Does Anything Get To Fail Anymore?

In CT, reading newspapers is so important that some state legislators want to use your tax money to support newspapers you don't read or care about right now.

Do we bail out every business that's having trouble? Do we stop when we run out of money?

That's my reaction to a request by some CT lawmakers for a local newspaper bailout.

Seven legislators from the area served by The Bristol Press and The Herald in New Britain today wrote to the state Department of Economic and Community Development to ask for its help in preventing the closure of the newspapers.

There actually are newspapers that are making money these days. McClatchy just reported a 3rd quarter profit. But instead of saying to these local businesses: "Get used to lower margins, innovate, adapt," the reponse is to scream for government money.

Why is handing over taxpayer money to these businesses is a good idea? Its a rotten time to publish a newspaper. The New York Times just had its bonds downgraded to junk status by Moody's. Ad revenue is down. Readership is down.

People increasingly don't get their news from newspapers, and some of them don't get it at all. An ignorant populace is definitely a bad thing, but handing out money to newspapers is not the way to fix the problem.

Historian Rick Shenckman proposes in his book "Just How Stupid Are We?" that the government subsidize newspaper subscriptions, revealing himself to be spectacularly uninformed about economics and human motivation.

What makes you think people who aren't reading the news now, would read it if it was free?

You cannot force people to be informed.

You cannot force them to be moral.

And you sure as hell can't force them to be smart.

Lickspittle Running Dog Lackeys Of The Proletariat

There are still people who don't realize, or outright deny, the extent to which news organizations took sides and backed Barack Obama's campaign.

Seriously. For some time now, its been my considered opinion that most reporters were so far in the tank for Obama that there wasn't an air hose long enough to reach them.

And surprisingly, a fair slew of normal people (ie. not nutty right wing bloggers) have come out and agreed with me.

Mark Halperin of Time Magazine:

"Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history," Halperin was speaking at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

Hey, thats only one guy, and he's probably just trying to get attention. Doesn't he have a book coming out? (Mark C., I'm looking at you : ) )

Well, if Halperin doesn't move you, how about the Washington Post:

"The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts."

Thats a quote from Deborah Howell, the Washington Post Ombudsman. Is she writing a book too?

Even if she is, she's joined in her surmise by Michael Malone of ABCNews, who was pretty unambiguous:

"Nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play."

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del."

Gosh. Attack dogs. That's pretty hard core. They can't ALL be writing books, can they? He must be one of those lone nutters, like John Stossel. Doesn't ABC keep a few of those unreconstructed facists around? We don't have to pay attention to anything he says....

How about the Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism?

"The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended.

Press treatment of Obama has been somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so.

But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable—and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one—the most unfavorable of all four candidates—according to the study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Who ever heard of the Pew Research Center? They are nothing but a highly respected, non-partisan "fact tank," sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts -- who also sponsor NPR. We can't trust a word these extremists say!

Well if none of the above convince you, how about the Center For Media and Public Affairs

Coverage of the presidential election on CBS and NBC strongly favors the Democratic presidential ticket, while the coverage on ABC and FOX is more balanced, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study finds that the three broadcast networks combined have given twice as much good press to the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential candidates as they have to the Republicans, and only FOX has given better press to the GOP ticket than to the Democrats.

Manaics! Idiots! Huns! Barbarians!! Visigoths! Unreconstructed Bushites, the lot of them.

Oh, never mind.

Not That We Needed More Proof...

... that the media was in the tank for Obama. But I just want you high quality professionals at ABC to know that I head you applauding when Charlie Gibson announced that Obama had been elected. And given that it was a national broadcast, I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one.. Nice work. .... assholes.

The Gun Lobby: Who's The NRA?

Included with the bombast, hysteria and name calling on the editorial pages that followed the VA-Tech shooting were numerous villifications of the "Gun Lobby." Apparently a heavy percentage of the nation's editorial writers loathes the Gun Lobby. If it weren't for the darn Gun Lobby and their fiendish plots, the whole nation would be safe, they tell us.

Here's just one example:

"The gun lobby, with its generous campaign contributions, operates as a powerful Loopholes “R” Us, and few politicians of either party have the courage to stand up to it." NYT May 2, 2007

There are, natch, others. A few moments with Google and a printer, and you should have enough to wallpaper your house.

Ignorance, I can tolerate. It's willful ignorance that makes my stomach churn. Where do the writers of these editorials think the Gun Lobby comes from? I don't know if anyone at the New York Times, USA Today, The New Yorker, etc. will read this, but let me assure you of something.

The Gun Lobby did not spring fully formed from the pits of hell. Its not a creation of a foreign government. This boogeyman you keep trying to frighten your readers with is us, the people. (Some of us, anyway)

There are about 70 million gun owners in the United States, which means that about half the adults in the country are armed one way or another. About 3 million of them are in the NRA. And even the gun owners who aren't, as the Democratic Party has found out to its chagrin in recent elections, look with dissaproval on attempts to disarm them.

What I want is for the editorial pages of this country to stop referring to the Gun Lobby as if it was some artificially created menace. The NRA has a powerful voice because its members, millions of voting American citizens, profoundly care what happens to their rights. They write, they call, they send money.

In a very real sense, the influence the NRA wields is proof that our system works, that active mobilized citizens engaged in government can make it work for them.

Permit me to quote the last person on earth I thought I would see cited in this entry: George Stephanopoulos said,"Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."