Wednesday, November 23, 2005- - -
The Biofuels dilemma
Back in August I wrote:
Unfortunately, TANSTAAFL applies. These folks touting biodiesel make much of it's environmental benefits, but don't mention the biggest downside: Increased production would require that additional land go under the plow. That would be bad for wildlife. It would also require more water for irrigation, water that is already in short supply. (The farmers in Wyoming say that you should drink whiskey, water causes too many fights!) There's no easy solution, but a more diversified energy supply certainly seems to be a good idea.
I'm glad to see that the problem is getting some notice.
@5:13 PM
Tuesday, November 22, 2005- - -
Let's be honest..
You've got your seasoned cast iron and high-tech no-stick, and kitchen power tools with 101 attachments, but admit it: Don't you use the microwave more than any other appliance in the kitchen? We do.
Culinary Cretins of the World, Unite!
@5:17 AM
 Is it possible to have too much fun?
I've put together an intrepid team of researchers in an attempt to find a definitive answer to that question. It's never easy to find a crew willing to suffer for their science, but these guys held up well under near-unbearable conditions of sunshine and green water.
Finding folks with the proper skills is important. The canoes are made of aircraft aluminum so an airplane mechanic is essential. Anything this much fun could be illegal, so we thought a lawyer would contribute to the effort. And we had to take a tile setter -- they're his canoes..
There's just nothing like a quest for the answer to one of life's big questions.
[Of course, the other big question: Is it possible to post a photo to Blogger in less than an hour and in less than five tries? There, the answer would appear to be No.]
@4:32 AM
 Dangerously close to having too much fun
Anything that makes you grin like this probably ought to be illegal. After all, someone could drown, or be shot, or get a nasty poke from a fishhook. Or laugh so hard you fall out of the canoe..
@4:07 AM
 Trophies of the Hunt
Some days you take what you can get, like this escapee from someone's decoy spread. What can I say? At least I didn't shoot it when we came around the corner and I saw it sitting there -- unlike some folks I know..
I think I'll have it mounted.
@2:52 AM
Sunday, November 20, 2005- - -
So that's where my hair went..
Leo W. Banks -- "But for a depressing number of professors today, history is about jamming a finger in the eye of traditionalists. Here's a game plan for academic advancement: Reinterpret the past according impossible-to-meet modern standards, take apart a hero, trash an iconic event, then jam it all into a paper or book, usually in prose so painful it can actually cause spontaneous hair loss, and voilà--respect, publication, tenure."
Too true.
@2:11 PM
Lileks on the downward spiral of newspapers:
"But it’s not a fatal spiral. Not if newspapers go local. Unfortunately, most papers still see themselves as the Trusted Guardians of the Global Yesterday, serving up a cold meal of worldwide news to people who’ve already read the updates on the web. This is a mistake. Leave the big picture to the New York Times and the WaPo and the networks. Get small. Only newspapers have the resources to cover their home town. Yes, newspaper readers want to know about the world. But they also want crime and restaurant reviews and cute spelling bee winners and dog photos and anti-pothole crusades."
Yes, indeed. The internet doesn't deliver the grocery ads or the police reports -- how else would I find out what my friends have been up too? -- it doesn't cover the City Council and County Commission meetings, or the special of the day down at Taco John's. In that regard our own Northern Wyoming Daily News still does pretty well, despite an unfortunate fear of putting their content on the internet. Some of their talent has displayed unique gifts: "Motes of dust swirled in the sunbeams as the defendant rose, his long ponytail bobbing. The judge took a sip of his vodka-laced coffee and then straightened a sheaf of documents with a practiced snap of his wrist ..." Mmm, yeah! Where else could you find prose like that? [Okay, I'm kidding about the 'vodka-laced coffee', they didn't actually put that bit in print.] Lileks is right: I'll gladly, gladly chip in my four bits to pay someone else to sit in on the City Council meetings.
Unfortunately, the Casper Star has long been subjecting its reporting staff to the death of a thousand cuts. they bill themselves as a state-wide newspaper, but long ago put Paul Krza and the rest of the Rock Springs crew out to pasture. [Actually, they seem to be feuding with Rock Springs in general. They also bill themselves as providing state-wide internet services, but have no service in Rock Springs, one of the state's (cough) Big Cities.] The few 'reporters' they have left don't have time to ask questions and follow leads. Rather they seem to spend most of their time slapping their by-line on wire reports. This becomes pretty transparent when you figure out that they don't maintain foreign corespondents in, say, Paris. And press releases -- 'All the one-sided propaganda that's fit to print!' -- seem to comprise more and more of their content. Of course, publishing press releases cuts both ways: The more press releases you send them the more of your side of the story will be told.
Despite the bloggers who bill themselves as the medium of the future, I don't see many going down to the courthouse and publishing the legal notices -- 'I'm divorcing your sorry butt, wherever you might be!' -- or sitting in on Zoning Commission meetings. That's the sort of boring grunt work you've got to be paid to do. Plenty of folks will give you their opinion for free, but we wouldn't have much to hold opinions on if it weren't for those faceless reporters who attend all the boring meetings.
@6:46 AM
Saturday, November 19, 2005- - -
We even got songs about guns..
Calvin, who's lived down at Lake Texoma, came across this song and just had to put it on the stereo last night. We must have listened to it six times to catch all the lyrics. "Choctaw Bingo" is about a bunch of folks gathering for a family reunion in Oklahoma. They sound a lot like my family, so I can pretty well relate and it's funny as hell. Here's the best bit:
bob and mae come up from
some little town way down by
lake texoma where he coaches football
they were two-A champions for two years running
but he says they wont be this year
no they wont be this year
and he stopped off in tushka at the pop knife and gun place
bought a sks rifle and a couple full cases of that steel core ammo
with the beardam primers from some east bloc nation
that no longer needs em
and a desert eagle thats one great big old pistol
i mean fifty caliber made by bad-ass Hebrews
and some surplus tracers for that old BAR
of slatons as soon as it gets dark
were gonna have us a time
were gonna have us a time
-- James McMurtry
Ps. I do have to chuckle at the folks who've posted transcriptions of the tune. At least this one spells Texoma correctly, but does have a problem with berdan primers. None of the transcribers seem to know what a bois d'arc fence post is though, too bad because it draws a great mental image.
@7:33 AM
Friday, November 18, 2005- - -
Duped again?
Via the InstaPundit comes this OpEd by John McCain:
"At home, the American people wish to see us succeed in helping bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, but express increased uncertainty among the way forward. Now is the last time we should send a message that withdrawing troops is more important than achieving success.
"Unfortunately, the Senate considered two amendments this week — one of which was approved with 79 votes — that did just that. In the version that passed, 2006 is designated as "a period of significant transition to full sovereignty . . . thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."
...
"Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission."
Hmm.. By definition, to "deploy" troops means to send them out on a mission. "Redeploying" troops then means giving them a new or redirected mission, quite a different thing from "withdrawing" them.
I bet when the troops are redeployed to Syria some of our congresscritters are going to scream 'we didn't vote to redeploy the troops! At which point I'll gladly buy each and every one of them a dictionary.
@8:32 AM
Thursday, November 17, 2005- - -
No doubt in their minds
"Chortle at the anchor man good looks, and recoil from the tort-bar animating power, but do not dismiss John Edwards' "I was wrong" gambit. If nothing else, America owes its eternal gratitude to the former senator for moving us off of the "Bush lied. - No he didn't. - Oh, yes he did. - No, he did not." Mobius strip that Iraq policy has circled for almost two years now.
"Invading Iraq with the express purpose of toppling Saddam Hussein was a strategic mistake for the U.S.; there is simply no doubting that. But it is not a policy to say it was a mistake, just as George Bush's stubborn defense of the war is not a policy either. For Democrats to finally get traction on the war issue, they have to some alternative policy to offer [sic] apart from a Kerry-esque "consult with our allies" line, which is exactly where Edwards ended up after admitting he was wrong. In other words, he's still wrong there.
"Why not try to get ahead of the game with regard to Syria and Iran and insist that the executive branch be much more forthcoming with regard to intelligence on those two countries? Each of them is clearly in the crosshairs of the Bush administration, and another wrong move could prove very costly."
-- Reasonexpress; November 15th [emphasis added]
I sure wish I had this much conviction on any topic. But then I try to remain open to Reason [Yes, I do, and don't try to tell me otherwise!]. Note too that the author begins by bemoaning the 'Bush lied -- No he didn't' debate, but closes by suggesting that we "... insist that the executive branch be more forthcoming with regard to intelligence ...". As the full version of the 'Bush lied' argument could be expressed: 'Bush lied about the intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq', it would seem that the author is going right back to the very 'Bush lied' debate he expressly hates. A rather poor showing from the usually thoughtful Reason crew.
Ps. Christopher Hitchens raises a few doubts. I do love the 'just because I voted in 1998 for Saddam's removal, and voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq, doesn't mean that I voted to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam' argument; the 'I didn't vote for war in Iraq, I voted to authorize the President to act under the War Powers Act but I didn't think he'd actually do it' argument is priceless as well. That would seem to be the sort of plausible deniability that Congress is famous for and we should all see through by now.
Perhaps our congressmembers* think voters are 'Dumber than Democrats'?
PPs. Of course, the Reason crew are correct in noting that the Democrats aren't going to get any traction on the WOT issue until they stop whining about being duped and tell us what they would do differently. Unfortunately, it appears to me that the majority of those demanding 'a plan' don't want a plan for victory, they want a schedule for withdrawal, which, it seems likely, would only throw our opponents into a waiting game.
There's another big problem the folks demanding 'a plan' don't seem to consider: What if the Bush plan is to covertly foment rebellion in Iran, wait until the Ayatollahs are well engaged with that, then crush Syria and Jordan with swift strikes a la Iraq, all in preparation for finishing the job by sweeping the Saudis off the board (Yes, you make nice to your enemies until you're ready to crush them)? That sounds like a good plan to me, but could you imagine the horror, the anguish of the peace-at-any-price crowd if that plan were made public?
And then there's the wee problem that such a plan wouldn't be very likely to work if it were made explicit. Surprise is a great asset in warfare; telling your enemies your plan and/or being too wed to a rigid plan will give them the opportunity to counter your every move. And you know that if any detailed plan for the war in Iraq and/or the greater WOT is laid out there will be great screeching from all the usual suspects if there is any deviation from the plan, whatever it might be.
I certainly hope that President Bush has a strategic plan for the GWOT .. and I hope he and his generals keep it to themselves.
* Is that a delightfully priapic triple entendre, or what?
@7:18 AM
Tuesday, November 15, 2005- - -
"Democrats: Dumber than Bush"
Daniel of Bloggledygook suggests a slogan for the 'we was duped' crowd over at Bill Quick's. It's catchy!
@10:56 AM
Ask the cats!
Laurence Simon has a point. Nobody cares what I think about inept suicide bombers, but surely Fred has some valuable insight. So, 'Fred, what do you think about the wife of the Amman suicide bomber failing to blow herself up and confessing?'
Fred: "Why do you trouble yourself with those silly Islamofacists when we're faced with a serious shortage of head-pets and full body massages? If you must know, I think they should give her another chance. It's the only charitable thing to do. You know -- fix her bomb belt, take her out to the nearest demo pit, and ..."
Thank you, Fred, you bloodthirsty little brute.
@8:20 AM
Saturday, November 12, 2005- - -
Symptoms of the bird flu
It never hurts to know what to watch for, so here is a comprehensive list of the symptoms, according to Dr. Danny:
1. High fever
2. Congestion
3. Nausea
4. Fatigue
5. Aching in the joints
6. An irresistible urge to shit on someone's windshield.
@12:24 PM
 Switchbacks on the Outlaw Trail
Here's a scenic shot I took last August. We're looking west from the top of Lookout Mountain across the badlands of Vermillion Creek, straddling the Wyoming/Colorado border. The long black ridge that extends along the skyline from center frame to the left is Cold Spring Mountain, where Tom Horn allegedly shot black cowboy Isom Dart (supposedly born Ned Huddleston) and Matt Rash, fiance of Ann Bassett, "Queen of the Rustlers".
Some have suggested that Ann Bassett also had a secret identity as Etta Place (an alias supposedly used by at least five women associated with the Wild Bunch). In the only picture of "Etta" known to exist, she's shown with the Sundance Kid. Compare her to the following photo of Bassett. Others have refuted the idea that Ann and Etta were one and the same. As with much of western outlaw lore there are plenty of tall tales and false trails, and it's probably impossible to determine the truth at this late date.
The two certainly bear a striking resemblance and it's worthwhile to note that, with the Pinkertons hot on Etta's trail, it would have been advantageous for Ann to foster the notion that Etta had gone to South America with the boys. It's also been rumored that Etta and Sundance were in New York being treated for a wicked case of the clap when this photo was taken, which would have been enough in itself to warrant a little secrecy.
Whatever the truth may be, Ann Bassett was certainly a pistol. Her dad enrolled her in St. Mary's Catholic School in Salt Lake City when she was 16, but the nuns couldn't handle her and asked her to leave a year later.
The conical peak just to the right of center frame in my scenic shot is Diamond Mountain, site of the Great Diamond Hoax of 1872. Middle Mountain is hiding behind Diamond Mountain from this perspective.
The Great Diamond Hoax rocked the financial community at the time, but ironically, the last laugh was on the hoaxers: Deposits of diamonds have been found along the Wyoming/Colorado border just to the east, and I've attended a talk recently at the Wyoming Geological Association, where I learned that trace element studies of diamonds collected at the hoax site show that some of them actually occurred there naturally.
Finally, the small, flat-topped peak just to the right of Diamond Mountain is Pine Mountain, where, as far as I know, nothing ever happened.
@6:53 AM
Friday, November 11, 2005- - -
The Concord Hymn
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;
Here once the embattled farmers stood;
And fired the shot heard round the world.
The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps,
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream that seaward creeps.
On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We place with joy a votive stone,
That memory may their deeds redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.
O Thou who made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free, --
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raised to them and Thee.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
On Veteran's Day to all my comrades-in-arms.
@11:15 PM
"Walk on, boy; walk on down the road;
Ain't nobody in this whole wide world
A-gonna help you carry your load."
-- Mel Tillis/Wayne P. Walker, as performed by Doc Watson But a good walking stick will. We spend probably 100+ days every year hiking in country that is often rough, steep, and rocky, mostly with nothing resembling a trail. In fact, because we're generally following a surveyed line, we often find ourselves going straight up one side of each terrain feature and down the other. In such conditions a walking stick helps immensely in maintaining balance, and even where the going is level and smooth a stick seems to help set a steady, fast pace. You can buy fancy, carved walking sticks and high tech walking sticks, but here's the best we've found: It's a leaf rake handle, $4.59 at Ace Hardware. It's about the right length, around 5', it's made of sturdy hardwood (ours are hickory, I think), and it's light weight. Sand it down a bit with some 220 grit and add a rubber tip, $2.19 for 4 at Ace, and you're set.
 I've found that I burn through a tip in about a week, while they last almost indefinitely for my wife, who weighs half what I do. Regardless of the composition of the stick, the tip is essential to keep the stick from slipping on rocks, so I replace them immediately when they wear through.
@7:01 AM
Thursday, November 10, 2005- - -
 Snubbies can't shoot!
Oh yeah? Sez who? Here's the only 'off a rest' group I've ever fired with the Chief's long-time favorite ammo. A cylinder-full -- five shots - went into a braggin'-sized 1.27" at 15 yards. This is with the classic target load, a 148 grain wadcutter over 2.7 grains of Bullseye, which averaged 661 fps with an extreme spread of 15 fps for five shots. Not bad, eh? Of course, to get a group on target at all I had to hold on the very top of the black; the group center is about 4" low (could that be why they call them "belly guns," aim at the chest, hit 'em in the belly?).
Oh well. I've sprung for an 158 grain LBTFN gc mold in .358" and started working up loads for my 357's and 38's, which has been an interesting experience. First, I've discovered that the Chief's cylinder throats are slightly less than .357" in diameter. I had to size some soft lead (1/20) slugs to .356" in order to get the long, full-caliber ogive of the LBTFN to chamber at all. Then I discovered that the starting loads for the 38 Special are puny in the extreme: 3.6 grains of WW231 gave 590 fps with an extreme spread of 45 fps, and 4.0 grains of Unique gave 498 fps with an 83 fps spread, both from the Chief's 2" barrel. Wimpy! Wimpy! Wimpy! Incidentally, the 4.0 grain Unique load gave 508 fps with an extreme spread of 246 fps in my 4" S&W Combat Masterpiece before it stuck one in the bore. No harm done, but boy is my face red.
That's as far as I've gotten with my load work. I suspect that those gross extreme spreads are due to the only tenuous hold the casing gets on a bullet sized .356" I've got an old set of RCBS dies with a removable expander/flaring die that mics -- yes -- .356" No need for a seating die, just stick the bullets in the cases to the appropriate depth and the sticky lube holds them in place until you can crimp them. I sort of figured I might have some consistency problems .. At any rate, I'll turn down the expander to about .353" and try again. Hopefully, I can come up with a load that will shoot to the sights, in the mean time I'll be holdin' high.
@6:53 AM
Wednesday, November 09, 2005- - -
I think I'm back!
I have no idea what happened but I haven't been able to post to Blogger for the last couple of weeks, try what I might. I could create a post, and hit 'publish', but nada, zip, zilch, nothing appeared on the ol' blog. Then I checked a few minutes ago and voila! the posts that had disappeared are now up. I'll try to make up for lost time, but I am still struggling under a heavy load of hunting and fishing. We must have priorities...
...
Next morning: Yeah! I'm back. It took Blogger several hours to post this missive, but that beats heck out of two weeks. It appears that the problem is on Blogger's end, but at least this prompted me to poke at my template a bit. I didn't find anything wrong, but I did finally change my email address (the old 'anthony -at- trib.com is still good for the time being) and changed the format of the archives to something more eye-pleasing.
I'll be back.
@6:47 PM
Monday, November 07, 2005- - -
Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.
"Ruff," commenting at IMAO, wants to know:
"If there is a civil war in France, who surrenders to whom?"
@12:44 AM
Sunday, November 06, 2005- - -
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose..." -- Kris Kristofferson
I don't think this is the sort of freedom we have in mind when we think of 'freedom of the press' but it's likely to be the sort of freedom that the press achieves if mainstream journalists continue on the route proposed by Jeff Jarvis. Those of you who've followed the "Why I do this" link over on the left know that a lot of the reason I started blogging was (and is) due to my annoyance with "journalists" and Jarvis' piece pretty well illustrates why I'm annoyed.
Jarvis is, I think, entirely correct in noting that 'the news' as a product should be viewed separately from the media in which it is presented. Anyone who seeks a vast new fluorescence of ink-on-paper media as the means of 'saving journalism' certainly seems to me to be among the herd of dinosaurs at the foot of the glacier. Face it: Pixels are cheaper than paper.
Where I part ways with Jarvis is precisely where I usually part ways with the mainstream media: We seem to have vastly different views of the role of news media in society. The goals of journalism, according to Jarvis:
"Start with the real goals, which are informing society, keeping power in check, improving people's lives, making connections (right?) and then ask what the best ways are to do that today. After that, you can ask what the role of journalists and newspapers should be."
Okaaayy.. Let's start by admitting that I have no idea what Jarvis means by "... making connections (right?) ..." so I won't be examining that goal, but let's take a look at his other three:
"Informing society" -- yep, can't argue with that one. In fact I'll argue that informing society should be the only professional goal of journalism and that arrogating to themselves the roles of "keeping power in check" and "improving people's lives" is a big part of what's wrong with journalism today.
"Keeping power in check" -- judging who should have how much political power -- is a role that can (and should!) only be performed by the citizens of this country as a whole. To my mind, the role of journalism in "keeping power in check" should be entirely subsumed under "informing society." I honestly believe that our society, if broadly well informed, will keep power in check. Thank you very much, but I do not want some media elite (or any other self-appointed group) deciding who should have how much power in this society. That is the role of the voters. Period.
Think about it: What special ability do journalists have to "keep power in check" beyond keeping the rest of us informed? As far as I know, they don't get any extra votes. On the other hand, the MSM certainly do have the ability to manipulate the information the rest of us receive, and in so doing they can certainly affect the outcome of all things political. Of course, not only can they do this, too many of them all too obviously are doing this, precisely why the credibility of the MSM is now so often called in question. You bet the news media have an important role to play in keeping government power in check, but that role should be strictly circumscribed by accurately reporting on the governments' activities.
"Improving people's lives" -- I suppose all of us have a moral duty to "improve people's lives." [Please do pick a charity (or six) and 'give until it hurts'!] However, please also remember that there's a fine line between improving people's lives and meddling in other people's business. What can journalists do as journalists to 'improve people's lives', beyond keeping us informed? Sure, they can provide free advertising for charities and become boosters for all kinds of good-deed-doers -- there's absolutely nothing wrong with that -- but again, it seems to me that those things are subsumed under 'informing the public'. Beyond that? Just keep me informed, I'll take care of improving my own life, thanks. We have plenty of would-be social engineers in this country without journalists taking on that role.
The problem in short: It's far too easy to justify omitting, bending, folding, spindling, and mutilating just a few of the more inconvenient facts once you've convinced yourself that you're a superior being on a saintly mission to 'keep power in check and improve people's lives'. After all, what are a few silly facts when you're saving the world?
Jarvis goes on to link approvingly to an article at the Philadelphia Daily News that's interesting beyond having an awkward paraphrase of Kris Kristofferson:
"But assigning blame won't save the Philadelphia Daily News. Besides, much of the blame really lies with us, as journalists. We have, for the most part, allowed our product to become humorless and dull. In an era when it seems most people truly will be famous for 15 minutes, newspapers have stubbornly avoided creating personalities...or having a personality, for that matter. In a pathologically obsessive quest for two false goddesses - named Objectivity and Balance - we have completely ceded the great American political debate to talk radio, cable TV and the Internet, where people have learned that politics is actually interesting and even fun when people are allowed to take sides.
"We prefer to talk down to the public rather than talk to them. Even at our very best - and there are many, many talented newspaper journalists in America - we are more likely to aim at wooing contest judges than at wooing new readers. And we have a knee-jerk tendency to defend our narrow world of messy ink printed on dead trees, when instead the time is here to redefine who we are and what we do.
"We are, and can continue to be, the front-line warriors of information -- serving up the most valuable commodity in a media-driven era. But that means we must be the message, not the medium, and so we must adjust to give consumers news in the high-tech ways that they are asking for, not the old-tech way that we are confortable [sic] with.
"If we don't change, we will die - and it will be our fault.
"It defies all the conventional wisdom, but I believe that the Philadelphia Daily News can be an agent of that change - and not a victim. In fact, in seeking to destroy the Daily News in a death of a thousand cuts, our corporate masters in San Jose have, unintentionally, liberated us - because having nothing left to lose is another term for freedom.
"Because with a staff that is now too small to cover every news story, we can learn how to cover just the stories that truly matter to people, and cover the heck out of them. Because a newspaper with 20 personalities that the reader knows and seeks out every morning is better off than a newspaper with 200 faceless reporters covering zoning meetings. Because a news organization like the Daily News that seems small in the print world can make itself huge in the brave new world of 21st Century media."
Now, as I've noted, I heartily concur that the media and the message are two separate quantities. Ink-on-paper is only going to become more expensive and the only advantage ink-on-paper has to the same written news and photos presented electronically -- at least from this consumer's perspective -- is that you can't line the birdcage with enews. Since I don't have a bird and lately can't seem to catch a fish to save my life, that's no advantage at all.
Unfortunately, the rest of the formula for the salvation of journalism presented here seems both wrong-headed and oddly out-of-touch. First, I wish the staff at the Philadelphia Daily News would let the rest of the journalistic industry in on this 'pathologically obsessive quest for Objectivity and Balance'. Print journalists have "... completely ceded the great American political debate ...", really? What color is the sky on your planet, sir and how many lightyears are you from earth that you've never heard of Paul Krugman? (Perhaps those writing for the Philadelphia Daily News can be excused in this, it might be that the paper is too broke to buy them access to TimesSelect.)
If journalists were as concerned with achieving objectivity and balance as they are in convincing us that they're 'fair and balanced' journalism wouldn't be nearly so scandal ridden and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. How many years have people on the left and right been screaming about biased media? Where have these guys been? If there's anything pathological here it's that, after all the recent media scandals, a journalist could tell us that journalists in general have a 'pathologically obsessive quest for Objectivity and Balance'. To do that with a straight face, and without any disclaimer of all those in the MSM who have so recently proved themselves so much less than objective and balanced, strikes me as frankly delusional. When someone comes around blowing this much smoke it's advisable to keep your belt buckled tight.
Second, there's that last business, partially hidden by ellipses in Jarvis' quote: "... we can learn how to cover just the stories that truly matter to people, and cover the heck out of them. Because a newspaper with 20 personalities that the reader knows and seeks out every morning is better off than a newspaper with 200 faceless reporters covering zoning meetings." [Sigh] Who decides which stories truly matter to people? Remember when it was 'all the news that's fit to print'? Will changing that to 'all the news you peons need to know' save journalism? Considering how much a zoning meeting can affect our lives, I sure don't want this bozo deciding that we don't need to know about such machinations of our local governments. When we no longer have faceless reporters covering zoning meetings the principal goal of journalism -- informing the public -- is being abdicated. Yes, it's boring and obviously some decisions must be made as to what is news-worthy, but it's precisely this sort of boring shit that puts us to sleep and then wakes us up bent over.
In my not so humble opinion, no newspaper on earth is going to be able to hire twenty personalities that are even half as entertaining and informative as Bill Quick and Glenn Reynolds. There seems little point in the MSM trying to compete in that arena and even if they succeeded what you'd have wouldn't be news, it would be the OpEd pages.
I don't mean to pick on Jeff Jarvis in particular, as this sort of daddy knows best, do gooder elitism seems to be endemic to journalism. Not so long ago I read an article by one of the leading luminaries at the Columbia School of Journalism that pretty much paralleled the sentiment that journalists shouldn't just be reporters, they should be a force for good in the world. Fine. Just be aware that the rest of us are beginning to suspect that there's nothing so dangerous as someone who wants to do us good.
My take: Those who want to save journalism should advocate being straight reporters of the news (as, I'm sure, the vast majority of journalists are). I know, I know, being one of 200 faceless reporters sitting in boring meetings is not nearly as much fun as being one of 20 revered personalities, but then, that's why you get paid the big bucks: Nobody else wants to sit in those boring meetings either and we'll happily pay you to do it, as long as you do an honest job of it. You can't very well be one of those "front-line warriors of information" if you're not willing to go collect some information to report. Besides, without those faceless reporters of boring details, what would the revered personalities have to pontificate about, eh?
But straight honest reporting of the news isn't enough anymore. Part of the definition of a "profession" is that it is self-policing and it is in this that the MSM have been exposed as sadly lacking. Odd then that I don't find a single word about integrity in these screeds about 'saving journalism'. It should not have taken bloggers to scream bullshit! at some of the more egregiously biased manipulations of the news we've seen lately (nor should we have had to wait for the advent of blogging for somebody to scream bullshit!). Consider that nobody complained about Jason Blair because the subjects of his reports all assumed that making shit up was SOP at the NYTimes. That single insight into the public's opinion of journalists, whether true or not, should have sent shockwaves of horror through the MSM for weeks, but the message doesn't seem to have gotten through.
The folks at the Philadelphia Daily News are flat wrong that the news per se is journalism's most valuable commodity and "the one that we truly own." Integrity and the public's trust is journalism's most valuable commodity, without which their news is worthless .. as they're beginning to learn find out.
Ps. If only I'd read the comments on Jarvis' post, I could have directed you there and saved myself the effort of writing this screed. Quite a few of the posters see this thumbsucker for what it is and more than a few categorically exclude journalistic 'goals 2-4'.
@4:49 AM
|
|
