Journal “Making Do” Without an Environment Writer

June 14th, 2013 · Uncategorized

By Denise Tessier

In this case, it was better late than never.

And admittedly, once it ran, it was a good story, given full play at the top of the front page on the week’s highest circulation day, spilling over onto a near-full page inside.

But the Journal was behind other local media in running “Nation’s largest uranium mine planned for N.M.,” informing readers that another uranium boom was being contemplated near Mount Taylor. The story ran May 19.

Nearly two weeks before, on May 7, environment writer Laura Paskus had already written a story for New Mexico In Depth about the proposal, which had come to light via a U.S. Forest Service’s environmental impact statement on a Canadian company’s plans, with a Japanese partner, to mine three sections of Forest Service and state lands north of Grants.

The day Paskus’ article ran, a letter was published on the Journal’s Talk of the Town page, in which an Albuquerque woman (Julie Jaynes) urged people to contact the Cibola National Forest office and voice objections to the mine.

Ten days before the Journal story, a petition had already begun circulating on the internet, objecting to the mine proposal.

And when protesters, mainly Native Americans seeking to preserve the sanctity of what is regarded as a sacred area, showed up at Forest Service headquarters in Albuquerque to demonstrate against the mine, the Journal did not cover it. New Mexico In Depth did, this time with a report by Bryant Furlow, published online May 13.

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags:··································

Some Context, Please

June 10th, 2013 · economy, tax policy

By Arthur Alpert

Oh, gosh. I was hoping objectivity was dead but no, the monster rages still and still destroys journalism. Case in point- a horrible Saturday, June 8 Albuquerque Journal story headlined:

“Pearce Warns of Economic Failure”

James Monteleone’s account of Rep. Steve Pearce’s comments to the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce ran on page C2.

Let me state quickly that I doubt Monteleone was responsible for this disaster. He’s an excellent reporter. Also, the piece included one useful sentence, which I’ll cite below.

But the story allows Congressman Pearce to expound, fantasize and expound again with no fear of questioning, rebuttal or even context. There’s no history or background, no alternate explanation or opinion that might reveal the unusual dimensions of the man’s ignorance, if that is the appropriate word for what he revealed.

This is what traditional objectivity requires – taking what somebody says at face value rather than subjecting it to the reporter’s inquiring mind, his knowledge, feelings and what background information can be found in the newspaper’s morgue…er, library…er, on line.

And good luck to the reader.

Let’s look at the story. First, Rep. Pearce expressed his dismay at (reporter’s paraphrase) “the  risk of economic collapse if the government doesn’t change course to grow the economy.”

Nothing in the account indicates that most elected representatives, most economists and most Wall Street observers agree the opposite is the case – the economy is recovering, albeit too slowly. So Mr. Pearce’s first assertion puts him way out on a limb.

Then Pearce bemoans the growing national debt, approaching $17 trillion dollars.

Neither he nor the story notes the U.S. Treasury made the first payment on that debt since 2007 a few months ago, some $35 billion worth.

Neither he nor the story considers the possibility that the national debt may not be the nation’s primary concern.

And – and talking about history – he and the story ignore how that debt was created and who perpetrated the deed.

I don’t expect Mr. Pearce to say mea culpa, nor name the names of those responsible, including his fellow laissez-faire fanatics, many traditional conservatives and some corporate liberals, but surely the newspaper can provide context.

How hard can it be to name the tax cuts that squeezed to a trickle the flow of incoming money? To identify mega-expenses Washington chose to put on the credit card? To spell G-R-E-E-N-S-P-A-N?

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags:····

March Against Monsanto Gets Short Shrift

June 7th, 2013 · Uncategorized

By Denise Tessier

When a reported 2 million people participated worldwide in the “March Against Monsanto” last month, the Albuquerque Journal ran an Associated Press story along the fold line of an inside page in the B section.

One could excuse the Journal for keeping this massive event off the front page that particular day (May 26) because the stories that did make A1 were strong and local: “‘Desperate Times’ for N.M. Ranchers” reported on drought-induced cattle starvation, “Old Shelter Ready for New Threat” was a rare opportunity to go vicariously into a 1960s home-made bomb shelter via columnist Leslie Linthicum, and “Power line may go through new monument” was bona fide, solid news.

What’s inexcusable is that nowhere in the paper did the Journal carry the news that “hundreds” had marched against Monsanto in Albuquerque, walking from the University of New Mexico to Civic Plaza. That news, with a gallery of photos to prove it, came courtesy of New Mexico Compass, with its May 28 post “Burquenos March Against Monsanto.”

[Read more →]

→ 2 CommentsTags:················

Another Casualty in Journalism’s Digital Age

June 6th, 2013 · journalism

By Denise Tessier

While the news that the Chicago Sun-Times has fired its entire photo staff – all 28 of them – isn’t general enough to make the slim pages of daily newspapers like the Albuquerque Journal, it’s huge to those of us who’ve worked in the news business. And it’s a prominent dark mark on the barometer of changes in the news industry, redefining yet again what passes for journalism.

The Sun-Times is the tabloid rival to the daily Chicago Tribune in what is now a rarity – the two-newspaper town. Last Thursday (May 31), Sun-Times Media (whose owner is said to have a strong focus on digital media) fired all its photographers, apparently planning instead use freelancers and train reporters to capture images on iPhones.  It then confirmed the firings in a statement to the Associated Press, saying:

Today, the Chicago Sun-Times has had to make the very difficult decision to eliminate the position of full-time photographer, as part of a multimedia staffing restructure.

AP said the statement noted that the “business is changing rapidly” and audiences are “seeking more video content with their news.”

Among those fired was Pulitzer Prize-winning Sun-Times photographer John H. White, who the AP noted “took a well-known photo of now-imprisoned Gov. Rod Blagojevich leaving his home through a back alley, one day after he was arrested on federal corruption charges. The photo caught Blagojevich as he passed a bright yellow sign warning about rats.”

Now, it’s possible that a reporter chasing down Blagojevich in the alley, trying to get a quote, could have captured the juxtaposition of rat sign and corrupt politician. But it’s highly improbable.

As a lifelong journalist who started out in the 1970s as a photographer interning at the Journal (I switched to writing when then-Photo Editor Ray Cary told me he’d never hire a “girl”), I have, on countless occasions, taken photos to go with my stories. Yes, reporters can take photos. They can do both. And the quality can be good. But doing both jobs lessens the chance that the photos will be great.

I concur with a comment by New Yorker Eddie Vega, who was writing after reading “Do Newspapers Need Photographers?”— a blog piece about the firings by New York Times Editorial Page Editor Lawrence Downes:

If you are taking notes, you cannot be shooting photos or waiting with a vigilant finger on the shutter release for all the right narrative or emotional elements to appear in a frame. If you are conducting an interview, you cannot be metering for light or setting up for angles, which is best done with a pair of moving feet.

Unlike writing, where a reporter/writer can ask further questions with a follow-up phone call, a photographer has one chance to capture that fleeting moment where story and visual beauty come together. And if the focus is on words, not images, that moment will go unnoticed.

While I didn’t know any of the photographers at the Chicago Sun-Times, reading their plight started me thinking about the great photographers I’ve worked with over the years – and the ones whose work I still see and admire on the pages of the Albuquerque Journal. Some of these artists have gone on to produce works admired worldwide. (Some years ago, I was enchanted to find in Paris subway tunnels huge posters – featuring a stunning photo of a shrouded Iraqi widow in a cemetery – announcing an exhibition of photos by Jim Nachtwey, with whom I had worked at the Journal many years before.)

As is common in other professions as well these days, when staff members leave or are fired, those left behind are saddled with the extra work – at no increase in pay, of course.

It has happened over the years at the Journal as well, as staffers take on more and more tasks as resources get tighter.  Yet the Journal has managed to hold on to a fine staff of photographers, writers and illustrators – much to its credit. But as the Chicago story shows us, even a Pulitzer can’t immunize one from layoffs in these economic times.

Sixty years of Chicago Sun-Times photos have been put together in a book, Real Chicago. A consultant who organized an exhibit of photos for the Sun-Times offices has posted some of them online as a tribute, in light of the firings.

I wonder if 60 years from now, one could create a compelling history book or exhibit from iPhone shots.

At the Chicago paper, as another commenter on Downes’ post put it:

Bean counters seem to be winning on this one, lowering the visual bar and killing the photographers/journalists along the way. This goes beyond the notion that we are in transition from print to digital. We have long passed that point. This is about profit margins, the corporate news delivery structure and not about “us” as “content providers” having to “evolve.”

It’s a sad day for all of us – both we, the “evolving content providers,” and the readers.

 

→ 3 CommentsTags:······

A Plea of Guilty: Tom Clifford, Joe Monahan and the Emily Litella Affair

May 29th, 2013 · journalism, tax policy

By Arthur Alpert

Bailiff: ”Oyez, oyez. The court is now in session, the Honorable John Doe presiding, to hear the case of Joe Monahan, esteemed blogger, v. Arthur Alpert, accused thief of words.

Judge Doe: “Alpert, how do you plead?”

AA: “Well, er, I don’t know, Your Honor. Joe thinks I stole from him and I hope I didn’t but, but, but he may be right.”

Judge Doe: “What kind of mealy-mouth plea is that, Alpert?

AA: “Well, sir, may I explain. Back on the 21st, you see, I wrote about Finance Secretary Tom Clifford’s apology to legislators for inaccurate testimony just before they voted on a tax package.

“This package, supported by the Republican governor and conservative Democrats, cut taxes for corporations, you see, on the theory that making the rich and corporate richer will spur economic growth.

“Well, I quoted Dan Boyd’s Wednesday, May 15 Journal report to the effect that Clifford first said the bill would raise money for the state for five years, but a later estimate “released after lawmakers approved the tax package calculates that the legislation will cost the state more than $70 million in forgone revenue in the 2017 fiscal year.”

“And give him credit, Secretary Clifford apologized for his mistake. Wow. What an extraordinary story! At least I thought so, but Journal editors must have disagreed because they dropped it below the fold in the Metro section, surprising me to heck, remember?

Judge Doe: “Can you get to the point, Alpert? The Court doesn’t have all day.”

AA: “Yes, Your Honor, I will. You see, the apology brought Gilda Radner to mind, and her character, Emily Litella, who’d take the podium on Saturday Night Live years ago to rant and rave until somebody said she’d completely misunderstood the issue. Then she’d pause and say, soberly, “Never mind.”

“Or maybe I didn’t. Maybe I saw Joe Monahan’s Thursday, May 16 post where he wrote:

When it comes to the hyper-controversial tax cut package passed in the final frenetic seconds of the 2013 legislative session, the state’s top budget official pulls an Emily Litella from Saturday Night Live and says “Never Mind!”

AA: “Your Honor, I like to think it was great minds thinking alike, but I might have read Joe’s post, stuck it in my gray matter, and when I pulled it out a few days later, it was mine, all mine.

“So I want to plead guilty, Your Honor, even if I’m not 100 certain I ripped Joe off, because I could have.

“Oh, and there’s another reason. I’ve been peeking at Joe Monahan’s “New Mexico Politics” blog for years and enjoying it. He’s always been knowledgeable about the political game and couched what his Alligators shared in an entertaining fashion.

“Lately, though, Your Honor, he’s better than that. Back in the day, Joe focused a lot on the gamesmanship but now he’s paying much more attention to the content, what the games are about. It’s as if he’s decided that politics really matters, that it’s how we make our lives better or worse.”

“So if I stole Joe’s clever wordplay, Your Honor, well, I hope he understands that I only steal from my betters. And I throw myself on the mercy of the Court.”

→ No CommentsTags:····

Filling the Gap: Theater Stories from the Mountains and the Plains

May 29th, 2013 · Uncategorized

By Denise Tessier

One of the comments  left on my colleague Arthur Alpert’s excellent post on the Journal cutting its theater coverage suggested that:

The (New Mexico) Compass or the (Weekly) Alibi could step into the vacuum by adding and increasing theater coverage with well written previews and reviews, and pick up readers in the process.

As an East Mountain resident and regular reader of The Independent in Edgewood, I would direct those interested in theater reviews to the Mountain Musing column by Wally Gordon, which lately has carried theater stories with regularity.

In his column, “Theater Scene is Growing,” published earlier this month, Gordon (who long ago worked for the Albuquerque Journal and who founded the Independent) echoed Alpert’s recommendation of Talkin’ Broadway, writing that:

. . .the best outlet for Albuquerque theatrical views is a New York outfit, Talkin’ Broadway (which I have agreed to join as a critic). It covers not only New York happenings, but also theater in 20 regional cities, including Albuquerque.

Sure enough, while Gordon has had reviews in the Independent quite often recently, he posted one on Talkin’ Broadway May 20 about “Five Women Wearing the Same Dress,” a production of the Duke City Repertory Company.

No longer saddled with the day-to-day details of ownership at the paper, Gordon continued his column by popular demand after selling the paper to staff members.

Last month, he also mused about “56 Up,” the latest in a series of films started in 1963 that looks into the lives of a group of Britons every so many years; it had recently played at Albuquerque’s Guild Theater. As a frequent film viewer, one part that lingered after reading “’56 Up’ – Life is for living,” was Gordon’s clear comparison of American and foreign films:

In American movie dramas, there is almost always an epiphany and a dramatic climax. Events lead toward a well-rounded conclusion, a finality, a true end.

In French and many other European films, by contrast, the emphasis at the conclusion is often not that something has ended but that life goes on. Just as the Victorian novel often ended with a marriage, as if that was the destination and rationale of life, so American films often conclude with one of the three D’s – death, divorce or disease.

But the French don’t seem to believe in endings. Yes, life changes us. Yes, we endure trauma. But after the trauma changes us, we, our lovers, our families, our communities and our nation endure.

Once when I was living in Arica, an African told me, “You Americans believe life is good or bad. We Africans know it just is.”

Also worth noting is Gordon’s May 15 story about an actual theater – and its visionary architect. “Paoli (sic) Soleri Amphitheater – monument to a dream” was prompted by the death of Paolo Soleri, who had died in April in Arizona at the age of 93. Gordon listed the Paolo Soleri Amphitheater in Santa Fe along with the Eiffel Tower as two rare examples of an architectural structure bearing the name of its creator, rather than of an owner, function or location.

After serving more than four decades as a concert and event venue in Santa Fe, and considering that the Paolo Soleri is still under threat of demolition by the Santa Fe Indian School, which owns the property, it would seem that a story about Soleri’s death would have been carried by the state’s leading newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal. But it was only carried in Journal North.

Gordon’s columns may be accessed online a week after publication by going to The Independent archives and scrolling through the pdf of the paper to his column, usually around Page 6, or by going directly to his columns at the Mountain Musing archives.

→ 1 CommentTags:··········

Anatomy of Avoidance: How the Journal deprived readers of the Apple tax dodge story

May 27th, 2013 · journalism, tax policy, Uncategorized

By Arthur Alpert

Some 20 years ago, I was afraid of new technology, stuck in manual typewriter mode, when my partners and I decided to create a senior monthly, Prime Time. Desktop publishing meant I had to use a Mac, the SE30. Friends said it was “idiot-proof” and so it proved. With a hand up from Kinko’s (free lessons!), I became a fan and several computer generations later, I write, joyfully, on an advanced iMac.

That’s why I read almost everything written about the company. And it’s why I can tell you with some regret, but no fear of contradiction, that the Albuquerque Journal just mangled, distorted and misreported a story about Apple.

The paper did it in a manner that jibes perfectly with what I take to be its mission – publishing a plutocratic political broadsheet camouflaged as a daily newspaper.

You see, Apple has invented innovative tax avoidance strategies as novel as some company products. That’s what Senate investigators and Senators of both parties agree on, professional journalists reported last week.

Not so the Albuquerque Journal, which exerted itself to deny it.

First, the Journal pretended there was no Senate investigators’ report.

It ignored Cecilia Kang’s Washington Post story May 20:

“Apple avoids taxes with complex web of offshore entities, Senate inquiry finds”.

“Apple used a ‘complex web’ of offshore entities, with no employees or physical offices, that allowed it to pay little or no taxes on tens of billions it earned overseas, according to a Senate investigation unveiled Monday.”

Later the same day, the Post published an analysis by Neil Irwin headlined “How to make $30 billion and pay no corporate income tax, the Apple way”.

The Journal didn’t use Irwin’s copy, either.

And the N.Y. Times’ top story May 21 ran under this rubric:

“Apple’s Web of Tax Shelters Saved It Billions, Panel Finds”.

Here’s how reporters Nelson D. Schwartz and Charles Duhigg began:

“WASHINGTON – Even as Apple became the nation’s most profitable technology company, it avoided billions in taxes in the United States and around the world through a web of subsidiaries so complex it spanned continents and went beyond anything most experts had ever seen, Congressional investigators disclosed on Monday.”

You see the pattern. Professional journalists told readers what the Senate investigators found and, unbelievably, the Albuquerque Journal ran nothing.

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags:··············

Undue Influence

May 27th, 2013 · journalism, Uncategorized

By Denise Tessier

“American colleges have become polarizing institutions,” read the headline on the Albuquerque Journal’s May 23 Op-Ed page. Such a claim, which was polarizing in itself, merited a glance to see who wrote it. It wasn’t labeled as written by a think tank researcher, but rather as by “Kevin Hassett, Los Angeles Times.”

This surprise led to the question: Had a Times writer, his paper under threat of purchase by the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, already started doing some ingratiating research for the “anti-liberal” cause?

The premise of Hassett’s lengthy Op-Ed piece was that Republican officials were being denied opportunities to deliver commencement speeches. Reading further to find facts backing up that claim, the reader found that Hassett came up with “three identifiably conservative speakers at the top 50 colleges and 12 at the top 100 universities, compared with 69 identifiably liberal speakers.”

Now, in this reader’s view, overtly partisan public figures – regardless of party – generally should not be delivering commencements to young people setting out into the world.

Hassett noted that “student protests disrupted” presentations by Karl Rove at the University Massachusetts and Rand Paul at Howard University. Why is that surprising, considering Rove’s heavy handedness in politics? And The New York Times’ Charles Blow gave a scathing review of Paul’s speech at Howard, saying Paul’s focus was to portray Republicans as friends of the African-American, but instead he delivered a disingenuous “dud”.

Commencement speeches are supposed to offer advice, not pitch a party or ideology. Hosting a partisan speaker is as inappropriate as having an overtly Christian commencement speaker at a public school.

It also seemed odd that a reporter would spend so much time researching such a topic, but this reader still didn’t catch on until near the Op-Ed’s end, when Hassett arrived at this unsubstantiated conclusion:

There is no question that a primary objective of today’s academic institutions, which allow conservatives to be shouted down if they were invited at all, is not to educate students but rather to educate reliable Democratic votes.

Educate reliable Democratic votes? Now the story had veered deep into partisan rhetoric, and I should have known better. All was explained in the end-of-story bio on the author, which said:

Kevin Hassett is director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

The Journal should have listed him upfront as “Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute”, not “Kevin Hassett, Los Angeles Times”. Waiting to the end to reveal AEI’s involvement was misleading.

Deception aside, the reporter-or-ideologue exercise is worth noting, considering that Charles and David Koch are mulling whether to put in a bid to buy the Tribune Company’s eight regional newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Orlando Sentinel and The Hartford Courant.

[Read more →]

→ 1 CommentTags:···············

More on Benghazi

May 23rd, 2013 · Fact Check, Uncategorized

By Denise Tessier

As a follow-up to my “Benghazi, Benghazi!” post:

After a week of wire stories related to last year’s attack on the U.S. outpost in Libya, the Albuquerque Journal on Wednesday (May 22) carried an Associated Press report that the FBI “has identified a number of individuals that it believes have information or may have been involved, and is considering options to bring those responsible to justice.”

The story, headlined “Benghazi suspects ID’d, no arrests” in the Journal, said five men have been identified (photos of three of the five were released by the FBI earlier this month) and that the U.S.:

. . .has enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists. . . .The men remain at large while the FBI gathers evidence. . .

(As an aside: It would be nice if these reports would include a single sentence explaining why the FBI and not the CIA is doing the investigating. More on the CIA later.)

The AP story quotes “an official” as the source of its information, which is typical. What’s interesting is that the Journal put this story inside on A6, just above an AP story reporting that the pope had “liberated” a man from demons, rather than on A1, where the paper had prominently played the May 18 story about the State Department’s Benghazi-related emails.

This is not to say Wednesday’s story merited Page One. But the difference in placement of the two stories gives the impression actual revelations in the Benghazi investigation are less important than political maneuvering, the latter of which is dutifully recapped in this week’s story about the five suspects, including the line that “Republican lawmakers continue to call for the Obama administration to provide more information about the Sept. 11 attack,” and referring back to the White House release of 99 pages of emails.

Meanwhile, a media backstory has developed claiming that the Benghazi email stories gained tremendous momentum in part because of ABC News’ May 10 “exclusive” that has since been questioned, a story based on an unnamed source’s “copies” of White House emails. ABC has been criticized, in part, because it claimed its reporter had seen the actual emails.

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags:·········

Jon Barela, Garrey Carruthers, Miss Emily Litella and the Journal’s Silver Linings (Economics) Playbook

May 21st, 2013 · budget policy, economy, journalism

By Arthur Alpert

Don’t tell me the Albuquerque Journal is not wonderful in its fashion. Not journalistically, of course, but in its tireless efforts skew the news to fit its agenda.

Only the other day, you may remember, I was pointing out how the editors kinda, sorta downplayed a Dan Boyd story that – because of its “wow” factor – merited Page One. They relegated it to the Metro section below the fold

The editors’ message was clear. It was no big deal that the Governor’s Finance Secretary did a Gilda Radner as Emily Litella – “never mind” – about his 11th hour misstatements to the 2013 Legislature.

These statements arguably helped the cause of a tax package that treated corporations kindly, ostensibly to spur economic development.

This is a core Journal belief, that lower taxes for the rich and corporate spur the economy, though the evidence for that proposition is (to be kind) meager. And as you know, Journal management sees no problem with a newspaper shaping its news coverage according to its core beliefs.

So the Boyd story got that treatment Wednesday, May 15, but three days later, the editors played another of his accounts prominently, higher, at the top of the Metro cover.  This was well deserved, I’m sure, and the editors’ decision had nothing to do with the headline:

“Barela: Tax package saved, created jobs”.

The Governor’s economic development secretary, Jon Barela, told a legislative committee the state would have lost roughly 1,500 jobs if not for the tax package.

Barela cited no evidence for his assertion, as Boyd politely noted in paragraph four. Also, some listeners, including Sen. Jacob Candelaria, an Albuquerque Democrat, were skeptical.

That’s it. I wanted only to offer a little insight into how the Journal uses placement of stories in its wonderfulness.

But there’s another Journal technique called forgetting the story that tells us more. Case in point, the Journal ignored Garey Carruthers’ remarks to the same legislative panel.

I am aware only because Milan Simonich featured them in his May 17 New Mexico Capital Report. What grabbed Simonich, and me, and just may explain the Journal’s omission is that Carruthers departed from the party line on economic development.

He did not squarely oppose the Governor’s tax package, mind you, but the NMSU President (and former governor) did caution against baiting companies with tax incentives. Simonich wrote:

“A Republican, Carruthers said these programs can backfire. Help one company or one business sector and you may disenfranchise others, he said.”

Carruthers also told the legislators New Mexico is the only Western state not showing economic recovery and needs a thorough workforce analysis.

“For instance,” Simonich’s account continued, “ Spaceport America has no plan for the precise workforce it needs to excel in space travel and transportation, Carruthers said. The Spaceport in Sierra County is a $209 million venture built by tax dollars.”

He talked about improving education in the state, too.

Funny, isn’t it? Carruthers’ comments, which do not track the Oligarchy’s silver linings playbook, fail the Journal’s newsworthy test. And Barela’s unsubstantiated assertions pass with flying colors.

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags:············