You might think that since I am a longtime (18-plus years, currently on leave) employee of the Albuquerque Journal, I'd be gleeful at the news that the afternoon competitor is up for sale -- a sign to most that it will close down. Far from it. I was quite sad to learn the news when I went online a few minutes ago.
Part of my sadness stems from the fact that I know and admire several of the hardworking reporters and editors at the Albuquerque Tribune. They are dedicated, talented people who deserve to continue to ply their craft. And part of my sadness comes from the fact that good, strong competition makes good newspapers. I remember grabbing the Tribune and gnashing my teeth if it had a story on my beat before I did -- and then doubling my resolve to not let it happen again.
Yet another element of my sadness comes from a wistful confusion over what is happening to newspapers today. All around the country, newspapers have been in trouble, cutting staff, cutting pages, cutting corners -- and cutting coverage. I know people contend its an inevitable result of many developments: free news on the Internet, other non-paper sources of news that are more immediate (TV, radio), increasingly busy lives in which people argue they don't have time to sit down and read.
I would argue they don't have time not to. To me, none of those other news sources can replace a newspaper. I can't imagine starting my day without the feel of that paper in my hands as I turn the pages and run my eyes up and down the columns. Can the Internet take its place? Perhaps, but I find one thing that disturbs me about Internet news. (Besides the fact that most of the solidest news on the Internet is from newspapers, which subsidize the online version.) At least when I go to the Internet to check news, I scan headlines, or maybe just go to the page or collection of stories that interest me the most (e.g., health stories, movie reviews).
With a newspaper, though, a story sitting there right in front of me might catch my attention as I start scanning the first few paragraphs. I don't have to push an extra button to decide to call the whole thing up. And thus I end up learning about some event, issue or condition that otherwise I would not have bothered to call up on the Internet. I become more informed. And I get more detail and understanding than I likely would get from a 30-second blurb on TV or quick summary on the Internet.
As we lose news outlets, we lose voices that challenge our public officials, reveal elements of our society, or discover wrongdoing. Blogsters don't replace that. The standards of neutrality, reliability and fairness are, yes, upheld by that mainstream media that get battered by critics. I will give credibility to something I read in the newspaper; I won't necessarily do that for something I read on the Web.
We can't afford to become an even more ill-informed society. Lack of solid information and knowledge makes us more easily manipulated by politicians, bureaucrats and corporate fat cats who have their own agenda, one that benefits them more than the public. Don't let them gain even more control than they already have. Keep news alive!
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Quagmire Revisited
I used to believe in the expression that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Now, I am beginning to believe the contention that, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true.
During the television news this evening, I saw repeated commercials saying that American troops should stay in Iraq. It used servicemen and family members of those killed in Iraq or the Twin Towers as the spokespeople. And their words suggest that our troops in Iraq are essential to curb terrorism. They make a link between 9/11 and Iraq.
Well, it's true that Iraq has become a strong center for terrorism -- after our invasion.
It's important that we keep some things in mind. Saddam Hussein was a nasty, brutal man. But he also headed a secular state, he opposed al-Queda and did not welcome its operations in his country, and he kept a nation running with different Islamic sects intermarrying and living among each other, with relatively effective health and education systems (until U.S.-led embargoes crippled supplies coming into that country).
So our country invaded Iraq, with, as far as I can tell, the intention only to topple Saddam. When that happened, our President said: "Mission accomplished." And then what? What did our political leaders think would happen? What did happen is that civil war has broken out, al-Queda has established a foothold in Iraq, the country appears to be leaning toward establishing an Islamic state (if any type of real government gets established at all), American arms have ended up in the hands of terrorists of all stripes, the most educated and reasonable citizens have fled the country, and the health, education and other civil systems have crumbled.
We must keep troops in Iraq, these commercials tell us, until we have victory.
And what, exactly, will victory look like? An American-style democracy? What if the voters choose an Islamic state? Will that be victory? How will we ever make happen what most of us probably think should happen?
In the meantime, while we've been trying to make Iraq into a Middle-Eastern America, the political influence of Iran has been increasing in the region, Pakistan has been increasingly destabilized (with the likelihood for an Islamic state arising there if the present government is overthrown), Russia is experiencing increasing oppression and growing power, and countries everywhere have learned a lesson of how impotent raw military power is against terrorism.
With the repression of civil liberties and reports of torture of prisoners, America has lost whatever moral authority it has held in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if this Iraqi adventure marks either the downfall of this country as the world superpower, or the uprising of this country as a hated, world bully, with eventual use of nuclear weapons.
I fear what we have unleashed, and I weep for what has been done in our name.
And I say all this not to argue for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops. I'd like to think there is some way to clean up the mess we have made. But our President, who raises the spectre of the bloodshed that occurred after we left Vietnam, should keep another thing in mind. As far as I can tell, Vietnam now is a stable, peaceful, increasingly prosperous country.
During the television news this evening, I saw repeated commercials saying that American troops should stay in Iraq. It used servicemen and family members of those killed in Iraq or the Twin Towers as the spokespeople. And their words suggest that our troops in Iraq are essential to curb terrorism. They make a link between 9/11 and Iraq.
Well, it's true that Iraq has become a strong center for terrorism -- after our invasion.
It's important that we keep some things in mind. Saddam Hussein was a nasty, brutal man. But he also headed a secular state, he opposed al-Queda and did not welcome its operations in his country, and he kept a nation running with different Islamic sects intermarrying and living among each other, with relatively effective health and education systems (until U.S.-led embargoes crippled supplies coming into that country).
So our country invaded Iraq, with, as far as I can tell, the intention only to topple Saddam. When that happened, our President said: "Mission accomplished." And then what? What did our political leaders think would happen? What did happen is that civil war has broken out, al-Queda has established a foothold in Iraq, the country appears to be leaning toward establishing an Islamic state (if any type of real government gets established at all), American arms have ended up in the hands of terrorists of all stripes, the most educated and reasonable citizens have fled the country, and the health, education and other civil systems have crumbled.
We must keep troops in Iraq, these commercials tell us, until we have victory.
And what, exactly, will victory look like? An American-style democracy? What if the voters choose an Islamic state? Will that be victory? How will we ever make happen what most of us probably think should happen?
In the meantime, while we've been trying to make Iraq into a Middle-Eastern America, the political influence of Iran has been increasing in the region, Pakistan has been increasingly destabilized (with the likelihood for an Islamic state arising there if the present government is overthrown), Russia is experiencing increasing oppression and growing power, and countries everywhere have learned a lesson of how impotent raw military power is against terrorism.
With the repression of civil liberties and reports of torture of prisoners, America has lost whatever moral authority it has held in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if this Iraqi adventure marks either the downfall of this country as the world superpower, or the uprising of this country as a hated, world bully, with eventual use of nuclear weapons.
I fear what we have unleashed, and I weep for what has been done in our name.
And I say all this not to argue for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops. I'd like to think there is some way to clean up the mess we have made. But our President, who raises the spectre of the bloodshed that occurred after we left Vietnam, should keep another thing in mind. As far as I can tell, Vietnam now is a stable, peaceful, increasingly prosperous country.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
How Much Is Enough?
I saw a brief news item in this morning's paper that said presidential spokesman Tony Snow was leaving his job. According to the story, he said he needs more money than the $168,000 per year that he's making now.
That brought me up short. That wasn't enough money? It occurred to me that we must live in such vastly different worlds, since I think I can live (and have lived) quite comfortably on less than one-third of what he says isn't enough. And my "less than one-third" is vastly more what the majority of people in the world are living on.
The story did mention that he is facing a recurrence of cancer. While I'm sure his current job offers health insurance, perhaps there are still uncovered costs in fighting his cancer. If that's the issue, though, what does that say about our health care system? And where does that leave the large majority of our population, who make far less money than that, when they are faced with a serious illness or injury?
I don't know Mr. Snow's reason for "needing" more money, but I think we should all think every once in a while about what true need is.
That brought me up short. That wasn't enough money? It occurred to me that we must live in such vastly different worlds, since I think I can live (and have lived) quite comfortably on less than one-third of what he says isn't enough. And my "less than one-third" is vastly more what the majority of people in the world are living on.
The story did mention that he is facing a recurrence of cancer. While I'm sure his current job offers health insurance, perhaps there are still uncovered costs in fighting his cancer. If that's the issue, though, what does that say about our health care system? And where does that leave the large majority of our population, who make far less money than that, when they are faced with a serious illness or injury?
I don't know Mr. Snow's reason for "needing" more money, but I think we should all think every once in a while about what true need is.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Peace Process
Everyone has his or her pet peeves. Sometimes it can be a word, expression or phrase. Listening to the news this morning, I was reminded of how annoyed I am by references to "the peace process."
Now what, exactly, is that supposed to mean? OK, I know what its intended meaning is. But every time I think about it, it makes no sense. "Peace process," I guess, means that people are talking about how they can stop fighting. Or how other people can make them stop fighting. Or what has to happen until they agree, at least on the official level, to stop fighting.
By referring to this as a "peace process," news reporters and pundits and politicians cast an unduly optimistic glow on the situation, as if, yes indeed, honest, we are marching along the path to peace and we'll get there, really, some day! Sounds so much better than saying, yeah, these folks are killing each other and still refuse to stop.
This seems like one of those situations where Yoda's advice applies: Do it, or do not.
Now what, exactly, is that supposed to mean? OK, I know what its intended meaning is. But every time I think about it, it makes no sense. "Peace process," I guess, means that people are talking about how they can stop fighting. Or how other people can make them stop fighting. Or what has to happen until they agree, at least on the official level, to stop fighting.
By referring to this as a "peace process," news reporters and pundits and politicians cast an unduly optimistic glow on the situation, as if, yes indeed, honest, we are marching along the path to peace and we'll get there, really, some day! Sounds so much better than saying, yeah, these folks are killing each other and still refuse to stop.
This seems like one of those situations where Yoda's advice applies: Do it, or do not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)