Friday, July 27, 2007

Today's Journal: Hiding Alcohol Ads' Danger to Our Kids

The Journal's lead story, “Teenagers Prefer Hard Liquor” by Olivier Uyttebrouck, dutifully reports the results of a CDC study showing a new and recent change in teen preference for hard liquor over beer and alcopops in teen alcohol consumption.

However, Uyttebrouck fails miserably when he tries to fathom a REASON for the switch.

Uyttebrouck brilliantly reports that hard liquor can be mixed with . . . well . . . mixers . . . to make it taste better.

Uyttebrouck cleverly suggests that hard liquor could be easier to conceal than beer.

Uyttebrouck suggests that hard liquor might be easier to obtain or shoplift. (Or it "might" be passed out by little green men on St. Patrick's Day.)

Boring keenly to the heart of the dilemma, Uyttebrouck suggests that hard liquor makes people drunk faster. Wow, bio-chemestry, right on the front page of the Journal!

Great reporting, Olivier, but you missed the cultural boat.

FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS HARD ALCOHOL HAS BEEN ADVERTISED NON-STOP ON TELEVISION.

Since Smirnoff vodka aired the first hard liquor ad of the 21st century on Saturday Night Live on December 15, 2001, cable TV has saturation bombed our youth with hard booze ads, particularly on sports programs, and the comedy channel.

Tons of research, not to mention common sense, shows that advertising works. So how did Uyttebrouck miss this one?

Is he clueless, or is this just more of the Journal's blind, Republican, pro-business slant?

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Coverage of Casualties/Lohan & Spears/Governor/Attorney General: Pathetic Tabloid Journalism

Six, count them.

Six brave U.S. soldiers paid the ultimate price during the last three days, yet the Journal gave no coverage to their sacrifice.

None!

The J did, however, manage to print large articles about Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears each of the last two days. Truly, the J is trying to compete with the National Enquirer.

Nothing about our dead soldiers, but today’s J found room for a half page article, 14 paragraphs about the use of CATS as solace for terminal patients in RHODE ISLAND!

Is this valuable information for New Mexico citizens? Why this travesty?

Nothing could be clearer. Yesterday, the J painted a rosy future scenario of the Iraq war (see below). It was a large page one, above the fold article.

Today’s J gives one sentence to the near record breaking, MASSIVE SLAUGHTER of 88 Iraqis, over 200 casualties, proving the futility of the catastrophe in Iraq – giving the lie to a successful U.S. “new strategy,” so, of course the J ignored it. How self-serving.

No mention of our war dead. How sad.

In the last two days, the J gave 7 paragraphs to the Attorney General story while giving 24 paragraphs to Lohan and 20 to Spears. How trite.

The Associated Press, the J’s main information source, yesterday, revealed damning documents showing that Gonzales, the nation’s top law enforcement official, perjured himself before the Senate (again) and is refusing to prosecute the law, but the J does not even mention the story.

How propagandistic.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Journal Promotes War; Ignores Costs

Well, I’m back from vacation, and the Journal (J) continues its typical pattern: A) pro-Iraq war; B) anti-Bill Richardson; C) pro-business/pro-development; and D) emulating tabloid style infotainment, reporting on celebrities and fluff.

For the last three days, the J continues to report only the most positive Iraq news possible. Today’s “War Plan: Hand Off To Iraqis By 2009” article suggests a rosy revised plan for the war and is full of conditional phrases like “envisions,” “appears to reflect,” “foresees establishing,” “probably would take,” “expect enough improvement” and “expect localized security by the summer of 2008.”

IS THIS SCIENCE FICTION?

The mind boggles that the J could print such hypotheticals after more than five years of rosy expectations of progress from this administration, which told us the war was over 1546 days ago. This article prints not one word from a responsible member of the opposition, what propaganda!

Most unfortunately, in its zeal to promote the administration war agenda, the J continues to ignore the details of the cost of this war, nothing about U.S. costs--not just in dead and wounded Americans and Iraqis, but in treasure.

Treasure, yes dollars, are crucially important because, according to Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, we have spent over two trillion dollars on this war. What does that mean?

A) That money is borrowed, indemnifying our children (mostly to China), and B) it has a HUGE OPPORTUNITY COST. It could have been spent on our crumbling infrastructure, fixing the Katrina losses, water programs for the Southwest, education, alternative energy research and development, or, Bush’s favorite, more gifts to the oil and coal industries.

Monday, July 9, 2007

Blog Editor Has to Eat Words

I must admit; the J proved me wrong by publishing my blog article about the Transformers movie as a letter to the editor this morning.

Thus the J actually criticized itself (very unusual), and it informed citizens and parents about the marketing of a PG-13 movie to younger children (a common Hollywood practice) through over a hundred toys and advertising campaigns targeting kids under 13 and as young as two.

6.8.07 - Typical Attempt to Tar Richardson

Sunday the Journal's lead was a huge story (over two pages) that listed every possible "shady" deal of NM oil man Johnny Cope.

Despite having no evidence of any wrong doing, the J cited every contribution to the Governor's campaign and other NM democrats. The J's "investigative reporter," Thomas Cole thus attempted to make a case that, somehow, the Governor was at fault for taking money from Cole. Indeed, for a Republican paper, the J seems to have an unusual problem with people who donate money to political candidates.

If you are scratching your head at this logic, you are not alone. Headlined "Tycoon Backs Governor All the Way," the article tried to make a case of guilt by association, even though the association was with a person who did nothing wrong. Surely, the J doth protest too much.

If this is the best investigative journalism the Journal can do, in a state rife with corruption (both Republicans and Democrats), perhaps the J should go back to doing front page stories on the need to landscape I-40.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

Journal Continues to Support War

In three separate articles today (one on the front page) the Journal gave large amounts of space to comments by the President, soldiers re-enlisting and others -- all implying that the Iraq war is worthwhile and making progress.

Our casualties, Iraqi casualties, and the mammoth costs of the war were not mentioned, even though June was the bloodiest month ever. 3,586 Iraqis died in June . . . real progress.

The Albuquerque Journal Markets Violence to Kids

In a big front page graphic and A-8 story, the Journal again sells a product. Are they getting paid? The Journal could not even wait for its Friday Venue, where it usually promotes movies, but a day early had to advertise a much criticized, violent PG-13 movie, which targets children AS YOUNG AS FOUR.

The PG-13 movie, Transformers, pays for widespread and irresponsible marketing to preschoolers, so did they pay the Journal? The film, which opens on July 4, 2007, was rated PG-13 for “intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, brief sexual humor, and language” by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

There are more than one hundred Transformers’ toys FOR CHILDREN UNDER SIX, and Transformer promotions by Kraft and Burger King are clearly aimed at young children with advertisements on children’s television programming rated appropriate for kids as young as two.

“It is extremely disappointing that Hasbro and DreamWorks would choose to promote a film to preschool children that the industry deems inappropriate for anyone under the age of thirteen,” said the Center for a Commercial Free Childhood's Dr. Susan Linn. “In their cynical attempt to wring every last dollar from one of this summer’s blockbusters, these companies have shown little regard for children’s well-being or parents’ desires to limit their children’s exposure to violence.”

EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 129 Hasbro Transformers toys reviewed by the CCFC came with a recommended age YOUNGER than thirteen.

Seventy-two of these products (56%) are recommended for children as young as FIVE; an additional thirty-two toys (25%) are recommended for children as young as FOUR; thirteen toys (10%) are recommended for children as young as THREE. A toy promotion at Burger King is also for children THREE and up.

Not one word about this widespread and easily available criticism appeared in the Journal.

Are they: 1) bought; 2) lazy; or 3) stupid?

Hey, Journal, what happened to those good, old fashioned, Republican family values?

More Attacks on Richardson

Albuquerque’s “leading” newspaper again attacks Bill Richardson, using the “money association” game. By reporting the “higher” salaries of three cabinet level officials and that some of the money comes from UNM and NMSU, the Journal utilizes a subtle ad hominem attack.

Keep in mind. None of the three have done anything wrong. Nothing is mentioned about the quality of their work. The McCarthyesque attack merely suggests indirectly that something must be wrong.

The Journal quotes their favorite political hacks, notably Roswell Democratic, Tim Jennings, who is usually sought for quotes attacking the Governor. It’s a great deal for the Journal, putting unsupported opinion in their lead story, instead of on the editorial page where it belongs.

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Journal Doublespeak on Libby

Today, a Journal editorial came out against the commutation of Lewis Scooter Libby's sentence. It seems that the Journal editors did so grudgingly.

After two days of stories, including yesterday’s lead, justifying and minimizing the President’s action, the Journal ran a small editorial condemning it. The editorial was second to one examining Sandoval county’s wireless network.

The totality of the Journal’s efforts have failed to give the details or main points of those opposed to the President’s decision. For an excellent summary of those points, I recommend:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

Why did the Journal feel that it must give token disapproval to the Republican President’s efforts to ensure Libby’s silence about White House involvement in multiple felonies? It is simple. Fully 60% of the country opposes the President’s actions, including 40% of Republicans. Now, the Journal can say they were being fair . . . kind of like Fox News, you know, "fair and balanced."

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Far Right Bias In Lead Story

Today, the Journal’s lead story on Scooter Libby pounds home the “excessive punishment” right wing talking point four times before the reader gets to the third paragraph. One has to turn to page six before the Journal mentions any competent criticism of George Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s sentence before he has served even one day. Note that many conservatives do not condone pardoning crimes.

Remember when the Journal mounted a daily attack against President Clinton for his alleged “perjury” and “obstruction of justice?” Somehow these crimes are not so important to the Journal today.

34 Letters: None Critical of Journal

Today the Journal published its Tuesday "shotgun" approach to letters to the editor, and the approach is symbolic of the Journal’s approach to journalism. By publishing 34 short, venting screeds, the Journal manages to look like a paper of the people, but keeps details from the people.

The tactic taps into the emotional feelings so typical of talk radio – no detail, no qualified spokespeople and, most importantly, NO CRITICISM OF THE JOURNAL. Unfortunately, there is also no information that is sorely needed by citizens in a democracy.

Monday, July 2, 2007

Misleading Headlines

Anyone reading today’s Journal quickly would probably think that things are going better in the U.S. war effort. “Civilian Deaths in Iraq Fall” (A-1 above the fold) and “NATO Quashes Taliban Spring Offensive” (A-5). To the Journal’s credit, the Iraq article’s subhead is “U.S. Casualties up since Operation Began,” and the record level of our soldiers’ attrition is noted.

This is the second day in a row the Journal has put our soldiers’ sacrifice on the front page, a crucial story for keeping our citizens informed about one dimension of the horrific cost of this war.

The Afghanistan headline is misleading, as the body of the article actually shows that we have many military problems there, and things are not going well. Additionally, any article on this war needs to mention the Russians military disaster in Afghanistan, as the Taliban resurgence ominously builds up again. These folks have beaten great powers before!

‘Impressions’ are important, and one has to read closely to absorb the details in both articles indicating the long term problem that both wars represent.

The articles provide no hint of the historical and political morass that our involvement in both countries represents, not to mentions the fact that almost all observers, including former and current military men, believe that there is NO MILITARY solution to these conflicts.

More importantly, the articles do not suggest that when (if) we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, the region will undoubtedly remain unstable and bloody, as it has for centuries.

The Iraq headline could have more accurately read, “‘Progress’ in Iraq?: At Heavy Cost.” The Afghanistan HL could have read, “Illusory Gains Against Taliban.”

Lastly, one continues to wish for the Journal to run a page one series on the totality of the cost of these wars, balanced against the probability that all our blood and treasure are being wasted.