Court backs school journalist: Good news for student journos?

Should a high school senior who writes an incendiary column for his school paper be considered a full citizen worthy of First Amendment protection against school officials censuring his work?

Despite previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, at least one state court says “yes.” [Read the unanimous decision.]

Should student journalists in the other 49 states, who face censorship under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hazelwood decision, expect to see this affect them any time soon?

Nope.

Advertisement

Senator’s attack on Carson’s “Silent Spring” political, misguided

What is the truth about the science generated by Rachel Carson in “Silent Spring,” her landmark book about chemical pesticides that gave birth to the environmental movement?

It’s an appropriate question, because an Oklahoma senator is holding up a resolution that would honor Ms. Carson on the 100th anniversary of her birth. Republican Tom Coburn, who is a physician (and prefers to be addressed as “Dr. Coburn” on his Senate Web site), says he will block the bill. Carson’s work amounted to “junk science” that unfairly and inaccurately pooh-poohed what he calls lifesaving pesticides, he says.

Fewer newspaper reviews, criticism erodes life of the mind

I saw a movie last night. It sucked. And: I read a book last night. It was great.

That’s the extent of my abilities as a reviewer. Like many of you, I know when I like something and I know when I don’t. But my ability to tell you, before you go see it or read it, why you should or shouldn’t is limited. I have no background in film history or criticism. I don’t follow film (or theater or modern pop music or avant-garde art) closely. I know a thing or two about books, but even there I don’t have the expertise to offer cogent criticism beyond those areas I’m supposed to know as a journalism prof.

When it comes to penning criticism of such things, I suspect many folks think they can do it as well as the professionals. Given the supposedly democratic, interactive nature of the Internet, amateurs like me can expose themselves to “art” and promptly go online to tell all who would attend why the author is a moron, the musician can’t play worth a damn or the movie doesn’t have enough car chases or really big explosions.

Save the whales? Been there, done that

If you’re mesmerized by televised efforts to escort a female humpback and her calf back to the Pacific Ocean from their less-than-idyllic swim 90 miles up the Sacramento River in California, you’re an overly sentimental sap. You’ve been suckered by the media — again.

You’ve heard of these whales, no doubt. With no young blonde women in kidnapped-or-missing distress this week, the whales are the media’s darlings of the moment.

The future of news: Death or democratization?

When newspaper editors retire, they usually have a few cogent things to say. Doug Clifton of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is no exception. His bottom line: 1) Journalism is essential to the well-being of democracy and 2) the Internet is going to kill it.

Says Mr. Clifton, an editor I’ve always admired:

Journalism, I would argue, provides the lubricant that keeps the wheels of democracy spinning. It is the ultimate check in our system of checks and balances. It evens the contest between the haves and the have-nots. Even with its countless flaws, its frequent excesses, its sometimes mindless pursuit of the trivial, journalism ensures balance in society’s balance of power.

The business model of newspapers — provide content for people to read so that advertisers will pay to put products and services in front of those people — is being shredded by the Internet’s predilection that “all content is free.” That’s not good, he says, “[b]ecause without journalism, democracy and civil society will falter. ” A nice and valid sentiment, but how applicable is it today?

Oil CEO fingers refining profits for higher gas prices

I drive past the same gasoline station (er, “convenience store”; we don’t have gas stations any more) each morning en route to work. In January, unleaded regular cost $2.24 a gallon there. This morning, it cost $3.09 — a 38 percent increase.

So I’m pissed. And, if you live in the United States, where part of our genetic coding is imprinted with “drive anywhere any time in anything,” you’re pissed, too.

We have reasons, of course. “My income isn’t rising anywhere enough to offset that added cost” — particularly if we commute appreciable distances. “How come inflation is only about 2.5 percent this year (the lowest rate in four years) but gasoline price inflation is about 15 times that?”

And: “How come oil-company profits are so (insert favorite expletive here) high?” (ExxonMobil reported $39.5 billion in profit for 2006, the highest corporate profit ever.) And: “We’re getting screwed somehow.”

We smell conspiracies.

Got an opinion? Attach your real name to it

Back in my days as an editorial-page editor in New England, I would eat breakfast in the same diner each morning. And, each morning, the diner regulars and not-so-regulars would grace me with their learned opinion of my bylined commentary or editorial of the day before:

“That was just plain wrong.” Or the Leno line: “What the hell were you thinking?” Or the ever-popular “That’s bullshit” and “You’re a moron.”

Then, in I-know-better-than-you fashion, they’d tell me what the column or editorial should have said. I’d take out my reporter’s notebook and write down what they were saying. They’d notice and ask what I was doing.

“Well, your point is interesting,” I’d say. “I believe in running opinion on the editorial page that disagrees with our editorials or my columns. So I’m going to put your opinion in the paper. All I need is your name, please.”

None of them ever offered a name. None was willing to attach his or her name to an opinion in public. None stood up for what he or she believed. That’s the point Tom Grubisich makes about Internet opinion in today’s Washington Post. Internet opinion or commentary is much like that diner: No real names required.

Lawyers aren’t alone in coughing up lots of campaign cash

A few weeks ago I pointed out that lawyers and law firms gave the largest slice of the $150 million pie of campaign contributions collected by our current crop of presidential candidates in the first three months of this year.

“Why pick on lawyers?” folks asked. Here’s why: They give boatloads of money to candidates.

In every election cycle since 1990, lawyers and law firms have ranked first among more than 80 industries in ponying up campaign contributions to congressional and presidential candidates. In the 2006 election cycle, they were second. That’s according to Federal Election Commission filings aggregated by the Center for Responsive Politics. An election cycle covers two years.

During those 16 years, lawyers and law firms gave more than $780 million to federal candidates, more than any other industry. Holy habeus corpus, Batman!

A shield law covering bloggers? Consider the trade-off first

Do you want the Supreme Court of the United States telling us, at least in this country, who is or is not a journalist? And do you want SCOTUS telling us what information ought to be protected?

Your answers will probably reflect your attitude toward the Free Flow Information Act of 2007. It’s been introduced in the Senate as S. 1267 (see text) and the House as H.R. 2102 (see text). The definitions and language of the bill are sufficiently vague as to virtually invite the Supreme Court to legislate. The bill may also represent both protection — and a warning — to bloggers.

Big Pharma, 1; You and Me, 0: Forget low-cost drug imports

I’d like to thank the U.S. Senate for protecting me from the risk of tainted or otherwise harmful prescription drugs imported from other countries.

The Senate approved this week, 49-40, “a measure saying that imports will not be allowed unless the secretary of health and human services first certifies that they ‘pose no additional risk to the public’s health and safety,’ and that they will significantly reduce costs to consumers.” (NY Times story.)

I’d particularly like to thank Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. He cited a Times story about a toxic syrup imported from China that’s been implicated in poisoning deaths. Thankfully, Sen. Cochran and 48 other senatorial numbnuts voted to amend the original proposal to require certification of safety and savings from drugs imported from any country. (See the roll call vote.)