February 23, 2018
Art, politics, angels, demons . . . and righteous dogs.

Wither Print? 1 of 3

Gradually coming into focus is the very harsh prospect of a world without newspapers.  McClatchy just announced more job cuts, the LA Times is becoming a shadow of what it was.  The Rocky Mountain News is gone and the SF Chronicle may be the first newspaper to go, leaving a major city newspaperless. The NY Times, though privately owned, cannot sustain huge losses indefinitely.  So what does this mean?  I wouldn’t be so gravely concerned if there was something even remotely like a newspaper for organizing and delivering news.  It is not just the investment in newsgathering that will be lost.  It is also the issue of DESIGN.  Unlike the Web, which has almost no design in media sites.  Here design is integral in giving the reader a sense of the scope and weight of news.  Only a newspaper does that.  In the future I am sure the web will because it will have to.  But what about in the interim? It is in those cracks that very bad things can grow. Journalism is the fourth branch of government.  Losing a big part of it will mean important things can be more easily hidden.  I feel this is too important for the market to solve.  Here is the first of a series of voices on the topic.  The first is Bruce Bartlett, former Treasury Dept. economist under HW Bush.

“Personally, I am partial to the nonprofit model. Foundations, universities, think tanks and even political parties might sponsor publications. For example, the Ford Foundation might take over The New York Times, Harvard University might buy The Boston Globe and the Heritage Foundation might assume control of the The Washington Times. They could run these publications without expectation of profit and a least keep alive the basic journalistic function.”

Springtime for Limbaugh


Rush Limbaugh has cornered the Anti-Obama rhetoric market now. Not afraid to wish the country ill if it means hurting the president he goes way, way out there. Will the GOP lemmings run out there too?  Looks like!

Jonathan Alter in Newsweek:

” . . . Rush’s audience remains huge, with a weekly audience of more than 20 million, and will stay large for as long as he broadcasts. If his listeners can forgive him sending his poor housekeeper into a parking lot to score drugs for him, they will forgive anything. But these folks no long represent the American mainstream. In fact, while 28 percent of Americans still identify themselves as Republicans, 29 percent call themselves independents. Plenty of the indies might still be listening to Rush, but they don’t take their marching orders from him anymore. To them, he’s just another entertainer.

When Obama first mentioned Limbaugh in a meeting with Republicans during his second week in office, he was chastised for elevating him in a way that didn’t befit a president. But it quickly became clear that any contest between Barack and Rush was not really a contest at all—and that this is a fight the president is happy to have. The president’s popularity is in the 60s, and the entertainer’s, according to internal Democratic polling, is in the 20s. So Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs are now piling on, describing Limbaugh as the “intellectual force” and “de facto chairman” of the party.

It works. And it will keep on working until enough Republicans grow a spine. When they show enough guts to ignore the thousands of calls and e-mails from dittoheads, maybe they’ll get their party—and their self-respect—back.”