The Hateful Slander Of The New York Post

Posted by on June 6, 2009 at 2:35 pm. NO Comments :

Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post has a long history of shameless bias and insensitivity. This is, after all, the paper that published a cartoon portraying President Obama as a monkey being shot to death.

Now the post has moved their repulsive imagery onto the front page.

What first drew my attention to this was the utterly disgusting reference to the death of David Carradine. What Post editors must have thought was a cutesy play off of “Kung Fu,” the TV series in which Carradine starred, was entirely inappropriate and shockingly lacking in sympathy for the deceased’s family and friends.

But upon further examination, I noticed that the image at the top was no less repulsive. It depicts a couple of quasi-terrorists lounging on the sofa, caressing their assault weapons, waiting for a TV dinner, and watching Obama deliver an address to students at Cairo University in Egypt. They are wrapped up all snugly in their fatigues and wool caps and, if we could see their eyes better, I’m sure they would be glassy with admiration for what the Post describes as their “friend” who wants to “woo” them.

The obvious intention of the Post is to cast Obama as one of “them” – as a fellow Muslim speaking directly to his extremist comrades in the warmth of their secret lairs. Notice the rapt attention they give to their Manchurian leader. The juxtaposition of these hooded barbarians, serenely embracing Obama’s electronically glowing presence, with the superimposed text that speaks of friendship and wooing, can have only one purpose: To insinuate that the televised Obama in the background is just as much a threat to America as the fearsome subjects in the foreground.

This is propaganda in its most advanced and destructive form. It is a deliberate attempt by Murdoch and Co. to exploit his media megaphone and smear the image of the President. The Post, and everyone affiliated with it, should be embarrassed by this forsaking of journalistic principles. Of course, the Post, being what it is, probably feels only pride for its lack of ethics.

And what is it with the repeated use of the nickname “Bam” for the president? Is that supposed to create an association with an explosive device (by removing the beginning “O” and the concluding “a” from Obama’s name, the phonetic remainder would be pronounced “bomb”)? The Post has been using this label for some time. At least as far back as January 2008, in a hilariously stupid article suggesting that Obama could be the first woman president because he is slim, attractive, and well-dressed. By that measure, the Jonas brothers would be next Supremes.

It is time to let the Post know that their readers will not tolerate this sort of manipulation and dishonesty. This is a paper that loses about $50 million a year, but is kept afloat by Murdoch’s deep pockets and sustained evil. But that doesn’t mean that our complaints will go unheeded. After the controversy regarding the monkey cartoon, Murdoch personally apologized – sort of. So for anyone who is outraged at this demonstration of hate and slander…..

Letters to the Editor

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Bill O’Reilly Lies About Army Recruiter Shooting

Posted by on June 6, 2009 at 10:39 am. NO Comments :

Ordinarily it would not be news to report that Bill O’Reilly lied about something. But in this case he is layering lies on top of lies as he squirms to extricate himself from his lies.

On June 1, Pvt. William Long, was fatally shot at an Army recruiting office in Arkansas. This was the day after Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed at a church service. Both of these tragic events deserved attention from the press and sympathy from the public. And that is just what they got.

Never the less, O’Reilly sought to politicize the matter by falsely claiming that there was a deliberate distortion in the news coverage in favor of Dr. Tiller. He delivered an outraged rant in which he asserted that Tiller’s murder was over-emphasized in the media, while Long’s shooting was virtually ignored – except, of course, by himself and Fox News. The problem with O’Reilly’s tantrum is that he was completely wrong on the facts. Rick Sanchez of CNN took the time to set O’Reilly straight:

The next day, O’Reilly recognized that he could not ignore the blatant factual errors in his screed. So he issued an apology of sorts. But his apology just revealed more of his arrogance and dishonesty. He starts off with a condescending declaration that this is a “rare” correction he is being forced to make. What he doesn’t say is that it is only rare because of his reluctance to admit his frequent errors, not because he doesn’t make any. He goes on to describe the person to whom he is supposedly apologizing as a “snide and surly guy.” This is the sort of graciousness O’Reilly offers when he is apologetic:

In addition to the crude and self-serving remarks noted above, O’Reilly based his entire apology on another fundamental lie. He sought to excuse himself for his mistake by saying that he was only “talking about primetime” but neglected to say that. But in his original remarks he specifically said:

“Only Anderson Cooper at 10 o’clock covered this. Nobody else. So all day long it wasn’t news to cover an Army recruiter gunned down in Arkansas.”

O’Reilly did not forget to mention that he was only talking about primetime. He explicitly stated that CNN’s failure to cover the Long shooting occurred “all day long.” So his so-called apology was just another obfuscation of the truth.

The whole premise of this segment was based on a trumped up controversy from the start. O’Reilly, and much of the right-wing media, were up in arms about what they perceived as a disparity in coverage between the Tiller and Long shootings. But they fail to grasp some basic realities of news coverage. While these were both tragic events, they were also different events.

Tiller was a well known public figure whose position as a lightening rod for controversy guaranteed scrutiny from the press. Long was unknown and, without further investigation, there was no cause to suspect that his murder was anything other than a personal dispute that got out of hand. So the immediate reaction from the media was understandably different. For better or worse, the death of an Anna Nicole Smith will always generate more buzz than the death of a Jane Doe.

Even after it was discovered that Long’s killer was a convert to Islam, and the shooting might have a political component, it was still not controversial in that all Americans would abhor such an act. In Tiller’s case, the overriding debate about abortion stirred conflicting reactions. And if there is anything that the media loves, it’s conflict. That’s the explanation for any disparity in reporting, not some imagined preference for Dr. Tiller’s life over Pvt. Long’s.

There are two things that we can learn from the aftermath of these events. First, that the press will always fan the flames of controversy. And second, that O’Reilly can always be counted on to be a lying jerk.

Update 6/9/09: After making such a big fuss about CNN not giving enough coverage to the army recruiter shooting, Fox News failed to cover today’s press conference given by the survivor of the attack. Both CNN and MSNBC covered it live. Fox chose, instead, to broadcast remarks by Newt Gingrich from the night before.


Rush Limbaugh: Obama Will Own The Media

Posted by on June 5, 2009 at 4:36 pm. 3 Comments :

Sean Hannity recently interviewed Rush Limbaugh and much was made of Limbaugh’s warning to Osama Bin Laden that, if he wanted to “demolish the America we know and love,” he had better hurry because “Obama’s beating them to it.” That was certainly worthy of attracting attention as a classic articulation of Limbaugh’s patently asinine opinion. However, there was another segment of the discussion that didn’t get much play despite being at least as disturbing and stupefying:

Limbaugh: “People ask me about the Fairness Doctrine all the time and I’ve been watching something here – newspapers are losing money. Advertising revenue is down, circulation. But radio companies, too, Sean. Television companies – their advertising revenues are down. Advertising as a whole is down.

Now, what happens if they have to file Chapter 11? What if all these radio companies can’t make their debt payments next year or the year after that and have to go Chapter 11? If Obama is controlling the banks and the banks then will or will not lend to the broadcasters and the newspapers to make them solvent, we could reach a point where Obama controls radio and TV, because he will own it by virtue of the banks he controls owning it.

This is a very stealth way – you don’t need the Fairness Doctrine. You don’t need localism. […] So, if you think that the media in this country cannot also be owned by Barack Obama, think again.”

So, just to break this down…Obama is somehow going to wind up owning all of the banks. Then, he will instruct the banks that he owns to attach conditions to any loans they make to failing media companies. Those conditions will, presumably, include the forced carriage of liberal programming and, perhaps, even the cancellation of programs like Limbaugh’s. In this way the Fairness Doctrine will have been implemented by stealth and Obama will emerge as the owner of all of the media, in addition to the banks, the auto manufactures, the health care providers, the United Nations, the World Wrestling Federation, and Disney World.

This is conspiracy theorism run amuck. Limbaugh is connecting dots that only exist in his OxyContin riddled brain. The right wing’s incessant paranoia with regard to the Fairness Doctrine – which no one is pursuing in Congress or regulatory agencies, and for which Obama has publicly stated his opposition – is warping their their judgment beyond any hope for normal human comprehension (see the related posts below). This obsession is threatening to turn their entire movement into either a political relic or a pathetic joke (most likely, both).

And I still can’t figure out why these people, who regard Obama as an incompetent who could not survive without his TelePrompter, are still terrified of his omnipotent evil genius that will subjugate them all to slavery were it not for the eternal vigilance of superheroes like Rushman and his Boy Hannity.


Republicans Form Phony Fairness Caucus On Media

Posted by on June 4, 2009 at 9:04 pm. NO Comments :

Texas Representative Lamar Smith has announced the formation of the Media Fairness Caucus in the House of Representatives. This would be a pretty funny venture if only because he asserts that the mission of his caucus is for…

“…the American people to get the facts and then be allowed to make up their own minds, not be told what to think. When you have network news programs and front pages of national newspapers reading like an editorial page or sounding like an oral editorial, then the American people aren’t getting the facts, they’re not getting the objective news. They’re getting opinion. And if all they do is hear is one side, that does have an impact over time.”

It sounds like Smith is launching a war against Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. But that can’t be. His caucus is apparently open only to Republicans who will busy themselves with writing letters to editors and making one minute speeches on the House floor. There doesn’t appear to be any substantive agenda for the caucus other than working the refs. And the only venues for the announcement of the caucus have been Fox News and the ultra-right wing NewsMax.

Smith is a few years behind the curve with regard to House media caucuses. Democrat Maurice Hinchey has already convened the Future of American Media Caucus with a mandate to reform ownership regulations and promote greater independence and diversity. Hinchey’s group is open to all members of Congress who seek to bring real reform that addresses the root causes of media bias and faulty journalism.

The truly remarkable thing about Smith’s announcement, however, is that Smith ranks the liberal media bias that he is imagining as…

“…the greatest threat to our democracy today.”

That’s right – a bigger threat to the nation than a terrorist attack or a depression. And it is from this perspective that he hopes to fashion the return of objective and responsible reporting. Good work, Lamar.


NARAL Spokesperson Rejects Bill O’Reilly

Posted by on June 4, 2009 at 5:55 pm. NO Comments :

Mary Alice Carr, vice president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice New York, was asked to appear on the O’Reilly Factor to discuss the murder of Dr. George Tiller. She gave him the only answer that is acceptable and then explained why in an op-ed for the Washington Post.

In her column, Carr movingly described why she believed that Bill O’Reilly bore some responsibility for the heinous shooting death of a doctor at a Sunday church service. She pointed out how O’Reilly repeatedly taunted his viewers with thinly veiled messages that Dr. Tiller was an evil practitioner who had to be stopped. On his program, O’Reilly had labeled the doctor “Tiller, the baby killer.” He said that Tiller has blood on his hands and that anyone who doesn’t stop him has blood on their hands as well. Carr recognized that it was disingenuous for O’Reilly to pretend that his words have no effect, particularly after boasting about how influential he is:

“O’Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O’Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence.”

Nonetheless, Carr had a moment of introspection wherein she considered accepting his recent invitation to appear on his show:

“But then I realized I just couldn’t. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn’t enough to make Bill O’Reilly repent, what hope did I have?”

She made the right decision. And it is not just the right decision for Carr, it is the right decision for anyone asked to appear with O’Reilly or any other Fox News demagogue. It is long past time for Democrats and progressives to come to the same realization that Carr did. You cannot win an argument with these people. Their minds are locked shut and they are doing their best to see to it that their viewers suffer the same malady.

I have written extensively on the need to Starve The Beast: Just stay off of Fox News. There is no reason to help them by lending them our credibility. There is no reason to give them cover as being “fair and balanced.” There is no reason to help them to prop up their ratings by permitting them to fabricate the sort of melodrama upon which they thrive.

Mary Alice Carr did the right thing. Now we just need to get everyone else to realize what she did: that there is no reason – ever – to go on Fox News.


Cable News Trek: The Next Generation

Posted by on June 3, 2009 at 1:41 am. 7 Comments :

Fox News has been reveling in their post-election ratings bump. By all appearances it is really just a pity party for the losers who are congregating at the Fox water cooler to assuage their misery. But I have to give them credit for having such unparalleled devotion to their demon host.

In the just released ratings for May, Fox retained its first place ranking. MSNBC moved solidly into second place. But there was some little noticed news that may whip up a little anxiety Fox programmers:

MSNBC is the #1 news network among younger viewers, Adults 18-34, in weekday primetime (93,000), M-Su primetime (89,000), and in M-Su sales prime (7 p.m.-2 a.m., 72,000). “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” was the #1 show at 8 p.m. in A18-34 (118,000).

This is a continuation of a trend wherein Fox is saddled with the oldest skewing audience in cable news. MSNBC, however, is winning amongst younger viewers, who are the future of the news consuming marketplace. That bodes well for MSNBC as this demographic group grows into the advertiser-favored 25-54 demo.

In the meantime, Fox can celebrate having cornered the market for aging political outcasts.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Right Wing Extremists Validate Concerns About Right Wing Extremists

Posted by on June 1, 2009 at 8:23 pm. 1 Comments :

Last April, the Department of Homeland Security published a report entitled: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (pdf). The report generated significant controversy amongst conservatives whose complaint seemed to be that the report was referring to them. At the time I wrote…

So why is Malkin, and the rest of the conservative cabal, defending these dangerous malcontents? Is it because they support criminality in pursuit of a radical conservative agenda? Or is it because they see themselves in the descriptions in the report? Either way it is clear that that they are acting as advocates for these repugnant cranks. They are apparently offended that the government would seek to protect citizens from domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.

Now we can add the name Scott Roeder to the list. He is the suspect in custody for the murder of Dr. George Tiller. All signs point to the fact that this crime might have been prevented if proper attention were being paid to the potential risk posed by someone known to be dangerous. And that was the purpose of the DHS report – to direct attention to risks and dangerous people and groups. The report was prescient in its specificity:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

~~~

Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage.

It is abundantly sad when events prove that ominous warnings were valid and ought to have been heeded. Perhaps the worst example of such behavior was the Bush administration’s neglect of warnings about Al Qaeda, including a National Intelligence Estimate entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Stike in the U.S.” The knowledge that people with partisan political axes to grind feverishly seek to set such warnings aside compounds the sadness and shock.

Republicans like to pretend that they are the protectors of law and order. But when it comes to their defense of extremists on their side, they are nothing but enablers.


Glenn Beck Incites Massive Criminal Tax Evasion

Posted by on May 30, 2009 at 3:27 pm. 14 Comments :

Yesterday, on his wildly popular Fox News Acute Paranoia Revue, Glenn Beck laid out a plan to make millions of his viewers criminals. The fact that Beck spewed a tsunami of idiocy is not exactly a revelation. It is, in fact, what Fox pays him for. But now he may have scaled a new plateau that deliberately puts his audience at risk and further demonstrates his own hypocrisy and cowardice.

At issue is the commentary with which he opens his show, “The One Thing.” In yesterday’s installment he overtly made the case to his viewers that they should stop paying their taxes. He prefaced his remarks by referencing his guest from the day before. Craig T. Nelson (of Coach fame) confided to Beck that he is considering not paying his taxes anymore. Despite the fact that Nelson is just the sort of wealthy Hollywood elitist that Beck loves to dismiss as traitors, Beck was inspired by Nelson’s prospective felonious selfishness and believes that it touched a nerve with his audience. So Beck commences to reveal his scheme that he says is just “for argument’s sake.”

“I want to be clear on one thing, I am not advocating that people should not pay their income tax. This is a spooky, spooky area. […] But what, if for argument’s sake, a million Americans intentionally did not pay their taxes?”

Fox News lawyers were probably responsible for the disclaimer with which Beck began this rant. As you’ll see, the remainder leaves little doubt as to where Beck’s intentions really lie. Regular viewers already know that he despises the denizens of Washington, whom he regards as irresponsible and corrupt (at least since the Republicans were voted out). His disciples are keenly aware of his position on deficits and bailouts (except for those implemented prior to Obama’s election). With that in mind, he starts to lay the groundwork for a criminal conspiracy that he hopes will take the nation by storm. And first on the agenda is a courageous stand against the Internal Revenue Service:

“Right now the IRS is already able to go through over 150 million tax returns and punish those (believe you me) harshly, who fail to pay, you know, their income tax. They fine them between 20-25 percent. They’ll collect about $30 billion in back taxes. And going forward, the Obama administration is preparing. They are devoting an additional $400 million of your money to get more money from you.”

Here we see Beck griping that the IRS is engaged in collecting tax revenue from people who failed to pay their taxes. Presumably he thinks that the IRS should just let them be. If they don’t want to pay their taxes, so what? Leave them alone. Unless, of course, you are Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, or anyone associated with President Obama. In which case you’re a sleazeball and the IRS should throw the book at you.

As for Beck’s complaint that the current administration is budgeting $400 million to recover $30 billion in unpaid tax revenue, I’m not sure what his problem is with that. Is he dissatisfied with a 7,500 percent return on investment? Not exactly. The truth is, he is setting up the argument that deliberately withholding tax payment would not present any risk because the government couldn’t prosecute or punish the offenders if there were enough of them. Beck literally advises his audience not to worry about the consequences:

“Still, most tax evaders don’t end up in jail. […] Let’s just say a million people don’t pay – not because they’re cheap – but because they believe the principles that we were founded on have been violated. And they think this is wrong and they try to do something that they think is the only thing they can.”

Then Beck tells them to…

“Put aside the fact America’s federal, state, and local prisons are already overcrowded. They are packed 36% beyond their rated capacity. Overcrowded to the maximum. […] All in all, it’s probably not worth the government’s time to toss you in jail.”

There you have it. Feel free to cease all payments to the government. Nothing’s going to happen to you if you do it. Well, at least you won’t go to jail. Beck doesn’t address whether or not you would have to go through the inconvenience of an audit. He doesn’t raise the possibility of your home, or other assets, being seized. It must not have occurred to him that your wages might be garnished. Even a conviction with a fine and probation, with no jail time, would still leave you with a criminal record.

But never mind any of that. Beck says that this sort of tax evasion would make you like Gandhi. Beck even quotes the famous spiritual and political leader who was fighting to secure India’s freedom from the English imperialists. Gandhi said: “Withholding payment of taxes is one of the quickest methods of overthrowing a government.” Of course, in our case we are not struggling against a foreign tyrant who is imposing their will on us. In fact, for better or worse, we voted for the people who drafted our tax laws. Beck’s battle is more like that of the Fox News Tea Partiers than Gandhi’s Swaraj. But that doesn’t stop Beck from overtly advocating mass criminality. Referring to Gandhi’s fight for independence, Beck says…

“And it makes common sense. Starving them out of trillions of your hard-earned dollars would literally put them out of business. But do Americans want to do that? Do Americans who want to do that have the guts to follow Gandhi’s example, in order to save children, our grandchildren, our great, great, great, great, great-grandchildren from all of this insane debt?”

It seems that after a challenge like that, Beck’s earlier disclaimer is irrelevant. He is virtually daring you to walk up the steps of the IRS and announce your defiance of their authority. Do you have the guts to do it? Do you love your great-grandchildren?

Here’s “The One Thing” (if I may borrow that from Beck): I don’t see Beck doing any of that. I don’t see him withholding his taxes, or even threatening to do so. I don’t see him making any sort of sacrifice on behalf of his great-grandchildren. Gandhi suffered every bit as much as the people he aspired to lead. The only thing I see Beck doing is giving dangerous advice that will bring great distress to anyone stupid enough to take it (and we are talking about Glenn Beck viewers here, so…).

Glenn Beck is proving himself to be a supreme coward and a hypocrite. He won’t for a minute consider assuming the hardships that he so cavalierly counsels for others. This is a man who begins every show with the exhortation of a cult leader to “Come on, follow me.” But he is leading from the rear where it’s safer. He is happy to let his devotees be slaughtered while he takes the limo back to his security-gated estate. Then he’ll go on TV the following day and weep for their loss. He will make martyrs of his legion of tax resisters and profit from their pain.

If you believe this country is great, but people like Beck make a mockery of leadership and integrity, come on, follow me.


Fox News: Republicans Divided Over How to Attack Sotomayor

Posted by on May 29, 2009 at 12:21 pm. NO Comments :

An article on FoxNews.com is lamenting the difficult position in which Republicans find themselves with regard to President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court:

“Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court, is posing a conundrum for Republicans who are struggling to unite against a woman they presume will be a reliable vote for liberal causes.

“The GOP doesn’t want to give Sotomayer (sic) a free ride, because they believe she is a judicial activist who will legislate from the bench.”

So what’s the problem? Why don’t they just attack her as a liberal judicial activist? If that’s really their objection to her, it seems that there would be nothing controversial about taking that approach. All they have to do is fire up their slogans about Socialism and set Glenn Beck and his posse loose, and they have the makings of a conventional rightist campaign of obstructionism. The truth is, that isn’t really their objection. The article states that they are…

“…concerned that if they launch a no-holds barred attack on Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to be nominated to the court, they risk alienating a growing minority they want on their side in the voting booth.”

The only way that they can alienate the Hispanic electorate is if they were to oppose Sotomayor on the basis of her race. Consequently, they are inadvertently admitting that that is precisely what they want to do. The argument within the ranks of Republicans is not centered on Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy or record. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and others have already staked their claims that she is a racist, and that her gender renders her susceptible to that peculiarly feminine characteristic of empathy.

It becomes crystal clear that the dilemma facing Republicans, and Fox News, is tied solely to race and gender when you consider this simple scenario: If the nominee were a white male, would they have any hesitation to executing a straightforward campaign criticizing his record as a jurist?

The fact that there is a debate going on in the party at all, and trumpeted in right-wing media, is conclusive evidence that the real subject of the controversy is the nominee’s race and gender. They just don’t want to admit it. And we can count on Fox to obfuscate that truth and to portray the internecine squabble as something more benign. But if they were truly worried about how Sotomayor would rule as a Justice, then why would criticizing that risk their standing amongst Hispanics?

The answer? It wouldn’t. They’re lying. As usual.


Newspapers Conspiring To Hasten Their Own Demise

Posted by on May 29, 2009 at 11:43 am. NO Comments :

James Warren of The Atlantic reports that a bevy of newspaper executives gathered yesterday in Chicago for a clandestine discussion about “Models to Monetize Content.” Amongst the participants are the New York Times, Gannett, E. W. Scripps, Advance Publications, McClatchy, Hearst Newspapers, MediaNews Group, the Associated Press, Philadelphia Media Holdings, Lee Enterprises and Freedom Communication. The unadorned agenda of this cabal of publishers is to figure out how to make news consumers pick up the tab that advertisers have traditionally paid.

Setting aside the obvious appearance of a violation of anti-trust laws, the main problem with these old-media relics is that they still don’t understand the problems confronting them.

First of all, they aren’t losing money because subscription receipts are declining. Subscription revenue, while not insignificant, was never the foundation of the industry’s financial well being. It is advertisers that keep newspapers (and most media) in business. The value of subscribers is due more to the fact that higher circulation brings higher ad revenue than to the value of the actual subscription price.

Secondly, subscriptions aren’t declining because newspapers cost too much. They are declining because too often the product isn’t worth paying for. That would be true whether it were delivered to your doorstep or your browser. The state of the economy cannot be overlooked as a contributor to the subscriber exodus either. But when newspapers respond to tough economic times by cutting newsroom staff, they have to expect that readers will notice the falloff in quality. Once people perceive that they aren’t getting their money’s worth, they will be no more likely to pay for an online subscription than the dead tree variety.

Warren astutely notes in his article that newspaper executives are not the brightest inks in the well. Many of them are holdovers from an era that hasn’t kept up with modern competition. Others are transplants from TV or radio who lack experience in a medium that has little in common with its electronic cousins. The evidence of their shortcomings is observable in their haste to alter a business model that has worked fine for a couple of hundred years or more. To respond to current financial woes by shifting from a model that relies on advertisers to one that pinches readers is profoundly shortsighted. The economy, and advertising revenues, are bound to recover, but dimwitted decisions by panicky publishers could aggravate and prolong what would otherwise be a temporary setback.

There are challenges facing the newspaper business, to be sure. But there is no reason to presume that the sort of broad distribution model that has led to success in virtually every form of media has suddenly become inoperative. Newspapers need to adapt to the digital world in a manner that promotes access and ubiquity. Walling themselves off by erecting subscription barriers can only make matters worse and result in further isolation and debt.

Finally, if they think that by colluding with one another to set the terms of doing business with them will endear them to their customers, they are even stupider than I thought.