My reaction to today's Lou Brancaccio's media flatulence.

.
We are cursed with an utterly clueless daily paper for our region of the woods; the Columbian.

From time to time, their managing editor makes ragged and frequent attempts to justify that cluelessness, including today's effort. There is, perhaps, no one more critical of our local paper then I. I can, without doubt, claim that this paper wherein he writes about yet another in the long series of so-called advisory boards where, as he puts it, "We'd regularly gather readers to ask them how we're doing," either, as in this case, hand picks the participants or ignores the results if those results might tend to derail this rag from it's agenda.

I can modestly claim that there is, perhaps, no one more critical of this paper than I. I can also claim that no amount of criticism; no amount of fact-based correction; no appeal to something unheard of in our local despicable rag (aka "ethics") will make any difference of any kind to those in charge.

In short, the dog and pony show Brancaccio writes about today will change absolutely nothing. It will make no difference in their bias. It will not get them to write ALL of the facts, not just the ones they like. It will not stop Brancaccio in particular, and others within the Columbian from writing about Brian Baird as if the check was in the mail. It will not get them off their moronic I-5 Bridge/loot rail kick, or cause them to do what common decency demands: require that we, as a community, get to vote this crap pile up or down. It will, in no way, end the editorial double standard of wanting the will of the people to be heard on some things, but not heard on others when that will is likely to conflict with their agenda. It will in no way result in a course correction (just check out today's idiocy from John Laird, where's he's all about how great the passage of R-71 is statewide, while forgetting (or, per usual, not caring) that it failed here by a substantial margin) and it will NEVER result in the one thing vital to this, or any other paper's survival:

That the paper in question reflect and speak to the politics and philosophies of the vast majority of its possible readership, and not just the tiny, far left fringe it emulates.

How is the Columbian "doing?" Well, gee.... I don't know.

One would think that facing bankruptcy could be a clue. One might even ponder the meaning of occupying and then abandoning a brand new, state of the art temple of leftist journalism within the same few month time frame as a result of economic necessity might send a message. One would point out the utter stupidity of reducing features and amounts of news and then increasing the price for even less of a paper might be an indicator.

But one would be wrong, for to admit that this paper's course is so completely to the fringe left that no one to the political right of Mao would ever want to spend money on it would be to require some introspection that those running this disgrace to journalism appear to be genetically incapable of engaging in.

Brancaccio's idiocy is best summed up in his own words:

I have not said that. I simply stated a fact that you have the opportunity to see more fringe -- however it is defined -- on the Internet.

When your paper ONLY endorsed democrats for open seats in the last election... when your paper took positions closely mirrored by the fringe left concerning R 71 and I-1033, including quoting a moron in a story who lied when he said that PEOPLE WOULD DIE if 1033 was voted in (as it was here in Clark County) when your paper lies, exaggerates, prints pap garbage like these articles and then demands that billions of taxpayer dollars be spent on an unneeded and unwanted bridge replacement with loot rail, it's fairly clear that the biggest fringe element around here isn't on the internet, except where you post your articles.

By almost any measure; from horrific subscription numbers to abysmal ad revenue, this community has sent you message after message. And as long as you refuse to listen?

Well, expect CONTINUED horrific subscriptions and ad revenue.

Because your pathetic effort deserves no less.
.