Propaganda 101: Why screaming works

Courier scooped again -- or just ignoring the story?

It seems there's some illegal election chicanery going on in everybody's home town. Funny we aren't reading about it in the Courier, innit?

Update, Tuesday: Three days later, Jason Soifer turns in a story that seems to assume everyone's already hip to it, and on reading it I'm left with the impression that the Courier thinks push-polling is OK.

Army Sergeant with Prescott ties shocks wife on return visit home

This is a pretty run-of-the-mill feel-good story, notable only for its headline, which is I'm sure drawing lots of eyes by implying something more interesting. I guess that's one way to sell papers.

From the reality-based community

Paul Krugman, writing in the NYT:

"Sure enough, President Obama is now facing the same kind of opposition that President Bill Clinton had to deal with: an enraged right that denies the legitimacy of his presidency, that eagerly seizes on every wild rumor manufactured by the right-wing media complex. This opposition cannot be appeased. Some pundits claim that Mr. Obama has polarized the country by following too liberal an agenda. But the truth is that the attacks on the president have no relationship to anything he is actually doing or proposing."

Read the whole thing. It's a challenge to all of us to get up on our hind legs and push back.

Mathematicians love it, physicists hate it. Your Friday mind-expansion on the difference between really, really big and infinity.

Guest column: Cap and Trade bill bad for Arizonans

Now it appears we have a third category for local op-eds, adding "Guest Column" to "Column" and "Talk of the Town." I've noted before the use of "Talk of the Town" for out-of-town right-wing propaganda, maybe the editors got the message. (I know, dream on.) But putting that propaganda under a new heading doesn't much improve it.

For those who have other things to think about, the Goldwater Institute is an extreme-right lobbying group which has almost no remaining connection to the thinking of Barry Goldwater. It's the local enforcement arm of the Grover Norquist government-killing machine, widely feared among Republicans at the capitol.

Byron Schlomach's assertion that cap-and-trade will wind up baking Grannie to death in her condo because she can't afford the AC is classic fear-peddling of the lowest order. While everyone agrees the regime would raise costs to energy consumers, the darksiders are purposefully inflating cost estimates beyond reason, and ignoring the benefits in terms of direct returns of revenues to consumers as part of the program, restructuring of our energy infrastructure for sustainability (jobs!), and reducing the severity of global warming and its economic and social costs. Factcheck.org has plenty more.

Prescott Airport nears longtime commercial passenger goal

I can't wait to see the Courier editorial criticizing Commissar Wilson and City staff for supporting socialized air travel.

Prescott employee's discovery will save 2 million gallons of water per year

I think we can all applaud a hero of water conservation. I'm a bit put out that Cindy apparently didn't ask our City or County staff why it took so long to reach this dope-slap moment, but I guess I can understand it might be a little embarrassing, and we wouldn't want that. She gets a cookie, in any case.

Editorial: Line extensions hurt ratepayers

Today the unnamed Courier editor must make what he apparently sees as a Solomon-worthy decision between rural developers and electric utilities, and as the experienced Courier reader might expect, comes down on the side of I-me-mine.

Here's some background from AZJournal.com, which differs with the editor on when the rule went away and on whose initiative. The editor failed to mention that this came up on the official request of Navajo County, which no doubt is as developer-driven as Yavapai, but it ought to matter, especially given that the editor neglected to publish a news piece on this issue.

This story has a pretty low profile, and I have to wonder why it rates an opinion. Maybe someone the editor knows is worried that someone else might build a house on a neighboring property?

From what I read, the developers and growth-fascinated county officials want free extensions in a big way, and the utilities don't seem to mind one way or the other, so the ACC will probably reinstate the rule regardless of the editor's professed concern that he might wind up paying a few more pennies a year to run Fox News and old Westerns on his big-screen teevee.

I'm a little divided on it myself. Anything that slows human encroachment into unspoiled land seems like a good thing to me, but this could also affect the spread of distributed energy generation as more rooftops go solar and more ranchers build wind generators.

A flurry of letters

The Courier is carrying no less than eight LTEs today, all on the health-care debate, which looks a lot like a stunt to me.

Patricia Brockert tries to set the record straight on end-of-life counseling. Bill Holmes swears he'll be civil at the meeting that no lawmaker plans to attend. In the comments, Craig Mathews provides some interesting background on both the meeting and Mr Holmes. Tim Welte demands a pledge from Rep Kirkpatrick that she read the bill. Larry Lawlyes (sp?) and Paul Lopez call it on the obstructionist town-meeting strategy. Bernard Cygan is butt-hurt because Speaker Pelosi thinks shouting down your representatives is un-American. Sherry Denecker thinks the health-care reform is about letting old people die. And Robert Graybehl is just mad at Demmycrats.

I count three in favor vs. five against, better odds than we get on Fox. I wonder how many the editors left on the spike.

Fair and balanced

Media Matters has the numbers on Fox News and the health-care debate. How anyone can see Fox as a credible news source is beyond me.

Meanwhile, over in the Verde

Compare John Kinnamon's LTE in the Independent to the Courier's "Talk of the Town" below. That's what I'm talkin' about. This should be the Courier's editorial.

ToT: Elected officials have done enough

Barbara Briseno, whose only credentials seem to be that she's "concerned" and retired, gets "Talk of the Town" status for her standard wingnut rant containing exactly nothing that could be useful or informative. Circumspect readers would be right to ask why the editors use their precious page space in this way.

Might it be to simply provoke lots of heated online comments, thereby raising hit counts and justifying online ad rates? After all, everyone seems to so love reading idiotic arguments peppered with the personal attacks that the editor claims are off limits. If this is the plan, most of the commenters are just facilitating the lies and thickening the smoke screen.

If you care about the quality of the paper and public discourse, call the editors to account for fomenting a pointless food-fight and using personal attacks as a marketing strategy when it suits them. But don't take the bait -- stay out of the fray. There is nothing to be gained from engaging idiots.

Letter: America still remains a Christian nation

Gag me, yet another Xtian supremacist waving his persecution hankie. It's a waste of the reader's time, of course, but in the comments I notice George Seaman, a normally reliable defender of free speech, begging the editors to stop printing such letters. What I'm not sure George is noticing is that most of the responses seem to be calling the writer on his historical lies and logical tangles. This is how it's supposed to work -- you can say what you want, but you get to be accountable for it.

PS to the awful headline writer: "still remains" is irredeemably redundant.

Editorial: Lots of people are really upset

Over the very busy weekend I didn't have time to take on this piece of disinformational crapola, and I wanted to be sure I could get into it in detail.

For once the headline is right, but that's about the end of it.

First off, the unnamed Courier editor pulls the 'enemies list' leg with the "White House website where people can report opponents of the plan." A good friend of mine and loyal Republican told me about this on Saturday, and I took a look at it. I'm certain I'm not the first to report that this is an antenna for picking up on disinformation about health care so that the White House can deal with it. They don't care who the source is.

He then warns darkly of the gubmint cutting off Grandma's medicine because she's too old. This and the 'enemies list' thing are both among the completely and demonstrably false ideas circulating in wingnut land designed to whip up uninformed, fearful people to vocally oppose the program. In this respect the editor happily joins the right-wing media in "organizing the opposition," which apparently means "lying to people to get them scared enough to do crazy things for your benefit."

The editor cites the recent Q poll asking whether voters approve of "the way Barack Obama is handling health care." I'm totally in favor of public health care, and expect I'll support whatever he can get passed, but I would have responded with 'disapprove' on this question too. "The way he's handling health care" is not the same as "public health care," yet the editor spins this poll result as disapproval of the whole effort.

The editor moves to WSJ poll results that show formerly undecideds lining up against "Barack Obama’s health care plan" -- which as far as I've seen does not actually exist. The editor fails to note that the next question on the poll was whether the respondent favors "a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies," and the results show the favorables slightly ahead. A little further down, we find this:

31. Now I am going to tell you more about the health care plan that President Obama supports and please tell me whether you would favor or oppose it.

The plan requires that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. It also requires all but the smallest employers to provide health coverage for their employees, or pay a percentage of their payroll to help fund coverage for the uninsured. Families and individuals with lower- and middle incomes would receive tax credits to help them afford insurance coverage. Some of the funding for this plan would come from raising taxes on wealthier Americans.

Do you favor or oppose this plan?
Favor....................56
Oppose ...............38
Depends (VOL).....3
Not sure ..............3

So when people are presented with the actual ideas involved, they overwhelmingly approve.

The editor writes that "respectful dialogue requires openness with the public about how the plan will work," implying that people at the town hall were mad because Rep Kirkpatrick wouldn't talk openly with them. The truth was quite the opposite -- the "organized opposition" was angry, raucous and determined to drown out what she had to say -- and they succeeded.

The Courier editor is actively participating in the nationwide campaign of disinformation designed to save the bacon of the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies at the expense of every American, selectively twisting and spinning semi-facts into received wisdom, burying the truth under layers of deceit. This is the worst kind of evil in the newsroom, and he should be facing the same sort of criticism from Courier readers that he is sending against our elected representatives. From the look of the comments, he's getting it.

Letter: Community Cupboard needs donations, too

I kinda thought the Courier might get a little grief for favoritism in its food-bank coverage last week.

Editorial: Cyclists, city can reach a solution

Once again the unnamed Courier editor pats the little cyclists on the head and explains that they're really not yet big enough to go on the adult rides.

I have a bike, but I've used it three or four times in fifteen years. When I ride my moped I generally stay out of the bike lane, which is for slower traffic. My perspective on this issue is as a driver.

When there's a bike on the road, it legally owns the entire lane, just like a car. If cyclists really got exercised about this they could start riding according to the law -- in the middle of the lane -- and slow us all down.

Cities install bike lanes not to please the cyclists, but to improve traffic flow. The editor's idea that we'd be spending money on a "tiny percentage" of street users is exactly backward. It may be that the rhetoric of the cyclists encourages this misunderstanding, because for them its a huge safety issue. But that's no excuse.

The editor suggests Willis as an alternative to Gurley. I suggest the editor try driving his car (or his truck, more likely) from downtown to Yavapai College, or the Prescottonian, or the Peavine Trail using Willis.

Lost in this whole public debate is the proposal to place large landscape islands down the middle of Gurley St, eating up a lot of lane space and creating new opportunities for traffic entertainment. Have we learned nothing from the corner plantings around the square, or Rosser St?

Letter: It's time to speak up for local landmarks

Tom Cantlon was the Courier's token liberal columnist before Randall Amster, so I count this piece as a semi-column.

The core of it is rousing us rabble to stand up for Sharlot Hall Museum and the old post office. I want to confirm here that public involvement -- writing letters and email and making phone calls -- is effective in getting the attention of state legislators and shaping their views of public opinion. I'd suggest contacting not only Ms Mason, Mr Tobin and Mr Pierce for our district, but other rural legislators, legislative leaders and the governor as well. It really does matter.

A detail toward the end of the letter caught my eye, the idea of turning over the closed post office space to the museum. Readers who are paying less attention might conclude that Tom advocates moving SHM over there once the state sells off its land and buildings. Nothing like this will happen, of course. The state may pawn the museum, but the arrangement would be more like a secured loan (at high interest cost!) than an actual sale. Still wrong, but not so catastrophically wrong as to leave the museum homeless.

But speaking as a former museum professional, given its mission there's really not much SHM could do with the post office space other than turn it into an exhibit in front and storage in back and in the basement, and that only given enough money to staff it. Not really practical.

The New Socialism

Pursuant to an exchange we had earlier in the comments, here's an interesting perspective from Wired. It seems a whole lot of people besides me are coloring outside the dictionary lines in talking about socialism. Hint: by reading this, you're involved, comrade.

Hat-tip to MikeD for the link.

Leisure-time Wednesday

Are you getting some time off?