| Number 71 | May 19, 2000 |
|
This Week: |
|
Greetings, This week is just a “fun” Nygaard Notes. I know some of you think that every issue is fun, but they are not all fun for the author, lemme tell ya. Everyone must know by now that I love to read the newspaper, and that I love to think about it. So this week I indulged myself and just passed along a few choice quotations and my brief thoughts about them. And I also explain why I like to do this. It’s enjoyable for me, but there is a purpose to the exercise as well. I received many responses to last week’s issue on the politics of fear. Most were positive, with several requests for reprints and very touching comments from readers who were moved to share their feelings with me. A couple of people accused me of being unfair in my blanket use of probabilities, pointing out that different groups face varying degrees of risk from the same phenomena. True enough; a golfer in Minnesota faces a greater chance of being struck by lightning than an office worker in Phoenix. But I don’t think that this alters my main points, which were 1) that fear can be and is manipulated for political effect, 2) that each individual is responsible for making an independent assessment of the risks facing him or her, and 3) We needn't be so afraid all the time. I very much appreciate the comments - supportive and challenging - and only wish that readers would place such interesting thoughts on the Nygaard Notes message board where more people could see them. See my plaintive plea on the subject elsewhere in this issue. Welcome, new readers! I gotta tell you that this is not a “typical” Nygaard Notes. Although I don’t really know what a typical issue is, this is not one, just so you know. Next week’s issue is almost written already, so I may have to send out an “Extra” to cover some important things that I don’t think can wait. Or maybe they can. We’ll see. ‘Til next week, Nygaard |
|
“Self-censorship is commonplace in the news media today, according to a survey of nearly 300 journalists and news executives by the Pew Research Center and the Columbia Journalism Review.” So begins a fascinating report called “Journalists Avoiding The News - Self Censorship: How Often And Why.” I heard about this report on the radio show “Counterspin,” which is a service of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. I highly recommend this show. It airs in the Twin Cities at 3 pm every Friday on KFAI Radio, 90.3 FM in Minneapolis and 106.7 FM in St. Paul. Non-Minnesotans can find out if there is a radio station in your area that carries this fine show by visiting the FAIR website at www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html. The self-censorship report itself can be found on the website of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press at www.people-press.org/jour00rpt.htm. |
|
[Note: Typically the paper version of Nygaard Notes and the electronic version are identical. But this week I spared the paper subscribers the following plea, since I figured they wouldn’t be interested. Just in case anybody is comparing the two versions and is inclined to be suspicious. - Nygaard] As I constantly repeat, I really appreciate all of the letters that I get from readers. I respond to each and every one, and will continue to do so until the volume increases to the point where I just can’t handle it. That day is approaching; it is not here yet. But here’s the good news. Many of your letters are so interesting that I want the rest of our readers to have the chance to read them, and to read my responses. Fortunately, the Nygaard Notes website understands this and has included a “Message Board” on the site. I encourage you to write your letters directly to the site, so everyone can see. Here’s how it works: When you visit the site (I’m sure all of you have!) you will see a small menu on the left side of the screen that includes the choice “Message Board.” Just click on that and follow the instructions. I check the site every day, and will respond to your letter/comment promptly, just like I do your letters. The Nygaard Notes website is found at www.freespeech.org/nygaard_notes As always, you paper subscribers can get access to the Internet at any public library, and the librarians are almost always really sweet and helpful in getting you set up. And the postal service is always there, as well. Of course, some of you may prefer to write to me directly, because your letters are more personal (I’m blushing) or are specific requests for assistance or information. That’s perfectly fine with me, I’ll do my best to help. But don’t succumb to the belief that other readers won’t be interested in what you have to say. Not true. Also, it is good for any writer to be held accountable, which is part of what a public exchange of letters is all about, so you can think of your letters as a public service. Remember, though, the point of Nygaard Notes is to help people get informed and active, not to keep me busy. So if you only have time for one letter a week, make it an advocacy letter to your senator or a support letter to Leonard Peltier or something that will make a difference. We don’t want to get caught up in this Internet stuff and forget about the real work. Having said that, let me repeat that I really do love your letters. So I hope you have time for more than one letter a week. |
|
We live in an increasingly mediated world. One of the results is that the media have a growing and crucial role in shaping our understanding of that world. It thus seems reasonable to ask about the accountability of the people who produce the news. In the corporate media (by which I mean the media that is primarily geared toward producing profit) the editors and producers are primarily accountable to Wall Street. If you don’t think this is true, imagine the following two different cases (not entirely hypothetical): In one case, a newspaper produces mostly sensational and trivial news, and is highly profitable. In the other case, a newspaper produces award-winning and in-depth public- affairs reporting on a consistent basis, but the value of its stock goes down for two years in a row. In which case are the stockholders more likely to demand changes in leadership? I rest my case. Regular readers know that I always have a “‘Quote’ of the Week.” (grammatically speaking, it should be “Quotation of the Week.” That’s why I put the word “Quote” in quotes.) This week I have almost nothing but quotations to offer, so I should explain why I am so fixated on these out-of-context details that so many people don’t even notice. Journalists who work on a daily deadline do not have the luxury of looking up every reference they make. Often the source they need to talk to is unavailable before their deadline, or there is nobody around off of which to bounce their ideas. Time constraints, as well as space constraints, often force reporters to use various forms of “shorthand” to quickly summarize an idea or interpretation. The premises and assumptions of a reporter are thus often revealed in the framing of an issue, or in the tell-tale phrases that are stated as a “given.” These are often good indicators of the biases and orientation of the reporter, and when I want to expose what I think is the orientation of a news source, such tell-tale phrases are often the ones I choose to quote. The pieces below entitled “Housing” and “Privatizing Teachers” are examples of this type of selection. Other quotations are just interesting in their own right, being the result of good reporting and good interviewing, so I throw them in just in case people missed them in the original publication. Examples below of this type of selection include “Drugs” and “Bankruptcy.” The best current example of unconscious revealing of reportorial bias is in the almost-universal characterization of the Social Security system as being in a financial “crisis.” In fact, this is no more than an opinion (one which I do not share), yet it is almost always presented as a “given.” More on this in a future Nygaard Notes. The basic philosophy, or set of priorities, that a reporter (or a news organization) brings to a story may not be at all the same as your own, and it’s good to know that if you don’t want to be totally gullible in the face of the daily news inundation. |
|
As promised, the remainder of this week’s edition is a collection of various notes and quotations from the media over the past couple of weeks. My enlightening comments appear throughout. Housing From the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!), May 11, 2000, in an article entitled “Ventura Helps to Start Campaign to Promote Affordable Housing:” “Tired of having affordable housing stereotyped as a poverty problem, advocates will pitch the message that the shortage of low-cost housing also is hurting young people, seniors, people starting careers, and low-income workers.” Now, why would a “poverty problem” be a “stereotype?” Hmm... Could it be that “poverty” is a code word for “black?” And could it be that “Minnesota Nice” is much easier to sell if voters can be convinced, via a $400,000 media campaign, that some “regular people” (i.e. “white” people) are in need of affordable housing, and not just “those people?” Privatizing Teachers In an April 28th article on the front page of the Business section entitled “Silicon Valley a Paradise, but Few Can Pay the Price,” the Star Trib reported on the visit of California “business advocate” Carl Guardino. Guardino pointed out that due to the wild prosperity in the California region that is the epicenter of the “new economy,” the cost of living has gotten too high for many of the “regular folk” who live there and have yet to make their millions from dot-com stock options. School teachers, for example, who are “leaving the area because of its high costs.” Not to worry, the market will solve every problem, as we read in the following three sentences: “In an alternative to pushing for higher salaries for teachers with starting pay of $30,000 a year - a move that would raise taxes - Guardino’s group formed a partnership with another non-profit organization to encourage companies to step in to supplement the incomes of new teachers. Through a program started a few years ago, some 200 teachers will have a chance to get a summer job in Silicon Valley high-tech firms. Teachers in the program will learn what skills are expected of employees, and the summer pay will help them pay for housing.” So the companies are willing to pay to “supplement” the incomes of teachers, but are not willing to pay taxes to make their salaries sufficient to support them. Why? Could it be that people paid with tax dollars are accountable to the public, while people on the corporate payroll are accountable to the company? Just speculating... Drugs From a one-paragraph article in the “National Digest” from the Star Trib of May 5th comes the following quotation: “The number of wiretaps authorized by federal and state judges rose by 2 percent last year, with more than 70 percent of them approved to investigate possible drug crimes.” More evidence that the War On Drugs is a War on The Bill of Rights. The following three “bonus quotations” on the subject come from the Los Angeles Times of April 30th 1998, which I happened to be looking at while doing research for another Nygaard Notes item. The Times article was reporting on Senate hearings on alleged abuse of taxpayers at the hands of the Internal Revenue Service. (Look for an article on this subject in one of the next two issues of the Notes.) “In the last several years, [the IRS] has become more involved in the fight against illegal drugs, a major diversion from its traditional emphasis on conventional tax fraud. About 34% of the organization's cases involve drugs, and additional cases concern money laundering.” “Experts said that the focus on drugs is changing the personality of the agency.” “Robert Edwin Davis, a deputy assistant attorney general for taxes during the Reagan administration, said that [IRS] undercover investigations were unheard of in the 1980s, and search warrants were used only about a dozen times each year. Today, Davis said, search warrant use is up twentyfold.” Bankruptcy “About 500,000 Americans filed for bankruptcy protection in 1999 largely because of heavy medical expenses, according to a study to be published next month in the journal “Norton’sBankruptcy Advisor. One of its authors, Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren, says the findings paint a very different picture from the image of out-of-control spenders trying to beat the legal system through bankruptcy.” This is from the Star Trib of April 26th. Five days later, the Star Trib noted that Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone was using some parliamentary tricks to stall a bill that would make it much harder to declare bankruptcy, for any reason. The article quoted Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California saying that the Senate passed the bill because bankruptcy should be “a last-resort legal option and not a vehicle for avoiding personal responsibility.” Too bad for the half-a-million people who are suffering from this country’s lack of a universal health care system; the bill passed the Senate by an 83-14 margin. Higher Education In an article entitled “‘U’ Leaders Warn That Salary Gap Will Hurt Quality” from the Star Trib of May 12th, we find the following quotation: “While salaries at the nation’s top private institutions have shown substantial real growth over the past 30 years, inflation-adjusted salaries at the nation’s top public universities have only risen slightly.” Another example of the ascendancy of anything private over everything public. Money, Money, Money The local paper ran a story on May 3rd with the headline, “Got a Million Bucks? Well, Big Deal; It Takes A Lot More Money Now to Live the Life of a Millionaire.” The lead paragraph said, “Mohesh Kalita, 57, is a millionaire, a multi-millionaire, in fact. But Kalita, who recently retired as a Citibank vice president, doesn’t consider himself rich.” The article quoted Dr. David Krueger, “a Houston psychiatrist who has written books on the psychology of money,” who said that “with news reports and cocktail-party discussions turning more and more to the subject of money, it’s easy even for the relatively affluent to feel insecure.” New York University economics professor Edward Wolffan concludes that “Probably to be rich today, you need $10 million or more.” I thought that a measly million bucks didn’t cut it anymore. I guess I’ll have to set my sights higher. |
|
This whole issue is nothing but quotes. I am not going to do another one here. Oh, all right, here’s one from my late mother, which she repeated innumerable times for as long as she could speak: “Jeff, why do you make things so complicated?” |