IN DEFENSE OF LOCAL NEWSPAPERS

I have wanted to convey my thoughts on small town newspapers in general and the Observer Reporter (O-R) in particular for some time.  The topic didn’t percolate to the top of my list until the Facebook posts of a local politician and his cronies caught my eye.  The posts painted the O-R as biased, inaccurate and to coin a phrase: “not worth the paper it is printed on.”  This attitude struck me as immature and shortsighted at best.  At worst and by all appearances an accurate conclusion, this position smacks of another example of the misplaced conservative cultural revolution.  The self serving individual voice is more important and accurate than the journalistic voice, representing the community as a whole.

No one would argue that the O-R prints typos and occasional inaccuracies.  When I first came to Washington my wallet was stolen at the Cameron Wellness Center.  By the time the police report was documented in the paper, my twenty dollar loss had grown to a two thousand dollar theft.  Some of my new friends in Washington thought I was wealthy.  The others thought I must be a drug dealer.  In either case I had a new found notoriety.

Humor aside, what is amazing to me about the O-R is not the number of misprints, but rather the high quality of local journalism that is published, day in and day out, seven days a week, both in print and on the internet.  Fact checking and proof reading are expensive and time consuming endeavors which involve a cost benefit analysis.  Do we want all of the local news, published timely, or a mistake free publication that is shadow of the present newspaper. 

I do not believe the readers of the O-R are primarily seeking investigative reporting, in depth analysis of national and world events, or Pulitzer Prize winning journalism.  Although some of this material is available to O-R readers through the wire services, there are hundreds of news sources for this type of reporting.  O-R readers want to know what they can find nowhere else. They are interested in who died, who graduated, who got engaged and who was arrested, along with the other vicissitudes of life that reflect the character and personality of Washington and Greene Counties.  They want Editorials that impact them directly.  Leave it to other sources to scope the newest Lindsay Lohan crisis. O-R readers want to know the latest crisis facing Washington parking meters.

I have no idea what the business model of the Observer Reporter calls for in the long run.  I do know that small town and local newspapers are a dying breed because the cost structure of many publications is not sustainable.  Print advertising has plummeted.  Internet access is free of charge.  Young people do not purchase subscriptions.  I will go on record as saying that the O-R is important to my daily socialization, typos and all.  I would gladly pay an increased subscription rate or internet access fee to keep the paper viable.

Lastly, I will return to our friends on Facebook.  I pray to the Gods of Journalism that there never comes a time when the O-R building becomes a tattoo parlor and I must rely on social networking for my local news. Politicians and other hyper active types on social media, who push their individual self serving agendas, with a chorus of believers, are a frightening proposition.  This is particularly so when they attack the local newspaper.  They forward the neo con agenda of individual rights and opinions at the expense of society as a whole. “Listen to my version of events because the media is biased.”

Consider a public meeting in Washington. No one would have the time or patience to review the tweeter feeds of the Mayor, the members of counsel, the speakers, the solicitor and all the involved family members to understand what happened.  That is why we have journalists.   A good newspaper, and the O-R is a good newspaper, presents fair reporting with opinion representing all points of view.  It represents all of us, every day.

UNEMPLOYMENT & DEFICIT REDUCTION

The Republican leadership is counting on unsophisticated citizens and those who dislike the President on any account, to swallow the tea party/conservative economic fantasy that somehow unemployment and deficit reduction spring from the same set of problems and require the same solutions.  Of course this is nonsense.  The dilemma has always been that lowering unemployment requires more borrowing, lending and spending to jump start the economy.  Attacking the deficit requires the opposite.

Jobs are created through economic growth and demand for goods.  Balancing the federal budget, without raising taxes on wealthier Americans, requires the draconian cutting of federal entitlement programs and employment initiatives to the middle class and poorest of Americans. This makes less money available to grow the economy and impossible to increase the demand for goods. 

One recent example of this  point is that without the payroll tax cuts to the working poor and middle class and the extension of unemployment insurance negotiated by Congress last autumn, we would likely be facing a double dip recession.  Without these deficit increasing policies in place over the last 10 months (agreed to by republicans) there would have been inadequate individual cash flow to keep the economy moving.  To grow jobs you must grow demand by putting disposable income in the pockets of the unwashed majority.

Accordingly, it is irresponsible if not ludicrous to talk about cutting the unemployment rate and reducing the deficit through cutting entitlement programs in the same breath.  Any politician who claims to “have a plan” to do both “with the same policies” is either uninformed or untruthful, or both.  If Grandma cannot get her medicine under Medicare, she will not be shopping at Wal-Mart or buying graduation gifts for her grandchildren.

My view is that the Republican agenda is to lower the deficit on the backs of our less fortunate citizens by giving lip service to unemployment and to blame Obama for both spending too much and keeping unemployment too high.  Hopefully, the well informed independent voters who will ultimately be called upon to reelect our President will see through this voodoo economic fallacy.

.

TEA PARTY MEMBERS ARE SELECTIVE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS

I have a new definition for tea party members. One who uses this title: “is a selective social democrat who believes the individual and the family are paramount to society as a whole unless a certain public policy or program benefits them or their family.”  Under this definition, ethanol subsidies are wrong unless the tea party member is an Iowa farmer. Support for higher education is an affront unless there is a student who needs it.  Universal health care is an abomination unless the bread winner is out of work and without health care.  Medicaid is socialism for the poor unless a close relative suffers from a severe handicap.  We can do without the Post Office unless the family’s small business needs 6 days of postal service.  Extended benefits for veterans are a governmental handout, unless a son or daughter is returning from Afghanistan.

            Of course, it is laughable to believe that an individual can cherry pick their political and moral beliefs.  But it is also human nature.  Unless confronted with a threat to their security and well being, people chose the easier and softer way.  Nancy Regan was a strong opponent to stem cell research until her husband suffered from Alzheimer’s. Dick Cheney had no kind words for homosexuals until his daughter announced her sexual preference. Many an NRA member renounced their membership, only after a senseless act of gun violence close to home.

            Our country faces many tough decisions in the coming months.  The budget debate and the fate of our less fortunate citizens should not be a “show down at high noon”, but rather a rational discussion about priorities.  We must let our political leaders know that we reject the nihilistic individualism of the far right, which in the final analysis, very few citizens actually want or believe in.