We caught a small bit of flak yesterday from at least one reader for the comment we began Wednesday's commentary with - namely, that the Casey Anthony trial wasn't really "first-tier national news". We stand by our statement; it wasn't first-tier national news when it first happened, and that hasn't changed in the last three years.
Our disgust for some people with whom we have to share the broad label of "media" is nearly palpable, especially when it comes to this case. The ambulance chasing lawyer/wannabe television stars, who pursued this story for three years, certainly fall into the category of people in our business we can't stand.
To make it clear, we certainly don't condone what happened to little Caylee Anthony. A child died unexpectedly, and whatever the circumstances that led to that outcome, we feel sadness for the situation, and sympathy for those who loved and cared for a child who is now gone. We also don't think Casey Anthony is innocent - but then again, the jury didn't say she was innocent. They said she was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crimes she'd been charged with.
No matter how you slice it, this story never warranted the level of coverage it received. How many children, of all colors, ages, and economic classes each year go missing, and never receive the kind of media scrutiny this case did? Those children are no less worthy of attention - but very few child disappearances should draw the kind of media attention this one did.
There are so many other stories that deserve far more attention - something those in the media who know what journalism is about understand.
For example, the debt ceiling and budget battle continues in Washington, a battle whose outcome could decide the economic future of nearly everyone on Earth. Yet Republican "leaders" are still crying like babies, saying that millionaires and big business shouldn't have to share in the economic pain of fixing our economy. That one of our two major political parties is functionally insane? That's news.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reinstated an order permanently striking down "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a legal ruling which will affect every member of our Armed Services, around the world. Some of those service members will begin pulling out of Afghanistan this month. Furthermore, a bi-partisan group of Congressmembers - in a Congress where it's doubtful that members could agree to put out the fire if the building was burning - are calling for an even more rapid retreat from Afghanistan. All three of those things are also news.
Finally, if it's more sensational stuff about the news business our fellow media members were looking for, they need look no further than the cell-phone hacking scandal erupting from the Rupert Murdock-owned British publication, "News of The World". Hacking into the cell phone accounts of victims and families of Britain's worst terrorist attack ever - then attempting to defend your company's actions by using the shield of "journalism" is disgusting, depraved, sickening - and is definitely newsworthy.
We're all for stringing up individuals or groups in the court of public opinion who have proven their guilt by committing heinous acts beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, that level of proof is incredibly hard to achieve in most cases.
Sadly, in the Casey Anthony case, the only people who are unquestionably guilty are those members of the media who ignored many other valuable stories to totally focus on a criminal trial that didn't merit the attention it received. Character assassination and incompetence in journalism aren't offenses that can get a person locked up or strung up in America.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
No Further Explanation Needed
Since once again our crack (or maybe "on crack") major national media spent an inordinate amount of time over the last few days covering the Casey Anthony trial - an event that wasn't really first-tier national news - you may not have heard about the massive oil spill, courtesy of Exxon Mobil, in the wilds of Montana, on the Yellowstone River.
We would be extremely surprised if the corporate executives at Exxon didn't prefer to have their story buried.
Sadly, none of the news we've found about the current ecological disaster has surprised us. First, Exxon said it was just a small spill, nothing to worry about. Then, when pressed, they admitted that the spill could easily go far beyond their initial 10 mile containment zone. This isn't just any zone, mind you. That zone is the Yellowstone River, which flows out of the famed Yellowstone National Park, that contains some of America's most important natural scenery and wildlife.
As we have grown to expect from oil companies like Exxon Mobil, no contingency plan seems to have been crafted, in case a spill like this should happen - which it obviously did. While the cleanup continues, the company still does not have a repair strategy for the "leak."
Montana's Governor Schweitzer did tour the spill site, and said the cleanup effort was "pretty good" so far - but if the oil companies had been doing their jobs properly, it never would have happened at all.
Anyone who understands geography and is aware of the weather in the U.S. this year should understand with astounding clarity, that what happened in Montana won't stay in Montana. Some oil will slip through - and any chemicals like the carcinogen Correxit, used during the Gulf oil disaster of last year, that are dumped into the water to break up the oil, will flow downstream.
Downstream, through a series of rivers and tributaries that are sufffering through some of the worst flooding in history.
Through the flooded city of Minot, North Dakota, down the Missouri River, through the flooded river towns of South Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska. Down into the state of Missouri - and then into the Mississippi River, where the remnants of the oil spill can poison even more fish, farmland, and wildlife, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.
For those Nebraskans who keep looking at the proposed Keystone XL2 pipeline, and can only see short-term dollar signs, we invite them to speak with the folks in Valdez, Alaska, people throughout small towns on the Gulf of Mexico near New Orleans - or even scientists in Nebraska. The stories of increases in rare cancers and odd health problems is rampant, the economic problems continue, and there seems to be a never ending flow of damaged humans, animals, and landscape in those areas.
If we seem to be against the proposed pipeline project, and a little overprotective of the Ogallala Aquifer, we are - and we can't see how everyone else isn't as well.
Without the clean, life-giving water the aquifer provides to Nebraska and most of the Great Plains, our home region of the U.S. would be a desert - one where people could not survive, long-term. This isn't hyperbole; that region has experienced severe drought before, a chunk of time so damaging it earned its own derogatory nickname: the Dustbowl Era.
An oil spill in the aquifer could mean the poisoning of the water that gives life, not only to the people and animals of the Great Plains, but also to the crops that feed our whole country and much of the world.
It is time we abandoned the Keystone XL project as a state, and began actively investing in alternative energies like wind and solar - both of which, as Nebraskans, we know we have an abundance of.
This isn't some far-left wing, pot-smoking, hippie idea.
This is our life, and our home. It's time to put our families and our country ahead of corporate profit and short-term economic gain.
We would be extremely surprised if the corporate executives at Exxon didn't prefer to have their story buried.
Sadly, none of the news we've found about the current ecological disaster has surprised us. First, Exxon said it was just a small spill, nothing to worry about. Then, when pressed, they admitted that the spill could easily go far beyond their initial 10 mile containment zone. This isn't just any zone, mind you. That zone is the Yellowstone River, which flows out of the famed Yellowstone National Park, that contains some of America's most important natural scenery and wildlife.
As we have grown to expect from oil companies like Exxon Mobil, no contingency plan seems to have been crafted, in case a spill like this should happen - which it obviously did. While the cleanup continues, the company still does not have a repair strategy for the "leak."
Montana's Governor Schweitzer did tour the spill site, and said the cleanup effort was "pretty good" so far - but if the oil companies had been doing their jobs properly, it never would have happened at all.
Anyone who understands geography and is aware of the weather in the U.S. this year should understand with astounding clarity, that what happened in Montana won't stay in Montana. Some oil will slip through - and any chemicals like the carcinogen Correxit, used during the Gulf oil disaster of last year, that are dumped into the water to break up the oil, will flow downstream.
Downstream, through a series of rivers and tributaries that are sufffering through some of the worst flooding in history.
Through the flooded city of Minot, North Dakota, down the Missouri River, through the flooded river towns of South Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska. Down into the state of Missouri - and then into the Mississippi River, where the remnants of the oil spill can poison even more fish, farmland, and wildlife, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.
For those Nebraskans who keep looking at the proposed Keystone XL2 pipeline, and can only see short-term dollar signs, we invite them to speak with the folks in Valdez, Alaska, people throughout small towns on the Gulf of Mexico near New Orleans - or even scientists in Nebraska. The stories of increases in rare cancers and odd health problems is rampant, the economic problems continue, and there seems to be a never ending flow of damaged humans, animals, and landscape in those areas.
If we seem to be against the proposed pipeline project, and a little overprotective of the Ogallala Aquifer, we are - and we can't see how everyone else isn't as well.
Without the clean, life-giving water the aquifer provides to Nebraska and most of the Great Plains, our home region of the U.S. would be a desert - one where people could not survive, long-term. This isn't hyperbole; that region has experienced severe drought before, a chunk of time so damaging it earned its own derogatory nickname: the Dustbowl Era.
An oil spill in the aquifer could mean the poisoning of the water that gives life, not only to the people and animals of the Great Plains, but also to the crops that feed our whole country and much of the world.
It is time we abandoned the Keystone XL project as a state, and began actively investing in alternative energies like wind and solar - both of which, as Nebraskans, we know we have an abundance of.
This isn't some far-left wing, pot-smoking, hippie idea.
This is our life, and our home. It's time to put our families and our country ahead of corporate profit and short-term economic gain.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
'For The Public Good'
As Americans across the country recover from their Fourth of July revelry and get back to work, we hope that you took the time to enjoy the holiday - because the political discussion in Washington is turning right back to the budget, debt, and deficit battle.
We can only hope that you also re-read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights that we linked to yesterday, as those founding documents have a great deal to do with the outcome of the debate going on now.
As E.J. Dionne pointed out in his syndicated column yesterday, our nation is facing a significant crisis in how we see ourselves, one that that is positioning at least a portion of our country to be at odds with the Founding Fathers.
The idea that this nation was created - as many Republicans and regressives on the far right seem to think it was - as a haven from taxation and government is preposterous. As Dionne points out, "A reading of the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our forebears were not revolting against taxes as such — and most certainly not against government as such."
In the first item on the list of King George's many abuses listed in the Declaration, the Founders condemned the king for his refusal to pass laws that were "the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." In the Constitution, the issue of taxation isn't even addressed until the third graph of Section 2. Conversely, the need to "establish Justice" and "promote the general Welfare" are in the very beginning, directly after "We the People..."
This wasn't an oversight by the founders, any more than the choice to NOT deal with the issue of slavery. These were items that were debated and discussed - and then codified in language released to the world.
As Steve Benen also pointed out yesterday, "We’re supposed to believe the leaders of the era were states-rights libertarians, embracing the attitudes of Ayn Rand and Grover Norquist generations before their birth."
The facts about the founders simply don't agree with the regressivist philosophy of today.
The question by many progressives and sane Republicans is, "So how do we fight the crazies, on this issue of the budget?" Surprisingly, Republican Sen. John Cornyn may have given those who do want to protect "the public good" the exact answer on how to defeat the regressive arm of the GOP on this issue.
Sen. Cornyn called for the budget debate to be laid out in public, as did another regressive Republican, Alabama's Jeff Sessions.
We firmly agree with both of them. Let the American people see EXACTLY who agrees with who.
As President Reagan's former budget director Bruce Bartlett pointed out, the American people overwhelmingly agree with the progressives and the Democratic Party right now. Americans are clamoring for unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations to be abolished, and tax rates to be raised, albeit slightly, in order to keep our promises and our benefits.
It's long past time for the Democratic Party to stand up for what the American people overwhelmingly want - and by doing so, force the Republican Party to also stand up and defend their stated beliefs; namely continued tax breaks for the richest and those who need them least, while taking away benefits from the sick, elderly, children, and those who need help the most.
As the saying goes, when they show you who they are, believe them.
We can only hope that you also re-read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights that we linked to yesterday, as those founding documents have a great deal to do with the outcome of the debate going on now.
As E.J. Dionne pointed out in his syndicated column yesterday, our nation is facing a significant crisis in how we see ourselves, one that that is positioning at least a portion of our country to be at odds with the Founding Fathers.
The idea that this nation was created - as many Republicans and regressives on the far right seem to think it was - as a haven from taxation and government is preposterous. As Dionne points out, "A reading of the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our forebears were not revolting against taxes as such — and most certainly not against government as such."
In the first item on the list of King George's many abuses listed in the Declaration, the Founders condemned the king for his refusal to pass laws that were "the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." In the Constitution, the issue of taxation isn't even addressed until the third graph of Section 2. Conversely, the need to "establish Justice" and "promote the general Welfare" are in the very beginning, directly after "We the People..."
This wasn't an oversight by the founders, any more than the choice to NOT deal with the issue of slavery. These were items that were debated and discussed - and then codified in language released to the world.
As Steve Benen also pointed out yesterday, "We’re supposed to believe the leaders of the era were states-rights libertarians, embracing the attitudes of Ayn Rand and Grover Norquist generations before their birth."
The facts about the founders simply don't agree with the regressivist philosophy of today.
The question by many progressives and sane Republicans is, "So how do we fight the crazies, on this issue of the budget?" Surprisingly, Republican Sen. John Cornyn may have given those who do want to protect "the public good" the exact answer on how to defeat the regressive arm of the GOP on this issue.
Sen. Cornyn called for the budget debate to be laid out in public, as did another regressive Republican, Alabama's Jeff Sessions.
We firmly agree with both of them. Let the American people see EXACTLY who agrees with who.
As President Reagan's former budget director Bruce Bartlett pointed out, the American people overwhelmingly agree with the progressives and the Democratic Party right now. Americans are clamoring for unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations to be abolished, and tax rates to be raised, albeit slightly, in order to keep our promises and our benefits.
It's long past time for the Democratic Party to stand up for what the American people overwhelmingly want - and by doing so, force the Republican Party to also stand up and defend their stated beliefs; namely continued tax breaks for the richest and those who need them least, while taking away benefits from the sick, elderly, children, and those who need help the most.
As the saying goes, when they show you who they are, believe them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)