Who owns public information?

Journalists love to thump their stumps with self-righteous proclamations about “the public’s right to know.” They consider themselves the fourth arm of government (legislative, administrative, judicial and - journalism) - because, supposedly, they use their journalistic power on behalf of citizen-taxpayers. They hammer home at every opportunity that their freedom to pry facts from government equates to citizens’ right to know what government is doing and that better government is the result.

A few decades ago this was true; today it is not.

A few decades ago, for instance, the Advocate maintained, as best it could, an extensive file of clippings. A long and impressive row of filing cabinets occupied an entire back wall of the newsroom and it was the job of the clerical section to keep news articles clipped, mounted to cardboards, and indexed. Along another wall were large cabinets for the storage of microfilm.

These were tools of journalists, a prehistoric forerunner of the computer search engine. Additionally, all this information was available to the public. Anybody could enter the newsroom and, with the assistance of an employee if needed, use these files for research. We considered it their right to use it and our duty to facilitate it.

But then along came corporate “journalism” and today access to the Advocate’s morgue bears a price tag. An obscenely high price tag, as advertised on its web site:

The Advocate Archives Pricing Options
To allow for greater flexibility and ease of use, we now offer article packs, in addition to the single-article purchase option. You will be offered payment options only after you select to download the full-text of any article.

Single-article purchase - $2.95
Future purchases will require a separate charge to your credit card.
24-hour pass, 10 articles - $9.95 (65% discount)
3-article pack - $6.95 (20% discount)
Good for one week from purchase.
10-article pack - $21.95 (25% discount)
Good for one month from purchase.
25-article pack - $49.95 (30% discount)
Good for one month from purchase.
40-article pack - $79.95
Good for one month from purchase.
Doing long-term research?
500-article pack - $995 (33% discount)
Good for one year from purchase.
1,000-article pack - $1,995 (33% discount)
Good for one year from purchase.

.....

The archives contain most, but not all, of the articles published by your newspaper, and cover only the more recent years of publication. These archives are a self-service system. Currently, our staff does not provide a service to help locate articles. If you need to find an article which you believe was published but is not in the database, your newspaper may provide additional search service at an hourly rate. Please contact your newspaper for details.

Gannett, while it calls itself “your newspaper” and while it may espouse “freedom of the press,” and “the public’s right to know,” and while it seems to expect readers to come to its aid in these causes, assumes ownership of this information and tries to turn an obscene profit for access to it. The public’s right to know is now predicated on the public’s willingness to pay Gannett stockholders for the right to use it.

Nothing is farther from the spirit of the public’s right to know, nothing is farther from the spirt of the Internet, nor is anything farther from service to the community Gannett claims to serve.

Is this the death spiral of newspapers?

Gannett’s second round of furloughs is the lead story in today’s on-line Editor & Publisher (also reported in today’s Advocate). E&P’s home page listed serious financial woes of Advance Newspapers, Newhouse Papers, Charlotte Observer, San Antonio Express, Lexington Herald-Leader, Star Ledger, Tucson Citizen, Memphis Commercial Appeal, and the Champaign News-Gazette. All that reported today.

When the apparent death spiral bottoms out, what will be left? Among those who say nothing will be left of newspapers except their on-line mortuaries is one of the E&P columnists who stopped his newspaper subscription months ago.

I disagree. Printed news will survive, perhaps in a way I suggested 12/30/08 (Newspapers, dump the herd mentality and save thyselves).

It may be too late now, but had newspapers changed their “business model” a few years ago to accommodate the obvious differences between on-line offerings and that which is sold on newsprint, I believe they’d be much better off.

I feel sorry for Gannett’s local employees, particularly news staffers who seem to be working at local news reportage in what must be a very difficult, anti-productive environment. Nobody told me that, but I’ve weathered similar newsroom situations and I think they are recognizable from afar.

But I don’t feel sorry for Gannett, the giant that sucked the blood out of truly successful newspapers like the Advocate so that it might use the money to buy up what remained of its competitors - and expand the empire at what appears to have been reckless speed.

I wrote 2/19/07 (A level field is bad for newspapers) “... the local Gannett-owned newspaper has been doing the exact opposite of what is normally preached to advertisers: if business is down, spend more to get it back. Instead, Gannett in Newark has killed off its daily television schedule and TV column. It has all but dismantled entirely its weekly "Booster," a once-beloved paper whose history goes way back before Gannett bought its way into Central Ohio. The Advocate is skinnied down, some days, to newsletter size.

“Gannett is getting beat. Gannett is getting beat because it is a corporation headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. In spite of its 46% gross margin in 2005, it can't afford pretense at full news coverage.

“Gannett is getting beat because its real interests are in a far-off corporation and not this or any other particular community. It gets no allegiance because it gives none.”

One might hope for the day when all the media-holding companies will go under, opening the way for lots of little guys with ambition and guts to open little newspapers which have to compete for customers of news and advertising. But no. If it ever got to that point, big government will bail out big media with taxpayer dollars, just has it has for banks, automakers, insurers and others.

Death spiral or not, newspaper readers are - and will remain - patsies of the system.

Bankers probably should stick to banking

In his pump-up of Newark Schools and Keith Richards, Dan DeLawder took special pains to offer a kick in the pants to the Advocate. It appeared today in the letters column.

DeLawder, a banker by trade, offered this journalistic critique:

"I was happy to see your paper provide such positive coverage, especially since I have been gravely concerned with your publishing focus that too often fails to report good news and accomplishments but is quick with glaring headlines that point out deficiencies and areas for improvement. I assure you I am not alone in that assessment."

I suspect that he and other community boosters would indeed prefer the time not many months ago when the Advocate editorial department was no more than an arm of the Chamber of Commerce and a mouthpiece for government officials.

It was that kind of crappy journalism that infuriated me and anyone else who understands what a newspaper should be. In those days it was people like me who were crabbing about worthless newsprint coming off the local presses.

The favored class of Licking County can't bear to look at itself honestly and have public problems discussed in public. But this is not new; it's a tradition in Newark that I have personally experienced, one for which there is no education.

But as a journalist I can report here that DeLawder's comment is off the wall. Today's Advocate is better editorially than it's been for many years, which is why I rarely go gunning for it myself.

Tax abatements for business add to cost of owning real estate

Though I'm still looking for more details, one thing is certain about tax abatements for businesses: they are responsible for higher property tax bills to home owners.

How abatements work, who awards them, who benefits from them, how much Newark City Schools loose because of them, and how much they add to property owners' tax bills isn't yet clear in my mind.

I think we're talking a big chunk of change and as an indicator of that here's one example:

The Gannett Co., with a revenue in 2007 of $7.4 billion, received in 2007 a $1.2-million mark-down on the taxable value of its real estate on First Street. That's the result of a 15-year tax abatement (1995-2010) for a building addition.

On its building, valued at $7.5 million, Gannett and the Thomson Corporation, the previous owner, held a 100 percent abatement from 1991-2006. Thomson Corp., by the way, had revenues of $7.3 billion in 2007.

Thousands of little Newark home-owner people did, in fact, subsidize the bottom line of these giant corporations, but it isn't the kind of thing your local newspaper would want to talk about, especially in view of the fact that there's scarcely ever been a new tax proposal in Newark that the Advocate didn't like.

Tax abatements and their births in Ohio law are perhaps the most unreported behind-the-scenes maneuvers of government. Either that, or I - and the rest of the reading public - aren't paying attention.

PROPERTY TAXATION AND SCHOOL FUNDING offers facts, though it's not easy reading. If you go there, notice on Page 5 that tangible property for business, before 2006, was taxed at 25 percent and by 2009 that rate will drop to zero. And guess who will pick up the slack for that?

That's part of the story about tax abatements. It's not complete without a having a grip, however loose it might be, on how tax abatements affect the property tax bills of homeowners. I'm working on that, and maybe the local news media might now take an interest.

Trash is fertilizer for Newark government

If one were studying the methods by which government fertilizes itself to greater power, scope, wealth, and economic influence - while becoming ever-more intrusive on private lives and business decisions - he would be fortunate to be a citizen of Newark Ohio in 2008.

Just now our city government is attempting to carve a new dimension for itself in the matter of private businesses serving private citizens. It is attempting to set itself up as ruling authority in the business of trash collection.

The irony of this is that almost exactly two years ago citizens told Newark government to butt out of the trash collection business.

Ah. But this is not the style of Mayor Diebold, his administrative minions, nor of Council's good ol' boys, of whom Irene Kennedy is the queen.

On April 29, 2008 the Advocate headline on this subject read: "Task force to consider putting trash pickup under Newark control," with Kathleen Barch hinting that trash bills would be halved, and the mayor suggesting that such a plan "might reduce the deterioration of the city streets."

In spite of the wonderfulness of this proposal as presented by the Advocate, lots of on-line readers thought otherwise. Such reaction should be enough to end any discussion, even if were only the comment by "paul" who said, in part, "Without exception when competition is removed or governmentally controlled, price fixing, gouging and general rate abuse is imminent." If you don't think he's right, just consider cable TV and how its evolved under its city contracts.

Mayor Diebold has - even as a councilman - been a major inspiration for my use of the term "Magic Nanny" in reference to how government perceives itself. So now it seems pertinent to review how the proposal of city assuming trash-hauling contracts went two years ago. Because Mayor Diebold knows this and yet has the incredible gall to try it again with total disregard for the way citizens feel about it.

First, here's what I wrote April 28, 2006:

Go away, little trash haulers
Magic Nanny's solution to bad streets: Don't use them

The Newark service director's willingness to reduce the number of trash trucks doing business here is another knee-jerk solution to a non-problem. It is a proposal to create more power and control by government at the expense of small businesses and consumers.

Tim Weisert, service director, is offering a plan to allow only certain trash trucks to use Newark's streets and alleys - to be guided and organized by the wisdom of the Magic Nanny. A Gannett report said he has had "numerous complaints" from residents about too many trucks that tear up streets and alleys.

Weisert's plan would divide the city into quadrants and "bid it out." Thus would the Magic Nanny put the smaller haulers out of business and create yet another non-competitive gift for some Nanny-preferred business under government supervision and control. Though Gannett reports that "the bidding process could lower the cost of trash service," we have only to look at what has for years been taking place - and still is taking place - with cable TV rates in Newark to see the folly of that suggestion.

The "numerous complaints" rationale is what the Magic Nanny drug out during the smoking ban debate. I didn't believe the legitimacy of it then and I don't believe it now. If Weisert is in fact getting "numerous complaints" he should keep a good record of them, with names and dates, because he might get asked to prove this claim. But let's say he gets five calls a week and let's say the population of Newark is 47,000. That would make 46,995 people who didn't call each week.

The service department's job is to fix the streets and alleys if they are indeed being damaged. It's more in line with what they know how to do than it is to improve upon a free market.

Then on May 10, 2006 I wrote:

Poop hitting the fan over trash-hauler balloon

In today's Gannett report, there is an essay by Newark Mayor Bruce Bain designed to douse the controversy about the proposal to eliminate haulers of trash save for one or a few companies selected by the Magic Nanny. That idea was discussed at this Tea Party on April 28th.

The mayor says that there was no trash-hauling proposal put before the city service committee and "not even a suggestion offered for the formation of any type of trash-hauling legislation."

However the mayor chooses to split hairs today, there certainly was a proposal being discussed in a public meeting by Newark Service Director Tim Weisert for new trash-hauling legislation to limit the number of haulers. In fact, Gannett headlined its report "City may toss extra trash trucks - Council may take away choice of provider from residents" and in the second paragraph said: "City council members will consider such a proposals (sic) in the next several months."

If that report of April 26 was not accurate the mayor should have been splitting his hairs back then. Well, it took a bit of time for the poop to really hit the fan and so here it is, May 10th before we get the mayor's verson of the truth in this matter.

Maybe we'll just call it back-pedaling: "In my opinion, there is nothing so bad or dangerous that people can't debate or discuss a topic. Through broad conversations, we are able to see pros and cons of various issues. Because something is talked about doesn't make that something a formal proposal or legislation."

Why couldn't he just admit it was a dumb idea and be done with it?

And in spite of all that, the Magic Nanny rides again. Building greater government power, scope, wealth, and economic influence - while becoming ever-more intrusive on private lives and business decisions is just too great a temptation for Diebold and some of the good ol' boys.

Advocate voter's guide is a winner

The Advocate did a masterful job with its voter guide.

A few technical glitches notwithstanding, this is the most useful tool for local voter education ever published locally that I know of. Their folks did an excellent job in the conception and design of these web pages, and then invested lots of hours in the in-put of information. Also very well-done was the Obama interview.

Nice work.

You're still racist and wrong, Advocate

A few days ago the Advocate published two articles that were both racist and wrong. They promoted racial-victimization mentality that has for many years been the tradition in mainstream media. I made that observation here 1/29/07 "Advocate promotes racial victimization mentality"

Sunday, the Advocate again tried to fan the flames of racism among its readers with an editorial entitled "Everyone should be represented."

Reader comments burned this racist editorial to a crisp. They left no doubt that Licking County is past the point of racism in any of its forms, including reverse discrimination. Writers used wit and satire - but never bigotry against skin color or heritage - to lambast the newspaper's bigoted stance.

We are at last growing up, getting beyond and above those times in our history when skin color seemed important. This is not to say that everyone is cured, but at least the local opinion leaders - Advocate excluded - have taken that step.

Hooray, Licking County. Shame on you, Advocate.

Advocate promotes racial victimization mentality

Advocate readers got a textbook-case view of what keeps local racism alive, if indeed it is. Two reports in recent days created the impression that minorities are being treated unfairly in the hiring practices of local schools and governments.

One, entitled School districts struggle to attract minority applicants, failed to explain why they should want to do this, or whether anybody saw this as a problem.

The other was entitled Some wonder why number of minority government employees isn't higher but failed to explain exactly who wondered and why.

So let me guess. It was an Advocate reporter, editor, or administrator who wondered. That person is a racist.

The resulting articles were unnecessary waste of news-page space, as well as reporters' and readers' time. Worse, they promoted, if only by implication, the racial victimization mentality that has long been encouraged by mainstream media.

It is past time when people might be able to stop noticing skin color, if only the government and the media would shut up about it.

Gannett newspaper machine spins off another publisher

The Gannett newspaper machine has spun off another publisher, this one at his Newark post only four years, according to the newspaper's account.

The publishers of yore, the Spencers, for generations poured their personal fortunes and sweat into making the Advocate a thing of value to citizens, as well as themselves. It was about more than profit; it was also about giving to the community.

The Spencers and Gannett are as different in approach as the old Newark Telephone Company and the Windstream conglomerate which makes you go outside and test your phone before it will answer your call for help with a bad connection.

Not to detract from whatever accomplishments and community endeavors Bob Robbins accrued in his four-year enlistment in Newark, but I think the Gannett shuffling of publishers is an indicator of depth of interest in local affairs, local people, and local government the corporation expects from the newspaper operators it ships to Newark from afar.

They expect just enough to sell subscriptions and advertising, enough to milk for the very last nickel. Since this is a skill that can be taught, it doesn't matter who it is so long as he's good at milking.

New-age competition coming toward Gannett

As a newbie to the news business in 1962, nobody could ever tell me that people cherished their newspapers, in part, for the advertising therein. On the news side, we liked to believe that folks bought newspapers for the editorial content and suffered exposure to advertising because they had to.

It took me a long time to grow out of that simplistic theory, and to admit, finally, that advertising - especially classified advertising - is a major reason folks are interested in newspapers. Today, I always read certain of the classifieds and that is a major reason why I subscribe to the Advocate.

Meanwhile, Gannett has cornered the market on local print-media advertising. This has permitted it to raise the price of its advertising to such a level that I rarely use it anymore. It's just too expensive, except perhaps on high-priced items.

Back in the days when the Advocate was offering fair-priced classified (and display) ad prices, there was a brazen little up-start of a paper called "The Advertiser." I believe they offered a classified ad for $1, and then gave their paper away.

Advocate managers weren't so perceptive back then either, because by the time they woke up to the fact that this game-plan was brilliant, it was already too late: The Advertiser had a good part of the market share and was here to stay. Only within recent months did Advocate/Gannett decide to choke off the competition from The Advertiser by buying it.

Gannett community newspapers reported a whopping 18.4% decline in classified revenue from a year ago, according to a report 12/18/07 in Editor & Publisher.

There's no way (I know of) to learn about Gannett's local profitability, but likely Gannett is pricing itself out of the market everywhere, not just Newark. The higher go its prices, the more inspiration folks will have to do as I do and turn to Craigslist, knowing that even that small exposure to Newark readers is better than a broad, but prohibitively costly exposure in the Advocate.

There's some noteworthy new-age competition shaping up to take aim at Gannett: That would be a really good web site geared to Newark similar in concept to the Buysellcommunity.com Columbus branch site that offers free classifieds along with (presumably) low-cost display advertising, and local on-line stores.

All it takes is one ambitious, market-savvy promoter to set up a cheaper, more accessible marketplace for Licking County folks, just like The Advertiser did many years ago.

When this comes to town, all the Gannett horses and all the Gannett king's men will not put their ripped-off customer base back together again.

Blame your lazy, incompetent media for impudent government

I have been inadvertently made aware at least two dozen times in the past several hours that Brittany's sister is pregnant. I don't give a damn about her or Brittany, but that news is inescapable.

Meanwhile, the impudence of government employees rages unchecked. Why? Because media are yammering incessantly about media-created "events" like Britney-slut and her sister's vagina. Media rarely talk about what's important and when they do, their lack of depth is prodigious.

Example: The U.S.-Mexico fence project has been stopped in its tracks. Did you know that? I heard about it only because I was walking by the TV last night when Glenn Beck was popping blood from his eyes over this travesty.

This morning I spent more than an hour running down a media report about the fence on the Internet because the fact that our nation is over-run by illegal Mexicans and God knows who else is just not in the same level of importance as what Britney-slut's sister's vagina has been over-run with.

I would really like to know if my congressmen voted for or against castrating the border fence. I cannot find out. No place in the articles I saw was the bill mentioned by number. Even if there were a number, good luck sorting through the way such votes are reported on the Internet, especially voting on amendments.

What we get from media is what the so-called "Washington Press Corps" decides to send to media. Never do we hear how our congressmen voted, not unless it's a real big deal to one of the media gatekeepers. That would be the folks enthralled by celebrity vaginas.

Example: Please tell me how Jay Hottinger, your representative to the statehouse, and Tim Schaffer, your state senator, vote on anything. In fact, just tell me what there has been for them to vote on.

Example: Please tell me anything of importance reported about the Licking County Commissioners in the past several weeks, except for a small blurb about a new tax proposal. Just tell me if they're still meeting at all.

Example: Please tell me what happened at the last Newark City Council meeting if you didn't watch it yourself. You may have read the Advocate's 22-paragraph fluff lionizing Mayor Bain for his exemplary service before he was voted out of office, or you may have read the five-paragraph "report" about the city employee union addressing council. But do you know what happened at the last council meeting that affected lives and property and tax money and who voted for it and why?

No, you don't. But you probably do know the latest buzz on Buckeye football or the minutia of the police blotter - because that's a cheap and easy journalistic gimme which any clerk can be taught to handle.

It is precisely for these reasons that you're getting government employees who thumb their noses at you. You don't know who's voting on what, and the people who are paid to tell you - the Gannetts and the WCLTs and the Dispatches don't know either, don't think it's important, and would have to spend some money on reporting and editing talent to get it done.

Meanwhile they're looking for the latest celebrity vagina news and whining about readers/listeners/viewers jumping ship.

Soccer facility flack refuses to die

Attempting to keep alive the story on Columbus Crew's desire to have Newark taxpayers provide that soccer team with a facility in Newark, the Advocate has done it again. It has again reported with a straight face that the thing "could attract as many as 500,000 people per year."

It has never explained where that figure came from or how it could be confirmed. Yet over and over the paper has repeated this improbable promoters' dream. Never has the Advocate admitted that just as likely, the facility could attract 20 people per year, or none.

The "news peg" for this exciting news story is that no decision by the Crew management has been made.

Ohio government at work: Probing ticket prices

If you care to read about a state legislator who is both shallow and impudent, read this piece in the Columbus Dispatch about Sen. Kearney from Cincinnati taking official action against high ticket prices for entertainment.

How insensitive can government become? Why not price gouging at the gas pump? Price gouging at the pharmacy? Price gouging at the hospital? Price gouging at the insurance agency? Price gouging at the doctor's office? Price gouging at the tax office? Just a few categories of price gouging for which government employees and policies are to blame. These are examples of price gouging for which people have no defense and no hope of help unless it comes from government.

This buffoon picks out price gouging on entertainment tickets - which nobody needs - about which to call for an investigation.

The more one learns about Ohio government the more cynical and disheartened one becomes. Maybe we in Licking County are lucky that Gannett all but ignores it.

On the other hand, if they didn't ignore it, maybe we'd have fewer buffoons.

Writing a whiney editorial doesn't help

Advocate editorialists wondered in yesterday's edition "if Ohio lawmakers have a vendetta against the public's right to records and openness in government."

The preface to this is a mention of an Ohio bill that would further limit access to public records regarding public employees and also a mention of the legal closure of "many foster parent records" with the help of our own Jay Hottinger, who voted in favor of it.

At least they called out a name, finally.

Protection of the public's right to know has to be diligently and constantly defended. And that means, Advocate, that your right to public records requires you to fight for it, not just whine when another set of records gets sealed by government.

You expect your readers to come to your aid in keeping government open when 1) you charge us for the right to search your data base of news articles? and 2) you won't even raise the issue of members of Newark's Economic Development Committee holding a meeting in New Albany in apparent violation of the state's open meetings act?

Newspapers no longer defend against unfair and illegal government practices. Not just the Advocate, but very few of them, including - perhaps especially - the Columbus Dispatch.

So why don't you pull Jay Hottinger out front and ask him some serious questions about his vote? And why don't you put on record those councilmen and others who met in New Albany?

It takes will power, dedication, money, and time. The fight for freedom is a war and it never goes away. Read this.

Writing a whiney editorial doesn't get it. Get off your butt, Advocate.

Advocate slams citizen who publicizes Kraner gift to Bain

Would that there were more people like Dennis Cauchon, for he does something the majority of bitchers do not: He speaks publicly about what he sees as unethical behavior by office holders.

TheAdvocate reported yesterday on his accusation to the Ohio Ethics Commission that Newark Mayor Bruce Bain had accepted a $10,000 donation from developer Dick Kraner which may have improperly influenced the sale of water to an area Kraner owns in Granville.

Unlike most astonishingly unresearched "reports" in the Advocate, this one is astonishingly over-written. It goes on for maybe 2/3 of a full page of text. It is shored by reproductions on the paper's web site of the letter by Cauchon to the Commission, and by Bain letters to City Council, and by Bain letters to Kraner.

But here's the problem, truth-in-reportage-wise: In the very second paragraph, the Advocate kills any hope for relevancy when it reveals its bias through this assertion:

"The allegation by Dennis Cauchon, who has become well known and heavily criticized in Granville for his views on public issues, focuses on the mayor's acceptance of a $10,000 campaign contribution from developer William Kraner." (My italics.)

Heavily criticized in Granville? For God's sake, Advocate. By whom and for what and in what medium?

I never heard of the guy before this; however, as though to sterilize itself from this citizen, the editor's note at the end of the report identifies Cauchon as "a national reporter for USA Today, which is owned by the Gannett Co., the owner of The Advocate. He is not affiliated with The Advocate and has no role in the newspaper's content."

Obviously. Otherwise there would have been no deliberate shadow over his honesty and sincerity by accusing him of being "heavily criticized in Granville" without a hint of evidence.

Soccer field mania: Pretend journalism continues to run amok

If there were ever a doubt that the Advocate is out of touch with the principles of reportage, particularly in the question of whether or not Newark taxpayers should pay for a place where a Columbus soccer team can practice, a reading of the most recent article is recommended.

Entitled "Fields of dreams? - Anticipation for possible Columbus Crew practice facility in Newark is running high for some, not so much for others," the reporter keyed in on four parents whose kids participate in Newark Area Soccer Association events.

Positive comments occupy the first 17 paragraphs. Then there are three paragraphs focused on traffic problems the project might create.

Then there are three paragraphs saying, in effect, that there will be no traffic problems.

Then three paragraphs praising the idea for the facility as "a real energizer for our students" by a school principal.

And finally, the last paragraph, the 27th paragraph, mentions that the city - meaning taxpayers - might pay $15-$20 million for this facility.

Gannett continues to think small

Gannett, the corporate owner of your Newark Advocate, has small plans for the future. After having cut the size of the web from 52 inches to 48 inches, (for a 24-inch wide page), it is now "conducting a national review for a possible second size cut to 44-inch web," says Editor & Publisher on its web site. Here's the link.

This is an 8 percent reduction and, according to the article, will make each page 11 inches by 22 inches.

The Newark paper is already sometimes referred to as a newsletter because of it's lack of heft and content. So, shocked and dismayed at the size of The Advocate's try for a product on 7/23/07, I took this photo, believing I had captured an image of a record-setting small paper. Having read the E&P report, it looks like more records for small are yet to come.

The slice of my life that needs help: Advocate reportage

I love it when the Advocate calls itself a slice of my life. It would be the slice I send down the pot every morning.

Because the Advocate continues to pick up out-the-butt "facts" delivered by Newark bureaucrats and businessmen and, without the first attempt to substantiate them as true or false, reports them as fact.

Let's be kind and call it pretend journalism, though there are so many ways to describe it.

The most recent outstanding example of this regards the proposed soccer facility being snake-oiled for city council's blessing as something that "could bring in as many as 500,000 people each year to the chosen community, Economic Development Director Stephen Fowler told Newark City Council on Monday."

And developer William Kraner (who provided Mayor Bruce Bain with $10,000 donation for his re-election effort) is reported to have promised to "move his planned town center development closer to the proposed Crew site to try to help the city land the soccer facility."

And how will we do this? FINALLY The Bain Boys admit it and even the Advocate seemed forced to report it (yes, it's right there in the 10th paragraph) ...

"Fowler said it is important the city is not stuck with a facility it can't afford and stressed the city would be willing to pay only one half to two thirds of the project."

One-half to two-thirds for a freakin' soccer field? YES! Newark taxpayers really need a white elephant of this magnitude on which they will pay for years and years so that Kraner can more skillfully develop a profitable Old Orchard Farms to enhance his retirement fund. Assisting this development will be the sale of Newark water to the entire 827 acres, though 600 of them are in Granville. Read it here.

Here is one of the comments to the announcement in the Advocate of the water sale:

"Why don't you guys wise up, since your basically allowing for Mr. Kraner to develop land that will bring him millions how about requiring him to pay fees to Newark City School and Granville Schools for the additional burden he will be bringing on them, how about making him take care of his own road maintenance rather than turning that burden over to you after he's done, how about making him pay for the extra traffic on the roads he is about to bring in with atleast 1600 new cars to the area, how about making him pay for the lines to be ran to his property, how about making him pay for the additional fire and police services this new are will require. I'm sorry, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a mere 600,000 a year in property taxes is enough to pay for the additional burden this development would bring. Oh and by the way, if you haven't noticed the housing market is kinda down right now as well as wages and jobs, so to think your going to be seeing any of that tax money anytime in the near future is probably a little naive. Heres another cool idea for the paper to use sometime if they want, ask the people in your community if they really want more neighbors, and if they would prefer zoning rules changed so that developers can't just do whatever they want which is pretty much what goes on, except in Granville where the IQ of the people running that town may be a little higher and they may be a little more attentive to what the people really want."

And don't forget to read what I've already written here about this incredible purchase the Bain Boys want us to bankroll: The world's dullest sport making big promises and Soccer is no spectator sport.

What someone ought to do is to handsomely bankroll the Advocate editorial department. It really needs more help.

Bigotry lives in Newark

Pity the poor journalists who can't get over their Jesse Jackson mentality, but more particularly newspaper readers in Newark for the Advocate's latest promotion of local bigotry.

On 9/3/07 this newspaper attempted to get it all going between Colored People (as in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People of Licking County) and "whites." The thesis (and headline) of this essay is: "Newark struggles to attract blacks." Here's the link.

If there were ever a blatant promotion of reverse discrimination, this is it. Anybody who has read it should proceed over to the Tea Party's archived column by Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson entitled "Scared White Men" because it will clarify where lie the roots of this Advocate article.

Replay: Stop giving away the (City) farm to labor unions

This article was originally written 6/7/06 and it needs a replay in view of the recent round of raises provided to city workers by their loving council members, briefly mentioned here 8/22/07

The article on giving away the city farm was written before the wonderful "stabilizing" of the city budget (mentioned here 8/18/07) under the title "When talking about the city budget, quote my essay first."

and on 7/8/07 under the title "Riding to the hospital with your city employees: Bend over Taxpayer ..."

All of this fits together and goes back to the failure of city officials to safeguard public money in good financial times so that future grass-mowing crises at the cemetery can be avoided.

Anyway, here it is:

Thanks to inept negotiating for the City of Newark, employee union contracts do not allow part-time workers or volunteers to mow grass in the cemetery.

Though it would take some time-consuming digging to find out who has been (and maybe still is) giving away the (City) farm, that doesn't mean citizens won't recognize that it has been given away. One can only hope that taxpayers will take an interest in public-employee labor contracts of the future and demand information about the people and the process.

Council members and administrators from God knows how long ago have signed into these ridiculous labor contracts with city employes for God knows what reasons. It would be interesting to know who and why and under whose watch these things were happening.

That the farm has been given away to labor unions is obvious when firemen can make more than the mayor and the administration can't use employees efficiently. Labor contracts are among the roadblocks to providing city services in a cost-effective manner. The mayor hinted at this in public statements and he needs to keep talking.

Further, the mayor and council members need to start reclaiming ground lost to skillful union negotiators while the public slumbered thanks to an inattentive press. Unions running rampant over an anesthetized citizenry does not mean that it is fair or must be permanent.

As for Cedar Hill Cemetery, I walk there nearly every day and though it's not getting mowed as frequently as in the past, it isn't bad; surely not as bad as is being painted by Gannett's letters' column.

But even if it were that bad, it's the fault of a union contract and taxpayers deserve a change in that agreement - one that would enable city administrators to maintain the cemetery with whatever employees or volunteers are available.