Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Classic Strawman

"Chewie" over at Sonoran Alliance has responded to my "Adult Supervision Required" post by setting up a classic strawman--make up an outrageous position, attribute it to your opponent and then knock it down.  Usually that's an MSM trick, but anonymous bloggers can use it as well. 

Chewie claims that I am "...suggesting that anonymous blogging should be prohibited." and then waxes on about the federalist papers, anonymous sources...yada yada yada.   

Obviously I support free speech--including anonymous blogging or comments.  In my post, I pointed out that most of the Espresso Pundit comments are anonymous and most of them stay. 

However, my support of free speech doesn't mean that I have to provide a forum for your speech. I called anonymous attacks the highest form of cowardice, but that doesn't mean I would advocate that they should be prohibited.  However, when someone runs a popular blog, he has a responsibility to set standards on that blog and those standards include protecting individuals from anonymous attacks.  

Don't be fooled by the argument that if I don't fund your art, publish your book or host your blog that I have censored you or that I don't support free speech.  And don't claim that I am somehow advocating that you should be "prohibited."  Typepad accounts run $8 a month.  Build your own blog.

Shane has done an excellent job with Sonoran Alliance.  The site is popular and well respected because it hosts commentary that--while anonymous--is generally well writen and informative.  However, he is going to have to make a choice.  He will have to reject commentary from authors like "Chewie" whose analytical skills,  writing ability and editorial standards trail those of other SA writers, or he will have to sit back while the SA brand is diluted and the sites' popularity falls.

If Shane opts to no longer provide Chewie a forum, you can bet that Chewie will argue that Shane supports censorship...and where would we be if someone had censored Alexander Hamilton etc.  That's the type of analysis that Chewie can use on his or her own blog and I'm sure that both of his readers will marvel at his logic.   

Flake Drains the Swamp

Jeff Flake is one of those Congressman who gets a lot more national than local press coverage.  I had to take his name off of Google Alerts because my in basket was getting too full.  The reason he's so successful is that he takes on seemingly impossible causes and then sticks with them until the folks in Washington can no longer ignore him.  

He appears to be getting some traction  on his latest cause.

 Five times Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has tried to get Congress to hold John Murtha, Pete Visclosky, and other PMA-connected members accountable for their corruption.  Five times, Democrats stonewalled Flake and refused to do so.  Now, however, Flake has picked up 25 Democrats for his sixth attempt at House-cleaning, and that has Nancy Pelosi worried:

 

Adult Supervision Required

You may have been following the kerfuffle over at Sonoran Alliance--one of the site's anonymous bloggers decided mess with Chuck Coughlin.  I find the flare up to be interesting because it combines two things that are very dangerous--anonymous blogging and messing with Chuck Coughlin. 

I'll let Chuck take care of himself, but now that the Arizona Blogosphere has developed a hefty following, it's probably time that someone addressed anonymous blogging. 

I can only speak for myself, but I decided on day one that I would include my name, background and contact information in the biography section of Espresso Pundit.  For me, it's been a great move.   I get a lot of tips and feedback from people who know me and want to discuss issues.  I've connected with old friends and eliminated small talk.  Pundit readers know what I'm thinking and feel like they have been discussing issues with me each day.  Oftentimes people whom I haven't seen in months will walk up and start a conversation at the point where my last post ended.  I think that's awesome. 

Writing under my own name also provides a self-regulating effect and that's a good thing too.  My family, friends, pastor, Sunday School Class and clients read this blog.  I choose my words very carefully and while many people will disagree with what I write, most agree that I'm not mean, profane or unfair. If Espresso Pundit was anonymous, I might not be so careful. 

Sure, it's been risky to have my name associated with every post--it's not especially easy to represent clients at the legislature while being openly critical of Governor Napolitano's Administration--but it's been the right choice for me. 

Many bloggers, like Tedski and Sean Noble, have chosen the same model.  Others who chose to use their names seem to have gone by the wayside.  Slade Mead hasn't updated since Christmas and Nathan Sproul has moved on.  

That leaves Sonoran Alliance and Seeing Red AZ in prominent positions and unfortunately most of their bloggers remain anonymous.  DSW founded Sonoran Alliance and I think he does a great job.  I don't fault him for the Coughlin Kerfuffle.  DSW has made his identity known (we covered McCain's acceptance speech live on Channel 12).  DSW and administrators like him are in a tough position.  He started Sonoran Alliance but he doesn't write all the content and I'm sure he doesn't want to look like he's trying to censor authors. 

I'm in a similar situation in the Espresso Pundit comment section.  Most of the commentors provide aliases, but I get to see the underlying email addresses (which are usually false) and more importantly, the IP addresses (which are usually accurate). 

I don't edit the comments (although I can) but I quickly delete any that are vulgar or profane.  Nasty comments are like broken windows, they cause the neighborhood to deteriorate immediatly and shouldn't be tolerated. 

After that, the policy becomes case-by-case.   If someone uses his real name, an email address that I can verify and avoids profanity, his comment is pretty much guaranteed to stay unless it's pretty clear that he's defaming someone who isn't a public figure. 

 As for anonymous comments, I tolerate a great deal of criticism directed at me, and it's obviously OK to criticize the original espresso pundit post to which the comment is attached.  I get frustrated when commentors "hijack the thread" by engaging in a debate with other commentors that goes so far afield of the orginal post that the comment stream is wasted.  Naturally, I'm also frustrated by commentors who either haven't read the post, or make it clear by their response that they didn't understand it. 

Despite my frustrations those posts stay.

One thing I don't tolerate is people who leave comments under different names so that it looks like multiple people share their opinion.  "Commander In Chief" has filed her (yes, CIC is a her) comments under a handful of aliases and lately I've been going into the comments section and changing the new alias to CIC so that the readers aren't confused. 

Even worse, are people who write fake comments under a real person's name.  I don't have a problem with that on Espresso Pundit because it's pretty obvious to commentors that they can't get a way with it.  Ironically, Az Central--which I had presumed was monitored by grown ups--fails to remove obvious forgeries.  So posts by "Russell Pearce" that include the real Sen. Pearce's picture and discuss his "boyfriend" are allowed to remain.  That's unconscionable. 

Finally, I draw the line with anonymous authors who use the comment section as a vehicle to trash someone I've mentioned in the post.  If someone wants to criticize, say, Nathan Sproul, Len Munsil, Kyrsten Sinema, Mary Rose Wilcox or even Chuck Coughlin then they can either leave their real name, or get their own blog.  (And leaving their real name is no guarantee that the comment remains.)

Which brings me back to the anonymous attack on Chuck.  Let me be clear that using a popular blog to attack someone anonymously is one of the lowest forms of cowardice.

The Arizona blogosphere has evolved into a powerful political force and as it matures, those of us who have been active in its formation are going to have to come up with some guidelines to ensure that blogs aren't just a forum for bullies.  I'm open to suggestions about those guidelines, and I hope that the comments policy that I've just laid out will offer a good starting point.  

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I've been trying to make the point that no matter what you may think of newspapers, the view that they are somehow essential to democracy is a myth. 

Here's an interesting article that makes the same point from the left.

Big love for newspapers has also been flowing in from academy/activist circles, a very unlikely source. Many in this orbit blame the press for not spotting our current financial predicament early enough and also believe that every reporter outside of the old Knight Ridder Washington bureau was complicit in the criminal conspiracy that made George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq possible. Bill Moyers encapsulated their view two years ago when he argued against the notion "that the dominant institutions of the press are guardians of democracy. They actually work to keep reality from us, whether it's the truth of money in politics, the social costs of 'free trade,' growing inequality, the resegregation of our public schools, or the devastating onward march of environmental deregulation."

Inconvenient, Congested and Expensive

For the last 20 years, urban planners have sat in red brick buildings on ivy covered campuses and writen white papers speculating about the desires of people who actually produce things.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the academic community found its answer--entrepreneurs want a city rich in gay bars and grunge bands.  Hapless politicians and their media enablers rushed to embrace the cult of the creative class and build cities that were inconvenient, congested and expensive. 

Downtown Tempe is a great example of social engineering gone wrong.  The city reduced Mill to one lane and fostered a bohemian feel in order to attract the creative people who were somehow "entrepreneurial."  Turns out that the creative people were young, homeless and smelly;  they didn't actually buy anything but they played a mean game of hacky sack. 

Eventually, the folks who drove cars, took showers and spent money migrated to areas in which those traits were valued and accomodated.  The independently owned stores on Mill went under almost immediately, they were replaced with corporate chain stores and now they are going under as well. 

Those who have argued that the "creative class" actually wants low taxes, convenient parking and reasonable regulation are having their day in the sun.  Here's an article that originally appeared in Forbes.

Some urbanists, like scholar Richard Florida, maintain that the post-crash environment favors densely populated (and very expensive) cities like New York. But in fact, it may make more sense for entrepreneurs concerned with costs to work out of places like Houston, or even the Great Plains states, where local governments are more business-friendly. And everything, from housing to energy, tends to be less expensive.

 

Citizen's Arrest

Gannett Blog is reporting that situation at the Tucson Citizen is getting a bit rough.

I'm monitoring an unfolding drama in the final days of Arizona's oldest daily, the Tucson Citizen -- one that a reliable tipster says began Wednesday afternoon, with the unannounced arrival of two Corporate managers from McLean, Va.

Tensions already were high over the limited reprieve Gannett extended March 17 to the 80 or so newsroom-only employees at the paper. That was when two 11th-hour bidders emerged near the date Gannett had threatened to shutter the 139-year-old afternoon paper: March 21.

First Do No Harm

Every couple days, it seems like I read a story like this.

This February, Denver's Rocky Mountain News died. In March, The Tucson Citizen followed. Meanwhile, hundreds of other American newspapers reduced staff and declared themselves in significant economic trouble.

The stories inevitably go on to argue that the media are essential to ensuring that the populace learn the "truth."  

To be sure, newspapers have played a role in disseminating information to the public, but in retrospect, how much of that information was accurate?  I don't mean inaccurate because of bias or mistakes, (although that's common) I mean inaccurate because of the nature of the the medium.  Day to day coverage is an inherently weak way to cover long and complex events.  If you were trying to understand, say, the Vietnam war or the Johnson administration, would you go to the  New York Times of that era?  Of course not, there would be no context.  Only in retrospect can we understand that the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the North, or that Johnson was corrupt.

Some of the inaccuracy stems from the weakness of the medium, some of it stems from the herd mentality of corporate media, or the confirmation and anchor biases of individual reporters and some of it is plain old inertia, but the reality is that much of what we learn from the newspapers is, in retrospect, largely inaccurate. 

Many of those inaccuracies eventually become mythology--newspaper lore that, although wrong is taken as an article of faith by journalists and the populace until no amount of correction can remove it from the journalists' alternative history.  Here's an example that, ironically, appears in the above article lamenting the passing of local journalism.

Since the days of muckraking reporter Upton Sinclair and his establishment-shaking revelations about a corrupt Chicago meat packing industry, responsible local investigative journalists have shone a withering light on corporate polluters, unscrupulous developers, dishonest officials and incompetent environmental regulators, thereby, making our hometowns better, safer, more enjoyable places to live.

Dude, The Jungle was FICTION. Sinclair was trying to expose the plight of immigrants not the abuses of meat packers, so he made the meat packing stuff up.  The Jungle-as-truth bell is impossible to unring--the same is true of the myth of the "Robber Barrons." Of course the newspapers didn't stop creating myths in the 19th century and early 20th century.  The heterosexual aids epidemic, not to mention the late 1980s homelessness and child abduction "epidemics" are modern examples. 

Then there are the stories that are huge in retrospect but were never understood by contemporary journalists--that banning DDT has cost 30 million lives, the abuses of J. Edgar Hoover, the incapacity of Woodrow Wilson and JFK. 

Finally, there's the media's role in enabling the hysteria that surrounded the apocalyptic scenarios that seem to crop up every decade or so--global cooling, the population bomb, inevitable famine followed by widespread starvation, running out of oil by 1985, Cher and Y2K.

Some will argue that despite its inadequacies, the world was a better place because of the media.  That's an article of faith--like arguing the positive role of Christianity despite the abuses of the Renaissance Popes--so there's no use debating it. 

However, many of those same media advocates are arguing that the world will be worse off without corporate media.  On that point, I must disagree.  The media of the last 200 years has been a positive force only because it was the only source of information and even disinformation can be preferable to no information.  Even a Witch Doctor can provide hope and comfort

But those days are gone.  Media has gone from corporate monopoly to universal availability.  Every man is his own reporter, editor, aggregator and consumer and--as with all broken monopolies--the price commanded for the product plummets, and the providers disappear.  We are seeing that now...and we are much better off.   Yet each week you will read yet another story about how the closing of some obscure second tier daily will result in the fall of Western Civilization.

More Furloughs at Gannett

To: USCP employees
From: Bob Dickey
Subject: Furloughs
 
 
We continue to battle very difficult economic headwinds causing consumers and advertisers to remain cautious, resulting in further revenue declines.

This will require our division to implement a second round of furloughs in the coming months.  Furloughs again will be required for all US Community Publishing employees in the second quarter ­ April, May and June ­ but we will approach the program differently than in the first quarter.
 
Your current pay level will determine the length of your furlough.  USCP employees at the operating units earning $90,000 and above will furlough for two weeks during the quarter.  USCP employees at corporate headquarters earning $90,000 and above will take one week of unpaid leave and also will have a temporary pay reduction of the equivalent of one week¹s pay. That reduction will be spread equally over the three month period.  All other USCP employees will be on the same program as last quarter and furlough for one week.  Your level of pay is based on your salary or hourly wage.
Commissions, bonuses and overtime earnings are not part of the calculation.
Your supervisor will provide the specific details.
 
Everyone¹s participation in the furlough will enable us to minimize the need for additional layoffs during the quarter. The vast majority of our employees fall within the salary ranges that require a furlough of five days
during the quarter.   We are asking for a larger contribution from some of
our employees.  I believe these employees will embrace and support this change.  We will once again ask employees covered by a bargaining agreement to participate in lieu of layoffs.  We are hopeful union leadership will once again support this approach.
 
In addition to the furloughs, we will institute a wage and salary freeze effective April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010.
 
I know these measures are especially difficult as everyone juggles busy workloads and a more difficult economy, however they are critical to our company as we manage through this historic downturn.
 
Even in the face of these immediate economic challenges, we are aggressively pursuing a variety of projects and programs that will improve efficiency and enhance our sales and marketing efforts in the long term.  Our goal for when the economy improves is to strengthen our position as a news and information company that will enable us to invest in our local properties for sustained long-term growth.  You will receive more details on these initiatives in the coming weeks.
I understand the importance of strong local journalism and remain committed to that mission despite the pressure of the current economy. Again, I wish to thank all of you for your hard work and patience. We have managed the current furlough with minimal issues thanks to your commitment and professionalism. With that same spirit we will manage through the second quarter also.
 
Please remain open minded to new approaches and share with me any ideas or thoughts you have on improving U.S. Community Publishing.  I ask that you continue to keep faith in our industry and support your colleagues as we work through these economic challenges.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Bob Dickey

Feeding the Hand that Bites You.

Howie Fischer and his buddies at the Star are unhappy. 

For the first time in nearly 50 years, reporters will not have work space in the state Capitol after July 1.

Senate President Bob Burns said Monday he is not interested in finding new space for reporters after Republicans take over the current press room in the Senate on that date.

I've made my opinion on that issue clear.  The press room is an obsolete throwback to the time before the Internet and cell phones.  There's no reason the reporters can't work from the lobby, mall and committee rooms like everyone else does. 

However, this part of the story caught my eye.

About a decade ago, amid concerns about subsidizing private operations, the Senate began charging rent based on the equivalent cost of Class A office space. The rent this year is $77 a month per reporter.

Seventy Seven dollars a month for an office that's actually IN the State Senate?  What a sweet deal!  Dude, that's totally subsidized. So if, say, the Arizona Republic's Capitol Team is comprised of five reporters, the Republic has been paying a total of $385 a month for their space, phones, and computer hook ups--and that's in a building that right on the Capitol Grounds!

For $385 a month, the Republic won't be able to house one reporter--much less five--in a decent  executive suite within five miles of the Capitol. 

Who is responsible for this outrage?  Let's see, Howie said the rate was set "about a decade ago."  Hmm, that would have been 1999.  Who was Chief of Staff of the Senate in 1999?  ...Oh Crap.

I smell a rat...

While this looks like good news for the Citizen, it seems pretty fishy to me. 

The Tucson Citizen will be published on a day-to-day basis while negotiations are completed with two interested buyers, according to an executive with the Citizen's corporate owner.

For one thing, maintaining a job "day-to-day" would be pretty miserable.  But the worst thing that could happen to the Citizen staff would be for Gannett to sell what's left of the paper to a weak third party that wouldn't be able to produce a viable paper...or ultimately pay the pension fund and other liabilities that Gannett would have had to cover in the event of closure. 

Since the Joint Operating Agreement is not being sold with the Citizen, a new buyer will have a very difficult time getting the paper to market, and if the paper is losing money for Gannett despite the ability to share overhead with the Star, how can someone expect to make a profit running the Citizen as a stand alone entity?

How much market value could a money-losing afternoon daily command?  Add in the pension liabilities and fixed overhead and it's clear that the Citizen is a net liability.  Gannett would litterally have to pay someone to take it. 

By way of comparison, Lee Enterprises--which owns the Star--has a total market capitalization of just $13 million dollars.  So for under $7 million you could buy a controlling interest in the Star, plus every other paper in the Lee Enterprises portfolio.

Selling to a weak third party that assumes the Citizen's liabilities and then goes under would be a great deal for Gannett, in fact, it  could save the company millions of dollars.   But it would be unbelievably Machiavellian and totally unconsionable...even for Gannett.