The Times Argus is running a reader poll on its website, asking if same-sex marriage should be a “top priority” for the Legislature. As of right now, the “Noes” have it, with 81 percent.

The poll question could be worse, but it clearly invites a “No” response. “Top priority” implies that our lawmakers should spend a lot of time on marriage, to the presumed detriment of other issues, i.e. the budget, the economy, etc.

It’s a false dichotomy, since our Legislative leaders,for all their faults, are certainly capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Anyhoo, if you’ve got a minute, wander over to the T-A and help boost the “Yes” vote.  

(This is excellent. – promoted by JulieWaters)

For a while now, I’ve been pondering the sad state of three major information sources: newspapers, radio, and bookstores. All three are in financial decline, and their response is the same: cut costs, and reduce the quality of the product on offer.

But something I heard Wednesday (2/25) on “Marketplace” finally spurred me to write. It was an interview between host Kai Ryssdal and David Westphal, former editor for the McClatchy chain and now associated with the Annenberg School of Journalism at USC. Here’s the key passage:

WESTPHAL: …for many newspaper companies, they’re so over-leveraged, so in debt, that it [turning to the Internet] doesn’t work.

RYSSDAL: Well, that’s a great point. And we should point out the Tribune Company, which owns the Los Angeles Times here in town, is in bankruptcy, in large part because of its debt. How much of a problem is it that the corporations that run some of these newspaper enterprises are so overburdened with debt?

WESTPHAL: Right now, it’s the thing that’s killing major metro newspapers. There are 1,400 daily newspapers in the United States. I would guess the large majority of them are actually doing all right. They’re being hurt by the recession, they’re being hurt by the Internet, but they’re still making pretty decent profits. But the major metros, and especially the ones that borrowed billions of dollars to expand, are the ones that are in real trouble now.

Did I hear that right? Debt load is the thing that’s killing our major newspapers? Not Craigslist, or GoogleNews? Not rap music or the almighty Wii? Gosh.  

Okay, so how did these papers get so deeply in debt? Buying delivery trucks? New computers? Barrels of ink? Hiring too many reporters or columnists?

Noooo… it came from corporate takeovers of newspapers. The consolidation into big chains. The LA Times is in bankruptcy, not because it’s a financial wreck on operations, but because of Sam Zell’s leveraged buyout of somebody else’s LBO-built newspaper empire. (Zell was a lot like a homeowner who over-invested in residential property when times were high — except ol’ Sammy and all his high-flying buddies somehow escape the blame routinely assigned to individual homeowners caught in our financial maelstrom.) If newspapers were still independent entities, they would be in much better shape to face the issues raised by new media, rather than just cutting and cutting until there’s nothing left.

Okay, radio. With the exception of a handful of Radio Vermonts, and I consider myself damn lucky to be able to listen to one, the radio business is the province of a handful of giants. Clear Channel, Cumulus, Entercom, etc. These corporations were built through cheap-credit-fueled buying sprees; they often entered a market and snarfed up as many broadcasting properties as they could legally hold, at prices far higher than the stations’ intrinsic worth.

Anecdote: Years ago in Detroit, there was a commercial station called WQRS that broadcast classical music. It had a small, loyal, upscale audience, and it consistently generated modest profits. Then a big conglomerate bought it. And, in order to carry the debt load incurred in the deal, the conglomerate needed more than consistent modest profits — it needed a home run. So the format flipped to yet another variant of Hot Hits/Classic Rock/some such garbage, in an attempt to crack the top of the ratings. It didn’t work; and instead of a viable, commercially successful classical station, Detroit had yet another cookie-cutter format. A true cultural resource was lost. Another abandoned strip mine appeared on the media landscape. This tale has been repeated literally thousands of times across America. And people wonder why radio is becoming an irrelevant medium. It ain’t because of satellite or Internet radio; it’s because broadcast radio SUCKS.

Sorry this is getting so long, but I’ve still got bookstores. Once upon a time, Borders Books was a single store in a university town owned by two brothers, Tom and Louis Borders. It was a fabulous store — tens of thousands of titles, a very deep selection, and an extremely knowledgeable staff, most of whom had majored in literature or history.

Then, Borders began to expand — at first, under Tom’s control. A limited number of high quality stores in select markets. But eventually, the company needed deeper pockets to continue its growth. So it was sold to — wait for it — K-Mart. For a while, K-Mart let Borders grow pretty much on its own terms. (I don’t know who owns Borders now; I’m almost positive K-Mart sold it, probably to some vulture-capital outfit.)

But now, the joyride has ended. Faced with online competition, Borders stores are shrinking before our eyes. Big displays of current bestsellers, bargain books, cards, wrapping paper, CDs, DVDs, and gifty crap (not to mention coffee shops) have replaced much of the formerly glorious selection of books. (I’ve been back to the original store recently, and it too has gone to hell. It was that visit, around Christmastime, that first got me thinking of strip mines.)

As it grew, Borders displaced a lot of locally-owned bookstores. In many cases — at first — it was a decent trade. Those early Borders stores were quite good, and a lot of indy bookstores really were not. But now Borders is in trouble, and all those indies are not coming back to fill the void. The book marketplace has been strip-mined by Borders’ corporate parents.

Three major communications media, all significantly degraded by corporate invasion: takeover by entities interested only in maximizing financial return, not in the quality of communication or in building a solid business for the long haul. All three media have been treated like commodities and exploited to near extinction. And there are no laws or regulations whatsoever governing this kind of cultural strip-mining.

Pardon my extended rant. And it’s not exactly relevant to recent postings about tactical maneuvers in the VDP. But that Marketplace interview got me going. Thanks for reading, if anyone did.  

Announced earlier today by UVM: your new 2009 commencement speaker, Howard Dean…

http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Pag…

I’d call that an upgrade.  

(Heh. – promoted by odum)

I was trying to imagine the presentation that Gov. Douglas might have made to President Obama at their meeting on Monday. Given his approach to the state budget situation, I have to think it went something like this:

“Mr. President, I appreciate the offer of support through the stimulus package. But we Vermonters believe that tough times call for tightening our belts. We should not live beyond our means, especially in times like these. As I told the people of Vermont, we can no longer afford to maintain all the government programs we have come to enjoy. Therefore, Mr. President, with all due respect, I must refuse any influx of federal funds that arise from deficit spending. And I urge you to follow our example throughout the country: Cut spending. Balance the budget.”

So that’s it, right? That’s gotta be more or less what he told the President, right? Let’s turn to the Times Argus account:

The Republican governor and the Democratic president spent about 30 minutes discussing the state of the national economy and the dire need for the economic stimulus bill to pass during a meeting that came as a surprise to Douglas.

“The president and I both believe that we need to do something now to help the economy,” Douglas said early Monday evening during a telephone interview.

Oh. Gee. Never mind about our core principles, then. Show me the money!

(Voluntary update: When I posted this, I hadn’t spotted BP’s earlier post on the same subject. Didn’t mean to steal anyone’s thunder.)

There’s been a series of articles in the Burlington Free Press lately about IBM, and it’s pretty much been portents of doom. “IBM’s Vermont Plant Continues to Lag.” “Economist Forecasts IBM Layoffs.” And, of course, the ever-popular play-one-community-against-another, “Iowa Woos IBM.”

So now, in the 1/22 edition, “Plant Wants Energy Flexibility.” In which IBM declares that it wants to end its payments to Efficiency Vermont.

The company wants the state to allow large corporations that agree to do at least $1 million a year in energy-efficiency work to opt out of contributing to Efficiency Vermont, a state program funded through a charge on every electric bill, O’Kane said. By running its own efficiency program, IBM would have more flexibility, he said.

“It would, in our view, be much more effective if we could make investments and then get audited,” said O’Kane, government affairs director for IBM.

Let’s leave aside for the moment the laughable notion that the Douglas gang would conduct effective audits of an IBM efficiency program. Anyone see a pattern here? Storm clouds over state’s biggest corporate employer, hints that they may look elsewhere… followed by demands for relief. Do you suppose this will be the last item on IBM’s wish list? Do you think they might use all the bad news as leverage? And, given the Administration’s pro-corporate proclivities, don’t you think IBM will be given pretty much whatever it wants?

One more question for those more knowledgeable than I: If large corporations are allowed to opt out of these payments, what kind of a cut will be forced on the extremely effective but already underfunded EV program?  

I’ve been out of town visiting family so this is a catch-up to something posted several days ago. Sorry if this is old.

Okay, so on 12/23 there was a diary by odum which included the following missive from Burlington City Councilor Jane Knodell about an upcoming caucus.

The caucus is open to voters of ward 2 who wish to be members of the Progressive Party. Since the Progressive Party is a party of principles, membership requires subscribing to the Statement of Principles in the Party Charter…

Inspiring a snarky comment by odum about top-down versus bottom-up party organization. Which in turn inspired a brief outbreak of Dem/Prog snark. Now, I didn’t have particularly strong feelings about Knodell’s notice. But it does seem remarkably curious, coming from the same person who was, only a few days earlier, quoted thusly by Shay Totten:  

Progressive City Councilor Jane Knodell (Ward 2) was in the crowd at Wright’s announcement. She said later that Wright “did a great job” and she thinks he’ll “have broad appeal across the political spectrum and across the city.”

Great job and broad support? Is this the makings of a “Progressives for Wright” group? Nope, said Knodell. So she’s backing Bob Kiss, right? Wrong again.

“I am not going to be publicly supporting any candidate this mayoral election,” said Knodell.

Let me see if I understand. Knodell expects party members to adhere to party principles. Fair enough. But she doesn’t feel the need to publicly support one of her party’s leading officeholders?

Color me confused.  

Story in today’s Times Argus entitled “Foodbank: Shelves Are Empty” closes with the following paragraph:

Gov. James Douglas announced Tuesday that he would volunteer at the Foodbank Wednesday afternoon in an effort to call attention to the importance of donating. The event, which will include a statement to the press, is scheduled for 2:30 p.m.

I must admit, my first uncharitable thought had something to do with shoes, comma, heaving of, in the general direction of the powerful. But hey, it’s the holiday season. So let us banish ill will from our minds and hearts, and applaud our Governor for this noble photo op — er, selfless act of voluntarism.

Let us also applaud the grapefruit-sized balls of a leader who would stage a publicity stu — er, perform his civic duty on behalf of those less fortunate, in the same week that he unveiled a festive round of budget cuts.  

This is mainly a reposting of my own comment. It was one of the last in a comment string on odum’s Wednesday diary entitled “More on the Reporter Shortage.” Since it was buried at the very end of a string, I thought I’d make it a separate diary and see if it prompts any discussion.

The context: a discussion of the dwindling Vermont press corps, and how it helps the Governor drive the agenda. My idea, if you’ll pardon the conceit of quoting myself:

Maybe the Vermont Democratic Party should find enough resources to HIRE a reporter or two. Not to write press releases or be communications flacks — but to do actual journalism. Dig, poke, prod, do all the other stuff reporters used to do. Then, when they find something, they can release it to the mainstream media — with the documentation to back it up. That might make the stories more credible to the MSM than a Party press release or leadership news conference.

The Progs could do this too, of course, but the Dems have greater resources. Do they have enough to create a “press bureau” of their own? Don’t know. But it might be the kind of thing that could attract financial support. Might even (I’m way out of my depth here, so grain of salt, folks) set up a nonprofit specifically for the purpose of doing investigative journalism in Montpelier, which would make contributions tax-deductible.  

It’s an idea. As traditional media continue to diminish (even the mighty NPR is laying off people and canceling shows), we will have to find new models for effective journalism.  

Given the decline in actual journalism jobs, there ought to be some qualified candidates for such a position.

This could be seen as a refinement of “opposition research,” except that instead of targeting a politician’s record of public statements (and personal life), it would explore the track record of a political officeholder, and that of the government s/he oversees.

I dunno, might be outlandish. But it could be a very effective way of combating the incumbent’s edge in driving the public policy discussion. And a way to help compensate for the diminishing presence of traditional journalism.  

( – promoted by odum)

I hope you don’t mind a brief comment on behalf of a commercial product… but fans of Tim Newcomb’s political cartoons (as seen every week in Seven Days) might want to know that Tim has just published A Gaggle of Governors, a collection spanning his 25 years of cartooning in Vermont.  

It’s a great big batch of cartoons, covering events and people long past (Ralph Wright, Fred Tuttle, the fiscally conservative Governor Howard Dean), and oddly current (20-year-old cartoons about safety problems at Vermont Yankee).

Tim self-published the book, so distribution might be spotty. It’s definitely available in Montpelier bookstores. If you can’t find it, he can be reached through his website, www.newcombstudios.com.

Update: Hey, I just noticed Nate’s diary post that also mentions the  book — although, thanks to his superior Net skills, he actually includes a few ‘toons. He also mentions the upcoming book-release party, 12/9 at The Black Door in Montpelier.  

Nice story in today’s Boston Globe entitled “Republicans Feeling a New Freedom” by Sasha Issenberg, about a panel at the recent Republican Governors conference in Miami. It was a broad discussion of where the GOP goes from here. One place it’s going as fast as it can: disowning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those are now Democratic responsibilities, one Bush ally noted with some satisfaction, hinting at a corollary to the “Pottery Barn rule” about postwar responsibility: Republicans may have broken Iraq, but President-elect Barack Obama bought it.

“He will now own it, and Republicans will be more free to criticize,” said former Ohio Congressman Rob Portman, who held two positions in the Bush administration and is now considering a run for governor in 2010.

Hey, wait — I thought criticizing the American war effort was tantamount to treason: giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Guess not, eh?  

There was also a presentation by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, outlining the buzzwords for a successful campaign. They were all about things like “accountability” and “efficiency.” You know, the hallmarks of the Bush Administration and the 1994-2006 Republican Congress. Luntz noted that, four years ago, most of the buzzwords were about strength and security; now, it’s all about the economy and good government. Who’d a thunk it?

But the best comes from Saul Anuzis, the head of the spectacularly unsuccessful Michigan GOP, who has somehow convinced himself that he should be the next head of the national party. We should be rooting for this guy.

“All the things that didn’t go right with government, Republicans got blamed,” said Saul Anuzis, a Michigan party official running to lead the Republican National Committee, mentioning Iraq along with Hurricane Katrina and the so-called Bridge to Nowhere earmark. “Republicans, generally, we run better when we run against Washington from the outside.”

Good thinking, Saul. Two points:

1. “Republicans got blamed.” It’s almost like they were, oh, running the country or something!

2. “We run better when we run… from the outside.” In other words, Saul, the more the GOP loses, the better. I couldn’t agree more. Let’s put ’em way, way outside and keep ’em there for a long time.