I just had the opportunity to read the Missoulian’s story on the ongoing rape crisis in Missoula. As unbelievably bad as the response from the University, Police Department, and city have been up to this point, the newly released e-mails reveal a culture hostile to women who reported rape and more interested in public relations than justice or even safety.
Heads need to roll. Not for the sake of UM’s reputation, not for the abstract pursuit of justice, but to ensure that Missoula is no longer a community that tolerates this kind of behavior from people entrusted with protecting public and student safety.
No one who believes that it’s appropriate to accuse rape victims of lying deserves to serve in a job committed to public safety. No one who believes it’s appropriate to punish a rape victim for having the courage to go public should serve in a position involved with students.
Huge credit to the Missoulian for investing the resources to get these e-mails. Read jhwygirl’s take over at 4and20blackbirds.
It seems I’ve upset Dustin Hurst from the Montana Watchdog. In a recent post, I criticized his work, pointing out its inaccuracies and ideological bias. The truth is that he’s not a journalist or a reporter, no matter what he calls himself. He’s somewhere between an unofficial spokesperson for the Montana Republican Party and and an ideological hack for rightwing ideology.
And that would be fine if Mr. Hurst wasn’t passing himself off as a reporter. He absolutely has the right to express his opinion. He has the right to author biased, inaccurate stories and try to make people believe they’re true. He just isn’t right to call what he does reporting.
And I have the right to call him out for his work. That Mr. Hurst, an employee of a secretly-funded “media” organization, would have the temerity to suggest that I am carrying water for a political candidate’s “threats” is as astonishing as his lack of objectivity and perspective about what a threat is. I’m a teacher who writes a blog in his spare time, without any promise of remuneration or help from anyone. In fact, I have received little of either in the seven years I have been writing.
Reporters are supposed to objectively examine stories and provide their audience with the information they need to make informed choices. Mr. Hurst, seemingly driven by an immense self-regard and affinity for conservative politics, offers slanted coverage designed to denigrate Democrats, public employees, and liberals, all while ignoring the obvious failures, hypocrisy and foibles of the right. He even distorts the truth to make his arguments.
In my mind, these corporately-funded pseudo-journalists are worse than the deluge of corporate advertisements that have proliferated in the wake of the Citizens United decision. It’s clear these organizations intend to set themselves up as alternative news sources designed to trick readers into believing they are receiving unbiased news. If the future of local news is Fox-style propaganda couched in journalistic terms, we’re all worse off.
That kind of dishonesty needs to be exposed. If it upsets Mr. Hurst to be called out for his practices, I suggest a simple remedy: fix them. Either become a journalist or admit you’re not one.
Huge kudos to the Montana Standard for uncovering a Post Office document “through other means”–a document which reveals that the Postal Service lied to the people of Butte about the impact of closing the Butte mail processing center.
Specifically,
- while the Post Office claimed the closure would only cost 6-7 jobs, their own documents revealed that 21 jobs would be lost.
- while the Post Office claimed the move was to create cost-savings, they failed to report that the move to Great Falls would cost over $350,000 initially, not to mention long-term costs associated with transportation.
- The Post Office refused to provide information following a Freedom of Information request because they do not “release the contents of AMP studies because of the proprietary nature of the information.”
The same corporate culture at the Post Office that justifies exorbitant salaries for clearly incompetent CEOs seems to also being endorsing the idea that “proprietary” corporate information trumps the critical importance of open government. The Post Office can’t be corporate when it’s convenient and government when it’s expedient; they are a public trust that needs to behave much better than they have.
And that’s why the work Senator Tester is doing to protect postal service in Montana is so important. His work in the Senate, along with Senators Wyden and Merkley, will give the public enough time to find out just how dishonest the Postal Service has been during this process, not to mention what other “proprietary” secrets might reveal about their decision-making.
As for Republicans in the House, like Representative Rehberg, who created the problem? Their bill doesn’t protect small post offices or prevent rash closures:
The bill still has to be approved by the House, which is far from a sure thing. The House of Representatives bill on the matter is much different, and does not include language that would keep the Butte center open.
How about it, Representative Rehberg? Why not stand up to your leadership and protect Montana jobs and mail service?
I must admit that I am not a highly compensated member of a corporate board nor an expert in executive compensation, but I have to assume that Lee Enterprises CEO Mary Junck is due for another half million dollar bonus after these stellar results in the second fiscal quarter:
Operating revenue for the quarter totaled $172.3 million, a decrease of 3.6% compared with a year ago. Combined print and digital advertising revenue decreased 5.3% to $117.5 million, with retail advertising down 3.5%, classified down 7.1% and national down 9.7%. Combined print and digital classified employment revenue decreased 0.3%, while automotive decreased 3.9%, real estate decreased 12.2% and other classified decreased 11.5%. Digital advertising revenue on a stand-alone basis increased 9.9% to $15.7 million. Print revenue on a stand-alone basis decreased 7.3%. Circulation revenue increased 0.1%.
Overall, as the Washington Post reports, Lee lost 54 cents per share in the quarter for a total of 26.6 million dollars:
The company said it lost $26.6 million, or 54 cents per share, for the fiscal second quarter that ended March 25. That compares with a loss of $1.5 million, or 3 cents per share, for the same period a year ago.
Lest anyone forget, Lee’s CEO Mary Junck took a bonus of $500,000 during a quarter when the company she leads lost $26 million dollars.
Optimistic press releases about evolving “in the digital age” notwithstanding, the corporate raid on Lee’s profitable small newspapers continues, as readers and advertisers are fleeing a product that lacks the resources to produce consistent quality. Lee’s failed strategy and corporate piracy are stripping these local papers of their most valued commodity: local belief that the newspaper will offer complete and comprehensive coverage.
One has to love the dispassionate tone of corporate press releases, especially when it relates to actual human beings losing their jobs. From the press release:
Compensation decreased 5.2%, with the average number of full-time equivalent employees down 7.5%.
That’s 7 per cent fewer people collecting, editing, producing, and distributing the news that is vital to many communities only served by one newspaper.
I derive no pleasure from watching the decline of newspapers—it’s certainly a tough environment when a company with no revenue is worth more than the New York Times—but the mismanagement and theft from local newspapers by the Lee chain is especially galling. People who work for their papers and the communities those papers serve deserve better.
This morning I woke up to the news of Robin Pflugrad and Jim O’Day’s dismissal from UM’s athletic program. While I was not surprised that these two men were asked to leave presumably because of their involvement in the recent sexual assault scandal involving members of the football team, I am shocked to see the manner in which the Missoulian presented the reception of the news within the Griz community.
Bill Speltz’s article, published under the headlines “Griz football program in limbo following firing of O’Day, Pflugrad” and “Griz left shocked, wondering why” on the Missoulian and Independent Record websites, respectively, seems to console the wrong parties. The article uses the words “unsettling,” “bombshell,” and “heartfelt” within the first 250 words that describe the difficulties of switching coaches in the middle of spring training. The article states that the football program needs to “rebound from its current predicament,” depicting the UM football community as being in a state of total shock after losing competent and well-respected leaders. In contrast, the Missoulian‘s initial article on the alleged UM sexual assaults that appeared on December 16, 2011 is written in a dry professional tone, free from the emotional rhetoric present in today’s article.
While I’ll be the first to admit that I can’t speak to the quality of Pflugrad and O’Day’s coaching and leadership abilities, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were both proficient in their jobs as they relate to athletics. I don’t doubt for a second that they will be missed by players and fans alike. But Speltz’s article highlights the emotional stress that the football community is currently undergoing, while sidelining the real victims: the survivors of sexual assault. Their stress and ostracism will no doubt increase with the outpouring of support for the coach and athletic director who mismanaged the handling of the sexual assault allegations. Speltz’s article will probably be the way most people find out about Pflugrad and O’Day’s dismissal, and thus has tremendous power in forming public opinion on the scandal. By framing it in such ways that stresses the problems for fans and athletes, Speltz excludes the ongoing problems for those people who are still dealing with the trauma of sexual assault.
Pflugrad and O’Day’s role in the recent sexual assault allegations at UM resonate with an article published in the National Catholic Register a few days ago about the rampant protection of football players by Notre Dame officials from allegations of sexual assault. First-year student Lizzy Seeberg committed suicide in August of 2010 after school authorities shielded a football player from police inquiry and failed to proceed with an internal investigation of her sexual assault. Notre Dame and the University of Montana aren’t the only schools that protect their star athletes from legal ramifications, but are emblematic of a larger problem. I bring up Lizzy Seeberg’s story because Melinda Henneberger’s thorough investigation reveals the ugly underbelly of a university when confronted with a crime seemingly perpetrated by a beloved athlete. I can only wait in dread of the details that emerge as the UM investigations unfold.
I hope that today’s events are the first step in changing how UM- and by extension, all colleges and universities- treat allegations of sexual assault, especially involving student athletes. When institutions of higher learning protect their athletes from legal scrutiny, they send a message to their students and communities that the alumni-rallying money machine of athletics is more important than the physical safety of their students. The Missoulian‘s coverage, among other things, only helps support this message.
