New columnist?
This weekend, Russ’ right-wing friend George Rebane writes that “even babies practice profile.” It is here.
“In a similar vein, we would rather the country continue flooding with illegal entrants through a porous border than use obvious, but not perfect, telltales of a fugitive alien to catch them. This political paradigm is so imbedded in our culture that our leaders use their own mea culpas to highlight profiling and continue the strick bans against it.”
We also are introduced to the imagery of “often seeing silver-haired Caucasian grandmothers being spread-eagled, while more plausible candidates for plastic explosives in their shorts are hustled through.”
Russ’ response: “I always look forward to George Rebane’s learned columns in The Union. Beyond learning something, there is always the fun of reading the comments by our local nut cases and rabid lefties who hide behind strange sounding monikers.” (Never mind that people who sign Russ’ blog don’t sign their full names).
Immigration is not exactly a burning issue in the foothills, though it is used to whip up fervor. I’m reminded of Dan Logue’s “Protect our borders” campaign signs in the middle of Butte County — or ours.
A good local paper focuses on local, relevant issues on its op-ed page. Most important, it also should provide opposing views, such as this week’s L.A. Times analysis that Arizona’s immigration law is likely to be struck down of longstanding principles that states do not have control over immigration policies. The Union gets the L.A. Times wire, but I haven’t see that story appear.
As a newspaper, you also have to respect your audience: In our county, a majority of voters chose Democrat Charlie Brown, not extreme conservative Tom McClintock. Vocal Tea Party supporter Barry Pruett lost to the incumbent clerk-recorder. And Democrat Terry Lamphier upset conservative Republican John Spencer.
The newspaper seems to be operating under the mistaken assumption that only conservative people read newspapers or advertise. With an older, shrinking population in our county that’s not a “growth strategy” — it’s a “survival” strategy.
Filed under: Uncategorized
To The Union Newspaper – A plea for excellence in journalism
Dear Editor:
I want a newspaper that is not afraid to tackle big issues. I want a newspaper that is creative and not afraid to be bold, passionate and fierce in reporting all events. I want a newspaper that is fair, informed on national and local issues. I want a newspaper that takes on all sides of important issues. I want a newspaper that has the highest standards in journalistic excellence.
Our world is getting smaller, which makes us all “local”. Reporting fully, widely, fairly, and in detail would bring national attention to this tiny little place on earth. Much of media excellence is failing across the country, but The Union could show the world how it used to be done – can and still ought to be done. National and relevant news reported from The Union in a balanced way would make Nevada County citizens wild with appreciation.
I imagine if I get what I want The Union would not be suffering from a lack of newspaper sales. I imagine that being online wouldn’t be enough – readership would skyrocket, advertising would skyrocket, and The Union’s reputation and our appreciation would skyrocket. Everyone would be proud of our newspaper’s excellence, and all would subscribe to the hard copy. I would be happy to give you money. We would all stand with you, if you take this challenge.
Challenge Swift Communications. Challenge yourself, challenge your staff, hire people who want more, want better. Insist on excellence. Don’t except the status quo. And, in the end you will know you have done what you set out to do – to provide excellence in journalism to the community.
I would further imagine that you want to take, and will consider, the suggested approach.
I submit my comments respectfully,
Sharon Rose
Sharon:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
http://ncfocus.blogspot.com/2004/11/engles-letter-to-swift-and-its-context.html
(Caveats re my above comment – the impression I get is that The Union’s goings-on today aren’t nearly as wild as they were back in those days. But I haven’t been paying much attention.)
Anna,
That is a terrific letter! I didn’t have the history (I have only been a resident for 2 years), however, I see nothing has changed.
I submitted my letter here with the full realization that it would never be acceptable to the Union. Many Union people read this blog, and I am sure Ackerman does as well. Hence, the post and my plea.
Ackerman has turned The Union into the Tea Party Gazzette. So many folks in this community no longer support The Union because of what Ackerman has tunred it into. Will Swift Media ever wake up?
In my opinion The Union has become a wholly owned subsidiary of The Confederacy.
Immigrants from south of the border may not be as visible as they are in other areas, but they are here. Most of them are living on BLM land and tending the gardens they’ve been hired to protect by gangs. It’s not a problem, unless you happen to stumble across them by accident.
I, for one, am under no illusion that illegal aliens are not present in our communities; there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of illegals in the western Nevada County area, along with several hundreds in my neck of the woods, in Truckee.
A reasonable way to deal with this issue is essentially what former President George w. Bush proposed in 2005, with a few minor alterations:
1) a temporary worker program for the 10 million illegals here today;
2) to become a temporary worker one would need to apply for permanent residency or citizenship (and begin the 6 year process);
3) a national ID card required for work in the US;
4) all temporary workers would have to prove they are paying taxes on payroll and income;
5) anyone convicted of committing a felony while a temporary worker would be immediately deported;
6) strict enforcement of labor laws enforcing proof of residency to work, with stiff escalating penalties for businesses that violate the law;
7) enhanced border security in high traffic areas;
8) citizenship for children of immigrants born in the USA and who serve a term of honorable service in the armed forces;
9) fees imposed on immigrants and employers to pay for the enhanced technological and tracking systems necessary to make the process work, and for increased staffing necessary;
10) automatic deportation for anyone caught entering in the next 5 years, or for anyone caught working in the US without a temporary worker permit;
11) performance metrics on the system and automatic reassessment of the process every 5 years.
All of these things would dramatically increase control and tracking of illegal immigrants, reduce new illegal immigration, create a path to legality with a high bar for success for those already here, and create a clear process for securing the border and deporting those not here legally.
I do not understand why democrats and republicans could not agree to this as a start, and monitor progress.
By killing common sense reforms like this conservatives are really just creating gridlock, so they can use immigration as a political rallying point. The truth is that they know we can not do the draconian things they are proposing. They consistently resist holding employers responsible. They have no plan to really fix the problem short of turning our country into a police state.
I think the answer to why this isn’t happening is that too many in power, or their big donors or lobbyists, like the cheap, almost slave labor (because of the fear of going to authorities) undocumented workers provide. I certainly know that building bigger fences is not the solution and the ugly monster walls on our southern border are a sad testament to failed policy.
Of course it would help if Mexico spread a little of it’s wealth around so that people didn’t have to risk their lives to come north, just to survive. I really can’t blame people for wanting to work to feed their families and to have a home. In fact, isn’t hard work what we value in America? So yes, tighter controls on employment is about the only way to stem the tide. If the powers that be weren’t so desirous of cheap labor, we’d have that common sense reform you are talking about.
I think you are absolutely right. The Republican party can complain about illegal immigration, while allowing a little of it to spill over to legal residents of hispanic origin, in order to demonstrate their conservative street cred and Euro-centric affinities, while taking advantage of cheap labor to make their business model work. If you bring in cheap labor for agribusiness, construction, hospitality and the service sector, you can build a political base there for future power.
It’s a pretty cynical policy if you ask me.
I would prefer a policy of enforcement, but rewarding hard work, and working with Mexico to create an economic system that creates more equity in their ‘homeland’.
Obama is doing much more than any prior administration, you just don’t see it on the news. They are hitting employers with audits and forcing employers to FIRE those who are not with proper documents to work in USA. HUNDREDS at a time at some companies.
It is amazing to me that the Obama’s administrations higher levels of enforcement are not getting widely reported in the press, or touted by democratic candidates. Perhaps we will actually see another run at immigration reform. I suspect it will be a major focus of the lame duck session after the November elections.
Elsewhere I posted a bit on the OBAMA Administration’s SILENT RAIDS and forcing employers to fire those employed without proper documentation. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/us/10enforce.html?_r=1
My guess is more press this week on this.
I was with you Steve until the very end when you started to blame conservatives when both parties are at fault. Employers are responsible now; just enforce the damn law. You had such a great post until that last paragraph.
Chris facts are stubborn things. If you go back to 2005, and look at the votes, and what was happening in the media, it was conservatives who blocked this last attempt at immigration reform. If you think hard I bet you will remember the mobilization on the part of talk radio and right wing activist groups.
Ok maybe ‘police state’ was a little over the top.
But do you deny that Republican activists are using immigration as a national rallying cry, while opposing the common sense reforms laid out above?
I have my own disdain with the Democratic party for a number of things, including its serial inability to deal with our national debt and its thoughtless support for a continued level of military spending that is unwarranted and unsustainable, but on this they were there, with GW no less.
It’s fortuitous that a high-quality fish market has appeared in our community at precisely the same time as a suitable wrapper.
AHHHHhhhh, SPEAKING FOR THE FISH: The Union does not rise to the level to qualify as fish wrap. This condition a long time coming but reached such a poor level in the last three years or so. Please, if you must wrap us, comic section of pretty much ANY SUNDAY PAPER, please. If The Union used in it’s current state we will spoil, just like the paper has, before you get us to your home.
Wait a minute, maybe George Rebane has a point. Perhaps if we did a little racial/professional profiling on bankers we could get to the root of the bank crisis more quickly? How about an audit of all the bank accounts of white males over age 45?
I think Jeff Ackerman should give Rebane the boot and ask Sharon Rose to take his place (to fill all those idle hours, Sharon) since she is a far better writer, is much smarter, and has a greater grasp of local issues after only 2 years. Or perhaps when the Phd. and post doc work is completed, George might be your first client. Heaven knows both he and Steele could use some help, though not many licensed clinical psychologists would be anxious to grapple with such Problems.
I like the challenge spelled out to The Union. The 12 years John Seelmyer was Editor, prior to th Ackerman tenure, The Union was a pretty decent newspaper for a small local. It could be that way again if the Swift honchos could get their ba heads on straight and take a good look at their bottom line.
I do wonder why the paper is reluctant to provide space to many of the regular astute commenters on this blog, including you Pat. It’s a “no brainer” from a journalistic (and business) perspective. But as a longtime friend and colleague of mine, Allan Sloan (http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/about/bio/sloan/), used to joke, “If you don’t want to comment, that means more for me and less for you.” Around here, I think it stems from insecurity.