PSoTD

I'm assuming this newspaper is named after the obsolete political party. Does anyone know of any other newspaper in the country called the Whig?

I fell asleep on the couch during Jon Stewart tonight. When I awoke, a very very special piece of Satan's programming was on my television. I watched for nearly a half hour, not believing the turdeous crapalocity before me. I thought it could get no worse than Artie Lange, comedy's version of a heavily leaking sewage pipe in mid-August in the only restaurant for miles near Death Valley, but I was wrong.

I have been downright ashamed of the national news media many times over the past ten to fifteen years. Part of that shame is a flaw in construction: citizens hold the news media as a standard of some sort for valuable and truthful information, but we force that process into a for-profit design that often limits, and sometimes dissolves, any useful standard at all.

At this very moment our country is suffering from a grotesque abuse of the citizens' perceived standard. I'm not talking about Iraq or Bush or elections.

I'm talking about the JonBenet Ramsey case, and the arrest of John Karr.

I'm not denying that it's a news story, it clearly is. But if one prioritizes the importance and value of a story based on the amount of time and space devoted to a story, the news networks and news publications are defining the JonBenet Ramsey case as the most important and valuable story to Americans the past week.

It may be the most titillating. It may be the most shocking. It is neither the most important or valuable story, and the corporate construction of the news industry prevents that determination to the benefit of Americans. There's not enough competition in news to provide an alternative. We see this happen over and over and over again. It isn't going to change unless the competitive construction of the national news industry is changed.

One way to change this is to promote strategies for competition - true competition - in the marketplace. This probably means government policy. How does America promote more ownership in the news industry in America of more news outlets? What government structured policies benefit the already empowered news corporations to the deficit of smaller news delivery entities? How do we make the news process more competitive within individual markets?

This is something that a national Democrat should be asking, and asking regularly. Sadly, it can't be a Democrat at this point that is considering running for President, because no candidate at this point can afford to alienate an entire media power construct within the purpose of altering it. But there are national Democrats that can carry the questions loudly that are not candidates for that office. It is time for them to ask loudly and nationally:

Is the national news media spending too much time and resources on the JonBenet Ramsey case? And if so, why?

Note: I see Arianna Huffington has some similar feelings.

Central Pennsylvanians curious about the direction their local PBS station may be evolving might want to check out this.

It is part of a Corporation for Public Broadcasting project sampling a number of public television CEOs to "imagine their stations in 2012 from three perspectives: (1) from the viewer's living room, (2) from the board room of a local foundation, and (3) from inside the station." Interesting.

Interesting statistics from this article:

I hope the trend for personal advice columns keeps heading in that direction - all the way to zero.

If people like this would spend as much time trying to figure out solutions to problems as they do trying to figure out how to attack and label those who have solutions they don't like, perhaps the world would function a hell of a lot better.

I can't claim I understand all the reasons why Lieberman is losing in the polls in Connecticut, but I'm pretty sure it's not the mythology purported by Robert Kagan.

Maybe someday there will be some media analysis of the editorials concerning the 2006 Lieberman primary. One of the ways to analyze it would be to create a subset - DC based editorialists, such as Kagan, and non-Beltway based editorialists. A third set could be Connecticut only based editorialists.

At that point, analysis of editorials along a scale for pro and con sentiment towards the Lieberman and Lamont campaigns - for each candidate in each editorial - can be developed. Would Beltway-based editorialists measure considerably different than non-Beltway editorialists? If so, then perhaps some research can go into determining why.

Not that most of us don't suspect that it's in good part because the government industry culture in Washington is feeling threatened by what is happening in Connecticut in this campaign, but it's always good to have some sort of statistical "evidence" as to why someone's opinion sets off the BS Meter.

By the way, my best guess as to why Lieberman is losing in Connecticut - he's more of the same, and he's not able to sell that anymore - Connecticut's sick of it. 2004 showed him for the poor candidate he really is, and 2006 appears to be putting the exclamation point on it.

There was a movie a few years back, it was a pretty popular movie, made lots of money, won some big awards, had this guy named Tom Hanks in it. It was called Saving Private Ryan, and yes, it was a war movie, and it was a special effects movie, and it was a hero movie, and I'm sure if people want to delve into it they'll tell me it was more than that.

And I agree. One of the biggest themes about this movie was about how our government was willing to sacrifice something for the benefit of others. It wasn't just about war and saving the world from the Nazis, it wasn't just about the expenditure of some lives so that one particular person could be saved - it was about how government can try to move heaven and earth to save something for other generations - in this case a son, a future father, a future grandfather.

Hollywood likes to make these movies in terms of war, but tries its magic on other subjects considerably less often. This is a shame, because there are plenty of examples where both the American government and specific American people sacrificed in order to provide something for generations to come, and deserve attention as well, the kind of attention that a quality movie producer and a well-written script and a much-liked movie star can provide.

So, Hollywood, I have a suggestion. Find the producer that will lovingly tell the tale of the creation of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Get the best screenwriters in the business, incorporate some of the beautiful music that has come from the area, and sign up some well-loved and high-achievement talent to perform in the movie. Tell the tale as you best can do, because America will not only appreciate it, but needs to hear it. People gave more than money. They gave away their property, their homes of their ancestry... they were heroes.