Your Abbreviated Editorial/Pundit Roundup: Big time Spring Fever edition
Carla Axtman
Superbowl Sunday marks the time of year that my inner sports fan goes into essential hibernation. I have never been a basketball fan so neither the NBA or college level interest me much (that said, I've never been known to turn down free Blazers tickets..heh). Hockey? Boring..(sorry all you hockey people, I just can't)
Pitchers and catchers don't report for two more weeks, and even then its only mid-February. Opening day is still months away.....
Wherefore art thou, Spring Fever?
Ah well. Even with my winter doldrums reaching their apex, I must soldier on. Perhaps a look at this week's editorial and punditry gobbledygook will brighten things......
Albany Democrat-Herald (Saturday): Green energy for everyone! Not just for those who can afford it and get neato yard signs!
Daily Astorian: (Thursday): State parks officials screwed the folks in the North Coast with a slapdash land swap. Standing amazed at public resentment for giving away prime park real estate to private interests won't help. Stop taking us for granted, twits.
Baker City Herald (Friday): The Oregon Lottery sucks because Baker County doesn't get enough of the winnings. And gambling is irresponsible so we shouldn't be doing it. And its not fair!
Beaverton Valley Times (Thursday): We heart WES!
Hermiston Herald (Friday): The setting aside of wilderness areas is useless and we don't need it. The stuff that's set aside was already being protected by the US Forest Service and the BLM. We LOVE the way they manage stuff so stop interfering with the way they fabulously screw over our natural resources.
LaGrande Observer (Friday): Yeah, we know you don't like it. But logging has to happen on Mount Emily so try to get on board.
Nick Christensen, Hillsboro Argus (Friday): I am completely ignorant of what it means to be the Fourth Estate. The government should buy up and/or subsidize the newspaper industry. (Note from Carla--please tell me this is tongue-in-cheek).
Steve Duin, The Oregonian: Sam Adams has turned the City of Portland into the equivalent of a spouse whose been cheated on in public.
Matt Wingard, Beaverton Valley Times-guest column (Thursday): I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the math of the state's fiscal issues. But I'm going to do everything I can to drown the gubmint in the bathtub anyway.
Jeff Golden, Ashland Daily Tidings (Saturday): I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's stupid to keep dumping piles of cash into infrastructure that encourages the continued burning of fossil fuel. Especially when we have to send people to their deaths to obtain more control over it.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Feb 1, '09
And from the Eugene Register-Guard: Albany Sen. Frank Morse (R) has some sensible ideas to reform the initiative process. The Guard editorial board agrees with Sen. Morse and his bill's co-sponsor Rep. Larry Galizio (D-Tigard): let's give the legislature a greater role in the initiative process, and let's give the voting public more information.
Feb 1, '09
Sen. Morse has some excellent ideas on the initiative process. Some of them sound like a continuation of the ideas from the Public Comm. on the Legislature.
Feb 1, '09
Looks to me like Christensen is serious about the government taking over the news business. Stupid idea, for a lot of reasons. But...if you think about it, how could they be much worse? If for no other reason, it would be fun to watch all those blow-dried, egotistical media stars squirm at the thought of living on civil service pay.
Feb 2, '09
I'm still reeling from that classic in the Argus. Will have to save that one, definitely. Isn't it basically saying, "we really don't have a clue what jouralism is"...but we'll keep beating the drums for the neocons. I'm still purple over having heard "liberal press" once this week. Where the hell does that come from? Wouldn't a liberal press have put an end to the shambolic gestures of Limbaugh and the Argus if air and print journalists were raving socialistas? Do any of these people take account of the fact that without media bias, there would be no US? I guess they think media bias was useful in starting a grand social experiment, then it should become an organ of the State.
On the international scene, as the spectre of war between Pakistan and India threaten to derail everyone's agenda, the social fabric of Pakistan is doing more than unraveling, it's getting positively weird. Not exactly our stereotype of the Muslim world, but there is ample evidence in the Karachi Observer this week-end to support the contention, including this bizarre piece .
Feb 3, '09
It was a modest proposal.
That being said — we already have a fair amount of government "intervention" in our budgets because of legals... would a little more hurt?
Zarathustra — I know we're a conservative paper, but I hope you're not accusing me of being a neocon.
And Tom Carter — I don't know what you think journalists vs. civil servants get paid, but I can tell you for certain that the people who hose down the MAX station outside the Argus newsroom make more than many Portland journalists.
3:52 p.m.
Feb 3, '09
Mr. Christensen:
What "fair amount of intervention" by the government are you referring to, specifically?
And what does that have to do exactly with the government picking up the tab for the newspaper?
Feb 3, '09
Governments are already advertising in newspapers. They run legal ads, as required by state law, all the time, and I'm fairly sure they pay for those. Back in my home state of Nevada, counties were required to run the property tax rolls in the paper every year — that was a good advertising pickup.
Point is, papers have lots of benefactors right now and they're not terribly beholden to any of them. Why would a surge of cash from the government make the newspaper industry any more beholden to the government than it's been in the past?
Most would agree newspapers serve a common good and an important purpose. Most would agree that newspapers' ability to do their jobs is hindered greatly by today's economic realities — not only by staff cuts but by lack of retention, with so many quality journalists leaving to become well-compensated PIOs for public and private institutions.
At what point does a public service, heretofore run by the private sector, slip into oblivion or mediocrity because its business model just doesn't work anymore? Or do we accept we're going to be left with idealistic rookie reporters, TV soundbytes, ex-journalist PIOs and a few successful veterans (Messr. Jaquiss comes to mind) who can't possibly break every relevant story, see through every obfuscation?
8:18 a.m.
Feb 4, '09
Governments are already advertising in newspapers. They run legal ads, as required by state law, all the time, and I'm fairly sure they pay for those. Back in my home state of Nevada, counties were required to run the property tax rolls in the paper every year — that was a good advertising pickup.
There's an enormous difference between running paid advertising and owning a once independent paper whose task (among many) is to scrutinize the government. Honestly Nick, I'm pretty baffled that we're having this conversation. You're defending the notion that newspapers should be owned by the very body who they're supposed to independently watchdog.
Point is, papers have lots of benefactors right now and they're not terribly beholden to any of them. Why would a surge of cash from the government make the newspaper industry any more beholden to the government than it's been in the past?
I don't think the statement that newspapers have no beholden relationship to benefactors is terribly accurate. The Washington Times is a stellar example.
Most would agree newspapers serve a common good and an important purpose. Most would agree that newspapers' ability to do their jobs is hindered greatly by today's economic realities — not only by staff cuts but by lack of retention, with so many quality journalists leaving to become well-compensated PIOs for public and private institutions.
Certainly. And there are remedies other than selling yourselves out to the government that you're supposed to be scrutinizing. The Christian Science Monitor is completely abandoning print and ink and moving totally online, for example. While they've still had to cut back, they're attempting to reconfigure and find a new way to work in the marketplace. That's how newspapers will survive and thrive.
At what point does a public service, heretofore run by the private sector, slip into oblivion or mediocrity because its business model just doesn't work anymore? Or do we accept we're going to be left with idealistic rookie reporters, TV soundbytes, ex-journalist PIOs and a few successful veterans (Messr. Jaquiss comes to mind) who can't possibly break every relevant story, see through every obfuscation?
If the business model you're using is defunct, then certainly restructure and fix it. But what you're suggesting is essentially an abandonment of the basic reasons for the existence of newspapers...which frankly makes them more irrelevant than if they just went out of business on their own.
Feb 4, '09
Carla, About the Wingard piece,
"It didn’t have to be this way. In 2007, the state had $2.7 billion in new revenue, a 20 percent increase over the previous two-year budget. "
Isn't this just the less thoughtful members of the House Rs doing the cut and paste again? I swear I read this on Hanna's website or some other House R.
There are thoughtful members of House Rs. Garrard, for instance, actually says intelligent things.
Feb 4, '09
Zarathustra — I know we're a conservative paper, but I hope you're not accusing me of being a neocon.
How do I know you're not trying to bring neocon values to young voters? Actually, I meant the paper's editorial policy was pro-neocon.
<hr/>