Media Criticism

The inclusion of Burlington’s Seven Days in my alternative media showcase was a way to ease our way into the world of non-commercial news. Many people equate alternative papers, zines and other items that are overlooked by major media outlets with leftist cities like Berkeley, Madison and Burlington. There are plenty of alternative outlets printed in cities outside of the liberal orbit. Metro Spirit is a good example of an alternative news outlet that is not printed in a big city or a partisan bastion.

The city of Augusta, Georgia is best known for hosting The Masters each spring. Metro Spirit is a pleasant little secret enjoyed by a readership of 23,000 and rising according to the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. This newspaper is published by Portico Publications LTD which publishes alternative papers in Charlottesville, Virginia and Columbia, South Carolina. The fact that Metro Spirit belongs to a small media network gives it credibility due to increased resources for investigative journalism.

I came across Metro Spirit on the right week. This past week featured a cover story and ancillary articles on education in the Augusta area. The cover story called “Small Sacrifices, Big Changes�? spoke about Immaculate Conception School that is moving into a different neighborhood in Augusta. This school and the Laney Walker neighborhood have been victimized by economic downturns as well as changing demographics. The fact that the school is not closing up shop shows that there are still schools that are committed to educating the next generation of leaders instead of thinking about the bottom line. Tom Grant did a fantastic job highlighting the importance of religion in education as well as the approach taken by Principal Jonathan Pike to ensuring the security of a small, religious-minded school.

Most newspapers would slash up an article on a local school moving before moving to AP press releases and photographs. Metro Spirit delves further into the issue of education with the editor’s article on small schools and an entry in the Metro Beat regarding how test performance influences decisions to close local schools. The in depth nature of these articles as well as the devotion to a single theme taken from multiple perspectives is something no one will see in a major newspaper.

I took most of last week off to finish a massive project for one of my writing projects. This week away from the blog helped me figure out that I have been negligent in my duties as a media critic. I have lamented the stupidity, laziness and acceptance of mediocrity of cable news and major networks without contributing to the solution. The occasional series on alternative media that I have peppered throughout this blog will now be the primary source of material.

Seven Days is a weekly newspaper based out of Burlington, Vermont that offers a high level of quality for an alternative media source. The paper has been operating since 1995 and has achieved a circulation of 32,000 in print as well as countless other readers online. The Association of Alternative Newspapers (AAN) says that Seven Days is distributed to several ski areas in addition to colleges like Middlebury College and the University of Vermont.

The jewel of Seven Days is experienced writer Peter Freyne who wrote an article called Inside Track up until the last month. Freyne has left the paper after decades speaking to leaders and political insiders in Vermont. His irreverent manner (calling Senator Bernie Sanders “Bernardo�?) is a good cover for Freyne’s keen eye for local politics. One of the most recent articles by Freyne involved an interview with Sanders regarding the state’s Democratic primary and the general election.

This alternative paper has the usual sections on music (Soundbites) and food (Side Dishes) that are desired by the average reader. My favorite article in the last few editions was an article on the Vermont Democratic Party’s failures to field a candidate for governor even as Progressive Party candidate Anthony Pollina has emerged as the only opposition to Governor John Lynch. This piece is fantastic because it goes into the depths of Vermont politics for the benefit of readers like me who know nothing of the Green Mountain State’s history.

I want to insert a little bit of local politics in my occasional series on the 2008 elections. The April 1st local elections in Wisconsin feature an important battle for the identity of the city of Franklin. This city is located southwest of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and faces many of the same problems as smaller cities throughout the United States. The future of community development, corporate investment and the face of Franklin rests between incumbent mayor Tom Taylor and challenger Basil Ryan.

Tom Taylor has been mayor of Franklin since 2005 and involved in city politics since his election as alderman in 1999. Basil Ryan is a former alderman from 2000 to 2003 and butted heads with Taylor frequently during his time in Franklin city government. There is plenty of dirt being thrown between the two sides with Ryan pointing out Taylor’s exorbitant pension from Milwaukee County and Taylor pointing to Ryan’s legal troubles related to his property management business. The low turnout expected for the April 1st elections means that dedicated voters may look past all of these accusations.

The city of Franklin faces development problems in the near future. The overuse of tax incremental financing (TIF) districts throughout Franklin means that an influx of families and businesses will happen in a chaotic fashion. The debate over selecting appropriate businesses to invest in Franklin without sacrificing the city’s identity will continue whether Taylor or Ryan wins the election.

I know that many people under the age of 50 don’t get too involved in local politics but I think every voter needs to get involved. The character of a community includes permanent residents as well as college students, temporary workers and others eligible to voice their opinion on ballots. It is a close call in my mind who should be mayor of Franklin but I am leaning toward Basil Ryan due to his focus on sound planning and an intensive focus on budget issues.

A recent interview between Foreign Policy magazine and economic scholar Allan Meltzer should be ready by anyone who holds on to the notion that the economy will be fine in the short term. Meltzer describes a scenario where the Federal Reserve is reliving the oscillation of the 1970s between a primary concern with inflation to an equal concern for unemployment. Meltzer’s assessment of the overreaching of Congress as well as the subservient nature of the Federal Reserve is spot-on in explaining our economic woes.

Meltzer attributes the current economic downturn to deregulation of private finances and the Federal Reserve’s response to public pressure with interest rate decreases. It is clear that Meltzer’s first point follows the historical path of America’s economy going back to our origins. The notion of a Federal Reserve was argued within Congress and political circles going back to the Reconstruction period. The debate over the use of gold or silver as a primary financial tool in America raged at the end of the 19th century. These debates do not take place today because we are more comfortable with credit cards, fiat currency and a federal government that shuffles papers during economic hard times.

The latter point by Meltzer shows the lack of independence by “independent�? bodies within the federal government. The Federal Reserve should act as an independent arbiter of America’s finances in the same way that the Supreme Court is designed as an insulated judicial body. The larger point, however, is that the Federal Reserve cannot solve all of our economic problems. We need to deal with state and federal budget deficits as well as household budget problems to get the economy back on stable footing.

One of the great myths promoted by mainstream media is that most Congressional races are out of reach for challengers. The reason why most voters don’t select challengers is that they do not have ready access to information on these candidates. Many candidates for state offices cannot afford a full-time operation including storefront offices, updated websites and street teams. Every voter should be willing to conduct their own candidate research but media outlets do not make the task any easier.

I will use the race for Wisconsin’s First Congressional District as an example. Every analyst, political science professor and pundit I hear speaking about this race gives it to incumbent Paul Ryan. There is no allowance given for Ryan’s close connection to the poorly-held George W. Bush (more lap dog than friend) nor the vigorous debate going on among candidates for the Democratic primary in September.

Two of the four challengers, Marge Krupp and Paulette Garin, have websites as well as support from local organizations. Nine-time candidate Dr. Jeff Thomas and second-time candidate Mike Herbert do not have a Web presence at the writing of this post. Krupp has help from a professional political consultant though her goal for $1 million before the general election seems unlikely. The four Democratic candidates held a debate in Elkhorn (about an hour southwest of Milwaukee) in late February that received little attention. The fact that Paul Ryan is given the election eight months ahead of Election Day has not stopped people for going door-to-door for all four candidates.

I think Marge Krupp will end up winning the Democratic primary due to the desire (almost desperation) for a polished candidate to face off against Ryan. I like Paulette Garin due to her stances on health care and Iraq but the momentum seems to favor Krupp. The general election will be tough to win for Krupp but I think she will give the incumbent a tough race. I think that Krupp may benefit from the trend toward Democrats at the top of the ballot including stories by local newspapers and TV stations about up-and-coming candidates. In the end, I hope that Ryan can be deposed from his position by a vice-presidential bid or a successful candidacy by one of these Democratic candidates if only to prove that incumbency is not king.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz and its publisher Amos Schocken was highlighted recently in Monocle. The article was focused on the stalwart approach of Haaretz to an open perspective on solving crises in the Middle East. Photos of Haaretz’s editorial offices show art pieces by Israelis, Palestinians and others around the world that protest against the status quo. The photos met Monocle’s standard for colorful and glossy images but I found the content of the article much more enlightening.

There are several elements of Haaretz that act as a silver lining in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The pages of Haaretz do not feature the tabloid stories, gaudy advertisements and bright photos of competing newspapers. I have read a few pages of the English-language version of Haaretz and found it analytical in its approach to national and international news.

Monocle points out a number of events that have drawn the ire of die-hard Israeli nationalists. The sale of a portion of Haaretz’s stock to Dumont-Schauberg (a publisher with Nazi ties going back to the 1940s) created a firestorm among critics who felt that Shocken and his colleagues were betraying the six million Jews killed by Adolf Hitler. Schocken has used editorials to plead for reason in dealing with Palestinians, soften the nationalist rhetoric of the country’s anthem and support moderate policies in international affairs. The paper is read by many Israeli leaders but the publisher’s positions are at odds in a nation with past leaders like Ariel Sharon and parties like Likud and Kadima.

The fact that Haaretz is the nation’s longest-running newspaper is an impressive feat. I think the longevity of Haaretz has been possible because the paper fits into the original vision of Israel. The purpose of Israel to give disparate Jews throughout the world a home based on historical claims. The origins of Israel following World War II and the liberation of Middle Eastern countries from the yoke of colonialism meant that surrounding nations did not care for the ham-handed approach of the West toward creating Israel. The vision of Israel survives even as politicians cut it apart for scraps useful in gaining supremacy in the Middle East.

Israel was never meant to be a political tool, puppet or warring state; just a single place for the global Jewish community to live together. Haaretz represents reason, intelligence and patience in a region where all three are often in short supply. This newspaper will live or die by the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians who need to set aside the anger of past generations for the moderation and trust needed for a peaceful Middle East.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has been the subject of some heated elections over the past two years. The 2006 contest between Linda Clifford and Annette Ziegler involved a commercial comparing Clifford to a werewolf and allegations that Ziegler ruled in cases where she had conflicts of interest. The 2008 Supreme Court race between Michael Gableman and Louis Butler is exposing the same problems as the Clifford-Ziegler showdown.

The videos above and below are attack ads by non-partisan groups in support of a Supreme Court candidate. The Greater Wisconsin Committee ad shown above indicates that Gableman has been appointed to judiciary positions in the past through political favors and overt partisanship by a flailing Republican Party. Wisconsin Club for Growth is playing up Butler’s work as a public defender to show that Gableman will prosecute rapists, murders and thieves to the fullest extent of the law.

The natural tendency in assigning blame for these third-party ads is complaining about money in politics. It is important to look at the idea of electing judges to short terms (10 years) when looking at the infiltration of partisanship in a non-partisan position. Wisconsin’s choice to elect state Supreme Court justices is flawed from the start. Every nonpartisan election down to the school board features some elements of partisanship. Voters in states like Wisconsin where justices are elected instead of appointed need to blame the causes instead of the symptoms of ugly politics.

I dislike the election of state Supreme Court justices because it favors a greater evil to remedy the lesser evil of judicial insulation from long-term cultural changes. I prefer a court insulated from all outside influences even if some members are appointed by governors who oppose my political beliefs. I think that incumbent Louis Butler will win on April 1st if only because Gableman has resorted to ugly ads using his own money (I am efforting a copy of a Gableman ad where Butler and a criminal are placed side-by-side).

My recent trip to Louisville, Kentucky gave me a chance to check out the city’s alternative newspaper. The Louisville Eccentric Observer (LEO) was far down on the list of things I took away from the trip but it was a pleasant surprise on the long drive back to Milwaukee. The pages of LEO were filled with well-written articles on local politics that were devoid of the partisan slant of other alternative newspapers.

LEO’s cover story on March 12 dealt with the proliferation of pharmaceuticals in Louisville’s water supply. This story has been a foot note in many newspapers and TV broadcasts over the last few weeks as people realize (gasp) that our drinking water is filled with junk. The newspaper went beyond a simple cover story on polluted water with pieces on the threat of atrazine pollution throughout Kentucky and an interview with film maker Irena Salina (”For Love of Water”). The reason that LEO trumps other alternative newspapers like my hometown Shepherd Express is the in-depth reporting on a single topic.

The writers and editors of LEO don’t appear to shut down the magazine once the cover story is written. Features like Representin’ (about the Louisville Metro Council), City Strobe (about local politics) and interesting guest commentaries make the publication a solid replacement for the Courier-Journal. I will continue to critique alternative newspapers in upcoming weeks as I take road trips during the summer travel season. In the meantime, check out the Louisville Eccentric Observer website here.

The Eighth Congressional District in Wisconsin was one of the targeted races during the 2006 midterm elections. The seat was opened when Representative Mark Green ran for governor in the same year and lost. Dr. Steve Kagen, a millionaire allergist from the Fox Valley, defeated Republican candidate and former State Assembly Speaker John Gard by a narrow margin. The narrow margin of victory for Kagen means that Republicans will push to regain the seat in the 2008 election.

John Gard is running once again for the seat which represents Green Bay and portions of the Fox Valley. This area has expanded rapidly over the last few years as the Fox Valley becomes an important business corridor in the state. I lived in Green Bay from birth through college graduation and know that the area is inherently conservative. Kagen and other Democrats who have run in the area lean toward the middle to gather up the votes of Democrats and disgruntled Republicans. This moderation is beneficial as part of a party sweep through local, state and federal bodies. The problem with being a moderate Republican or Democrat in a tight race is taking advantage of the top of the ticket.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and DNC Chairman Howard Dean can speak about appealing to voters outside of the party all they want. Voters who chose Democrats in 2006 may vote for the party’s presidential candidate but turn against lower office holders. Gard has a number of factors on his side in 2008: money from a desperate party, maverick voters in every part of the Badger State and the virtue of not having a vote in Congress the last two years. Kagen has been less than impressive as a rookie representative and the Congressional Democrats may be overconfident in their assessment of the fall races. I think that the race will come down to a few hundred votes and Gard will emerge the victor.

The title to this post may sound stuffy but it is the most succinct way to state my position. I have been advocating the idea of partitioning areas based on historically-verifiable claims since I was a graduate student nearly five years ago. This idea has grown anew in my mind after reading an article by Professor Jerry Muller from Catholic University of America in this month’s Foreign Affairs.

The article is entitled “Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism�? and discusses the vices and virtues of dealing with ethnic claims to nationhood. Muller speaks to the issue of partitioning based on ethnic nationalist claims in his closing remarks by stating that “…it inevitably creates new flows of refugees but at least it deals with the problem at issue. The challenge for the international community in such cases is to separate communities in the most humane manner possible: by aiding in transport, assuring citizenship rights in the new homeland and providing financial aid for resettlement and economic absorption.�?

Muller is accurate in depicting the political hot potato that is changing preestablished national boundaries. Partition has acquired an ugly taste in the mouths of foreign policy experts who use the word most commonly in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I know the challenges that would face leaders throughout the world if they mentioned partitioning counties, departments and other political units within their constituency. The difficulty in verifying claims to geographical areas as historical homelands is not lost in my analysis. The reason that partition is the most palatable option for global peace and security is the crumbling nature of artificial political boundaries.

Every line drawn on a global map today is fake. There are boundaries that are negotiated around natural feature including the border between Texas and Mexico (Rio Grande River). The problem lies in Africa where four decades after the end of de jure colonialism we still use silly borders cut up by long-dead monarchs. The end of World War I brought about the division of the Middle East and Eastern Europe between the major powers (many who are still major players today) that were not based on ethnic and historical backgrounds. It is time to wipe the slate clean, redraw boundaries that bring ethnic minorities out from under the thumb of oppressive majorities and reset our old ways of thinking about foreign policy. The only people who would be upset about a clean slate would be profiteers and a few disgruntled cartographers.