PEORIA -- Here's a great column for Mothers Day in the New York Times.*
It tells the story of an African woman, the mother of 11 children, denied birth control, who dies a horrible death in childbirth.
Guess who has denied the funding for birth control for the poor in Africa? The same Congress that has launched a war on women, attacking their reproductive rights, abortion and health care, and even their access to earn a living wage through unions (most teachers and nurses and others in public employee unions are women).
The columnist need not have journeyed to Africa for his story, however. The USA can furnish plenty of examples of situations where cost, ignorance and lack of government support means the birth of unwanted children (who end up costing taxpayers much, much more in the long run) and the death or disability of some women.
Thanks, GOP, you pathetic ignorant idiots!
-- Elaine Hopkins
*If the story is covered up, in the newspaper's misguided attempt to extract an expensive payment, Google the term 'NY Clean' and follow the instructions to add a tiny computer program to your toolbar, at the top of your screen' that will wipe away the cover.
Is this unethical? The Times corporation made a billion in profits last year, so this is pure Wall Street greed, trumping the public service aspect of journalism. The ads should be paying the freight for the web newspaper without requiring people to pay additional fees. USA Today, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post have much the same coverage and don't charge for it.
In Peoria, City Council member Gary Sandberg has launched a campaign not to speak to the Journal Star, which is also charging for web access. That's an amusing response but also misguided, as the public needs to know what Sandberg thinks, and the PJS is the only reliable venue for that, even in it's diminished form.
I've heard that fewer than 300 people have signed up so far to pay the PJS web fees, mostly subscribers, at $10 a year. Even the New York Times doesn't charge subscribers, but this is also pure Wall Street greed.
I paid the fee because it's so low. I would probably donate $10 to the PJS, my former employer, if they were that desperate to meet Wall Street's profit goals.
Apparently they are that desperate, as I've heard that two more people are being laid off from the newsroom. So sad. There's really no substitute for paying for the daily newspaper, even with double digit layoffs and retirements, even as it slowly commits suicide by killing its once vigorous coverage of the community.
The reporters still working do a heroic job, but they can't work 24 hours a day.
-- E.H.
Emailed comment from Ed Dentino:
I've been watching the PBS series on the topic of journalism and also read article about the issue.
Wonder if my observations and opinions are somewhat skewed. Seems like most of the revenue is from ads. Magazines also do this. So it seem to me that the ads depend on volume and volume is demand sensitive - higher price= lower volume.
For some of us information is price sensitive. Some people will get papers for ads, others, the comics, others, the sports pages,etc..
Americans tend to be entertainment focused by inclination and reinforced by media. I think the newspapers might consider doing what magazines already do - segmenting the paper into a variety of venues: sports, ads, entertainment, local news, international news. Then look for and experiment with where that information has it's greatest market and direct their efforts to those markets.
The hunting/fishing newspaper put out by Harry Canterbury is full of ads - should be generating lots of revenue and is provided at outlets for free. That could be an example.
Probably, a logical combination of newspapers, magazine papers, and internet sites would be a mix to be considered for PJS publications. Although I am not from 50 miles away with a brief case, deeming me to be a consultant, my advice is given as priceless (without value). But they can have it for what it is worth. -30-
Comments