Jan Ireland
Canceling liberal and Democratic bias in local newspapers
By Jan Ireland
For years conservatives have been urged to write Letters to the Editor to counteract the bias printed every week in local newspapers across America. But only one more Letter to the Editor needs to be written — a letter to cancel your subscription.
Howard Kurtz in a Washington Post column wrote "Imagine a business that is steadily losing customers, shrinking its work force, cutting back on services and mistrusted by much of the public. That is a snapshot of the news business in 2004."
Americans used to like opening their front doors to take in a morning paper. But that was before so many American newspapers became subsumed by the leftist agenda that permeates newspapers today. Much of the content of local papers is a thinly disguised attempt to keep Democrats, usually liberals, in office. Why pay for that?
Newspapers today compete with 24-hour cable news, talk radio, fast-breaking internet news sites, even the explosion of cell phone conversations to spread news. The public has suffered through Jayson Blair type scandals, the printed Madonna/Britney kiss, gay and lesbian "wedding" announcements, and the constant bashing of a wartime President. When all those things are added to intrusive requests for personal information before a Letter to the Editor will even be considered, intense frustration develops.
A current situation in Texas illustrates serious concerns about bias.
Texas Media Watch was set up to counteract the ink that is biased against Republicans in newspapers around the state. It was necessary despite Texas being President Bush's home state, and Republicans holding all statewide elected offices. When an open records request revealed that an American-Statesman reporter had e-mailed four pre-publication article drafts to Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, asking for comments and suggestions, questions were raised.
Earle is a Democratic District Attorney in heavily Democratic Travis County, the county containing the state capitol of Austin. He heads a Public Integrity Unit, an investigative unit which gives Democrat Earle "broad powers" of investigation, which have resulted in "vicious, partisan attacks" according to Texas Republican Party Chairman Tina Benkiser. How would that qualify him to edit a journalist's work before publication?
A rebuttal piece to Benkiser's statements recently appeared in the Houston Chronicle, listing 13 Earle probes, citing ten of them to be of Democrats. But that is reporter sleight of hand, and says nothing about the central issue.
The editorial's first paragraph was "Until recent years, Democrats controlled the Texas Legislature, held most statewide offices and caused big scandals. Now the situation is reversed, but some Republicans want their scandals to be exempt from investigation." What are the chances of that writer being objective?
I don't mind agreeing with the Houston Chronicle on the first sentence. But the second? Tina Benkiser is a lawyer, and unlikely to speak spuriously. Shouldn't there be proof of some Republican scandals before the Chronicle prints that second sentence? Sleight of hand again, and the kind of thing average Americans don't like in their local papers.
It remains that if Earle has conducted even one "vicious, partisan" attack, he should be stopped. Unanswered in the rebuttal is the First Amendment issue of a reporter sending stories to Earle for comments. Not addressed is why a single local District Attorney gets a reported biennium $1 million dollars of taxpayer money to operate the Public Integrity Unit mentioned. Presumably DAs in every county would prosecute local crimes, and statewide matters could arguably be handled more ably by the office of the state Attorney General's office, the chief law enforcement office of the state. These issues have not been well addressed in much of the Texas newspaper coverage.
Those who buy ink by the barrel don't have the power they once did. A current prediction suggests that by 2007, only one in four households will subscribe to a paper. Already today newspapers are scrambling for your subscription dollars.
Take those conservative dollars away, just temporarily, and I bet we could cancel the liberal and Democratic bias in local newspapers pretty much overnight. Could the bigger papers then be far behind?
We might even get back the American tradition of taking in a local paper — that reflects the community's values and traditions. The first step toward that, is writing that last Letter to the Editor.
© Jan Ireland
For years conservatives have been urged to write Letters to the Editor to counteract the bias printed every week in local newspapers across America. But only one more Letter to the Editor needs to be written — a letter to cancel your subscription.
Howard Kurtz in a Washington Post column wrote "Imagine a business that is steadily losing customers, shrinking its work force, cutting back on services and mistrusted by much of the public. That is a snapshot of the news business in 2004."
Americans used to like opening their front doors to take in a morning paper. But that was before so many American newspapers became subsumed by the leftist agenda that permeates newspapers today. Much of the content of local papers is a thinly disguised attempt to keep Democrats, usually liberals, in office. Why pay for that?
Newspapers today compete with 24-hour cable news, talk radio, fast-breaking internet news sites, even the explosion of cell phone conversations to spread news. The public has suffered through Jayson Blair type scandals, the printed Madonna/Britney kiss, gay and lesbian "wedding" announcements, and the constant bashing of a wartime President. When all those things are added to intrusive requests for personal information before a Letter to the Editor will even be considered, intense frustration develops.
A current situation in Texas illustrates serious concerns about bias.
Texas Media Watch was set up to counteract the ink that is biased against Republicans in newspapers around the state. It was necessary despite Texas being President Bush's home state, and Republicans holding all statewide elected offices. When an open records request revealed that an American-Statesman reporter had e-mailed four pre-publication article drafts to Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, asking for comments and suggestions, questions were raised.
Earle is a Democratic District Attorney in heavily Democratic Travis County, the county containing the state capitol of Austin. He heads a Public Integrity Unit, an investigative unit which gives Democrat Earle "broad powers" of investigation, which have resulted in "vicious, partisan attacks" according to Texas Republican Party Chairman Tina Benkiser. How would that qualify him to edit a journalist's work before publication?
A rebuttal piece to Benkiser's statements recently appeared in the Houston Chronicle, listing 13 Earle probes, citing ten of them to be of Democrats. But that is reporter sleight of hand, and says nothing about the central issue.
The editorial's first paragraph was "Until recent years, Democrats controlled the Texas Legislature, held most statewide offices and caused big scandals. Now the situation is reversed, but some Republicans want their scandals to be exempt from investigation." What are the chances of that writer being objective?
I don't mind agreeing with the Houston Chronicle on the first sentence. But the second? Tina Benkiser is a lawyer, and unlikely to speak spuriously. Shouldn't there be proof of some Republican scandals before the Chronicle prints that second sentence? Sleight of hand again, and the kind of thing average Americans don't like in their local papers.
It remains that if Earle has conducted even one "vicious, partisan" attack, he should be stopped. Unanswered in the rebuttal is the First Amendment issue of a reporter sending stories to Earle for comments. Not addressed is why a single local District Attorney gets a reported biennium $1 million dollars of taxpayer money to operate the Public Integrity Unit mentioned. Presumably DAs in every county would prosecute local crimes, and statewide matters could arguably be handled more ably by the office of the state Attorney General's office, the chief law enforcement office of the state. These issues have not been well addressed in much of the Texas newspaper coverage.
Those who buy ink by the barrel don't have the power they once did. A current prediction suggests that by 2007, only one in four households will subscribe to a paper. Already today newspapers are scrambling for your subscription dollars.
Take those conservative dollars away, just temporarily, and I bet we could cancel the liberal and Democratic bias in local newspapers pretty much overnight. Could the bigger papers then be far behind?
We might even get back the American tradition of taking in a local paper — that reflects the community's values and traditions. The first step toward that, is writing that last Letter to the Editor.
© Jan Ireland
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
