Once again the unnamed Courier editor (ahem, Ben, ahem) frog-marches us through three graphs of gratuitous reference to cowboys into extended finger-wagging about something that matters not one whit to anyone reading him. His only consistent motivation seems to be another opportunity to whack a couple of his favorite inflatable punching clowns. What's odd is that he wants to do this in public.
Sort of weird exhibitionism, if you ask me.
Sen. Johnson (R-AZ18), who represents no one in the Courier's service area, rails about actions that she doesn't like by people in government who are not apparently anywhere in the Courier's service area. Why is this in our paper? If we're giving space to politicians, shouldn't they be our politicians? Shouldn't they at the very least be representing rural AZ?
If you Courier editors wish to opine on an issue, why don't you just write it yourselves and be honest about it?
Wait, didn't we just do this a couple days ago? Read my lips: TOTALLY FAKE CONTROVERSY. Ack.
Page one, top left below the mast, the most important thing happening in our area today: Businesses are selling stuff.
Gotta keep those advertisers happy.
Isn't it interesting how the letters block has been organized into themes lately? Ya think anyone might be manipulating this a little?
So here we have four letters apparently in response to the story on the D-H policy of carrying guns into public meetings, every one of them from out of state. Any chance this might have resulted from an organized callout to, say, NRA members for letters? I know that the Courier prints only those letters it deems printworthy. So what gives these run-of-the-mill, me-too memos from all over the country any pertinence to Courier readers? Could it be that gun 'rights' represent a personal hobbyhorse for the editors?
Doug Cook turns in a solid report on D-H struggling with building design standards, covering the bases well.
I have to wonder whether D-H officials aren't getting in over their heads. It's good to do the planning at the beginning, before you've got too many masters to serve, but to be effective in this you've got to have a pretty clear consensus on where you want to go. You can't build that consensus in public meetings, it happens over lots of lunches and group huddles, well before the meetings. Wish 'em luck.
Prescott Valley has been making and executing very aggressive plans over twenty years to grow up into a dynamic, modern city. Its open-section layout has allowed the town every opportunity to plan far ahead for urban density. So why is it running into this sort of problem? Suddenly a single-family neighborhood is facing the prospect of a large-footprint, four-story apartment block shading out its mornings, and from this story it seems to have nearly slipped through the public-comment phase unnoticed. What the heck is going on down there? Again, the who and what are in place, but I've got several 'why' questions.
I personally think that higher-density, mixed-use development makes all kinds of sense where the alternative is continuing low-density sprawl. But you have to respect the neighbors.
It's a bid sad that a Sheriff's Dept. team actually doing its job and issuing a few tickets to motorized yahoos in the forest qualifies as news, but there you have it. This straight-ahead report is OK as far as it goes, but some context would be informative, such as how often enforcement actions happen in the forest, what sorts of violations predominate, and what kinds of damage they cause.
I know there's been some quiet struggle over the past year or so among the Forest Service, off-roaders and lawnforcement. Some coverage would be useful.
Mirsada Buric does a good job on the who and what here, but there's a big one missing: why? I can understand that Sheriff Waugh might be reluctant to explain why a captain in charge of detention "took a voluntary reduction back to lieutenant," apparently leading to a management shakeup across his organization, but it's the Courier's job to at least state that the reporter asked the 'why' question and got no answer.
A factor in smaller-town living is that it's much easier for the press to get too close to the subject, and social rules can override journalistic principles. I don't know that this is what's happening here, but I'll keep an eye out for a pattern.
Maybe it's just me: is anyone else seeing a pattern in the Courier's editorial choices related to illegals? Tim W hints in private Email that the Courier editorial policy isn't what I think it is. So just what is it, Tim? Let's get it out there so your readers know what they're buying into.
In yet another brown-peril rant, CR Shoemaker tells us we are "a nation under siege" because, I must infer, we actually follow our laws in how we deal with immigrants, extending our principles about human rights to all. Tell you the truth, RC, I just don't feel under seige in any way, and neither do you. The bottom-line truth is that you don't like your lily-white vision of America sullied with the brown babies of refugees who might grow up and vote.
For the record, I tend to agree that birthright citizenship is problematic in the age of jet air travel and mobile populations. But public discussion of this issue is very poorly served by ignorant, fearful fulminating. Do the Courier editors perhaps know any qualified adults who might be able to write about this?
Update, 6pm: Link fixed, sorry!
This good, solid public-service feature doesn't much shy away from its technical base. Kudos for Mirsada Buric, the police beat doesn't offer frequent opportunities to bring good news.
Well, well, an editorial cartoon in the Courier that communicates a useful reality! Here's a cookie for the editor.
So after weeks of controversy, competing proposals, public comment and a vote, the unnamed Courier editor thinks the PUSD board 'ignored' a 'problem.' Is this actually meant to insult not only the board members, but the process as well, or is it just another example of reckless hip-shooting because the result doesn't fit the editor's half-baked ideas?
Your 'problem' was, charitably, an idea raised by some stakeholders in this, and you had a long public process that resulted in a hung jury. We have a board process so we can be confident that decisions are not made based on individual whims. It often appears that many people would prefer to have kings over democracy. Maybe the vote doesn't always go your way, but I guarantee you'll prefer that once you live for a while with the alternative. Quit whining.
Here we have three letters about photo radar, two of them that appear to employ actual research. What's keeping the Courier reporters from gathering the facts and knitting them up into something useful? Could it be that you don't want to step on any official toes in PV?
Look, you've got resources at hand, an easy story to get around, and obviously huge demand for it. That's how you sell papers, folks.
Following up on this, today we find out that it was all a misunderstanding. So maybe speaking more Spanish would be a handy skill for Prescott PD? That would have been a good question to ask, Mirsada. You might even spin it out into a feature on the language capabilities of our local lawnforcement, costs, benefits, experiences, like that.
Maybe Cindy Barks' story is missing something -- you can check the replay on Access13 to find out -- but this story sure raises some questions about what's happening at City Hall. We have a Councilman running overheads of pages from an application for renewal of a long-established liquor license. Why is this sort of thing even getting above the staff level? The whole liquor license issue and Council's relationship with it is getting embarrassing.
Most folks, including the Courier editors, I'm sure, read this as a standard human-interest story, the sort that normally just bores the crap out of me, sorry. There's a little poison in this particular cupcake, however, in that it encourages poor people to spend their money on state gambling, which amounts to a tax on people who are bad at math. Ack.
You don't need me to tell you that Kurt Vonnegut has moved on. But I can offer a good obit on one of the greatest minds and hearts of our time.
Jim Edmunds gets a fat chunk of the op-ed page to whine about what nasty people these peaceniks really are.
Near as I can figure, he's referring to Randal's column here as the trigger for his irritation, but it has little to do with the events he recounts.
I wouldn't be surprised if his description of his experience is accurate as far as it goes. Many, many people saw what was coming with Bush's adventure in Iraq, and were (and remain) very angry about it. Most people haven't much experience in expressing themselves with force, and have to be given some benefit of the doubt if they don't handle it with perfect aplomb. That they refused to allow a PR flak to tell them how to express themselves about this impending disaster is no surprise. You're a flak, you get yelled at, that's your job, Jim.
And let's not neglect that the peaceniks were absolutely on the money about what was happening and how it would turn out.
The tell comes in Edmunds' final graph, pulling out the old canard that if you're anti-war, you're anti-veteran. This is desperate rhetoric that neatly kneecaps his credibility. The reader will be forgiven for inferring that Edmunds still speaks for Rick Renzi, as I have little doubt that our Congresscritter would make much the same speech.
Oooh, we knew this was coming, didn't we?
Anecdotes in the Courier, facts here.
Crime is less uncommon among poor people. The poor people in the quad cities are disproportionatley Hispanic. The problem is not immigration, it's class and the underground economy, just like everywhere else. Don't fall for the brown-peril scare.
