« High Court Rejects Dem's Redistricting Challenge | Main | California Love! »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'd think with all the cost cutting measures at the AZ Republic they would get rid of the deadwood like Doug McCracker. Hell, they could get rid of most of the local columnists and no one would miss them.

Just to be clear, Greg's blog is named, ESPRESSO PUNDIT, Ruminations of an Over-Caffeinated Political Junkie.

Doug MacEachern is a paid journalist/editorial writer who has the privilidges, rights and responsibilities of "The Press."

One of them is doing his job as described. The other is Doug.

Greg, it was a fitful and disturbing night I just spent, my few brief moments of sleep dominated by horrid dreams which involved you--with horns, a pointed tail, and a handlebar mustache--scaling the heights of Squaw Peak and cackling maniacally as you threw exploding bombs down on a defenseless city. The flames! The smoke! The futile attempts of the police helicopters to bring you down!

It was terrifying, and I can't go through that again. Many of us have been reading your blog for years, only to find we were duped. As I said last night, I for one will keep reading, but you are on probation with me. Other readers will, of course, have to make the decision whether to keep reading for themselves, now that we all know what you truly are: a rude, pedantic, impudent, simpering, venal, polarizing, whining, patronizing, flaunting, lecturing, bomb-throwing height scaler who is also a friend of Brenda Burns.

Greg, this can only get worse unless YOU make it better, so in the light of a new day I now implore you:

Stop criticizing the media!

Let us turn to Seymour Hersh -- a journalist much more famous and legendary than not so dignified local scribbler Doug McRepublic -- to learn of the fate of newspapers: “It’s over,” he said, many times. “The model’s done, the game’s over. Maybe the New York Times will find a way to stay national, but it’s over. . ."

But hey, Doug, don't stop writing. We need the laughs.


I think your post missed the most important point about the Republic's stance on the issue. It is not simply that the editorial was a bit of lazy journalism. It was, but what the heck, we all have our off-days.

The more important point is that the frequently-stated argument by the MSM on why we should be concerned about the demise of local newspapers (if it happens -- I'm not convinced) is that the papers are our watchdogs over local government. MacEachern's editorial indicates that they have no interest in fulfilling that role -- that they see investigating allegations of abuse of power by the city council as a waste of time ("Hey, it happens all the time - no big deal").

If being the watchdog is something MacEachern doesn't want to do, then what is his rationale for the paper's continued existence?

The comments to this entry are closed.