Media Mania - Killer Lightning, the Internet and the Law
As the 21st Century deepens hits hold on the American philosophical landscape, public knowledge about that landscape is broadening on an exponential basis.
Mainstream television and newspaper news organizations are increasingly finding themselves on the fringes of the traditional Fourth Estate - as profits of the New York Times and other news organizations dwindle. What is shoving them aside is a new mechanism for disseminating hard ‘news’. The Internet.
Anyone can ‘publish’ in light of 21st Century technology, all too often they do. A Gutenberg in every home.
The media’s inability to compete with the ‘new printing press’ - and its inability to escape manipulation by the very news ‘sources’ that it covers - is becoming increasingly glaring.
While profits have plummeted at the New York Times, wealth and inertia as one of America’s pre-eminent news outlets have allowed it to keep a journalistic edge, breaking news stories like the abuse of the Foreign Surveillance Act by President George W. Bush and the plights of Camden, New Jersey, the worst crime capital in the United States.
Other news organizations haven’t been so lucky. The erosion was first notable with the tendency of television stations to disaster-fy weather reports: simple thunderstorms morphed, seemingly overnight, into life threatening phenomena. Killer lightning and ‘dangerous’ storms are now a common clarion call.
More pragmatically, the erosion of news quality has expanded. Investigative reporting has largely disappeared. In fact, in-depth longterm reporting of key social issues has evaporated from most major city daily newspapers, entities traditionally entrusted with guarding the pubic welfare.
The Philadelphia Inquirer is a prime example, although it is hardly alone.
What one sees in reading the Inquirer is a growing phenomena nationwide: newspaper reporters are no longer 'reading' their own newspapers. More glaringly, they do not appear to be reading their individualistic news articles over a prolonged period of time. Hence, the news coverage is becoming increasingly disjointed and scattershot on overarching social issues.
The Philadelphia Inquirer’s inability to penetrate the Veterans Administration and Social Security Administration is an eloquent point - while dutifully documenting that thousands of veterans' widows are not collecting entitled payments, the Inquirer completely missed the much larger issue of how the Veterans Administration disseminates - or, more aptly, withholds - information from potential beneficiaries. It is a phenomena the that the General Accounting Office has commented upon in assessing the kindred Social Security Administration. And it is a widespread operational phenomena in the private financial sector. It is called “DK’ing”. Financial entities from insurance companies to stock brokerage firms ‘Do not Know’ any given client when it becomes apparent that the client is owed money. In much the same fashion, the Veterans Administration and Social Security Administration fail to publish or enforce their own programs to enhance salary budgets in a twisted stroke of financial nepotism.
While it may seem inconsequential, in the long term, the growing trend of reporters to not 'read' leads a news organization to have a decided inability to make connections. The political rise of George E. Norcross III as party chieftain of the Democratic Party in the southern portions of New Jersey is just one example.
While the New York Times has reported on the overall philosophical elements of political corruption in New Jersey, the Philadelphia Inquirer has largely remained quiet. Instead of focusing on large scale social issues involved with the Norcross empire, the Philadelphia Inquirer focuses on whatever attendant circumstances that happen to stumble into public view. And one should note the words ‘stumble into view’ well. Increasingly, the modern newspaper industry conducts no research. Instead, it takes a reactionary approach as the Inquirer’s forays with the Veterans Administration note.
When the Democratic Party in southern New Jersey decided to return to its 20th Century roots of racial discrimination by reverse redlining a large section of North Camden for redevelopment - by tossing out the current residents in favor of newer, more affluent ones - the Inquirer did report the procedural relocation. Yet it entirely missed the ‘redlining issue’ - a well-known financial ploy that is historically tied to real estate development schemes in urban areas. And tied to unabashed racism. And closely tied to political corruption as well. At the trickle down economic end of ‘red-lining’ one will usually find a smiling affiliate of the local political party - whether banker, lawyer, real estate mogul or insurance company.
The late 1800s/early 1900s creation of Harlem in New York City is but one example of the racial/financial/political exploitation of human beings based on race.
What is fascinating is that, concurrent with the North Camden redevelopment articles, the Inquirer was simultaneously reporting on the exploits of Mr. Norcross and his employer, Commerce Bank. Despite federal indictments, and subsequent convictions of Commerce executives on fraud charges, The Philadelphia Inquirer remained largely quiet on reporting any political corruption in southern New Jersey - even though Mr. Norcross heads the Democratic Party and even though Commerce Bank is headquartered in New Jersey.
While the New York Times documented payola scams involving lawyers and political officials in the Democratic Party of Middlesex County, virtually nothing has appeared of the same caliber in the Inquirer. Despite the death of a young woman after her evening commute home on a Delaware River Port Authority train - an organization dominated by the southern New Jersey Democratic Party - it took nearly four years for the Inquirer to question how the DRPA was spending ticket, tax and federal revenues.
Procedurally, the Inquirer has reported on the DRPA’s expenditures. Yet, virtually nowhere does any overall assessment of that spending appear. It was not until the waning days of 2005 - several years after Christine Eberle was dragged from the train station parking lot and strangled - did an apt-minded reporter by the name of Elisa Ung brave what has become all too uncommon in modern media reporting - she postulated a theory.
In quoting the Longshoremen’s Union, Ms. Ung hit common sense: perhaps the DRPA and the southern New Jersey Democratic Party are embezzling money in artful ways - instead of providing funding to dredge the ‘port’, what was the DRPA planning to do with that same $40 million dollars?
It was a philosophical question the Philadelphia Inquirer failed to ask concerning the death of Christine Eberle. What, precisely, did the DRPA and the Democratic Party under George E. Norcross III do with revenues instead of providing police protection at the train stations?
When three children suffocated to death in Camden, right in front of television cameras as police failed to examine a locked car trunk, the Philadelphia Inquirer again failed to examine the substantive chain of events. It did report the lack of proper police tactics. It did report that the police failed to properly examine the car. But it failed to ask what happened to the money to properly train the City of Camden’s police officers. And it failed to ask why Camden County, in supervisory control of the Camden Police via the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office, did not correct the lack of training.
In short, once again, where was tax money going? Afterall, millions of dollars had been set aside by the State of New Jersey to revitalize Camden. And to support Camden County via the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office - some of that funding in the form of federal grants. On these issues, the Inquirer remained philosophically silent.
To date, even in light of the murder of one of the Philadelphia Inquirer’s own employees due to the political spending decisions in southern New Jersey, the Inquirer has arguably turned its back on informing the public. (An Inquirer truck driver was murdered in the same parking lot from which Ms. Eberle was kidnapped yet, fascinatingly, no DRPA security existed thereafter at the location.)
As the recent payola scandals involving the media point out, it is fairly easy to “buy” news coverage. Whether favorable articles about the federal “No Child Left Behind Program” or news reporting in Iraq, the media has a seedy, on-going history of being on the take. Though profitable in a number of capacities, organized crime flourished in the late 1800s through the 1980s largely on the steam of media manipulations. No serious reporting on the social phenomena took place until the 1970s. And even then, despite open gunslinging, it took a lot of provocation to get newspapers like the Inquirer to tackle the matter seriously. (Al Capone's obituary in the New York Times is an eloquent point.)
When the duty to report the Mafia phenomena became undeniable, the news industry did report the philosophical elements rather well...in the long run. But one cannot forget, from a historical point of view, that it took nearly 100 years for the newspaper industry to do so.
The New York Times, in closing out 2005, printed a fascinating article detailing the New Jersey Bar’s de facto involvement in corruption in Monmouth County. And the de facto nexus of the New Jersey Bar with political corruption around the state. To date, in covering Mr. Norcross, the Philadelphia Inquirer has demurred on drawing similar connections in Camden County. It remains a provocative mystery in light of the deaths, more so in light of the Longshoremen’s Union commentary - a union that itself is no stranger to financial/political scandals. It would appear the union would have a wealth of historical expertise behind it's observations of Camden County, it's motivations via the DRPA, and the nexus with a Democratic Party largely dominated by members of the New Jersey Bar.
The lack of “substantive’ coverage is not going unnoticed among Camden County residents. What the future holds is anyone’s guess. But the rise of the Internet has engendered a broader definition of the Fourth Estate. Access to information is larger and more expansive than ever. And increasingly, old dog newspapers like the Philadelphia Inquirer are finding themselves marginalized and enslaved to revenue, marketing and advertisement realities.
The Philadelphia Inquirer, and many of its large city kindred, are now up for potential sale.
At some point a critical decision arises: When is reporting ‘news’ reporting nothing at all? When are reporters hired to facilitate an expensive, quite polished, delivery mechanism for ads?
Perhaps it is a question answerable by reflecting upon the newspaper industry’s television counterparts and their weather story phenomena: When is ‘killer lightning’ just a thunderstorm?
Mainstream television and newspaper news organizations are increasingly finding themselves on the fringes of the traditional Fourth Estate - as profits of the New York Times and other news organizations dwindle. What is shoving them aside is a new mechanism for disseminating hard ‘news’. The Internet.
Anyone can ‘publish’ in light of 21st Century technology, all too often they do. A Gutenberg in every home.
The media’s inability to compete with the ‘new printing press’ - and its inability to escape manipulation by the very news ‘sources’ that it covers - is becoming increasingly glaring.
While profits have plummeted at the New York Times, wealth and inertia as one of America’s pre-eminent news outlets have allowed it to keep a journalistic edge, breaking news stories like the abuse of the Foreign Surveillance Act by President George W. Bush and the plights of Camden, New Jersey, the worst crime capital in the United States.
Other news organizations haven’t been so lucky. The erosion was first notable with the tendency of television stations to disaster-fy weather reports: simple thunderstorms morphed, seemingly overnight, into life threatening phenomena. Killer lightning and ‘dangerous’ storms are now a common clarion call.
More pragmatically, the erosion of news quality has expanded. Investigative reporting has largely disappeared. In fact, in-depth longterm reporting of key social issues has evaporated from most major city daily newspapers, entities traditionally entrusted with guarding the pubic welfare.
The Philadelphia Inquirer is a prime example, although it is hardly alone.
What one sees in reading the Inquirer is a growing phenomena nationwide: newspaper reporters are no longer 'reading' their own newspapers. More glaringly, they do not appear to be reading their individualistic news articles over a prolonged period of time. Hence, the news coverage is becoming increasingly disjointed and scattershot on overarching social issues.
The Philadelphia Inquirer’s inability to penetrate the Veterans Administration and Social Security Administration is an eloquent point - while dutifully documenting that thousands of veterans' widows are not collecting entitled payments, the Inquirer completely missed the much larger issue of how the Veterans Administration disseminates - or, more aptly, withholds - information from potential beneficiaries. It is a phenomena the that the General Accounting Office has commented upon in assessing the kindred Social Security Administration. And it is a widespread operational phenomena in the private financial sector. It is called “DK’ing”. Financial entities from insurance companies to stock brokerage firms ‘Do not Know’ any given client when it becomes apparent that the client is owed money. In much the same fashion, the Veterans Administration and Social Security Administration fail to publish or enforce their own programs to enhance salary budgets in a twisted stroke of financial nepotism.
While it may seem inconsequential, in the long term, the growing trend of reporters to not 'read' leads a news organization to have a decided inability to make connections. The political rise of George E. Norcross III as party chieftain of the Democratic Party in the southern portions of New Jersey is just one example.
While the New York Times has reported on the overall philosophical elements of political corruption in New Jersey, the Philadelphia Inquirer has largely remained quiet. Instead of focusing on large scale social issues involved with the Norcross empire, the Philadelphia Inquirer focuses on whatever attendant circumstances that happen to stumble into public view. And one should note the words ‘stumble into view’ well. Increasingly, the modern newspaper industry conducts no research. Instead, it takes a reactionary approach as the Inquirer’s forays with the Veterans Administration note.
When the Democratic Party in southern New Jersey decided to return to its 20th Century roots of racial discrimination by reverse redlining a large section of North Camden for redevelopment - by tossing out the current residents in favor of newer, more affluent ones - the Inquirer did report the procedural relocation. Yet it entirely missed the ‘redlining issue’ - a well-known financial ploy that is historically tied to real estate development schemes in urban areas. And tied to unabashed racism. And closely tied to political corruption as well. At the trickle down economic end of ‘red-lining’ one will usually find a smiling affiliate of the local political party - whether banker, lawyer, real estate mogul or insurance company.
The late 1800s/early 1900s creation of Harlem in New York City is but one example of the racial/financial/political exploitation of human beings based on race.
What is fascinating is that, concurrent with the North Camden redevelopment articles, the Inquirer was simultaneously reporting on the exploits of Mr. Norcross and his employer, Commerce Bank. Despite federal indictments, and subsequent convictions of Commerce executives on fraud charges, The Philadelphia Inquirer remained largely quiet on reporting any political corruption in southern New Jersey - even though Mr. Norcross heads the Democratic Party and even though Commerce Bank is headquartered in New Jersey.
While the New York Times documented payola scams involving lawyers and political officials in the Democratic Party of Middlesex County, virtually nothing has appeared of the same caliber in the Inquirer. Despite the death of a young woman after her evening commute home on a Delaware River Port Authority train - an organization dominated by the southern New Jersey Democratic Party - it took nearly four years for the Inquirer to question how the DRPA was spending ticket, tax and federal revenues.
Procedurally, the Inquirer has reported on the DRPA’s expenditures. Yet, virtually nowhere does any overall assessment of that spending appear. It was not until the waning days of 2005 - several years after Christine Eberle was dragged from the train station parking lot and strangled - did an apt-minded reporter by the name of Elisa Ung brave what has become all too uncommon in modern media reporting - she postulated a theory.
In quoting the Longshoremen’s Union, Ms. Ung hit common sense: perhaps the DRPA and the southern New Jersey Democratic Party are embezzling money in artful ways - instead of providing funding to dredge the ‘port’, what was the DRPA planning to do with that same $40 million dollars?
It was a philosophical question the Philadelphia Inquirer failed to ask concerning the death of Christine Eberle. What, precisely, did the DRPA and the Democratic Party under George E. Norcross III do with revenues instead of providing police protection at the train stations?
When three children suffocated to death in Camden, right in front of television cameras as police failed to examine a locked car trunk, the Philadelphia Inquirer again failed to examine the substantive chain of events. It did report the lack of proper police tactics. It did report that the police failed to properly examine the car. But it failed to ask what happened to the money to properly train the City of Camden’s police officers. And it failed to ask why Camden County, in supervisory control of the Camden Police via the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office, did not correct the lack of training.
In short, once again, where was tax money going? Afterall, millions of dollars had been set aside by the State of New Jersey to revitalize Camden. And to support Camden County via the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office - some of that funding in the form of federal grants. On these issues, the Inquirer remained philosophically silent.
To date, even in light of the murder of one of the Philadelphia Inquirer’s own employees due to the political spending decisions in southern New Jersey, the Inquirer has arguably turned its back on informing the public. (An Inquirer truck driver was murdered in the same parking lot from which Ms. Eberle was kidnapped yet, fascinatingly, no DRPA security existed thereafter at the location.)
As the recent payola scandals involving the media point out, it is fairly easy to “buy” news coverage. Whether favorable articles about the federal “No Child Left Behind Program” or news reporting in Iraq, the media has a seedy, on-going history of being on the take. Though profitable in a number of capacities, organized crime flourished in the late 1800s through the 1980s largely on the steam of media manipulations. No serious reporting on the social phenomena took place until the 1970s. And even then, despite open gunslinging, it took a lot of provocation to get newspapers like the Inquirer to tackle the matter seriously. (Al Capone's obituary in the New York Times is an eloquent point.)
When the duty to report the Mafia phenomena became undeniable, the news industry did report the philosophical elements rather well...in the long run. But one cannot forget, from a historical point of view, that it took nearly 100 years for the newspaper industry to do so.
The New York Times, in closing out 2005, printed a fascinating article detailing the New Jersey Bar’s de facto involvement in corruption in Monmouth County. And the de facto nexus of the New Jersey Bar with political corruption around the state. To date, in covering Mr. Norcross, the Philadelphia Inquirer has demurred on drawing similar connections in Camden County. It remains a provocative mystery in light of the deaths, more so in light of the Longshoremen’s Union commentary - a union that itself is no stranger to financial/political scandals. It would appear the union would have a wealth of historical expertise behind it's observations of Camden County, it's motivations via the DRPA, and the nexus with a Democratic Party largely dominated by members of the New Jersey Bar.
The lack of “substantive’ coverage is not going unnoticed among Camden County residents. What the future holds is anyone’s guess. But the rise of the Internet has engendered a broader definition of the Fourth Estate. Access to information is larger and more expansive than ever. And increasingly, old dog newspapers like the Philadelphia Inquirer are finding themselves marginalized and enslaved to revenue, marketing and advertisement realities.
The Philadelphia Inquirer, and many of its large city kindred, are now up for potential sale.
At some point a critical decision arises: When is reporting ‘news’ reporting nothing at all? When are reporters hired to facilitate an expensive, quite polished, delivery mechanism for ads?
Perhaps it is a question answerable by reflecting upon the newspaper industry’s television counterparts and their weather story phenomena: When is ‘killer lightning’ just a thunderstorm?
posted by Qi at 12:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home