (as well as the cowardice, corruption and intellectual bankruptcy) of the two corporate parties more perfectly. The Democrats have become Republicans. And the Republicans have become Medievalists. What's a rational voter to do? Follow Albert Einstein's advice and avoid the insanity of "doing the same thing over and over but expecting  different results."

Vote for smaller party and independent candidates, like Dr. Jill Stein. At the bare minimum, inform yourself about candidates from outside the two corporate parties. This will take some work, since the corporate media tends to blacklist them, but it's worth the effort.

The US is probably the only democracy in the world with so few (two) parties represented in their national legislature – even in democratic paragons like Russia and Zimbabwe have at least three. This won’t solve all the problems. But clearly, fresh ideas and approaches are needed and the Republicans and Democrats are not interested.

Will local newspapers adapt or die?

New Orleans has become the latest (and biggest?) major city in the United States to cease having a daily newspaper. The Times-Picayune, celebrated for its work and investigative journalism during and after Hurricane Katrina, will now publish in print only three days a week.

Will other dailies, especially smaller local and regional ones, evolve or will they keep patting themselves on the back and telling what’s left of their readership “You’ll miss us when we’re gone”? So far, they've preferred the latter.

Most seem to think 'evolving' constitutes posting videos on their websites. When I visit a newspaper website, it doesn't even occur to me to watch a video -- that's not what I go there for -- unless someone I know has told me they're in it. I don't know of anyone who does otherwise. 

This is really part of the smoke-and-mirrors (or razzle-dazzle lasers) approach most papers are taking to avoid truly transformative action that might actually save their business. Videos. Semi-paywalls. Giving blogs to people who already have columns. None of this matters.

Truly revolutionary change in the newspaper industries would be for local newspapers to focus on *local* news. Drop the wire service for everything (except for the cartoons and puzzles which I guess people freak out about if messed with). Take the money you save and use it to invest in more local reporters and better local journalism.

The national and international news they publish is half-a**ed crap written which is usually hacked for space reasons to the point of being... well... pointless. No one *pays* for The Post-Star or Saratogian for national or international news, when they can get the same stuff for *free*, and much better quality, from hundreds of different websites or, for that matter, on television. 

Local papers ought to focus exclusively on local content. Why? Because that's the one thing that's truly unique. It's the one thing they offer that people, particularly in smaller areas, can't get anywhere else. If it's truly unique, they're more likely to be willing to pay for it. If a newspaper is 30% unique customer and 70% stuff you can get for free else where, it diminishes the value of the entire product. If the newspaper is 90% or 100% unique content, then it has a much greater value to the potential customer.

Most newspaper people will read this and adopt the ostrich approach. They will call me naive and say "I don't understand" blah blah blah. Well, there is one thing I do understand. Circulation numbers for most papers are down, some way down. Some papers, even major ones, are going out of business or ceasing to be dailies. That's not me talking. That's the market talking. The band-aid-on-a-flesh-wound strategy isn't working. This isn't the time for the timid newspaper man. They'd better act. And they'd better act boldly and decisively before the newspaper ostriches go the way of the dodo.

Update: Also, it's not exactly the smartest business strategy to tut-tut commenters to your newspaper website for their poor spelling and then misspell (or not bother to notice the copy-pasted misspelling of) the name of your paper's own city, as did "Glen Falls" Post-Star editor Ken Tingley.


Also see: my earlier essay The Decline and Fall of the Newsprint Empire.

I meant every one of those unprofessional words I claim to be apologizing for

The boring fake apology of the typical public figure goes something like this: “I apologize to anyone who might have been offended by my comment/action.”

But the town supervisor in Hartford (NY), who thinks government meetings are prayer sessions, tried the less common defiant fake apology.

 I can’t link to it, due to the daily’s new pay wall, but here’s The Post-Star account of a heated Washington County board of supervisors argument over the potential sale of a county asset:

 "You’re nothing but a bunchy of pimps, prostituting land in the name of money," Hartford supervisor Dana Haff shouted to his peers. 

[...] 

"You guys have screwed Hartford for 20 years because it makes you feel good," he screamed, while pointing his finger in the face of Dresden Supervisor Bob Banks. 

Haff, in a comment on the Post-Star website later Tuesday, apologized for "unprofessional" use of "unvarnished, salty language," adding he "meant every word."

Liars and the lies militarists tell

So let me get this straight. In 1979, militarists in the US said we needed to impose an arms embargo against the theocratic regime in Iran. By 1986, they were saying we needed to sell arms to theocratic Iran, in violation of the embargo they demanded, so we could use the money to destabilize Central America. Now, the militarists who armed theocratic Iran saying we need to launch some sort of aggression against them, to use that Orwellian phrase, in order to 'preserve peace' because... they allegedly won't disarm. Why exactly would anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills still be listening to these people?

Catholic extremists against rationalism and truth

Much is made of the intolerance of Islamic extremists, but Catholic fundamentalists aren't much better. The global media has picked up a story from India. A prominent atheist was arrested when he debunked claims of a miracle that a cross was weeping. He revealed that the 'tears' were the very unmiraculous result of a leaky drain. The local Catholic Church demanded he retract his truthful claim and when he refused, they had him detained on blasphemy charges. According to Wikipedia, blasphemy in India is punishable by up to three years in jail. Yet another illustration of how intolerant religious fanatics are a menace to free thought regardless of their religion.

Hydrofracking's 'toxic legacy'

Initially, it may have been nothing more than stalling to appease public opinion, but New York state's controversial temporary moratorium on hydrofracking is looking increasingly wise. The Diane Rehm Show had a comprehensive discussion on the benefits and dangers of the process. Officials from the Southern Tier who want fracking at any costs should check out this NPR All Things Considered story on its 'toxic legacy' in neighboring Pennsylvania.


Reminder: the excellent site Pro Publica has done some comprehensive investigative journalism on hydrofracking, its dangers and state government complicity with gas polluters.

Update: A few days ago, Vermont became the first state in the nation to ban hydrofracking.