HorsesAss.Org

It starts right before the 2000’s with Blowjobgate. American Journalism balanced its coverage between a third Way neo-liberal who was horny and the anguished cries of Republicans who insisted horniness will destroy the Republic.

Neo-liberalism won in extra innings, although batshit had a good game.

Then American Journalism made fun of Love Story as seen on the Internet, balancing coverage precisely halfway between neo-liberalism and batshit insane.

Batshit won in exra innings, with the help of the home plate umpire. American Journalism decided to go see what the sharks were eating.

Then came a Pearl Harbor of our Lifetimes. To deal with the Evil Empire of our Lifetimes, we needed Saddam to Suck On Something. Coverage was balanced between Third-Way hawk viewpoints and those who argued that French Fries were the problem. American Journalism sort of missed the millions of people marching around going “this is a big mistake,” although they did occasionally find time to make fun of them.

Completely batshit won in a blowout, and in an exhibition match, a brain dead woman smiled at everyone. American Journalism was content.

After the Big Mistake, there were even bigger mistakes and shocking brutality. American Journalism started to look into it all, but then a Federalist Society member who just happened to be familiar with late 20th-Century typewriter font kerning was watching TV one night. American Journalism cowered before the power of kerning, fearing for itself.

Coverage of shocking brutality was balanced between a few gasps and calls for more shocking brutality, including against American Journalists.

Batshit won again.

Meanwhile, the Great Recession was happening. American Journalism did not balance its coverage about this because it missed the story altogether.

American Journalism gnashed her teeth and smiled at everyone who was still around. She would get the story right this time, by packaging it better and using Twitter.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY6k50qB4Ys[/youtube]

At a Tuesday rally marking the demise of the print edition of the Seattle P-I (and the bulk of its newsroom) Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat showed solidarity with his fellow journalists, telling them “It’s not your fault.”  You didn’t create the Internet, Westneat assured his fallen colleagues, and you didn’t destroy the business model that had long supported print media.

And on one level, Danny’s absolutely right.  The P-I’s staff isn’t out on the street due to anything they did wrong, and they certainly didn’t lose their long struggle with the Times because they produced an inferior product.  Hearst blinked first; had they not, it could have been Danny being consoled by friends Tuesday evening rather than the other way around.

“The Seattle P-I may be going out of business, but the Times is an equally troubled company, and possibly even more troubled,” said Alan Mutter, a former newspaper editor and Silicon Valley chief executive who writes the Reflections of a Newsosaur blog.

But on another level, Westneat’s elegy is consistent with a profound sense of denial that seems to afflict the entire news industry, and is crippling its efforts to effectively respond to dramatic changes in technology, economics and consumer tastes.  Yeah, sure… the P-I’s collapse isn’t the fault of its former staffers, any more than the dedicated, industrious craftsmen of the buggy whip industry can be blamed for their own economic displacement a century before, but to merely fault the Internet or a broken business model misses a larger point:  newspapers are losing subscribers and advertisers because they have not been giving customers what they want… at least, not something for which they are willing to pay a high enough price to sustain current operations.

And I hate to get all Adam Smith-y on my friends in the newspaper biz, but isn’t that the way the market is supposed to work?

I’m sure it is comforting to blame Google and Craig’s List or even the woeful mismanagement of your corporate overlords (the Times’ own finances would not be nearly as precarious if Frank Blethen had not over-leveraged the family business to finance his ill-advised invasion of their ancestral homeland), but for all the chatter about business models, I’ve seen very little self-examination amongst working journalists about reimagining the product itself.  I’m not talking about layout or redesigns or ink versus electrons, but actual, you know, words.  I just don’t hear much talk from journalists about reevaluating their devotion to the sort of flat, objective, personalityless, dispassionate prose that has long made the news pages of the Times and the P-I virtually indistinguishable from one another… and nearly every other major daily.

Don’t get me wrong; I love newspapers.  As a child of Watergate I grew up worshipping journalists as heros.  But by golly, much of what we read in the papers has always been godawful boring, even when the subject matter is not.  Forget for a moment all the brainstorming about new ways to present, distribute and monetize journalism, and focus instead on the reporting itself.  Surely there’s more than one way to cover an event, and more than a little room for even the best reporters to grow as writers, but there’s been almost zero innovation in terms of the craft of reporting since the beginning of the J-school era.  Tastes have changed, but the daily newspaper most definitely has not.

Let the business model brainstorming continue, but in the meanwhile editors need to give, and reporters need to embrace, the freedom and encouragement to innovate both in substance and style.  For if you simply keep pushing the same-old, same-old in the face of market rejection, at some level, at least partially, it really will be your fault after all.

I hope everyone finds a way to enjoy breaking the law over the next three weekends.

Labor wants the worker privacy bill to be voted upon. Rep. Geoff Simpson asks why a handful of Democrats can tell corporate lobbyists one thing while intending to vote a different way.

It’s all there from Joe Turner, the hardest working man left in Olympia and who refers to this thing as the “Neverending Saga.” Understandable.

Yeah, I’m sure many folks are sick and tired of the whole thing, but labor has a right to ask for a vote since the purported reason for killing the bill has now been revealed to be a pretext. And Simpson and others are well within their rights to raise questions about how the process seems to be geared toward thwarting majority rule.

It’s not that majority rule is always right about everything, but officials get elected by the people to pass laws and decide stuff. That’s why we have elections!

When leadership, corporate lobbyists and a handful of mini-Liebermans decide important issues can’t be voted upon at all in the Legislature, that’s not democracy. You could argue it’s just the way the process works, if it ever ever ever worked in the other direction, ie business and corporate interests sometimes get the same treatment, but they don’t and it’s not. Basically an economic and political elite has seized control of the levers of power and is only giving lip service to progressive values. The continued economic crisis only places this in stark relief, it’s been going on for a very long time.

It’s always the DFH that gets the shaft, usually in the name of “protecting jobs,” which is Third Way-speak for giving tax breaks and other preferential treatment to business interests at the expense of regular folks, environmental and consumer protections. You know any Republicans who fight that hard for unions? I wonder how they would fare if 5-10 of their members regularly took the side of the AFL-CIO.

It’s good to see some folks fighting the good fight, however. There are some pretty fundamental issues at stake here, both for the well-being of the state and, more peripherally, the Democratic Party.

Tomorrow is another one of those ridiculous stealth elections for King County Conservation District Board, and thus yet another golden opportunity for an anti-conservation conservative to grab a seat he could never otherwise win.  Paper Noose has the details over at Blogging Georgetown, and… well… it’s just plain depressing.

I’ve received a bunch of emails urging me to write in Mark Sollitto, and that’s exactly what I plan to do, assuming that is, I manage to vote at all.  Voting is conducted in person at only 13 polling places set up throughout the county; the nearest ones to me are at the main branch of the Seattle Public Library or at the Renton Community Center.  Neither is very convenient, which helps explain why so few people actually vote in these bullshit elections.

If local Republicans had their way, this is how all our elections would be run.  So let’s try not to let them have their way on this one:  get out there and vote tomorrow for Mark Sollitto.

Man, those righties sure are obsessed with Darcy Burner’s resume… obsessed with getting it wrong.

Yesterday, (u)SP’s Eric Earling “reported” that Darcy would be taking the Executive Director position at the Congressional Progressive Caucus, prompting the usual wingnut mirth about Darcy being some sort of hard left socialist or something.  His reliable source?  A Facebook update from former Reichert Chief of Staff Mike Shields, a man who made a career out of lying about Darcy and her accomplishments.

In fact, Darcy is taking an ED job in the other Washington, but it most definitely is not with the Progressive Caucus.  I know this because I actually bothered to ask Darcy, who sounded very excited about the opportunity to head up a new not-for-profit policy foundation; details will be forthcoming she promised, once it is officially announced.

In the meanwhile, I wouldn’t count on (u)SP to fill the news void left by the collapse of the P-I.

Do any families balance their budgets anywhere other than the kitchen table?

Get this– it seems the PDC wants no part of the flimsy faux-controversy “email-gate” involving the state labor council and um, well, the governor, house and senate leadership killing a labor bill.

Josh Feit at Publicola, again weighs in with some of that reporting stuff:

Well, check this out. According to a statement clearing the labor council today, the Washington State Patrol simultaneously said it was forwarding its investigation on to the Public Disclosure Commission. The State Patrol said the Commission had asked to review the emails. But the PDC just issued this statement, denying the State Patrol’s account:

The Public Disclosure Commission today said it did not request materials from the Washington State Patrol concerning e-mail correspondence sent to legislative leaders last week from an employee of the Washington State Labor Council.

And therein lies the problem with criminalizing politics. Nobody in their right mind at the PDC would touch this thing, because there’s nothing there.

Governor Chris Gregoire, Speaker of the House Frank Chopp and Majority Leader Sen. Lisa Brown have some ‘splaining to do.

People are very, very mad about lots of stuff, but especially the latest AIG bailout. The American people are losing patience and tolerance with politicians and corrupt corporate lackeys. (Is that completely redundant?)

Lobbyists should send me twelve (12) five ounce (5 oz.) USDA “Grade A” beef tenderloin steaks, frozen and individually wrapped, or I will kill their legislation.

I’m not freaking kidding. Try me. Flowers too.

It’s Saint Patrick’s Day, so there is a special green edition of Drinking Liberally tonight.

Join us tonight at Seattle’s Town Hall (Seneca between 7th and 8th ave, downstairs) from 7:30pm-9pm, for an evening with political pollster, insider, consultant, and author Stanley Greenberg.

Drawing from his book Dispatches from the War Room, Greenberg will recount his experiences working for five world leaders during their campaigns and governance. He’ll offer a candid look at Bill Clinton’s 1992 successful run for the presidency, his work for Nelson Mandela’s presidential run, Tony Blair as he unveiled “New Labour,” and Ehud Barak’s attempts at peacemaking. Greenberg will offer his assessment of why some politicians succeed, while other fail to bring their governing vision to fruition.

Tickets are $5 at the door. An ad hoc drinking get-together will follow the event.

Rumor has it that some hard-core drinkers and anti-reading types will gather at the usual spot—the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E—for dinner, a Guinness or two, and the oral transmission of political culture.

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 327 chapters of Drinking Liberally scattered across the earth. So put on your best caubeen, grab your favorite shillelagh, and stroll on down to a location near you.

The Stranger’s Eli Sanders asks “How Did the Seattle Times Become a Local Media Villain?” and then does a pretty thorough job answering the question.  In short, the Times has long catered to the fast growing suburban market, while the more urban P-I has better matched and served the interests of the city named in its masthead.  Not a bad business strategy for the Times, I suppose, but hardly endearing to us city folk.

The Seattle Times also clearly became the more Republican/conservative of the two papers exactly at a time when Democrats were cementing their hold on Seattle and its close-in suburbs, with the Times editorial board reflecting (and at times, regurgitating) the increasingly anti-labor, anti-tax, anti-government ideology of its publisher.  As former political reporter Neil Modie once explained to me, his Hearst-owned P-I actually had more editorial independence than the locally-owned Times because its absentee owners couldn’t care less about our state and local politics.

But Sanders is also dead-on in describing the print death of the P-I as a chance for the Times to recast its public image:

In a way, there’s an opportunity here for the Times. Right now, whatever the merits of the sentiment, the Seattle Times—the SEATTLE Times—is not seen by enough people as a true voice of this city. It wouldn’t take much, though, to start turning that around.

Sanders suggests the Times should start by leafing through the archives of their former rival, but I’ve got a more dramatic and immediate recommendation for Times publisher Frank Blethen:  if you really want to send a message to P-I loyalists that your paper can credibly represent all the voices in our public debate, you should go out and hire yourself a bona fide, liberal shitkicker like… well… me.

That’s right Frank, give me a regular column… hell, give me a seat on your editorial board, and with it, your personal assurance that I have the freedom to passionately refute the opinions of you and my new colleagues, without fear of reprisal or the need to constantly look over my shoulders.  Send a message to readers and the community at large, that the Times not only welcomes debate, it invites it, especially when it challenges the styles and orthodoxies of our media/political/business establishment.  Send a message that you’re actually learning something from the Internet other than fear.

(And yes, after all I’ve said and written, I’d happily go to work for Frank Blethen; if I could cash a paycheck from the Church of Latter Day Saints, I’d certainly have no qualms cashing one of his.)

Yeah, I know, that’s not much of a cover letter, which I suppose partially explains my current employment status, so if you really can’t bring yourself to swallow your pride and hire me, then you should hire somebody like Sandeep Kaushik, who’d be just as interesting a read, but I’m guessing a tad more acceptable to your current staff after years of brown-nosing them on behalf of his political clients.  But whatever.  You get the point.

The Times does have an opportunity to woo former P-I subscribers, but that window won’t remain open forever, so now, Frank, is the time to send a clear, persuasive and loud message that you are willing to represent the views and sensibilities of all Seattleites, not just those of our stodgy ruling class.  It is time to send the message that the Times is willing to embrace change.

And who better to send that message than your paper’s loudest critic?

No surprise really. Josh at Publicola reported this earlier this afternoon. From a statement Josh quotes from the Washington State Patrol:

Washington State Patrol detectives, after consulting with the Thurston County Prosecutor’s office, have determined that the e-mail sent to legislative leaders last week from an employee of the Washington State Labor Council did not constitute criminal conduct.

—snip—

“We looked carefully at the e-mail and at the law,” said State Patrol Chief John R. Batiste. “We could not find a specific criminal statute that was violated.”

Readers will recall that legislative leadership and the governor used the flimsy controversy to kill the worker privacy bill this session.

Josh has since updated his post with quotes from Rep. Mike Sells.

Rep. Mike Sells (D-38, Everett, Marysville), the sponsor of the doomed bill says: “Why am I not surprised? There was no ‘there’ there.”

Sells says, “Now there should be an investigation into how this decision [the decision by Democratic leadership to turn over the WSLC email to the state patrol] was made. Was it a ploy to get rid of the bill?”

Sells has a point. The state patrol basically dismissed the phoney-baloney accusation out of hand.

It certainly appears Gov. Chris Gregoire, House Speaker Frank Chopp and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown attempted to use the state patrol to further their own political goals, namely killing the bill. Talk about trying to criminalize politics. The righties, after all, have been warning us for years about a one-party state. Throw in the relative lack of news reporting compared to years past and it looks like a certain set of leaders has grown a wee bit too big for their britches. What, did they figure we wouldn’t care, even if we’re not labor folks?

Again, I’ll use italics to attempt to make the point: they called the cops on the state labor council over a strategy email that also went to a few legislators. Unwise? Sure. Unkind? Maybe. Illegal? Nope, and anyone with common sense immediately saw that.

I’ll just let all this digest a bit before I start in with the obscenities again, I’m going out to purchase an obscenity thesaurus.

UPDATE–5:15 PM– I spoke with someone at the WSLC, and it sure sounds like sending the email to a few legislators was an honest mistake. Obviously that’s almost impossible to prove short of some kind of forensic analysis of the computer involved, and even that wouldn’t show intent, but golly gee. (Notice I am still not swearing.)

Sorry to get all technical, but anyone else have what in technology circles is known as “groups of email addresses for different purposes?” Can’t say for sure that’s exactly what happened, but it sounds plausible.

When the film Star Trek Nemesis laid an egg at the box office, the brass at Paramount were perplexed. A flop at the box office, panned by critics, yawned at by hard core fans, ignored by non-nerd movie goers, the fabled franchise made famous by Shatner and Nimoy finally ran out of gas.

Movie execs are creatures of habit. This explains Godfather: Part III. It explains the two Alien Vs. Predator movies. It explains Adam Sandler’s film career. Given a choice, movie executives will go for the safe, dumb, moderately profitable choice versus the visionary, ground-breaking choice.

A few years after the flop of Nemesis, Star Trek’s corporate parents, Paramount, declined to make the safe choice, and instead put their brand in the hands of someone outside the company.

February 24, 2007 After months of speculation, J.J. Abrams has signed on to direct the next installment of the “Star Trek” feature franchise, sources said late Friday. “Star Trek XI” revolves around a young James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, chronicling their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first space mission.

J.J. Abrams (creator of Lost, and Alias) decided to take the film series in an entirely new direction. He rebooted the franchise, recasting the characters from the much-loved original series as their younger selves. The new film, titled quite simply as Star Trek, hits theaters in May, and at $150 million has the largest budget of any Trek film to date. Talk about boldly going…

What does all of this have to do with newspapers? It’s simple. Recast the entire newspaper with younger, fresher talent. And not with journalists, either. Recast them with younger actors playing journalists. Something to make younger readers pay attention. You know, like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

We don’t need new media, and we don’t need new journalists. What we need are actors playing the part of journalists. Because if America has learned anything in the last few years, it’s this:

1) Don’t eat peanut butter.

2) The people running our banks are insane.

3) Actors can be trusted to bring you the news.