I thought the Urinal took its endorsement marching orders from its national owners, and I'm sure those corporatists have been pushing the Bush clone all year.
And if owning one newspaper gives you more free speech than another person, what does owning hundreds of papers give you?
Of course, it's not that anyone I know reads the Urinal in the first place.
barbwire
· 1 year ago
Excellent piece, David. Very enlightening to many, I'm sure.
JoMa
· 1 year ago
David,
On your masthead, it says that NMI is "A Center for Independent Media". Frankly, I don't see it. There are very few well balanced, thoughtful, and, above all Independent contributors on your staff, its becoming a bore to read.
I had high hopes, too.
tripjennings
· 1 year ago
JoMa,
Thanks for your comment. Out of curiosity, how would you define independent -- vis a vis 'there are very few independent contributors'? And what are some examples of well balanced and thoughtful pieces of journalism you would like to see on the Independent? Thanks.
JoMa
· 1 year ago
To me, independent journalism represents more than one side of a story and provides the reader with a roadmap to reach her own decision on an issue.
For example, I've actually seen a piece or two on NMI that provided a thoughtful overview of the energy situation. It talked about the pros and cons of both fossil and alternative energy, and especially about the technology challenges to be overcome before we can just shut down all the coal plants. Marjorie Childress, for one, has been quite fair minded and thought provoking on this issue.
I also recognize that this particular column by David is an Opinion piece and he is entitled to do a hit piece on the Journal, just as I am entitled to tell him that I think he's over the top with the personal comments on Lang.
davidaliregarcia
· 1 year ago
JoMa, you describe this commentary as a "hit piece" and you're entitled to your view. I'm just curious what specifically you think is "over the top" about it? Do you think the publisher of the ABQ Journal should be off limits when thinking and writing about the Journal's influence in NM?
JoMa
· 1 year ago
David, You paint Lang as some kind of comic book ogre, roaming the Journal offices, taking no advice from his staff, "allowing" his writers to occasionally endorse a Democrat, counting his tax breaks if McCain wins, (not likely), and so on. You say you left the Journal on good terms, but your piece sounds like you have a distinctly bad taste for its publisher.
He's a businessman trying to keep an enterprise going that still provides jobs for talented employees in a tough situation. I just read in the Journal that American Furniture, an institution here in Albuquerque since 1936, has entered Chapter 11. Where's the NMI story on this and its implication to our local economy?
Quit your whining about the competition and give us good balanced stories and you'll be a success.
benito_a
· 1 year ago
The Journal is one of the most powerful institutions in the state. The citizens of NM never get a peak into its workings and decision making policies. Its not exactly a secret that the Journal leans right... way right at times, but rarely do we get a glimpse into that world. IMHO, NMI readers love the first-hand perspectives from Denise and David... and gain a better understanding of the regional news scene because of it.
I bet there are plenty of current Journal employees that would love to anonymously write about it also. From a journalism perspective, it would seem to be an obligation to write about the decision making procedures of the state's largest, and Abq's only daily.
pari
· 1 year ago
First we have Sarah Palin claiming that it's a violation of her First Amendment rights when the media criticizes her (or, as I would claim, actually shows her w/o spin) and now we have people reacting to an opinion piece as if it's a "hit" job.
What ever happened to civil discourse in our society? How did we go from disagreement -- often heated -- to name-calling and rock-throwing?
I have read pieces in NMI that have pissed me off. I've read comments that have angered me.
But, in one case, I had quite a good chat with someone who held an extremely different view than I did and I learned a lot. It may not have had the effect that the other person wanted, but I was open to another opinion.
While I respect Tom Lang, I doubt he would have a similar conversation . . . or be open to honestly considering another POV.
So, David, when are you going to do that piece you mentioned here?
chimpymcflightsuit
· 1 year ago
"You paint Lang as some kind of comic book ogre, roaming the Journal offices, taking no advice from his staff, "allowing" his writers to occasionally endorse a Democrat, counting his tax breaks if McCain wins, (not likely), and so on."
That's a pretty good description, but think more Howard Hughes, less J. Jonah Jameson -- there's not much roaming around the offices. In fact, an actual sighting is a rare and thrilling thing indeed.
Jeeter
· 1 year ago
Thanks, David, for this piece.
And here's to reading (and commenting on!) many more from you and the rest of the excellent NMI staff and contributors!
We can only hope that as more people begin to flock to the Independent, the Urinal will fade away into New Mexico media history. . .
JoMa
· 1 year ago
"... the Urinal will fade away into New Mexico media history."
Riiighht - and even more New Mexicans will loose their jobs.
babyfatt
· 1 year ago
The Journal has sickened me for years. Hard-hitting investigations of Dems (with which I have absolutely no problem) but also puff pieces on R's (Domenici--an arrogant and corrupt disgrace to NM--and Wilson--say no more). The good news is that newspapers are dying. There is so much more information online that newspapers are irrelevant (not to mention an enormous recycling challenge). I will never pay for another copy of the Journal (and no need to check it out online--they even charge for that, something not even the NY Times or Washington Post has the cojones for). Never a penny to the Journal. Never again.
StuartH
· 1 year ago
Thank you for renewing my faith in journalism. I have been an avid reader of newspapers, a reporter, an editor of a small weekly, and have crossed the line into political campaigning and have been back and forth over many years. I lived in Austin, Tx for a long time and the Seattle, Wa area.
What you describe, which by the way has something in common with the story at the Seattle Times and other papers, is a tension that has been deepening over the years between a journalistic ideal born of the hope of the Fourth Estate and the First Amendment - and special interest efforts to dominate the Body Politick.
I suspect that this tension will continue, but this election shows that the greater public exchange about what the truth really is can supercede special interest control over the flow of information.
The so called "red states" seem to me to be largely places where information flow is very limited to small, struggling and not-too-competent newspapers, hardly any diversity in terms of perspectives or culture, and conglomerates such as Clear Channel dominating through mass market economics. The internet has begun to alter that equation, especially in the younger and college educated demographics.
I see blogs such as this and the future technological expansion of the internet in general as helping to break down the limitations that the economics of media production imposes. I hope newspapers have a future, but they will mostly if owners and other leaders within those institutions see that their value comes from putting greater investment into actual journalism.
AntiBoomer
· 11 months ago
Well, David, where is your bias? I think you are in a state of denial about how important you are. As a young guy you seem very old and fit in good with the other relics of the 1960s from the old Trib. This is a hit piece and everyone who doesn't lie to themselves can see it.
All Comments
And if owning one newspaper gives you more free speech than another person, what does owning hundreds of papers give you?
Of course, it's not that anyone I know reads the Urinal in the first place.
On your masthead, it says that NMI is "A Center for Independent Media". Frankly, I don't see it. There are very few well balanced, thoughtful, and, above all Independent contributors on your staff, its becoming a bore to read.
I had high hopes, too.
Thanks for your comment.
Out of curiosity, how would you define independent -- vis a vis 'there are very few independent contributors'? And what are some examples of well balanced and thoughtful pieces of journalism you would like to see on the Independent?
Thanks.
For example, I've actually seen a piece or two on NMI that provided a thoughtful overview of the energy situation. It talked about the pros and cons of both fossil and alternative energy, and especially about the technology challenges to be overcome before we can just shut down all the coal plants. Marjorie Childress, for one, has been quite fair minded and thought provoking on this issue.
I also recognize that this particular column by David is an Opinion piece and he is entitled to do a hit piece on the Journal, just as I am entitled to tell him that I think he's over the top with the personal comments on Lang.
You paint Lang as some kind of comic book ogre, roaming the Journal offices, taking no advice from his staff, "allowing" his writers to occasionally endorse a Democrat, counting his tax breaks if McCain wins, (not likely), and so on. You say you left the Journal on good terms, but your piece sounds like you have a distinctly bad taste for its publisher.
He's a businessman trying to keep an enterprise going that still provides jobs for talented employees in a tough situation. I just read in the Journal that American Furniture, an institution here in Albuquerque since 1936, has entered Chapter 11. Where's the NMI story on this and its implication to our local economy?
Quit your whining about the competition and give us good balanced stories and you'll be a success.
I bet there are plenty of current Journal employees that would love to anonymously write about it also. From a journalism perspective, it would seem to be an obligation to write about the decision making procedures of the state's largest, and Abq's only daily.
What ever happened to civil discourse in our society? How did we go from disagreement -- often heated -- to name-calling and rock-throwing?
I have read pieces in NMI that have pissed me off. I've read comments that have angered me.
But, in one case, I had quite a good chat with someone who held an extremely different view than I did and I learned a lot. It may not have had the effect that the other person wanted, but I was open to another opinion.
While I respect Tom Lang, I doubt he would have a similar conversation . . . or be open to honestly considering another POV.
So, David, when are you going to do that piece you mentioned here?
That's a pretty good description, but think more Howard Hughes, less J. Jonah Jameson -- there's not much roaming around the offices. In fact, an actual sighting is a rare and thrilling thing indeed.
And here's to reading (and commenting on!) many more from you and the rest of the excellent NMI staff and contributors!
We can only hope that as more people begin to flock to the Independent, the Urinal will fade away into New Mexico media history.
.
.
Riiighht - and even more New Mexicans will loose their jobs.
What you describe, which by the way has something in common with the story at the Seattle Times and other papers, is a tension that has been deepening over the years between a journalistic ideal born of the hope of the Fourth Estate and the First Amendment - and special interest efforts to dominate the Body Politick.
I suspect that this tension will continue, but this election shows that the greater public exchange about what the truth really is can supercede special interest control over the flow of information.
The so called "red states" seem to me to be largely places where information flow is very limited to small, struggling and not-too-competent newspapers, hardly any diversity in terms of perspectives or culture, and conglomerates such as Clear Channel dominating through mass market economics. The
internet has begun to alter that equation, especially in the younger and college educated demographics.
I see blogs such as this and the future technological expansion of the internet in general as helping to break down the limitations that the economics of media production imposes. I hope newspapers have a future, but they will mostly if owners and other leaders within those institutions see that their value comes from putting greater investment into actual journalism.