Stenography vs. journalism

I invite the reader to compare two stories, one in the Courier this afternoon and the other on eNews this morning. You'll notice that they are almost exactly the same.

Here's what's happening: both publications are reprinting press releases, in this case a police report, more or less unedited. This happens all the time, on everything from community events to City policy announcements to major crime stories.

Sometimes it's a good thing. In the past I've always preferred that the Courier just print my releases, because whenever the editors took an interest in them they'd come out all garbled.

But sometimes it's bad, like when officials do something stupid, dress it up as a good thing and knuckleball it to the voters.

For a good editor what's important is to read every release and sniff out whether there are questions that need asking. Then make sure they're asked, and put the answers in too. Oh, and check that the typist got the names spelled right and the dates and times are still correct.

A little while back an anonymous Courier employee commented here trying to defend the paper as being above reprinting press releases. Just sayin'.

There's no question about whether it's happening, at any publication. The question is whether you're doing it right.

Ailing nurses: Initiative seeks to reverse profession's decline

Yet another example of a face-plant by the headline writer. The nurses aren't "ailing," and the profession is booming, not declining. The local program just needs better funding so local people can participate in that boom. So: Foundation stumps for nursing-program funding.

Keep it simple, stupid.

Editorial: Kennedy's death ends a dynasty

Everyone in the media seems compelled to write their own obit on Ted Kennedy, even our little local paper, which has done nothing but spit on the principles the senator espoused and advanced. It's silly. But it's also revealing.

The unnamed Courier editor's key concept is dynasty. He relies entirely on the standard media mythos, writing a little paean to what can only be read as a dead king.

Authoritarians -- what this country calls 'conservatives' -- love kings. The editor is harking back to his ideological roots in the 18th-century Tories who would have happily continued to labor under the yoke of inbred European aristocrats. So it's no surprise that he focuses on the celebrity and makes only passing reference to what the man accomplished for his country.

What has made this man remarkable is not his tabloid life, but rather what he did and how he did it despite his wealthy, aristocratic background and his unassailable, arguably hereditary, seat in our own House of Lords. I appreciate that the editor is trying to say something nice. But what made the man great was his dedication to public service and his ability to bring people together for the good of all. That's the sort of work that makes this country great, and we need to teach our young people that anyone can do it.

I hear that Mitt Romney may make a run to replace Kennedy in the Senate. Could there be any doubt that the editor would jump up and salute another scion of political dynasty? Of course not. He just loves his kings.

Editorial: Intelligent debate is health care reform's upside

I've read the unnamed Courier editor a couple of times today, and it seems like he's saying something good in there, but I can't quite find it. This bit is particularly confusing:

Reform opposition represents the flat-out American disbelief in any notion of a government involuntarily redistributing its citizens' wealth.

Few ideologies are more fiercely un-American. "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction," said Thomas Jefferson, "is the first and only object of good government."

That paragraph break puts a little distance between the editor and saying that opposition to wealth redistribution is un-American, but I think he sort of meant to. While the statement is a bit impetuous and I wouldn't support it, the sentiment seems healthy.

Still, for the life of me I can't find a declarative statement in this piece laying out what the paper supports or opposes. So no cookie. But it's a start!

Ken Bennett opposes sales tax increase

Strike-all update, 11pm: I made a big mistake in reading this story this morning: I trusted the Courier to get the basic facts right.

As we discover in follow-up coverage -- a follow-up, no doubt, on an angry call from the Secretary of State to the Courier -- Ken Bennett is not in fact demanding that Gov Brewer cave in and bury the sales-tax referral. It's OK with him if we vote on it. He just wants the budget signed.

I notice he also gets his much-more-flattering official photo on this one than the kooky snapshot on the previous story. I'll bet someone got a whipping for this little screwup.

Trying to flog state land for 100K clams per acre is still a dumb idea for balancing the budget, though. Sorry, Ken.

Kinkade art auction money misses its mark

So we discover that the crap anti-artist the Courier has been happy to give unwarranted coverage for years took the money intended for the kids and happily banked it. Given the nature and tone of that business, pumping out pretend art and selling fool's gold to people who don't know any better, I'm not at all surprised.

It's easy to make clear to the crowd when not all of the proceeds can go directly to the charity, so I don't buy the 'misunderstanding' excuse for a second. An 80/20 split should be embarrassing, and substituting merchandise for cash in paying off the charity is just skanky.

Two things: I notice that the Courier continues to use the man's own PR to pump him up ("Painter of Light"), and there should be a quote in here from the true victims of this crime, the couple who paid 12,000 clams for a bad sketch and a promise.

City candidates combine to collect nearly $76,000 in primary campaign money

This is exactly the sort of piece that should be the core mission of a local paper, and it's done well -- facts that matter to the voter, clearly presented, without fear or favor. Cindy gets a cookie.

Six minutes on why the world is digital, your Friday instant mind-expansion on Planck's Constant.

Editorial: CAP sets itself up as easy mark

The unnamed Courier editor opines that getting caught cheating might cause some trouble for your team. (I dunno about you, but it's just this sort of sage wisdom and insightful analysis that keeps me coming back to the Courier.) But he can't quite bring himself to admit that what the CAP was doing was actually wrong. I have to wonder what he'd be writing if the initiative supporters were caught doing the same thing.

Drive the snakes out of your own nest first.

Today's Chuckle

I can't decide whether it's the guy who doesn't get the difference between "allowed" and "required," or the guy who wants a law against tree roots.

A satisfactory system of health insurance should provide:

1. That everyone should have access to adequate health and medical services.

2. That everyone should have the kind of services, and all the services, he needs to promote better health.

3. That everyone should be able to obtain these without regard for the level of his personal income.

-- Oscar Ewing, Director, Federal Security Agency,
The Nation’s Health, A Ten Year Program: A Report to the President, 1948

Flexible rules

Today on related articles I'm seeing a bunch of comments, including headings like "Vote yes for decent streets," clearly advocating a specific vote on the initiative. The Courier supposedly has a rule against using the comments for electioneering, and I've seen many comments deleted specifically for advocating a candidate. This sure smells like electioneering to me.

I guess some animals are more equal than others.

Fat Wednesday

What's eating you today?

Editorial: SRP shows good sense of irony

The unnamed Courier editor is amused that a large, complex, semi-public corporation is taking advantage of every possible means of increasing its bottom line. Wow how funny.

Would it not be more useful to discuss SRP's special constitutional status and how that gives it anticompetitive market advantages? Most Arizonans have no clue how we've been grabbing our ankles for SRP for decades, and how difficult it will be to change that. Legislators take heat for even thinking about reform, which would require a constitutional amendment and a statewide initiative.

Some joke.

ToT: Seek out real facts about health care

The headline writer provides a Freudian-slip clue about what we'll read here, urging us to seek "real facts," presumably as opposed to "facts." And Barbara Nelson does not disappoint, turning in a fact-free column. The bio says she used to be an attorney (I'm glad I never had occasion to hire her), and she has cats, which apparently qualifies her as an expert on health-care legislation.

I guess the editors have yet to figure out that this sort of mindless rant is causing backlash against the ranters, moving them into the same room with 'creation scientists' and flat-earthers, and in favor of reasoned debate on this vital issue at last. Since reason and facts favor sensible, civilized reform, it's OK by me if they keep printing 'em. Go on, Barb, knock yourself out.

Push-poll group unmasked

Group behind telephone survey reveals identity

Cindy Barks tells us that the push-poll against the "Taxpayer Protection Initiative" comes from the Central Arizona Partnership, punking Jason Soifer's Tuesday speculation. What she doesn't tell us is who's behind the CAP.

Not long ago a bunch of Prescott's more money-oriented good ol' boys came together because they didn't think the Chamber of Commerce was doing enough to make them rich. The CAP includes ex-mayors Simmons and Daly, former Senator and now Secretary of State Ken Bennett, and the big developers: the Fanns, the Fains, and Senator Steve Pierce. Their mission statement speaks of "a balance between economic and ecological sustainability in Central Arizona," which means to me, given their aggregate track record, less concern about the environment, and their method is to act as an alternate, more politically active Chamber. Check out the CAP site.

This is not the first less-than-appropriate act I've seen from this group in relation to the election. Jason Gisi stood up at the end of the Chamber candidates forum at Yavapai College and harangued the audience to vote for the street tax, which struck me as naked electioneering in what was supposed to be a balanced setting.

I have a feeling we're going to have to keep an eye on these people. It's clear they think they're above the rules.

That pesky subordinate clause problem again

Pretrial postponed for cat-killing case

I skipped this story on first read today, and so missed Today's Chuckle:

PRESCOTT - The county has postponed a pretrial hearing for a 21-year-old Prescott Valley woman accused of killing her cat because her attorney had a time conflict Monday.

Quite a few commenters pointed it out, too, I see, and used up most of the obvious jokes -- but that's just gilding the lily, imho.

It seems like the editors should get a different prize for this sort of thing. A raspberry, maybe?

Another false alarm on Goodwin PO

I expected as much. It turns out that once again the USPS finds that closing Goodwin St is "not feasible."

Since the previous post I've heard that I was wrong about the PO boxes, them in the know say they're now about half empty. Maybe I should go get one.

BREAKING NEWS: Goodwin Street post office won't close

Editorial: Plane boardings are a bright sign

I knew on Friday that we'd see an editorial on this, but I got it wrong: the unnamed Courier editor is very happy to support socialized air service. I'm so surprised.

It occurs to me that the debate over public transit makes an interesting parallel. On the one hand we reject bus service because it would serve only a small portion of the public, people who have other ways to get where they're going, and it will never pay for itself. On the other we love air service even though it serves only a small portion of the public, people who have other ways to get where they're going, and it will never pay for itself. And the editor seems excited about spending another $150 million to expand Prescott's Aeroflot facilities.

I think this disconnect is all about economic class: in Dear Editor's mind, what's good for the rich must be good for all of us.

And don't get me started on bike lanes again.

This is how it's done

Barney Frank vs. the Nazi smear: