Al's Corner October - Vote NO on Measure Q - Or "Spend On!"
October 03, 2024
Open to all topics of course, but this month we'll focus on cutting off the City Council's allowance money!
To highlight this month's primary topic, here is my testimony sing-a-long from last night's City Council meeting (2 minutes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsy-s6viEaU
Here are the lyrics:
Spend On (sung to the tune of "Dream On" by Aerosmith)
Every time that I look at the budget
All these lines on the books, they try to fudge it
The money's gone
It went by like a unwatered lawn
Isn't that the way?
The City always spends more than it can pay, yeah
I know, nobody knows
Where the money comes and where the money goes
I know it's the City Council’s sin
You've got overspend in order to win
[ kazoo bridge ]
Half the spending is on bottomless budget pages
Ladder trucks, zip lines and climate changes
You know it's true, oh . . .
All this spending, come back to you
Spend with me, Spend through the years
Spend on the soccer field, and on housing crisis fears
Spend with me, not just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take the City Debt, away
But until then . . .
Vote No, Vote No, Vote No
Vote No on Measure Q!
Vote No, Vote No, or Spend On! Spend On!
Vote No!, Vote No!, Vote No! - Waaaaaaaaa-oooooooo!
[ kazoo piano fade ]
From what I've seen/heard on the Internet, you could conceivably get Steven Tyler (from Aerosmith) himself to sing this. Or at least, an AI version of him.
Posted by: Ron O | October 03, 2024 at 05:45 PM
I have some questions regarding the cartoon. What, exactly, is sticking out from that guy's head? Is that his ear, resulting from wedging-in the sign between his head and his ear? And why is there (what appears to be a curved wooden stick) emanating from this guy's sportscoat, with no visible means of attachment?
And what happened to one of his feet? As well as one of the other guy's hands?
And why does the "other" guy have a dark spot on his ear?
I'm not even going to ask what "sallveneing" means.
I'm afraid to ask if the problem is with "me", or the drawing.
Posted by: Ron O | October 04, 2024 at 02:31 PM
Al's Corner uses A.I. to generate it's illustrations. Mostly to illustrate how wonderfully awful they are :-|
Of course, this is new technology that will probably, literally, eat us for dinner some day. But in between then and now, it will probably get scary better and put a lot of people out of work. Then comes cannibalism, then A.I. eats the human race.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 04, 2024 at 02:42 PM
The "tech bros" behind the proposed city in Solano county used the same technique (AI-generated images of their future utopia). But for now, I understand they've dropped their proposal. (Probably not for long.)
But at least you've confirmed that the problem is not with "me", as I was starting to get worried. Hopefully, "Hal 9000" will agree that I'm not a threat (reference to "2001").
Posted by: Ron O | October 04, 2024 at 02:54 PM
"I'm not even going to ask what "sallveneing" means."
I had no idea and I wasn't going to ask either.
But I did look up "shibboleths". LOL
Posted by: Keith | October 04, 2024 at 03:25 PM
But I did look up "shibboleths". LOL
I had to look up that one, too (some time ago). Obviously, use of an obscure word like that demonstrates superior intelligence compared to anyone else. As a result, "Hal 9000" will probably be on the hunt for those type of people, first.
Posted by: Ron O | October 04, 2024 at 06:08 PM
Regarding Proposition 5 on the upcoming ballot, does anyone know if it requires a supermajority vs. a simple majority to be approved? I'm not finding that information online so far.
Davis' own Cecilia Aguiar-Curry is apparently behind this measure.
I can see that it would likely/subsequently lead to approval of infrastructure intended to accommodate growth, as well as Affordable housing forced into cities and neighborhoods that don't want it.
Overall, it's the latest attempt to undermine Proposition 13.
This type of measure is far more impactful (in a negative manner) than the proposed sales tax increase for Davis.
Posted by: Ron O | October 05, 2024 at 11:42 AM
Alan: I propose that the proportion of commenters who populate your comments are as close as possible to an approximate representation of the owners/renters divide in Davis.
If for no other reason, imagine if you do this and do it well! How would the Davis Vanguard feel about that?
Ron O: About the Solano project being canceled or delayed Don't sell your gasoline company shares just yet!
Starting construction shortly will be three huge car dependent projects. Two of them to the Northeast and East of Sacramento and another in West Sacramento.
Posted by: Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman | October 05, 2024 at 04:13 PM
TE say: "I propose that the proportion of commenters who populate your comments are as close as possible to an approximate representation of the owners/renters divide in Davis."
I'll get right on that :-|
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 05, 2024 at 04:56 PM
Alan: I propose that the proportion of commenters who populate your comments are as close as possible to an approximate representation of the owners/renters divide in Davis.
For what it's worth, my views have been consistent regardless of my living situation over the years.
Renters and homeowners are often the same people, over the years. And any costs assigned to property are ultimately included in rent.
But what I do find odd is how some (not you) seem to advocate for higher costs for homeowners, while simultaneously/ultimately attempting to be one, themselves.
Similar to those who bemoan the cost of housing (and deride "NIMBYs" for supposedly protecting their property values), while simultaneously advocating for the "next round" of homeowners to have a chance to "build equity".
I guess this is best described as a combination of personal envy combined with personal ambition.
Of course, a lot of the younger generation are in direct line to inherit property over the next few decades. At which point, a new generation of "NIMBYs" will be created, who will also complain about density, as well as taxes, insurance, etc. (Which are closing in, and sometimes surpassing the cost of renting.) Of course, a lot of the younger generation already knows this.
"Never trust anyone over 30."
Then again, the country itself is not growing very fast anymore. Fewer people having kids, and those that do have smaller families. Which is probably already impacting the housing market.
Ron O: About the Solano project being canceled or delayed Don't sell your gasoline company shares just yet!
Starting construction shortly will be three huge car dependent projects. Two of them to the Northeast and East of Sacramento and another in West Sacramento.
That's for sure. Aguiar-Curry, Wiener, Newsom and Bonta must be proud. And as far as gasoline itself is concerned, why does Newsom advocate for reducing/eliminating usage, while also attempting to get gas prices lowered? Seems like he isn't aware of the supply/demand model (when prices rise, demand is reduced). That's why some say that the "solution to high prices is higher prices".
Posted by: Ron O | October 06, 2024 at 12:20 PM
"I'll get right on that :-|"
Shall we fill out a questionnaire in order to comment on Al's Corner? LOL
Posted by: Keith | October 06, 2024 at 04:30 PM
I kept hoping that someone else would come along to correct this howler of a comment on the VG, but no one has:
"It’s not like it’s going to adversely effect little business that Davis has…what’s another penny on a student’s purchase of coffee or a burrito?"
Ahem. The tax isn't ONE CENT IN TOTAL, the tax is ONE CENT ON EVERY DOLLAR, i.e., 1%. So, let's say that you buy a $10 burrito -- the tax would then be 10 cents. But this is in addition to the tax that Davis already levies, so the total Davis tax on that burrito is now 20 cents (2%).
Maybe that doesn't seem like a lot to some, but it can add up, especially for big-ticket items.
In any case, it isn't one cent.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 14, 2024 at 04:09 PM
RM, agree. And how about the tax on a new car! We could subsidize a small apartment to be 'affordable' for a month on that. Or solve .000000000000001% of global warming through the Davis CAN (NOT) or Cool (-ish) Davis (-ish) programs.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 15, 2024 at 08:41 AM
Hanlees Toyota in South Davis has a Sequoia on the website with an $82,985 price.
https://www.hanleesdavistoyota.com/inventory/new-2025-toyota-sequoia-capstone-4wd-capstone-hybrid-7svaaaba7sx049306/
Next time someone says "the tax will add just a penny" point out that it will add $829.85 to the price of a Toyota SUV (giving Davis a full 2% or $1,659.70 - more than I paid for my first car in High School). P.S. One of my "follow the science" friends pointed out that since Davis banned plastic straws we have not had any hurricanes, while the red states full of "climate deniers" that still allow plastic straws have been hit multiple times. We can thank the "Cool Davis" people next time we see them for protecting us from Hurricanes (that need warm water to start).
Posted by: South of Davis | October 15, 2024 at 09:13 AM
So today, David notes that mortgage payments have significantly risen throughout the region (including in "fast growth" towns) since 2020. And yet, he somehow manages to avoid attributing that to rising interest rates (or even mentioning that at all).
In that same article, David claims that housing prices are preventing the city's revenues from increasing. And yet, somehow manages to avoid noting that property taxes are based upon selling price - meaning that the higher the sales price, the higher the taxes that are collected. (Not including the annual 2% increase.)
Finally, he claims that housing prices are holding back employees from moving to the region, while failing to note that developments such as Woodland's "research park" (that "escaped" from Davis years ago) still hasn't even broken ground. Despite adding 1,600 housing units during that "move".
This, my friends, is an example of the type of reporting the Vanguard puts forth.
Posted by: Ron O | October 19, 2024 at 09:32 AM
So, I already knew this to be the case - but all 3 candidates for council seem to think it's the city's responsibility to grow, so that the school district doesn't have to right-size itself. (Reference to today's Vanguard article.)
I don't know why this type of view prevails, without the citizenry rejecting the basic concept.
This is largely where the claims of a "housing crisis" originate from. It's not a housing crisis, it's a school management crisis. And it's not the city's responsibility to run the school system. (I believe they have a "guy for that", as well as its own elected board members.)
Posted by: Ron O | October 21, 2024 at 09:29 AM
Ron, a school district should size itself to serve the actual student population of the city. It shouldn't be the city that has to grow to serve a bloated school system.
Posted by: Keith | October 21, 2024 at 11:52 AM
Even if Davis doubles in size it is going to have to reduce the size of the school district.
I don't see this trend changing anytime soon (Google found):
"The nation's fertility rate has generally declined since 1957 when there were 122.9 births per 1,000 women ages 15–44. Preliminary 2022 data shows the fertility rate was less than half this, at 56.1"
In addition to the overall trend of people having less kids in the US, CA kids today are having WAY less kids. Most of my friends have kids in their 30's and I don't have a single friend that has a grandkid. Trans women may be "real woman" (and real good in sports) but they are not having lots of kids anytime soon. I'm guesing that close to 1 in 5 of the kids of my friends "identify" as something LGTB+.
Google found:
"In California, 13.6% of adults between the ages of 18 and 24 identify as LGBT"
Since I don't personally know anyone that lives in the foothills and hunts, any Christian homeschooling families or Catholic Latino families I bet my 20% number is close (or even a little low) for my friends that mostly have advanced degrees (and a "Davis is for Everyone" sign in the front yard).
Posted by: South of Davis | October 21, 2024 at 09:25 PM
So today, David is again bringing up the attention regarding Gloria Partida's prior conviction, in regard to her 2022 campaign. And is claiming (like Will Arnold did) that it was a possible "race-baiting" tactic.
I would actually agree that it was (race baiting), but in the opposite manner suggested by David and Will Arnold. That is, the uncovering of the conviction was then used as a campaign tactic by Gloria's supporters. (Actually, Will Arnold went further than that, regarding his claims.)
As I recall, the issue was one of disclosure, and/or possible disqualification from holding office in the first place. But as it turned out, the court's website did not accurately reflect the subsequent actions which reduced the charge, and (as a result) did not require Gloria to disclose it. (Something like that.)
I don't know who spends their time looking up criminal records of candidates in the first place, but candidates do have to address anything uncovered (regardless of their skin color). "People of color" do not get a "pass" on that.
But perhaps the most outrageous claim that David (and as I recall, Gloria to some degree) made is that this was a "family matter", which would imply that the court system had "no business" in pursuing charges in the first place. In other words, blaming the system for the conviction.
Posted by: Ron O | October 22, 2024 at 10:48 AM
A headline in today's Davis Vanguard:
"Democrats Support Yes on Q"
In other news: "Sun hot"
So, 'Democrats' support unchecked, agenda-driven, out-of-geographic-scope, runaway spending. Some of them do.
But since when was it OK to leave out the word 'SOME' ? As in, 'SOME Democrats support measure Q', or SOME Jews are self-declared 'antizionists' who think Isreal should stop being mean and stop attacking Hamas and Hezbollah and just suck it up and take it with no military response.
Nope, now if one "WHITE" person hurts a person of color, you can just say in your headline: "White people hurt people of color".
Well, yes: SOME do.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 23, 2024 at 12:33 PM
From today's Vanguard (quoting Dillan Horton) regarding the effort to gut Measure J:
Since its creation, only one housing project in South Davis (which primarily targeted university students) received Measure J voter approval.
Seems that Dillan has forgotten about WDAAC/Bretton Woods.
Despite its (Nishi's) passage four years ago, construction has yet to begin.
The obstacle has nothing to do with Measure J.
Posted by: Ron O | October 28, 2024 at 08:34 AM
ACM wrote:
> if one "WHITE" person hurts a person of color, you can just say
> in your headline: "White people hurt people of color".
A friend with kids at Davis High recently told me that his kids actually joke about "systemic racism" in Davis since almost everyone that teaches at Davis High hates white people and they really hate Jewish white people and he said that they seem to hate white Jews (even secular non-religious Jews that could not find Israel on a map) talking about then WAY wose than our High School and College teachers talked about the white South African Afrikaners in the 80's...
Posted by: South of Davis | October 28, 2024 at 07:38 PM
Gee, SOD, that's not the least bit disturbing. Maybe the teachers can team up with the Imam who declared that all Jews should be killed, and they can have their own mini-Davis-holocaust.
But seriously . . . actually that was serious . . . but to the point, those are some *major* accusations, and rather general, and rather 'a friend's kids said', and rather non-specific as to what has been said -- and that makes me uncomfortable with any time others classify speech as for, in this example, Jew hatred, without saying what has been said, specifically.
I am *not* *not* *not* asking for names -- but when you say Jew hating comments have been made by Davis teachers -- what was actually *said*, and seriously, this can't be 'all teachers', but it shouldn't be *any* teachers, so when you say "Davis High" seems to "hate Jewish white people", like what percentage or number of teachers/administrators are we talking about here? And what has actually been said?
I am both disturbed by the depth of your friend's kid's accusations and honestly I doubt "Davis High" 'hates white Jews' as a whole. But if there is *any* Jew Hatred going on and being passed on to students, that is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. And if that Jew hatred is actually so ingrained in the schools that it becoming 'systemic' then we've got "trouble, right here in Putah City".
So please, without naming names publicly, what has been said? And if you need to ask your friend to ask their kids, please do so. I neither want false accusations here on this blog, nor do I want any actually bigotry being taught in our schools -- to children -- to be swept under the rug or brushed off as 'antizionism'.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 29, 2024 at 08:59 AM
The uproar from the left over the Washington Post, LA Times and now USA Today not endorsing a candidate is hilarious. They are losing subscribers and employees are quitting. Let's get it straight, it's not about these leftist news organizations not endorsing a candidate, it's about them NOT ENDORSING KAMALA.
They were never ever going to endorse Trump so that was never in play.
Posted by: Keith | October 29, 2024 at 09:03 AM
Maybe this is a Come-To-Jesus Moment where biased liberal media are realizing they're becoming irrelevant. Maybe they will try to be more center based in their reporting. I hope that's the case, but it might just be that Kamala is such a terrible candidate that not even WAPO, the LA TIMES and the USA Today can endorse her.
" The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media" by Jeff Besos
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/
Posted by: Keith | October 29, 2024 at 09:30 AM
I just want to say thank you to the Davisite, Roberta and Alan for posting my comments.
I tried to post a similar comment to the Vanguard but was denied and never received a reason why even though I asked.
Posted by: Keith | October 29, 2024 at 09:37 AM
Let's be clear about what happened with these newspapers: the editorial boards voted unanimously to endorse Kamala Harris, at least for WaPo and LA Times (I haven't followed up on USA Today yet). Those decisions were overridden by the wealthy owners of the paper. So this should not be celebrated by anyone who supports freedom of speech or freedom of the press, or who is concerned about excessive corporate influence in politics. These are things that should be condemned by both the left and the right.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 29, 2024 at 10:47 AM
So Roberta, the wealthy owners of these media giants have oversaw publications that have been left biased and in the Democrat's pocket. So do you also think that should that not be celebrated?
Posted by: Keith | October 29, 2024 at 11:02 AM
I don't agree that those publications were left-biased, and I certainly have seen no evidence that they were "in Democrat's pocket," whatever that is supposed to mean. The papers certainly operated independently of the Democratic Party and were never controlled by the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 29, 2024 at 11:07 AM
And while you are asking direct questions, Keith, let me ask you: Would you say that those decisions by the owners were a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and that they represent corporate interference in politics?
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 29, 2024 at 11:08 AM
"I don't agree that those publications were left-biased"
Wapo, the LA Times and USA Today all lean left according to the Allsides media bias chart.
Posted by: Keith | October 29, 2024 at 11:41 AM
Here's the chart:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
Posted by: Keith | October 29, 2024 at 12:11 PM
Would you say that those decisions by the owners were a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and that they represent corporate interference in politics?
1. No. Violation of freedom of speech/press generally refers to attempts by a separate entity or individual to shut down speech (especially by the government). In this case, the decision was apparently initiated "within" the organization itself.
2. Yes - corruptive influence of interests.
I don't agree that those publications were left-biased, and I certainly have seen no evidence that they were "in Democrat's pocket," whatever that is supposed to mean.
I would disagree with your first conclusion (regarding the LA Times, not familiar with the other source).
But didn't you just claim above that there's "corporate interference" involved with such decisions? (Corporate interference, as you put it, is a hallmark of both political parties and throughout politics.)
Posted by: Ron O | October 29, 2024 at 12:13 PM
KO say: "I just want to say thank you to the Davisite, Roberta and Alan for posting my comments."
Thumbs up
KO say: "I tried to post a similar comment to the Vanguard but was denied and never received a reason why even though I asked."
Business as usual at the V.
I had a dream Monday morning (seriously) that I was in a public room with David Greenwald. DG seemed in a bad mood. I asked him why and he said his fundraiser fell quite a few tickets short of even breaking even on the costs. I wasn't actually bothered by this, but felt bad for DG and expressed 'personal empathy' to him for how he must feel about that.
Occasionally I have dreams that are like messages from other people, and I can't help but wonder . . .
. . . but then again a more important question is, should I see a psychologist regarding why I had a dream with David Greenwald in it? I may be in need of some serious psychoactive medications.
(Full disclosure: I really did have this dream, and no, I have no F-ing idea how the Vanguard's "fundraiser" went.)
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 29, 2024 at 12:26 PM
"I had a dream Monday morning (seriously) that I was in a public room with David Greenwald."
I've never had a dream about the Vanguard or David Greenwald. But if I ever did I'm sure it would be more of a nightmare than a dream. :)
Posted by: Keith | October 29, 2024 at 12:39 PM
KO, I saw that joke coming a mile down Main Street (as Letterman used to say).
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 29, 2024 at 01:15 PM
Ron wrote,
Violation of freedom of speech/press generally refers to attempts by a separate entity or individual to shut down speech (especially by the government). In this case, the decision was apparently initiated "within" the organization itself.
That may be how the terms are generally used, but I think you're splitting hairs. There is a longstanding practice in this country of allowing journalists/op ed writers free rein to publish, as long as claims are supported (at least with witnesses), no slander, etc. In this case it was opinion -- and not just of one person, but of the whole board. It is a big deal that the owners squelched that, and the reasons given seem pretty transparent. The owners simply didn't like Kamala Harris being endorsed. That's not acting like a real, reputable newspaper that supports freedom of speech and freedom of the press. (I'm not referring to the legal meanings of those terms here).
2. Yes - corruptive influence of interests.
I'm glad we agree on that point.
But didn't you just claim above that there's "corporate interference" involved with such decisions? (Corporate interference, as you put it, is a hallmark of both political parties and throughout politics.)
I'm not sure what you're saying. Yes, there is widespread corporate influence in both parties (and that's a problem). And yes, there was corporate interference when these owners prevented the endorsements of their staff from being published in their newspapers. That doesn't mean that the Democratic Party controls the newspapers. Again, I've seen no evidence of that and never even heard anyone claim that before.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 29, 2024 at 01:18 PM
That may be how the terms are generally used, but I think you're splitting hairs. There is a longstanding practice in this country of allowing journalists/op ed writers free rein to publish, as long as claims are supported (at least with witnesses), no slander, etc.
I hadn't heard of that practice, but there is no such thing as "freedom of speech" if your employers say so (e.g., outside of the university system). At least, while on the job. Employers even exhibit some control regarding what you say OUTSIDE of your employment to some degree. That is, if you want to stay employed (or get hired somewhere). See "cancel culture" (or Mr. Pickles, locally).
In contrast, what the local librarian attempted was a clear violation of freedom of speech. And one would think that a librarian (in particular) would understand that in advance, which makes that incident even more surprising. Not to mention the lack of reaction to it, by some who simply don't like what was said. An everyday term/description that almost all of us still use freely, for that matter.
Honestly, it seems like some people these days (not you) don't understand what freedom of speech means.
It "used to be" that the ACLU understood it.
Posted by: Ron O | October 29, 2024 at 02:13 PM
What fries my arse is Facebook "suspending" Beth Bourne. Yes, it's a private company, but so clearly far-left leaning. I don't particular agree with arf of what BB says, and I think she has some good points and a lot of bad ones, and I also think many of her tactics are somewhere between stupid and vile. But I also believe everyone's ideas should be out there for debate. Yes, even Nazis. That's why I'm a "Skokie Jew". Let the ideas be seen and let the evil ones show their faces and march. More evil than bad ideas is trying to shut them down, and those who report BB to Facebook are more evil than any ideas BB has. Oh, and Facebook itself, also evil, the face of evil.
Another thing I don't believe in is freedom for cowards to protest from behind a mask.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 29, 2024 at 03:35 PM
I hadn't heard of that practice, but there is no such thing as "freedom of speech" if your employers say so (e.g., outside of the university system). At least, while on the job. Employers even exhibit some control regarding what you say OUTSIDE of your employment to some degree. That is, if you want to stay employed (or get hired somewhere). See "cancel culture" (or Mr. Pickles, locally).
I think you are running together the legal right of freedom of speech (which, I agree, was not violated here) with the principle of freedom of speech more generally (which was, I am claiming, violated). More to the point, I think what you don't realize is the history of journalistic practice in this country and the importance that a free press in a democracy is given. Mr. Pickles is very different from a news outlet in this regard. Mr. Pickles feeds us, but it is not trying to inform us, to be a watchdog, to get us to think -- whereas those are roles that news outlets are supposed to play. A news outlet isn't just any other business. And it plays a special role a democracy (or it is supposed to) because people cannot participate in governing their country if they are not informed, if they don't know what their governments are doing, if they are not prompted to think. So when a corporate entity squelches a journalist's speech, they are squelching the very purpose that the newspaper is supposed to serve, and preventing it from playing a useful role.
Let me give an example that I think you'll relate to. I think many of us would agree that there was a time that the Vanguard played a critical, watchdogs, informative role. But in the last bunch of years, it seems like more of a lapdog to developers and other funders than a watchdog. It is thus no longer serving the role that a news outlet is supposed to serve. In that case, it's David's outlet, so yes, David can do what he likes (although I would hope he would not squelch the speech of those who wrote for him). And it's a small operation. But the Washington Post, the LA Times, and to a lesser extent, USA Today, are major, longstanding, respected news outlets. For them to become mere corporate mouthpieces basically means that they are no longer real news outlets. Now, someone might say, this is just one incident. But it's a major incident regarding one of the most controversial elections of our time, and once an owner has intervened like that, why should we trust anything produced by that paper? Why not just think the whole thing is one big corporate shill?
Anyway, I hope you can see that I am genuinely trying to explain why this is a really big deal, and why it's something we should all condemn in the strongest terms, regardless of political party. It is important that journalists be allowed to speak freely (within the constraints given above).
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 29, 2024 at 03:41 PM
"But it's a major incident regarding one of the most controversial elections of our time, and once an owner has intervened like that, why should we trust anything produced by that paper? "
I haven't trusted anything out of those papers for a long time. Besos says it best:
"In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working."
Maybe you trust them Roberta because they're coming from a left biased point of view.
Posted by: Keith | October 29, 2024 at 04:19 PM
Why not just think the whole thing is one big corporate shill?
Too late - I already think that.
I'm ready to dig up Walter Cronkite, but I might already be too jaded to accept everything his team put forth, as well.
Or, it could be that I'm just too smart for my own good. (Yeah, that's probably it.) :-)
Hearst was also known for biased journalism, as I recall. So perhaps none of this is really "new".
But it somehow seems ironic that the Internet has made news sources "worse".
Posted by: Ron O | October 29, 2024 at 04:22 PM
"Since it endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1976, the Post has endorsed Democrats in presidential elections, and has never endorsed a Republican for president in the general election".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post
Posted by: Keith | October 29, 2024 at 04:35 PM
I'm guessing that Roberta grew up reading newspapers and magazines like I did. As a kid I read multiple papers every day and at least a dozen magazines every month. My Dad subscribed to both Mother Jones and the National Review in the 70's and let me know that one leaned left and the other leaned right but they both seemed to make an effort to be journalists and report the truth (even with a little partisan spin). I'm sad that newspapers are dying, but they have not been "respected news outlets" for decades and most will just continue along as PR Machines for the people that own them tricking a number of prople (that gets smaller every year) into thinking that they have anything to do with the historical "respected news outlets" with the same name.
P.S. Bari Weis give a good summary of the current situation in print media:
https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
P.P.S. As I have posted many times I am no fan of Trump and think he is not just a blowhard but an actual "narcissistic sociopath" but unlike what virtually every mainstream media outlot has been saying for the past three days I don't think he is a facist because he held a rally at a building with the same name as a building where actual facists had a rally
https://babylonbee.com/news/can-you-spot-all-10-signs-of-fascism-in-this-photo-of-trumps-rally
Posted by: South of Davis | October 29, 2024 at 05:55 PM
I don’t disagree that newspapers and news outlets more generally have been getting worse and worse overall, and more and more corporate controlled, over time. This is just so blatant that it feels like a death blow. It’s like they’re not even trying to hide it anymore.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 29, 2024 at 08:48 PM
"It’s like they’re not even trying to hide it anymore."
That's how much of America feels about a majority of the media's left wing bias, they're not even trying to hide it anymore.
Posted by: Keith | October 30, 2024 at 01:35 AM
Below is Bari Weiss' resignation letter from the New York Times, in full. She has landed on her feet. Her "The Free Press" is a great source of good old fashioned debates between opposing ideas from predominate guests. If one believes opposing views should be squelched, you probably hate TFP.
--------
Dear A.G.,
It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.
I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.
But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.
I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.
Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.
What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.
Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.
It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.
The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.
Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.
Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.
All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.
None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”
Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.
Sincerely,
Bari
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 30, 2024 at 10:30 AM
Alan, that's one Hell of a letter from Bari Weiss that spells out what's going on at most of our major news outlets. We all see it but the tide hopefully might finally be turning.
Harris/Walz 82% positive press coverage
Trump/vance 90% negative press coverage
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/unprecedented-positive-media-for-harris-89-negative-for-trump/ar-AA1p44yn
Posted by: Keith | October 30, 2024 at 01:39 PM
Thank you for sharing that, ACM. What Weiss was put through sounds horrible and wrong, and indeed antithetical to what a newspaper should be.
The complicating part is figuring out why and how such things happen. I say that because a lot of progressive liberals are furious at the NYT for its coverage of whether transgender surgery is typically successful. Now, maybe the NYT has this right, maybe it doesn't, but someone who is trans* is not going to see the NYT as a paper with a liberal bias. The NYT has received huge pushback for these articles, but I don't think it changed its stance in light of that pushback. So that story seems different from the one that Weiss tells.
And there are many other such examples when liberals/progressives have been furious with the NYT. So how does the paper decide its bias, its slant? I don't think it falls cleanly to left vs right in the way that people often say.
But one thing you can always do is follow the money.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 30, 2024 at 02:34 PM
I say that because a lot of progressive liberals are furious at the NYT for its coverage of whether transgender surgery is typically successful.
Hadn't seen that, but I would think that anyone considering transgender surgery (and/or those close to them) would want to know the answer to that, as well as how "success" is defined. So I'm failing to see why those folks (who probably view themselves as progressive liberals) would be furious regarding that.
Now, maybe the NYT has this right, maybe it doesn't, but someone who is trans* is not going to see the NYT as a paper with a liberal bias.
Sounds like some don't even want the issue explored in a public manner at all. (Probably their "actual" concern.)
But one thing you can always do is follow the money.
As I recall, that's something that Beth Bourne suggests doing, so you're apparently in agreement with her. But probably not in the way that you intend.
Posted by: Ron O | October 30, 2024 at 04:52 PM
I should have mentioned that Bari Weiss resigned from the NYT in July of 2020. So the environment there may have evolved. I follow a few other independent-thinkers from other papers who had similar experiences, but Bari is probably the most well known.
Posted by: Alan C Miller | October 30, 2024 at 08:11 PM
Roberta wrote:
> And there are many other such examples when liberals/progressives
> have been furious with the NYT. So how does the paper decide its bias,
> its slant? I don't think it falls cleanly to left vs right in the way that people
> often say.
For most of the past 30 years the NYT and WaPo have been left of center and basically worked with ABC, CBS, NBC and the DNC to get Democrats elected. As the DNC has shifted farther left with more politicians identifying as "progressive" and the NYT (along with ABC, CBS, and NBC) and the entire DNC machine has moved left. The tweet below from Elon Musk rings true for me and many of my friends.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/ue9il6/dave_rubin_might_be_smarter_than_apartheid_clyde/
I'm still the same non political, non religious, pro choice on everythig guy who thinks all drugs (except meth) should be legal, but now I am a "right wing extremist" since I don't think we should raise taxes to pay for sex changes for inmates (or sex changes for 12 year old boys that want to join the girls volleyball team). I still have no problem with an adult doing ANYTHING they want with their own money. I have never cared about or watched pro sports but I have heard from friends that watch sports that this ad has been running rcently (and heard from some San Hill Road hedge fund friends that many big donors are having talks with the DNC about the party going a little too far to the left).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhnHt1NB0M0
Posted by: South of Davis | October 30, 2024 at 09:24 PM
Definitely "too far" is restricting speech. Like Waltz claiming, more than once, that 'hate speech' is not protected by the first amendment.
Or a certain Davis library employee . . . well, we all know the story . . .
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 30, 2024 at 09:50 PM
"Definitely "too far" is restricting speech. Like Waltz claiming, more than once, that 'hate speech' is not protected by the first amendment."
I guess Walz doesn't think it's hate speech to be calling your opponents Nazi's, fascists and dictators like he and Kamala are.
Posted by: Keith | October 31, 2024 at 07:08 AM
I find the cheapening of the Naz-word to be offensive to the reality of what the Nazis did to half my family name. That would be literally kill them. Happens all the time, but your example above is about as high in the American political spectrum as that goes -- y'know, the prez race.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 31, 2024 at 08:02 AM
Jeff Bezos' editorial regarding the Washington Post not endorsing a candidate:
The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media
A note from our owner.
By Jeff Bezos
October 28, 2024
Jeff Bezos is the owner of The Washington Post.
In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.
Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.
Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.
Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.
I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally. Dave Limp, the chief executive of one of my companies, Blue Origin, met with former president Donald Trump on the day of our announcement. I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision. But the fact is, I didn’t know about the meeting beforehand. Even Limp didn’t know about it in advance; the meeting was scheduled quickly that morning. There is no connection between it and our decision on presidential endorsements, and any suggestion otherwise is false.
When it comes to the appearance of conflict, I am not an ideal owner of The Post. Every day, somewhere, some Amazon executive or Blue Origin executive or someone from the other philanthropies and companies I own or invest in is meeting with government officials. I once wrote that The Post is a “complexifier” for me. It is, but it turns out I’m also a complexifier for The Post.
You can see my wealth and business interests as a bulwark against intimidation, or you can see them as a web of conflicting interests. Only my own principles can tip the balance from one to the other. I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled, and I believe my track record as owner of The Post since 2013 backs this up. You are of course free to make your own determination, but I challenge you to find one instance in those 11 years where I have prevailed upon anyone at The Post in favor of my own interests. It hasn’t happened.
Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue. And it’s a problem not only for media, but also for the nation. Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions. The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves. (It wasn’t always this way — in the 1990s we achieved 80 percent household penetration in the D.C. metro area.)
While I do not and will not push my personal interest, I will also not allow this paper to stay on autopilot and fade into irrelevance — overtaken by unresearched podcasts and social media barbs — not without a fight. It’s too important. The stakes are too high. Now more than ever the world needs a credible, trusted, independent voice, and where better for that voice to originate than the capital city of the most important country in the world? To win this fight, we will have to exercise new muscles. Some changes will be a return to the past, and some will be new inventions. Criticism will be part and parcel of anything new, of course. This is the way of the world. None of this will be easy, but it will be worth it. I am so grateful to be part of this endeavor. Many of the finest journalists you’ll find anywhere work at The Washington Post, and they work painstakingly every day to get to the truth. They deserve to be believed.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 31, 2024 at 11:27 PM
Yeah. Meanwhile, executives from Bezos's aerospace company, Blue Origin, met with Donald Trump on the same day the newspaper prevented its editorial team from publishing an endorsement of his opponent in the US presidential election.
Ahem.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | November 01, 2024 at 08:38 AM
RM, expecting a reply that would show possible duplicity. I'm not saying I believe him fully, but as written I like what he had to say. It'll take a few more presidential elections to see if it was due to principal or not wanting to endorse one person. By which time I will have forgotten he ever wrote this letter.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | November 01, 2024 at 08:46 AM
Roberta, why do you assume WAPO was endorsing Kamala? Because they’re biased and always endorse Democrats?
Posted by: Keith | November 01, 2024 at 11:40 AM
I'm wondering if Roberta will tell us if she thinks executives from Bezos's aerospace company, Blue Origin made a deal with Trump to not endorse Harris?
P.S. I heard about this on the radio this morning. We all know the mainstream media would lead every broadcast if a white lady in Davis asked a black guy that was bird watching what he was doing in the park, but when a guy named Sidi Mohamed Abdallahi is yelling "Allahu Akbar" when shooting at a Jewish guy and cops they work to kill the story.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/live-police-give-new-update-after-jewish-man-shot-while-walking-to-synagogue-in-chicago/3589264/
Posted by: South of Davis | November 01, 2024 at 11:49 AM
Keith, maybe it seems ironic that I'd say that you should read the news, but read the news; it's been widely reported, and not denied by anyone, that the editorial board had voted to endorse Harris. A number of people on the board have said so, and some have resigned over it. This wasn't just a decision "not to do endorsements anymore." This was a last minute decision not to publish the already decided endorsement of Harris.
SOD: Obviously, I don't know for a fact that they made a deal with Trump, but it wouldn't surprise me. Where there's smoke, there is fire. Trump is busy campaigning. Why would he take time out of his schedule to meet with Blue Origin unless he thought it was to his advantage? Why would they want to meet with someone who isn't currently president? You help me, I'll help you. Seems highly plausible to me.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | November 01, 2024 at 02:10 PM
Why hasn’t my comment posted from yesterday?
Posted by: Keith | November 02, 2024 at 02:07 PM
What comment? There is nothing in the queue. Maybe resubmit
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | November 02, 2024 at 02:45 PM