Driving home yesterday, I happened to tune into KKCR and heard Jonathan Jay interviewing Andy Parx. It was a very interesting show, and once I got home, I was even motivated to clean the kitchen so I could keep listening. I was reminded again that Andy really does know a lot about what’s going down on Kauai, and has a good historical grasp of political issues. Most important, he's a rare independent voice.
This blog and I were the topic of discussion a few times, and while it was kind of strange to hear people talking about me on the radio, it was all accurate, except the part about me working three jobs. To clarify, I have one part-time job (which sometimes feels like three) and make the rest of my living doing freelance.
Andy repeated the story of how MidWeek terminated my freelancing agreement because I wrote a post criticizing the inaugural editorial in the Star-Advertiser, or more specifically, this line:
We will strive mightily to be on the side of angels. We will work constantly to do, and shout, the noble thing.
I then asked if the demise of the Advertiser, which was founded by a missionary descendant and taken over by a man who helped overthrow the monarchy, would finally result in fair coverage of the Hawaiian sovereignty/independence movement:
Is that cause pono enough “to be on the side of angels?”
I already knew the answer, but it was confirmed today with Derrick DePledge’s one-sided piece on the Akaka Bill. He didn’t even bother with an obligatory comment from an indigenous person, either pro or con; indeed, the piece read like Gov. Lingle and a few Republican senators are the only opponents who need to be considered. He also mentioned that draft amendments to the bill have been provided to Akaka’s staff, but offered no insight as to what revisions are being considered, other than they might make the bill more palatable to Lingle.
The article and headline were all about the need for haste in pushing this bill through. It’s the same message Derrick and the Advertiser editors — some of whom were kept on by the hybrid paper — have been harping all along, even though the bill has sizable local opposition. It’s just really unfortunate that such an important issue isn’t getting anything close to a full airing in the mainstream media.
And it won't, so long as reporters are afraid to challenge the spin they know their editors want — a fear that is even more acute as journalism jobs disappear and owner David Black makes it clear he won’t even tolerate criticism, much less dissent.
Meanwhile, Ragnar Carlson, my editor over at Honolulu Weekly, has a piece in this week’s paper about how Star-Advertiser owner David Black’s new lock on Oahu printing presses forced the independent weekly over to a printer on Maui. As Ragnar wrote:
Black’s $150 million [for the Advertiser] was the price he paid to establish a monopoly–or something very close to it–in Hawaii’s newspaper market.
Not to get all sanctimonious, but that is a really bad thing. There is a reason we have laws prohibiting media monopolies, and it’s that they are devastating both to the essential functions of journalism–fewer voices means the public’s right to know suffers–and to the ability of small businesses and other advertisers to receive a fair market rate on advertising.
Don’t bother writing a letter to David Black–as they say in poker, he’s pot-committed.But we hope you will consider expanding your use of newspapers and news sources other than the Star-Advertiser, as a consumer of both news and of advertising. A monopoly may be good for that paper’s owners, but it bodes ill for the rest of us.
As the Honolulu Weekly also reported, that's certainly true for the newspaper carriers, who got totally screwed by the merger. So much for the Star-Advertiser doing "the noble thing" and striving "mightily to be on the side of angels."
Just a little something to consider as we move into this American Independence Day weekend.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
"Brought to you by the We Say So Corporation" - the old show "Dinasours"
"If I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you" - Chuck Noris
Black's corporate talking point agenda of self-serving hypocrisy masquerading as concern for the public welfare is expected -- if this were 1999.
The absurdity is his timing. In a decade where corporations are the new bandits, CEOs the robber barons, and the power of newspapers is in freefall, Black chooses a strategy of ill-disguised corporate muscle.
Arrogance, thy name is Advertiser!
I was counting your regular Honolulu Weekly articles as one "job" and various freelancing articles as another.
Derrick's piece is just typical of "two" sides,"he said, she said" journalism. But the two sides aren't the Dems vs Repubs they assume but rather the single corporate duopolist party vs the reality that critical thinking and reading produces.
Ragnar Carlson sounds like the real deal. A journalist.
Thatʻs the way the Akaka bill has been from the get-go. LOL: "for Hawaiians, by Hawaiians".
Donʻt forget Akakaʻs son has over 50% interest in one of the cruise lines and this bill has been about gambling all along. For a few dirty old pigs to screw the Hawaiians like they did the Indians.
Hawaii needs HEARINGS. The last hearings were in 2000. The piece of fodder called the Kaka bill has had at least 10 rewrites...and yes, the Hawaiian people are completely shut out like theyʻre a bunch of children that donʻt know any better.
Keep them ʻwardsʻ of the state; thatʻs the plan.
July 4 is a Triple Holiday for Hawaii – 1776, 1894, 1960
Joan writes "indeed, the piece read like Gov. Lingle and a few Republican senators are the only opponents who need to be considered."
Well, I guess that's pretty much the way Joan has always dealt with the Akaka bill, as though the only opponents who need to be considered are the so-called "indigenous" people seeking independence. As though the views of Caucasians and Asians don't matter, who oppose the bill because they don't believe in race as a basis for creating a government. Advertiser arrogant and self-righteous, Joan arrogant and self-righteous -- give someone a megaphone and see what happens.
Actually, there's only one reason why the Akaka bill has been successfully blocked for 10 years. It's not the opposition from the independence movement. The heroes who successfully lobbied the Republicans in the Senate to block the Akaka bill for 10 years are the missionary descendant who used to own the Advertiser, and like-minded haoles. Joan's buddies in "the movement" are good at shouting but lousy at making a real difference.
Well itʻs basically that the bill should be opposed but most are opposing it for the wrong reasons.
And I say whatever shuts that crap down - great. The right reasons concern the Hawaiians and their right to self determination and the transfer of political authority.
It is about the Hawaiians. Once again they have been pushed to the side.
So the Republicans have kept it from passing...itʻs about time they did something right. Most of the time they donʻt even know what theyʻre opposing. They vote how their buddies vote. Simple. Because most of them are a bunch backwoods hillbillies.
The Democrats are bad in different ways.
as though the only opponents who need to be considered are the so-called "indigenous" people
When it comes to the Akaka bill, the indigenous people ARE the only ones who should be considered because it's their sovereign claim and assets set aside for them that are on the block. The bill is not about independence (which is an issue that does affect non-Hawaiians) other than extinguishing any hope of it it.
As for a "race-based government," that is merely a smokescreen raised by those who are trying to make sure the Hawaiians don't get anything -- and using my comment section as a megaphone for their own self-righteousness and arrogance.
You see very clearly, Joan. No question about it.
When it comes to the Akaka bill, the indigenous people ARE the only ones who should be considered because it's their sovereign claim and assets set aside for them that are on the block.
Not true. We all have a say in whether we allow a separate sovereignty to be carved out. Like it or not, Hawaii is a state in the United States. We all have a say in whether our state or federal governments should grant Hawaiians a separate sovereignty. Also, it's not their assets and they have not been set aside for them. Those assets are in a public trust for 5 different purposes, one of which is for the "betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians." Note it does not say for the eventual return to native Hawaiians. Giving it to the native Hawaiians would interfere with the other four purposes.
Very true. A nation of native Hawaiians is not in the future. Some limited autonomy under the Dept of the Interior may be available.
Time to move on.
The world doesn't care. Your cause is lost in any case. Assimilation and diffusion into the "general population" awaits in the decades ahead.
TO: July 4, 2010 2:17 PM
If you were correct about the statehood, you have a leg to stand on in your argument.
Have you ever really wondered why this debate canʻt and wonʻt be put to rest? Because the state and all other government officials know the truth about the illegality of acquiring Hawaii. And, did you ever wonder why there are considerations and revenues FOR Hawaiians? Because the government has been a guilty party trying to placate by bandaiding a hemmorage...for over 100 years!
Have you ever thought about why "the right to self determination", Acts 340,354,359 and 329 and rights of Hawaiians IN THE HAWAII STATE CONSTITUTION are embedded in the laws?
In fact, have you ever tried thinking, period?
It is coming to a head. If the state had not been so greedy and not even given the 20% that was suppose to trickle down to Hawaiians, it may not have come to the point where THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE - TRUST ME.
You can continue swimming in da river of denial but that will not change the facts which are law.
Remember this if nothing else: the Hawaiians are smart and they have been wronged.
If you were correct about the statehood, you have a leg to stand on in your argument.
Have you ever really wondered why this debate canʻt and wonʻt be put to rest? Because the state and all other government officials know the truth about the illegality of acquiring Hawaii.
Ah, tell it to the five civilized tribes, sucker.
THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE - TRUST ME.
You know the saying. The more things change, the more they stay. the. same.
Rant and rave, stomp your little feet and call people names all you want.
I see this as a good sign that some of you are afraid itʻs true.
BE AFRAID. But remember too, you have nothing to lose because whatever you acquired here wasnʻt and isnʻt really yours.
lol.
What then does your ranting and raving and stomping your little feet signify?
Not me. You.
Iʻm going to enjoy the show.
Not me. You.
Iʻm going to enjoy the show.
Same here. Just like I've been enjoying it all along!
Post a Comment