Why the Glee?

The Arizona Capitol Times interviewed me last week for their "Up Close" series.  I knew that Reporter Matthew Bunk would eventually get around to the question that everyone asks me, but that I've never really answered.  The question usually goes something like this: "You cover the decline of the newspaper industry, and you seem really happy about it, almost gleeful.  Why the glee?"

I've explained in previous posts why I cover the economic aspects of the newspaper industry.  But I've never explained why it gives me such a deep sense of satisfaction to observe the decline.  The answer is too long and passionate to put into an ordinary post, so I've written about all the pieces, but never put them together.  So here goes.

Let me say at the outset that reporters are wonderful people.  I mean that.  I really enjoy getting to know them and pretty much without exception, they have been interesting and charming.   But reporters are like the guy who opens the door for you at the mall and then flips you off in the parking lot.  There's something about being in a car that changes people into Mad Max and there's something about getting behind the keyboard at a major newspaper that changes people into biased hypocritical bullies.

So now the business model has failed.  Ad revenue has collapsed, layoffs are imminent and the barbarian bloggers have penetrated the gates.  I'm almost giddy.  Let me explain the glee. 

Bullying

If I could sum up my animosity towards newspapers in once sentence, it would be these five words:  "Merry Christmas to Trish Groe."

That's the first sentence of this year's Republic "Don't drive drunk over the Holidays" editorial. 

Here's the full reference to Groe.

Merry Christmas to Trish Groe.

The state representative from Lake Havasu City pleaded guilty this week to misdemeanor drunken driving and was sentenced to 10 days in a Maricopa County jail.

She'll pay attorney bills, fines, various fees and have to breathe into a device (which she'll pay for) before her car will start. Her car-insurance premium will shoot up. This adds up to thousands of dollars.

Her reputation is seriously damaged. Her political future may be wiped out. The only silver lining is that she managed not to injure or kill anyone.

Sadly, Groe will get a lot of company over the next two weeks. Arrests for DUI go up this time of year, because more people are drinking away from home and police devote more resources to getting drunken drivers off the road, said Sgt. Mark Clark, spokesman for the Scottsdale Police Department.

The December 22nd editorial had nothing to do with Groe.  The anonymous author just used the occasion to dredge up the incident.  The worst part is the mock "Merry Christmas" wish.  The Republic isn't reflecting on Groe's problems and sincerely wishing her Merry Christmas.  The Republic has dredged up the long stale incident by attaching it to an unrelated editorial.  Don't be fooled.  The mocking "Merry Christmas to Trish Groe" is the closest a newspaper can get to "Hey Trish F**k You." 

Here's another great example of a reporter acting as a bully.  Mary Jo Pitzl creates a story in order to dredge up and ridicule Senator Harper for his bankruptcy.  Click the link and notice the glee with which she pursues Harper. 

One characteristic of a bully is that they hit you even when you aren't doing anything to deserve it.  Here's an example where Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox received an award for running a great Mexican food Restaurant and the Republic used the occasion to pummel her. 

Occasionally bias and bullying tactics lead to obsession.  Here's the Star's Sam Negri fabricating a quote about Rep. Paton.  The Star was forced to issue a correction, and Negri then insisted that his fabricated quote was fake but accurate.  Negri devoted two editorials and a Sunday column to a quote that he eventually admitted that Paton never said.  (Paton found it difficult to defend himself since he was on active duty in Iraq at the time.)

Many of the attacks are outrageous even by journalistic "standards."  Here's an example that I wrote about in September of 2006.  This sentence has no business in any newspaper. "Republican gubernatorial candidate and abstinence advocate Len Munsil admitted on Friday that he had sex before marriage."

That's right, 22 years and eight kids after his marriage, the Republic decided to print that Munsil wasn't a virgin when he got married.  Are we discussing the sexuality of the candidates now?  How about publishers?  Or maybe the Governor?  Are their sex lives on the table--so to speak?

Here, Dennis Welch manufactures a "conflict" in Rep. Steve Yarbrough's voting record and then admits that such "conflicts" are legal and common.  It becomes clear in the article that Welch's real complaint is Yarbrough's support for "so called" school choice.

Perhaps the most egregious example of journalistic bullying is the Republic's treatment of Constantin Querard.  The coverage is the equivalent of a journalistic Hat Trick.  It combines bullying, obsession and the Mainstream Media's notorious refusal to admit when they have been proven wrong. The Republic's Robbie Sherwood wrote TEN stories about Republican activist Constantin Querard being under investigation by the Attorney General.   Sherwood never pointed to a source who would confirm that there was an investigation and it now turns out that there may never have been an investigation. 

We do know that there was a CCEC investigation, but that was resolved in Querard's favor.  There was a complaint by the Maricopa County Republican Party, but the party dropped the complaint and issued an apology.  All of the negative stories were well covered.  None of the successful resolutions were ever printed. 

The Querard stories also had a weird retro-racial tone that was troubling.  Just like when Life magazine said of Joe DiMaggio in 1939 "Instead of olive oil or bear grease he keeps his hair slicked back with water. He never reeks of garlic and prefers chicken chow mein to spaghetti." Former columnist Richard Rueles described Querard as having a "slicked back Gordon Gecko haircut," and "shinny gold watch."

I took a huge risk in 2005 by attacking the Republic's credibility on the Querard stories.  Sure, there were plenty of people who were critical of the Republic, but no one had ever systematically laid out the case that the facts underlying a series of Republic stories were wrong.  It was the first time I took on the paper.

The Yellow Sheet Report provided daily coverage of my posts and interviewed Sherwood to get his response.  Here was their conclusion.

"If no indictments are handed up against Querard, Patterson can claim street cred and take on the mantle of a proven pundit.  Otherwise, Patterson, like Geraldo Rivera will have gathered the people for a look at The Vault and uncovered only a few old bricks and a lot of stale air."

Querard didn't get indicted and he's still an active consultant.  In fact he's directing the Legislative races for the Republican Party, but his reputation is irreparably damaged.  The Republic never acknowledged the successful resolution of his case.

I can't emphasize enough how much these stories devastate the lives of the people who are targeted.  This isn't a game folks.  This type of abuse hurts people.  Sure, they step into the arena voluntarily and they are public figures, so the paper can say anything about them with impunity, but when cut, I assure you that they bleed. 

Hypocrisy

After bullying, the issue that bothers me most is hypocrisy.  Newspapers love to point out what they perceive as hypocrisy--just ask Senator Larry Craig.  But newspapers themselves are often more hypocritical than the politicians or industries that they cover. 

For example, newspapers are quick to pounce on elected officials whom they perceive as intolerant.  The media hounded Russell Pearce when he quoted the official name of a government program from the 1950s, and Democrats called for the removal of his Chairmanship.

Newspaper writers however, can say anything they want with impunity.  Here's the Republic's Linda Valdez writing in support of European laws that restrict citizens from wearing "Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses."  She supports laws against this type of "religious exhibitionism."  What?  An editorial writer in the state's newspaper of record writes in support of laws that make it illegal for Jews to wear Yarmulkes in public?  Did she go to the David Duke school of Journalism?  The industry reaction was...zero.

Bias enters into the equation as well.  Editorial writers aren't the only ones who get to speak with impunity.  Here's Rep. Steve Gallardo using a term that would get my kids grounded for life.  Media reaction?  Again zero.  Can you imagine if Russell Pearce had used the term "Bitchslap?"

The hypocrisy meter red lines when someone dies.  Some of the Republic's worst stories are about people whom the paper later lionizes: Jon Kamman played Captain Ahab and hounded Congressman Bob Stump in story after story.   Keven Willey declared Carmen Cajero "one of the worst" legislators and the Republic Editorial Board sat on their hands while the Rev. George Brooks was unfairly investigated, hounded and indicted.  Then when these three died, the Republic provided glowing editorials about how wonderful they were.

The solution isn't to ignore great Americans when they die.  The solution is to treat them decently while they are alive.    

Perhaps the worst hypocrisy is the way the Republic handles its own corporate affairs.  For example, the Republic insists on using children in a door-to-door campaign in order to sell subscriptions.  I've reported several times on the practice.  Can you imagine what would happen if SRP used children to read meters?

Just when I thought the paper couldn't go any lower, I got a report that the Republic was using a developmentally disabled child to sign up subscribers. 

Another example of the hypocrisy is the way newspapers treat their own workers.  Newspaper management seems to layoff older workers first.  While that makes economic sense--older workers are paid more and are more expensive to insure--it's ethically and legally suspect.  But there's no one to cover it, so unless the fired employees sue, they have no advocate.

A friend of mine was 53 when the Republic laid him off; he had worked for the paper since high school.  When he got the news, he was not allowed back on the newsroom floor; a security guard escorted him to his car and scraped the parking sticker off his windshield.  His personal belongings arrived in the mail a few days later. 

Remember that the next time you read a four-part series on corporate ethics.

Seinfeld Imitations

Then there are the Seinfeld stories.  Some stories have great dramatic flair; they are labeled as "exclusive", sometimes copyrighted, longer than most stories and include fancy time lines and graphics.  Yet when you finish them, you realize that...nothing happened.

Here's a breathless "exclusive" A1 story that I'm sure devastated the two people who were targeted by it. Read the story and ask why two single people who have devoted their lives to charity and haven't even been accused of wrong doing are humiliated in this front page "exclusive" story. 

One of the worst examples of a devastating Seinfeld Story is the astonishing 7,000 word, A1, Sunday Republic Story that tried to tie John McCain to a local murder while claiming that he had an inappropriate relationship with singer Connie Stevens.  By the end of the story, the Republic admitted that there was no evidence of McCain's involvement with the murder or with Stevens.  What's worse, the story ran in February of 2000 in the middle of McCain's first Presidential campaign. 

The McCain fiasco was before the rise of the Blogs, but it was so egregious that the industry actually took the extraordinary step of policing itself.  American Journalism review published an analysis of the McCain piece and asked the obvious question.  Why publish rumors about a presidential hopeful and the fact that the insinuations didn't check out?   Why indeed. 

Another example of a breathless A1 Sunday exclusive that implies great wrong doing but goes nowhere, was the hit piece the Republic did on Supervisor Andy Kunasek and his family. 

I pointed out that all the allegations of wrong doing that were implied in the story were debunked in the same story.  Fortunately, this Seinfeld piece was so egregious that the Republic Editorial Board came to Kunasek's defense, and actually rebutted their own paper's front page story. 

Plain old Bias

Then there's the everyday bias.  Reporters don't consider themselves liberal, so they think the legislature is filled with moderates, conservatives and "ultra" conservatives.  The Capitol Times once claimed that the legislature had 24 "ultra" Conservatives.  When they can't use "ultra," they have to get more creative.

Some bias is fairly harmless.  Like Mary Jo Pitzl describing a political organization as "pro-woman" simply because it is pro-choice.  That's why it's called bias.  The reporter's views are so strongly held, that they permeate the stories.  So those little slips are a fun indication of how the reporter really thinks.  Naturally groups like Emily's list are "pro-woman" and by implication, groups like the Center or Arizona Policy are "anti-woman."  So do you think the Center for Arizona Policy gets a fair shake  from Mary Jo when she covers, say, the initiative to define marriage as one man and one woman?

Sometimes the bias is overt and malicious.  The Employer Sanctions law is clear that violations have to meet the standard of "knowingly" or "intentionally."  The media, of course, knows this fact, but in the beginning, they tried to systematically obscure this fact.  Even if they have to make stuff up.

It's fun to watch what happens when a Republican and a Democrat each get in hot water.  Notice in this post that the term "Republican" is used to describe Renzi, while "a Congressman" is used to describe Pastor.

Nonsense

Finally, there are the editorials that simply make no sense.  Some are logically flawed to the point of incoherence.  Some seem like they were written after a wild office party.  Some are simply shrill and hysterical.

The logical flaws and weak analysis would be funny except that editorials still have some influence and they can occasionally tip the balance.  With power comes responsibility

Aren't they Important?

Whenever I explain my glee, I always get a follow up question.  "If the papers go away, who will hold the powerful people accountable?  How will we know what's going on?"  That questions assumes that corporate media with its group think and herd mentality actually break important stories.  Think about the biggest stories of the last decade--the fall of the Baptist Foundation, Priest abuse under Bishop O'Brien, Colorado City, Arpaio's Jails--those stories broke in Phoenix New Times.  The big story of the late 80s and early 90s was the S&L fiasco.  That story broke in Barron's. 

There are a few exceptions.  Mark Flatten wrote an interesting series on water farming in 1990 and did a great series on RICO abuses in 1992.  Mary Jo Pitzl wrote an interesting expose on the Board of Regents in 1990.

Ed Foster covered the poor management at America West Airlines in the early 1990s.  That was a gutsy series of stories because America West was a big advertiser and one of its executives was on the Phoenix Newspaper board.  Of course, the paper promptly fired Foster, so perhaps it wasn't not such a good example. 

The rest of the stories are just press releases, that's why the paper is being written by interns.  So I reject the argument that the populace will be worse off without a big dominant corporate media newspaper on everyone's driveway. 

So that's it.  By the way, Gannett Stock hit another low on Friday.  I just want to take this opportunity to wish the Publisher a Merry Christmas.

Comments

[Bill]

That is Greg Patterson's best blog post ever!

[John Mills]

"changes people into biased hypocritical bullies." Don't you want to say Hypercritical?

[Karen of Scottsdale]

a hearty Amen! from the cheap seats in Scottsdale

[azslim]

This has to be your finest post ever. It should be required reading for all wannabe journalists. Kudos to your tenacity and perseverance Greg.

[Jim]

Wow - brilliantly written. I would have also included something about the fawning coverage of Clean Elections in 2002 when they claimed that Salmon had violated the rules and the silence when Clean Elections admitted they were wrong. Or the day-after-day-after-day front page coverage received for allegations that Salmon had broken House rules in "lobbying" for Phoenix, followed by one page B6 article finding that there was no wrongdoing.

[Richard Kyle]

Amen, Brother! I am still trying to figure out what I did to Kevin Willey to make her detest my very existence on this earth.

[bella]

Bravo!
I've worked at BOTH competing papers in the valley for over the past 13 years. Boy the things I have seen, even very recently. Both treat their employees poorly and I witnessed the firing of old seasoned employees banished to the cornfield and replaced with green unprofessional, dare I say, kids. So very sad. They don't want to admit it, but the papers, they are failing.

[Avid Reader]

The best part, and only possible downside, about Greg's long and excellent post is that some could complain about how much he actually left out. That's good criticism. For example, FIfe Symington might have had a fair shake had it not been for the Arizona Republic. Man, he was the state's twice-elected governor and they took it upon themselves to undo the democratic process and take their second bite at the apple and blast him left and right. He ends up totally exonerated and we end up with Janet as governor. Hmmmm.

[Benson]

Brilliant Greg. As for stories not reported by MSM:
1. Why is there a high chainlink fence (with barbed wire!) surrounding the supposed "9-11 Memorial" by the capitol?
2. What's with the buses downtown that have their destination board lit up with "ED PASTOR TC"....should'nt it just say "TRANSIT CENTER" if that's where it is going???
oh well....great job Greg.

[Blue Sky]

I’ve been with the Republic going on eleven years and I’ve seen and heard it all! From married managers sleeping with subordinates, to a photo tech being hired because his father is a VP within the company, and then having his son promoted to a photographer level without having the slightest background in photojournalism.
I joined a healthy newspaper family that prided itself in strong news and management skills. But in the past few years the newsroom has become a very dysfunctional family.
The newsroom managers have become so paralyzed with fear of losing their jobs that they fail to do their jobs. So worried about feeding the mutt and mortgage that they wage no battles for what’s right.
When you question a manager about the slightest thing, they will immediately blame Gannett the “ corporate monster.” I’m ready for the end.

[NICK]

THE REPUBLIC IS THE WORST RAG IN ALL OF THE TIME ZONES FROM HONOLULU TO DENVER.

[Joe]

Most alternative media sources, such as yourself, are blatantly biased. Liberals have complained about the republic for decades. you all have gotten into the game recently too. Should all our news come from sources that are so blatant about their politics? Isn't the fact that both sides endlessly whine about the mainstream media a sign that is our most unbiased option?

You want the New Times to be our major local news source? The New Times, espresso pundit and rumromanismrebellion will become a better source of information than the Republic and the Trib?

I enjoy all of those sources, but I know you all have an agenda.

[The Klute]

Benson,

As soon as every airline stops calling it "Reagan National" and just "National", you can whine some more about the "Ed Pastor TC".

[Ross]

Klute: is naming an airport in the nation's capital after a president who is both term-limited and dead really the same as advertising the name of sitting congressman on buses in the heart of his district?

[Mesa Republican George]

Joe,

I would much rather be able to choose from blatantly biased sources on both sides of the aisle than be force-fed by a biased source that claims not to be biased. I much prefer the moose in the middle of the road to the poisonous snake hidden in the grass. The careful individual will avoid them both but even an idiot can detour around the moose.

Klute,

Please don't tell me you are comparing Ronald Reagon to Ed Pastor. Reagon is one of the most popular Presidents in history (2-6 depending on which poll you look at) and played a large role in ending the cold war. Pastor's greatest accomplishment is . . . .

[Mesa Republican George]

Comparing Reagon to Pastor is like someone on the right comparing FDR to JD Hayworth.

[Frank Coz]

Great post.

And I agree with the poster that there are more stories that could be added to this hall of shame, including the paper's treatment of Matt Salmon in 2002. That was truly outrageous.

[BobH]

For those so inclined, further glee can be found in this item from Advertising Age, reporting that the number of media jobs has dropped one-fourth since 2000:

http://adage.com/article?article_id=125141

[Ann]

As someone who has been on the receiving end of poor reporting, inaccuracies, bias, and subjective placement of stories and headlines...THANK YOU!

You are correct; it is not always the Republic. It seems some young journalists have learned this is how to get the job done. Fact check, corroboration, all sides, NAH...that would take too much time and besides, who cares it isn't them in the story.

Try to clear up a misconception 2 or 3 days after printing. Too little, too late.

[The Klute]

I just looked it up, Benson. The reason it There are multiple transit centers in the Valley Metro system. So that's why it just doesn't say "Transit Center". But hey, let's just go with the whole "mass transit/MSM/George Soros" conspiracy angle. It'll be fun. I demand an ABC 15 Investigators segment:

"Valley Metro says it's to help people get where they're going, but what's their real motivation? ABC 15 investigates."

I've got not problem with buildings being named after people who are alive or dead. Are they noteworthy in the community? Yakov Smirnov has a building named for him in Branson (and sure, he's not an elected offical... yet).

The Reagan thing, maybe he's your hero, but he sure as hell ain't mine, although I do like MRGeorge's spelling of "Reagon" better - makes him more space opera-ish. Point is, the constitution doesn't have a "Satisfaction Guaranteed or Your Money Back" amendment. If I have to see Bonzo's name on the airport I fly into or the turnpike I drive on in Florida (which you know, don't tell me is not politicall motivated), deal with the Ed Pastor Transit Center. To borrow a phrase from Michelle Malkin: Suck. It. Up.

But I am glad to see the tinfoil hat is going to be the part of the official uniform for Minnesota. Franking, the nefarious bus labels, Obama's fainting spells... I've never seen the GOP in a such full blown panic. Quite frankly (!), it's awesome.

And believing that newspapers are dying because of some sort of bias and not because of the 24 cable-news television and the internet becoming more prominent is akin to believing the steamship lost out to airplanes because people we're getting seasick.

[Mom]

Great Post, Greg

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

My direct experience with the Republic is limited. Many years ago, though, I wrote a study under contract with the Goldwater Institute. On the day it was released, I got a call from a Republic reporter who had obviously not read the study. She read me a quote from someone who HAD read the study (a political consultant, paid to oppose my conclusions) who blatantly misrepresented what I had done and what I had concluded. I told her to call him back and point out A, B, and C, and ask him X, Y, and Z. She said, "I'm not going to call him back. I just need your reaction to what he said." As if the actual TRUTH were peripheral.

Given my options, though, I gave her my quote. His quote and my quote both ran the next day, in a story that made it seem like there was no difference in credibility between the two sides. And in fact, because he is a scorched earth political consultant and I am a civilized policy geek, he "won." That is, he lied and gave a sensational, damning quote about my work, while I told the truth and gave a bland, nuanced quote about my work. I didn't mention him at all. (In the end, when this particular issue was put to a vote, two-thirds of the voters sided with my conclusions, not those of the lying, unethical guy responsible for the opposition quote.)

I also got in touch with Laurie Roberts when I finished my study. She had written a number of columns on the issue and had arrived at conclusions that were starkly different from mine. I said, "You know, I just completed a pretty thorough study of this issue, and I think you and I arrived at different conclusions on almost every major issue. We should talk." Her response? "I'm tired of writing about that issue." I'm not kidding. We never met, and she didn't write another word on the subject.

From my (admittedly limited, anecdotal) experience, and from Greg's examples, I conclude that the Republic is not sinister. It is, however, lazy at the very least, possibly biased, and is much more interested in being interesting than in being right. There's a niche for that approach, but it shouldn't be occupied by the only daily that covers the entirety of the fifth largest city in the country.

[John]

Not sure that Fife was completely exonerated. A pardon from Bill Clinton technically wipes the record clean, but I doubt it provides exoneration. Am I missing something? Did something happen after the pardon that actually exonerated him?

[Frank Coz]

The Albuquerque Trib's last edition is Saturday.
http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2008/02/tribs-closure-marks-sad-day-for-new.html

[muckraker]

To special agent,
since when are we supposed to think that the "policy papers" produced by the Goldwater Institute are not "slanted." I know the GI would like people to think they don't have an agenda, but we know that is not the case.

[Avid Reader]

Fife's conviction was overturned by the 9th circuit. He was not re-indicted. Then Clinton pardoned him, but it was unique because pardons are usually for people either in prison or at least have been convicted of something, and that was not the case. I agree "exonerated" is probably not the correct word for someone who gets investigated for 10 years, indicted, tried, convicted on 1/3 of the 20 or so counts, resigns his office pending his appeal, and then wins the appeal. Perhaps screwed is better term.

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

Muckraker: first off, unlike the MSM, think tanks disclose their biases. You think you're going to get Great Society liberalism from a place called the Goldwater Institute? How about Reagan conservatism from a place that calls itself the Progressive Policy Institute?

Beyond that, though, you seem to believe that think tanks pick an issue, massage the numbers so that they come out right (that is, so that they support conservative arguments or liberal arguments, whichever are required), and then publish the results.

Not so.

Conservative and liberal think tanks choose issue areas and data sources that don't require unethical massaging of data and slanting of results. It's not that difficult to do. If I'm for a guest worker program, for example, I can do a completely legitimate, honest study showing that illegal immigrants in various labor markets have had no significant adverse impact on native wages or employment. And if I'm opposed to a guest worker program, I can do a completely legitimate, honest study showing that illegals have had a significant adverse impact on the employment and wages of native workers in specific industries (those requiring low-skill, largely uneducated workers).

There are studies showing both, and as long as neither side claims that it has the whole truth, there's no ethical issue and no basis for a claim of "slanting" results.

It works the same way, too, in terms of choosing issues to write about in the first place. If you're a conservative, for example, you know you're "safe" writing about concealed carry laws: most states have some version of them, and nowhere do you find fender benders turning into shootouts (which is what the left predicted when these laws were adopted). But if you're on the left, concealed carry is not an issue you're going to write a lot about. On the other hand, if you are on the left, you know that there's been a HUGE amount of research done on cash welfare as an incentive to child-bearing. You also know that the vast majority of that research shows no connection, or only a very weak connection, between the two. So, you're "safe" writing about that. If you're a conservative, though, you're probably going to steer clear of this issue; the data don't support the old-line conservative arguments.

Or maybe that's how you thought it worked all along... I dunno. But there's a difference between what I described and taking every issue and every data set and forcing them to fit a pre-conceived view of the world. It just doesn't work that way -- at least not at the ethical places.

[John]

Thanks Avid, I didn't know the whole story and wanted to hear it from somebody. Sounds like a raw deal, but you're right about a pardon being wierd. Did the pardon short-circuit any chance of him being re-indicted? Why else do it?

[BobH]

Interesting about the Albuquerque Tribune shutting down. A shame for the folks who will lose their jobs (and who will swell that 25% of media jobs lost that I posted about earlier), but there's no way a market the size of ABQ can support two papers.

There's a town south of Phoenix with two papers that will be facing the same story soon.

Even here in Chicago, the Sun-Times has just been put up for sale and potential buyers are not battering down the doors (though I do think Chicago can support two papers for a while longer).

[Richard Kyle]

The issue John McCain is facing right now is exactly what Greg is talking about. Nameless sources implying unfounded rumors which supposedly happened eight years ago. Where is the courage of their convictions?

[Joel (No Pundit Intended)]

"Merry Christmas" heh! That's funny!

[Joe Strummer]

You want the New Times to be our major local news source? The New Times, espresso pundit and rumromanismrebellion will become a better source of information than the Republic and the Trib?

The answer to that question is that Greg does not get to choose which sources will be important in the future, just as The Arizona Republic does not get to choose whether it will survive the next 10 years. It either will, or it won't.

Will Arizona be poorer the day the Arizona Republic shuts its doors? Probably not. Greg has documented all the ways that the Republic is a waste of newsprint. In addition to that, when the paper closes its doors it will be because not enough people in the Valley care to read the thing. By definition, the Republic will die because the market has spoken.

What's more, on that day

Will some readers be saddened? Sure.

But this notion that the Republic "serves the community" and that it's got a special "mission" is part of the arrogance that makes me excited to know it's going to go out of business some day.

Will some people be out of work? Sure. It's unfortunate. But I don't think we need to collectively shed tears.

The writing is on the wall, and the smarter ones are changing careers, just as I decided to switch careers when I discovered my industry will go the way of the dinosaur in the next 20 years.