Friday, January 21, 2011 between 11:30 am and 12:30 pm on the north steps of the state capitol building, sacramento at 10th street and Capitol Mall (L Street). Derek Cressman, Western States Regional Director for Common Cause, will speak on “How Citizens United Will Affect You.” Confirmation of other speakers is pending. Folk music will be provided by Gabe Lewin.
This rally is sponsored by Public Citizen, a public advocacy group and Take Back Our Democracy, a grass roots progressive group based in Davis, with the participation of California Common Cause, Calpirg, Sacramento For Democracy and other advocacy organizations. It is one of many such anniversary events held nation wide. Please send questions concerning this event to zbox@dcn.org.
The background for this rally is as follows. The Citizens United decision of January 21, 2010 declared corporations have the same rights of free speech as people and that money is a form of speech. Thus, corporations are free to use their massive amounts of cash as they wish to push candidates of their choice. This decision by the Roberts court reversed a century of precedent in regulating the role of money in our elections and government. It led to a significant increase in corporate spending in the November mid-term elections, much of which came from undisclosed sources. And November was only the first election after Citizens United. The expectation is that the role of corporate cash will only increase in the presidential election of 2012. The result will be a further coarsening of our elections and a further drowning out of the true voices of the people. With this in mind, it is entirely appropriate to recognize this Supreme Court decision as a win for Big Money and a loss for all other Americans.
“Thus, corporations are free to use their massive amounts of cash as they wish to push candidates of their choice.”
Just as unions do…
I’m sure they’ll somehow just skip over union donations, after all, unions give money to candidates they like.
Corporations are taxed entities. Unions are exempt from taxation. Yet Ms. Zhu and her “Take Back Our Democracy” show want to prevent corporations from defending their self interests, while allowing unions continued manipulation of the political process. One can only derive a couple of conclusions from this: either the supporters of this agitation lack objectivity; or, they are simply left political operatives void of the higher moral calling they claim to be championing.
From the Wall Street Journal: “The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.
AFSCME, the public-employees union, has vaulted ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to become the largest campaign spender of 2010. Jerry Seib discusses how that could boost the Democrats? Plus, Neil King on the Republican wave sweeping Indiana.
.The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats’ hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.
“We’re the big dog,” said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME’s political operations. “But we don’t like to brag.”
The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren’t likely to support extending such aid to states.
Newly elected conservatives will also likely push to clip the political power of public-sector unions. For years, conservatives have argued such unions have an outsize influence in picking the elected officials who are, in effect, their bosses, putting them in a strong position to push for more jobs, and thus more political clout.
Some critics say public-sector unions are funded by what is essentially taxpayer cash, since member salaries, and therefore union dues, come directly from state budgets.
“Public-sector unions have a guaranteed source of revenue—you and me as taxpayers,” said Glenn Spencer, executive director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative at the Chamber of Commerce.
Gregory King, a spokesman for AFSCME, said conservatives make too much of the issue, especially the link to taxpayers….
President Barack Obama has criticized the Supreme Court decision that opened the door to more spending by corporations and unions. When asked about AFSCME’s ramped up campaign efforts following the court’s decision, the White House focused on largely anonymous campaign spending by what it termed “special interests.”
“The president has been crystal clear that third-party groups which spend tens of millions of dollars from anonymous sources are a threat to our democracy—regardless of which candidates they support,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. He said these groups are disproportionately backing Republican candidates.”
EMG: well done. The Democrats only pay lip service to the problem of unions’ campaign spending and influence of the political process. Historically they have been able to camouflage the problem by hiding behind the media template of the “poor union working class”. You can see that they are unwilling or incapable of giving up this historical advantage even as the wave of growing public resentment over sky-high union wages and benefits moves toward crescendo.
Forever the Democrats had the public and private working class in their political back pocket. Then Reagan and the Gingrich Congress attracted a share of them and won handily. The GOP never lost them (Clinton won because of conservative anger over Bush Senior raising taxes and then won his second term when Perot stole too many Republican votes from Dole) until the Great Recession of 2008. Obama captured them again over their anger over the economy and lack of jobs.
Now we have the perfect storm of high unemployment, high government spending, public union employees with unheard of pay and benefits. It will be a miracle if the Democrats hold on to the White House and Congress in 2012. Their failure to take on the public employee unions head on… while instead throwing out one GOP-blame strawman and red herring after another to deflect the story… will be prove to be their undoing in 2012. Voters are just not as stupid as many Democrats make them out to be.
Are you Rightist nuts (with obviously too much time on your hands, owing to your not having to work for a living) actually asserting that unions in this country have anywhere near the money of megaconglomerate corporations? Your comments are blatantly out-of-context, billionaire thinktank spewtum. Try listening to a rising talk show that deals with working class reality instead of the McCarthyism that passes for media in this corporate-controlled region:
[url]thomhartmann.com/stations[/url]
I mean, PLEASE deprogram yourself:
[url]http://www.alternet.org/economy/149596/how_can_the_richest_1_percent_be_winning_this_brutal_class_war_against_99%_of_us/?page=entire[/url]
DLC-ilk neoliberals like Obama somehow continue to successfully bamboozle everyone left of center at campaign time. Wait.. I know how: they steal general statements from the actual left, with no real intention of carrying them out later, all the while working with their overlords the Repugs to keep any potential 3rd party beaten down and completely off the lamestream media.
It’s absurd that you could have a problem with B.O. .. he’s caved at every turn, throwing lefties under the bus. The result: crazy spin machine on the Right easily frames the debate yet further to the right, Dems in tow thinking all they need do is remain one micrometer left of Repugs and the whole of the left can be taken for granted.
[url]http://www.alternet.org/economy/133246/brain-dead_economic_reporting:_if_wall_street_approves_of_obama’s_plan,_it_must_be_a_winner!/[/url]
[url]http://www.alternet.org/economy/140943/foreclosure_fiasco_continues:_the_bush-obama_strategy_of_throwing_billions_at_banks_doesn’t_work/[/url]
(and for more Robert Scheer, don’t miss [url]http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/lr[/url] !)
[url]http://www.alternet.org/news/149509/the_progressive_case_against_obama’s_new_oval_office_team/comments/[/url]
[url]http://www.alternet.org/economy/149366/the_economy_is_in_the_trash_can,_while_the_power_bankers_keep_raking_it_in[/url]
[url]http://www.alternet.org/news/145181/do_obama_and_geithner_have_the_same_flaw:_accommodation_instead_of_moral_action?page=entire[/url]
[url]http://www.alternet.org/economy/144203/bailed-out_aig_forcing_poor_to_choose_between_running_water_and_food[/url]
[url]http://www.alternet.org/world/142057/obama,_ignoring_local_outrage,_set_to_expand_u.s._military_presence_in_colombia/[/url]
[url]http://www.alternet.org/story/146052/obama’s_nuclear_dreams:_resurrecting_a_noxious_industry/[/url]
[url]http://www.alternet.org/rights/120221/obama’s_top_law_enforcer_is_preoccupied_with_bush’s_war_on_terror/[/url]
[url]http://www.alternet.org/environment/140297/how_much_has_changed_obama_administration_deals_series_of_anti-environmental_blows/[/url]
[url]http://www.alternet.org/news/147569/how_”grassroots”_is_obama’s_organizing_for_america/[/url]
Hope the rally went well. Too busy to so much as even have heard about it until just now– the progressives around here need to do a more aggressive job with flyers and such.
“Rightist nuts”, “Rebugs”, “megaconglomerate corporations”, “neoliberals like Obama”, “McCarthyism”, “lamestream media”, “Dems in tow”
LOL! Hey Bakunin – please stay as far left as you can without falling over. The problem is that you seem to have ruled out everything and everyone except yourself and a few people attending a meaningless rally.
BTW… you too seem to have a lot of time on your hands reading all this web propaganda you supplied links for.
“I mean, PLEASE deprogram yourself:”
Then he cites several far left websites for us to go to?
I think Bakunin is the one in need of some deprogramming.
By the way, another one bites the dust, Olbermann quit (fired?) at MSNBC.
Good riddance! What will Bakunin do at 5pm now without Keith?
Come on Rusty, you know these guys never die, they just reemerge on other channels.
“Come on Rusty, you know these guys never die, they just reemerge on other channels.”
Oh David, why do you try and ruin it for me, just let me have my moment.
dmg: “Come on Rusty, you know these guys never die, they just reemerge on other channels.”
They all seem to reemerge on FOX News!
B: “Are you Rightist nuts (with obviously too much time on your hands, owing to your not having to work for a living) actually asserting that unions in this country have anywhere near the money of megaconglomerate corporations?”
Hmmmmmmmm, how do you explain away the union AFSCME being the biggest outside campaign spender in 2010, to the tune of $87.5 billion dollars, no matter which side of the aisle you are affiliated/sympathize with?
“They all seem to reemerge on FOX News!”
Not this time.
rusty49: “Not this time.”
Why not? That is where Juan Williams ended up. So did Geraldo Rivera, Oliver North, and other controversial/disgraced figures…
ERM, are you serious? I mean we’re talking Keith Olbermann here who nightly listed Fox News commentators on his “Worst Person in the World” expose. Olbermann is way over the top, way too far left, no way he ends up on Fox.
rusty49: “ERM, are you serious? I mean we’re talking Keith Olbermann here who nightly listed Fox News commentators on his “Worst Person in the World” expose. Olbermann is way over the top, way too far left, no way he ends up on Fox.”
You may be right (I get your point), but I will burst out laughing if Olbermann winds up on FOX, where everyone else seems to gravitate towards! Of course Olbermann might be offered a position there at FOX, and refuses to take it – that we would never know. But FOX seems to hire every disgraced/controversial figure they can get their hands on, I swear…
To rusty49: From thebiglead.com “As a cable distributor, Comcast does business with News Corp. and has fired its own employees for public criticism of Bill O’Reilly. Olbermann is an avowed critic of O’Reilly and Fox News. He was also fired by Fox in 2001, allegedly at Rupert Murdoch’s behest, for reporting from an outside source that the company was selling the Los Angeles Dodgers. If you google “Keith Olbermann Suspended,” three of the first four links that pop up are Fox News, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal.
Presumably, Olbermann will be off the air for a while with a non-compete clause. Here are three plausible places he could end up afterward.
CNN: Olbermann worked for CNN before joining ESPN. He also did freelance and fill-in work for them in between his stints at Fox and MSNBC. The bridges seem to be still intact. Working for Time Warner, would give him flexibility. He could go back into his old time slot at 8pm to give Piers Morgan a better lead-in. He could do baseball for TBS. He could also do stuff with Sports Illustrated and old pal Dan Patrick.
ESPN Radio: He “napalmed” bridges when he left Bristol in 1997, but that was 13 years ago. His past may preclude him from TV or editorial work. However, they did let him back on radio to co-host with Dan Patrick in 2005. They have hired and parted ways with Max Kellerman multiple times and fostered controversial personalities, such as Cowherd and Kornheiser. If he didn’t have to appear in Bristol, this could work.
MLB Network: Olbermann butts heads politically, but he’s a benign baseball fan. He writes romantic panegyrics to obscure players from his childhood. He already blogs for MLB.com. Some part time studio work where he could still be based out of New York could be an option.”
Apparently Olbermann will continue making his $7 million a year salary for the next two years until his contract runs out. But I have no doubt he will pop up on television somewhere – but you are right, it probably won’t be for FOX – but wouldn’t it be a hoot if that happened?
ERM
I agree with you that Fox will hire controversial figures, but who have they hired that were disgraced?
Did they hire Oliver North?
North was never convicted of anything.
I don’t think North was a disgraced figure. I think most of the country sees him as a hero. In any case, he is not a talking head; he hosts a show about war… he is an expert on the history of war.
Fox, like all TV news providers, is all about ratings. Like for all talking heads, for Olbermann it would be about compensation. If Murdoch thought Olbermann would bring a large enough following, he would pursue Olbermann, and if Olbermann was offered a large enough contract, he would be interested. The problem is that Olbermann’s followers would not watch Fox for fear that it would alter their worldview, and would consider Olbermann a traitor for going to the “enemy”.
“The problem is that Olbermann’s followers would not watch Fox for fear that it would alter their worldview, and would consider Olbermann a traitor for going to the “enemy”.”
Jeff, and vice-versa, if Fox ever hired Olbermann after his MSNBC stint I’m sure that Fox viewers would consider Murdoch a traitor for hiring the enemy.
rusty: I think some would, but I really don’t think it is the same. Fox hires plenty of lefties. They get beat up sometimes, but most hold their own in a debate of opposing ideas. It is a different format than MSNBC, CNN, and Jon Stewart… and that is the main reason that Fox is more watched.
Interesting isn’t it that our news providers and talking heads are seen as tools of the left or the right?
“North was never convicted of anything. “
That’s not completely accurate. He was convicted, they threw out that conviction based on an appeal that ruled that it was based on testimony that he was given immunity on.
“I don’t think North was a disgraced figure. I think most of the country sees him as a hero. “
I don’t think so, I will bet his popularity is pretty low. He was almost able to win a senate seat in Virginia, against a scandal riddled politician who would be defeated the next time around, in 1994 – the most republican of years. I doubt most people consider him a hero.
rusty49: “I agree with you that Fox will hire controversial figures, but who have they hired that were disgraced?”
I agree w dmg that Oliver North is somewhat of a disgraced figure, as is Geraldo Rivera. So is Mark Fermon, Don Ismus. Need I say more?
“That’s not completely accurate. He was convicted, they threw out that conviction based on an appeal that ruled that it was based on testimony that he was given immunity on.”
The conviction was overturned, so it’s “NOT” a conviction. Swipe, clean off the record.
And that changes things how? The facts weren’t wrong, he simply cut a deal.
ERM, I agree with you most of the time but to me and I think a majority of people North, Imus and Fermon aren’t disgraced figures. That’s a pretty harsh moniker to label somebody with for something they said that maybe was blown way out of proportion. Have you ever said anything in your life that might be considered over the top or not PC? I know I have, but I don’t think I should be labeled a disgraced person because of it.
BTW, what did Geraldo ever do or say?
David, do you consider Bill Clinton to be a “disgraced figure”?
“but to me and I think a majority of people North, Imus and Fermon aren’t disgraced figures.”
I understand that to you, a right-winger, they are not disgraced figures. But what evidence do you have that to the majority of the people? And don’t cite the number of people who watch them either. I saw a poll that less 40% of the public has a favorable impression of Sarah Palin, but all of that 40% watches fox, and many people who don’t like her, would watch her on a TV show.
“David, do you consider Bill Clinton to be a “disgraced figure”? “
On some levels. Clinton and Nixon had a lot in common.
rusty49: “ERM, I agree with you most of the time but to me and I think a majority of people North, Imus and Fermon aren’t disgraced figures. That’s a pretty harsh moniker to label somebody with for something they said that maybe was blown way out of proportion. Have you ever said anything in your life that might be considered over the top or not PC? I know I have, but I don’t think I should be labeled a disgraced person because of it. BTW, what did Geraldo ever do or say?”
I think most people definitely consider Ismus, Fermon and Geraldo disgraced. Ismus, for no apparent reason anyone can conger, decided one day to call young African American women on a college basketball team he was watching “nappy-headed whoe’s [read that to mean the slang term for whores], and was summarily fired. Fermon was heard on tape, during the OJ Simpson trial, using the “n” word and making racist comments, and was summarily fired from the LA Police Dept. Geraldo had a very controversial talk show, much like Jerry Springer, which was referred to as “Trash TV” that was cancelled once it became too over the top. All were hired at the height of their disgrace by FOX News…
North is a more complex case. Some believe him to be a hero; others a crook. From Wikipedia: “North was at the center of national attention during the Iran-Contra affair, a political scandal of the late 1980s. North was a National Security Council member involved in the clandestine sale of weapons to Iran, which served to encourage the release of U.S. hostages from Lebanon. North formulated the second part of the plan: diverting proceeds from the arms sales to support the Contra rebel groups in Nicaragua (funding to the Contras had been prohibited under the Boland Amendment amidst widespread public opposition in the U.S. and controversies surrounding human rights abuses by the Contras). North was charged with several felonies and convicted of three, but the convictions were later vacated, and the underlying charges dismissed due to the limited immunity agreement granted for his pre-trial public Congressional testimony about the affair.”
Note that the charges against him were vacated bc of a limited immunity agreement. So it is open to question whether he was not such a good guy or not.
dmg: “On some levels. Clinton and Nixon had a lot in common.”
LOL They were both a disgrace…
rusty49: “Have you ever said anything in your life that might be considered over the top or not PC?”
At the tender age of about 10 years old, my mother washed my mouth out w soap for using a cuss word towards my friend (we had gotten into a humdinger of a fight). However, I was never fired from a job for saying the wrong thing…
“All were hired at the height of their disgrace by FOX News… “
The “disgraced” label is subjective given there are no norms of behavior, and many people belonging to certain politically-correct victims groups will be given a pass for similar missteps. There is also some irony in that the media that foments the creation of the controversy leading to the label; the media fires them, and then the media hires them again.
Fox seems to be a more forgiving media company. I wonder if that has anything to do with conservatives owning stronger Christian values where forgiveness is more common… or maybe I am wrong and it is just the lure of ratings…
To Jeff Boone: You make interesting points…
For me personally, I find Ismus and Geraldo reprehensible characters. Ismus’s comment that he was fired for to me is very telling of his inner workings as a human being. Those girls were total innocents, he had absolutely no reason to voice such an opinion on the pubic airwaves. Geraldo is all about money, has a personal life style that I find offensive (serial philanderer/adulterer), and lost his credibility as a pretty good reporter to chase the almight buck and women. Fermon I think was probably a good cop, but his mouth got him in trouble, for which he paid dearly (lost his job) – but as irony would have it, he is probably making more now than he ever did as a cop. I find his commentary to be pretty inciteful, bc after all he was a detective and has a lot of knowledge in the area of law enforcement. North I cannot stand, but more from a gut level. As I understand it he had his secretary shred documents; he has an ego a mile wide – there is just something about him I cannot like – much as nails scraping on a chalkboard.
But you make a fair point about the political nature of some of the firings. For instance, I think Trent Lott losing his position in the Senate was ridiculous, yet Robert Byrd on the Democratic side was given a pass for much worse. But then I think the whole business about Traficant was ridiculous as well…
ERM, so if one missppeaks or makes an offhanded joke or remark that person forever becomes a disgraced person no matter what else they might have done with the rest of their lives if I read you right. You have very tough standards, most of America would be considered disgraced by your standards. Did you know Imus runs a ranch for kids with cancer? But I guess that doesn’t count because he being a comedian made a
bad joke for which he has apologized for many times. One remark, disgraced forever.
To me some disgraced figures off the top of my would be Richard Nixon, Benedict Arnold, Tiger Woods, Lindsay Lohan, Bernie Madoff, Scott Peterson, OJ Simpson…..
In other words people that did such reprehensible things there was no saving them from that title.
Not just one unfortunate misspeak.
rusty49: “ERM, so if one missppeaks or makes an offhanded joke or remark that person forever becomes a disgraced person no matter what else they might have done with the rest of their lives if I read you right. You have very tough standards, most of America would be considered disgraced by your standards. Did you know Imus runs a ranch for kids with cancer? But I guess that doesn’t count because he being a comedian made a bad joke for which he has apologized for many times. One remark, disgraced forever.”
Mark Fermon mispoke, but I do not condemn him. To me the difference is that Ismus had a higher fiduciary duty, as a radio talk show host, to be more careful what he said on the public airwaves. He failed in his fiduciary duty, big time, bc the victims of his rant were innocent college kids who had done nothing wrong. Ismus lost all credibility, and showed himself to be a racial bigot. I honestly don’t understand how anyone could take what he said any other way. We don’t need that sort of thing on the public airways (but then I think there are a lot of things on the public airways that shouldn’t be – such as much of the sexually suggestive material as well as gratuitous violence!) So I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one!
rusty49: “To me some disgraced figures off the top of my would be Richard Nixon, Benedict Arnold, Tiger Woods, Lindsay Lohan, Bernie Madoff, Scott Peterson, OJ Simpson…..
I would agree that all of these are disgraced figures…
rusty49: “In other words people that did such reprehensible things there was no saving them from that title. Not just one unfortunate misspeak.”
I see your point, but don’t happen to agree with respect to Ismus. As a radio talk show host, I feel he has to be held to a higher standard than the average person…
By the way, you never said whether you thought Geraldo was a “disgraced” person…
To Jeff Boone: Nice Letter to Editor in the Davis Enterprise!
I find this fascinating:
“rusty49: “To me some disgraced figures off the top of my would be Richard Nixon, Benedict Arnold, Tiger Woods, Lindsay Lohan, Bernie Madoff, Scott Peterson, OJ Simpson…..
I would agree that all of these are disgraced figures…”
You guys are comparing Tiger Woods’ infidelity and the pathetic-ness of Lindsay Lohan to traitors, murders, and embezzlers. Fascinating.
Elaine, thanks! I didn’t read the paper last night, so I didn’t see it.
dmg: “You guys are comparing Tiger Woods’ infidelity and the pathetic-ness of Lindsay Lohan to traitors, murders, and embezzlers. Fascinating.”
“Disgraced” figures, BY DEFINITION, includes the more serious offenses of treason, murder, embezzlement. But it would also include those less serious offenders who are ethically challenged bc of adultery, self-indulgence in drugs or other self-destructive behavior, etc.
From the freedictionary.com: “dis·grace (ds-grs)n.
1. Loss of honor, respect, or reputation; shame.
2. The condition of being strongly and generally disapproved.
3. One that brings disfavor or discredit: Your handwriting is a disgrace.
tr.v. dis·graced, dis·grac·ing, dis·grac·es
1. To bring shame or dishonor on: disgraced the entire community.
2. To deprive of favor or good repute; treat with disfavor: The family was disgraced by the scandal.”
So I would say it is perfectly appropriate to consider Lohan and Woods a disgrace, as well as Peterson, Simpson, Madoff.
JB: “Elaine, thanks! I didn’t read the paper last night, so I didn’t see it.”
It is the very first one! The editor must have thought your remarks were profound enough to be the lead op-ed article. Congrats!
So the Enterprise actually prints a conservative editorial once in a while?
I’m guessing Jeff your piece was conservative?
Rusty: I think it was balanced and fair. You make the decision! =)
[quote]The media response to the shooting rampage in Tucson clarified the extent of media-caused political polarization.
The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics includes the following:
** Journalists should test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
** Journalists should examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
Despite this, and even before the blood had dried, journalists from TV and print media immediately began pinning the blame on Sarah Palin and the tea party. In his op-ed piece, ‘Cooling off our climate of hate,’ left-respected New York Times columnist Paul Krugman writes, ‘just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies’ he could tell that ‘it was ready to happen.’ He goes on to blame Fox News and GOP leaders for inspiring the shooting – even though Jared Loughner’s friends said he didn’t watch TV or listen to the radio, and he didn’t care about politics.
Despite knowing that the victims and shooter were all Caucasians, and lacking contrary evidence that the shooter was motivated by anything other than his own insanity, a Davis Enterprise Our View article titled ‘Echoes of King in Tucson’ provides the flawed message that somehow racism and politics were the root causes.
Evidence of the impact from all this irresponsible media reporting was apparent in an Enterprise ‘What do you think?’ quote. When asked what she thought MLK would say about today’s political climate, a young Davis student answered: ‘Well, the shooting in Arizona goes against everything he was fighting for.’ It is clear that this young person, like many, has been imprinted with an incorrect perspective that race and politics were root causes of the violence.
News has become a perpetual 24/7 ‘info-tainment,’ ratings-grab cycle, with reporters following the lead story like lemmings over a cliff. Journalists routinely break their code of ethics, and in doing so they enflame political bias and foment polarization.
The media have grown unrecognizable to what our founders considered sacred and protected, and today it is much more worthy of our scorn and concern.
Jeff Boone
Davis
[/quote]
Jeff, nice article and very fair and balanced. But what do I know, after all I’m a “right winger” as David so astutely pointed out earlier in this blog, so my views must be skewed (lol).
I didn’t see your article because I refuse to any longer pay for the Enterprise. They call me constantly to reup and I always tell them that if they make the paper more balanced, for instance some conservative editorialists in the Sunday edition, I would prescribe again. It’s my little revolt against liberal press.
I thank David for the DavisVanguard as it keeps me abreast of local happenings and I can put my two cents in, even though he and I rarely agree unless it’s fiscal policies.
subscribe not “prescribe” I thought that looked funny
rusty49: “I didn’t see your article because I refuse to any longer pay for the Enterprise. They call me constantly to reup and I always tell them that if they make the paper more balanced, for instance some conservative editorialists in the Sunday edition, I would prescribe again. It’s my little revolt against liberal press.”
I chose to no longer subscribe to the Sac Bee for the same reason. When they asked why I would no longer subscribe, I told them. They said they were working on that problem. I told them when they got the problem fixed, to come back and talk to me. They never got back to me!
As for the Davis Enterprise, I think its reporting has actually gotten a bit better. As both a city and county commissioner, I find it important to make sure I follow along w all that is going on in the community. I also enjoy reading the Letters to the Editor in the Davis Enterprise (and its policy of printing all letters), which often are written by more conservative folks, like Jeff Boone’s wonderful op-ed piece.
rusty49: “I thank David for the DavisVanguard as it keeps me abreast of local happenings and I can put my two cents in, even though he and I rarely agree unless it’s fiscal policies.”
The give and take of the blog is a wonderful asset, and allows for very informative and interesting conversations. I also think at times dmg does some in-depth investigative reporting which the Davis Enterprise sometimes glosses over for whatever reason. I am very grateful for the additional insight the Vanguard offers as to what is going on locally “under the table”…
ERM, a SacBee saleperson called me the other day and offered the Sunday paper for only 38 cents a week.
I told him I’ll never get that paper because it’s too liberal and until they present both sides of the political spectrum not to call me anymore. The salesman said he hears that alot so I asked him to be sure and relay it back to management. Our dollars have a voice.
I had to cancel the Bee after my wife scolded me that I was grouchy after reading it. Newspaper bias tends to be mostly subtle… the wording of a headline… the “this, however that” style of faked objectivity (note the order and emphasis of “this” and “that”)… the placement and page number of certain articles. The other problem with the B was the Formum section seemed to be filtered by the editor to favor more left-leaning opinions.
I find the Enterprise to be much more balanced. Also, it has the local news which I need to read. I think Ms. Davis does a fine job given her customer base. The content may cause a good conservative a bit of heat, but just think what would happen to the angry left if the paper leaned too far right!
I think David has done a nice job with the Vanguard as a supplement – and more interactive – provider of news. Without both, I would feel like I am missing too much.
Jeff, when I took the Enterprise Debra LoGuercio’s editorials would tick me off about 90% of the time. The other Sunday editorial by Frank (?) really never had much content and was a waste of time, but when she did discuss politics it came from the left. I like Dunning, he’s more balanced. All in all I do miss the Ent. for its local news, but the paper doesn’t have much to it.