Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Who are these Trolls?

The Republic has a review of Sen. Martha McSally's biography.  Here's a really disturbing paragraph about the reaction to her disclosure that she had been raped in the Air Force.

McSally’s previous accounts have bothered her critics, who noted that she didn’t identify her alleged assailants then or now, making it more difficult to assess her credibility and making it impossible for anyone to be held accountable.

Critics?

Critics who are "bothered" by a woman's response to being raped?  Critics who then went on to publicly chastise her...because they are "bothered" by her response to being raped.  

How messed up is that?  Who are these awful people?  Surely, they represent some fringe group of the lowest internet trolls.  No one who actually has a job or functions in society would go online and criticize a woman for how she dealt with being raped.  Who could these trolls be?

Well, one of them is EJ. Montini

Another one is Tim Steller

Eventually, the Arizona journalists who care about such things will take notice of the way that the men in the Arizona media treat Republican women.  

 

The Ultimate Glass House

Newspapers are facing the most challenging economic time in their history.  Across the country, alternative weeklies like New Times which are supported by ads for events have been among the hardest hit.  Three senior reporters left New Times a month or so ago and the paper has still managed to produce content.  

Arizona Capitol Times reporter Dillon Rosenblatt isn't impressed with the content and sent out this tweet.

Wow.  Talks about a glass house.  Capitol Times is vulnerable to the same economic shocks as New Times, but Dillon has several added layers of vulnerability.  Earlier this year Gatehouse Media which owns Cap Times purchased Gannett which owns the Republic.  They financed that purchase with a $1.8 billion loan at an astonishing 11% interest rate.  Even before the COVID 19 crisis New Gannett was going to have to eliminate $300 million a year in redundancies.  Now they have to meet that obligation in the face of collapsing ad revenue. 

Where can New Gannett go to cut costs?  They will certainly start with real estate.  The Republic's headquarters is largely empty and has been covered with a humiliating "Space Available" sign for nearly a year.  Meanwhile, the Cap Times also has a headquarters building.  One of them is going to go. 

But those are one-time savings.  New Gannett has to cut redundant beats.  Cap Times doesn't have a sports section, all the redundant positions are political.  Dillon covers Ducey's office--just like everyone else does.  I would argue that he has the MOST redundant position at New Gannett. Dillon can mock the efforts of the folks at New Times, but the odds that Cap Times but he is the most vulnerable reporter at the most vulnerable company in the most vulnerable industry.  

So I'm going to set a reminder on my phone.  I'll pick a date in the fall.  Halloween sounds about right.  The Reminder says "Where is Dillon Rosenblatt working?"  Maybe the answer will be Cap Times--but it doesn't seem likely.  

But there's good news for Dillon.  I've heard that New Times is hiring.  

 

 

What part of "Accused" don't you understand?

Unencumbered by a law degree, Republic reporter Robert Anglen opines on property seizure reform.  

Yes Robert, when someone is "accused" of a crime and the state seizes or freezes their property then they are a victim.  

I'm reminded of Laurie Roberts' insane argument that it's OK for Petersen to be treated harshly--forced to sleep on a concrete floor for example--because he has been accused of nasty crimes.

Here's a tip for folks like Robert.  If you wouldn't say something in an article, don't say it on Twitter.  These guys spend so much time arguing that they are professionals and then ruin it with off handed poorly thought out blasts that ruin their credibility.  

 

 

Closing Arguments

A group of media outlets is suing the State to compel it to release COVID 19 nursing home data.  Don't expect fair coverage of the case.  Here's an example of how the media make their closing arguments in the court of public opinion while making the same arguments in state court.

Notice characterization of the case as a "last-ditch attempt"?  That's simply a pejorative term for the State's legal argument.  The state could equally characterize the media's argument as a "last-ditch attempt", or even a "desperate attempt" but that type of characterization would be unprofessional in a legal environment.  That doesn't slow the Republic down.

I'm frankly impressed by the Republic's phrase that the state is "using 9 statutes."  Wow.  That's brilliant.  The state, of course, is arguing that it is "following" the statutes.

Here's an example of a clear statute that says the state can't release the information.  

Wow.  That's really clear.  Federal and state statutes provide strong protection for healthcare data--and those same laws provide for substantial penalties for those who release that data.  

Think back on all the speeches that we have heard about journalistic ethics and then ponder this issue.  The Republic is a PARTY to this case.  They are not simply covering this case.  How can the Republic cover the case fairly.  The answer is that it can't cover a case in which it is a party.  Here, the paper isn't even trying to be neutral or fair.  The Republic is using its coverage as part of its legal strategy.   

Time to Go

The sad thing about watching the decline of Ej Montini is when you realize that he is the only one who hasn't seen it.  Montini has always been shrill and mean, but in the old days he could actually write.  

Those days are long gone.  Check out his latest screed about Martha McSally.  

 

 

Notice the standard Montini ad homenim fallacy mixed with Montini's classic sexism?  McSally isn't able to have an independent thought and naturally she's beholden to the powerful men in Washington, so she has taken this position on an issue.  Montini writes that column a couple times a month--toggling between McSally beholden to Trump or McConnell.

Here, Montini has become so confused that he's botched the underlying argument as well.  Check out today's WJS editorial entitled Should Florida bailout New York?

I'm sure that you can guess that from the WSJ perspective, the answer is a resounding "no".  So why would an Arizona Senator want to bail out New York or Illinois?  McSally doesn't have to be "beholden" to anyone.  She is taking a position that is in the best interest of her state and in the parochial interest of her party.  McSally's position is the natural position.

Montini doesn't realize that after you get past his insults, his argument makes no sense.  

Let's phrase it this way.  What if Democratic Congressman Tom O'Halleran decided to SUPPORT Nancy Pelosi's plan to bail out the blue states.  I would still not try to claim that he's doing so because he is nervous about the election, but at least that would be logical.  He would be choosing a national position that conflicts with the best interest of his state.  Sure, he might argue that it's simply the responsible thing to do, or we could argue that he's beholden to Nancy Pelosi. 

What you CAN'T argue is that McSally opposes forcing Arizona tax payers to bail out the blue states because she is beholden to Mitch McConnell.  Yet that ridiculous argument is the one that Montini tries to make.  

Montini has done incalculable damage to the Republic.  It's possible that he gets the most clicks of any columnist, but his columns have spewed fallacies and hatred for the last 30 years which has in turn coarsened the political dialogue for the whole state.  Which has in turn destroyed any claim that the Republic has to being professional or responsible, much less centrist.  

Unlike the Cheshire cat, Montini's fade does not end with a faint smile.  His ability to write and reason faded first and now all we can see is the hate.  

 

A Tale of Two Protests

Yesterday "fewer than a dozen" people dressed up as the grim reaper and brought body bags to the capitol in order to protest Governor Ducey's move to open the state. Meanwhile, recall that last April, hundreds of people went to the capitol in order to protest the shut down. 

Take a look at how the Republic contrasted yesterday's protest to the hundreds of people who protested the shut down order on April 20th.  

Let me be the first to admit that I'm comparing A1 to A3.  But notice that the coverage of "Open" protest focuses on the counter protest by a handful of nurses.  Meanwhile, the "open" protest story is juxtaposed with a rebuttal story.  See the "Expert: Arizona is Miles away from being prepared to reopen" story?  One expert?  That story could be written any time.  The "open" protest story is designed to minimize the event.  

Now check out the second story.  Why does a publicity stunt by 10 people lead to any coverage at all?  Those types of protests happen every day at the capitol. Notice that there is no rebuttal to that story.  There's no stories about the negative health effects of quarantine, or the economic damage the state in incurring.  

This presentation is a classic example of media bias.  We saw it earlier this year when a couple hundred people showed up at the women's rally and received an A1 story, while the right to life march had 10,000 people, including the Governor and wasn't covered at all.  

Here, the Body Bag protest is simply a stunt by a handful of people and should not have had much, if any, coverage.  However the way the Republic covered the stories makes is look like they were similar.  Furthermore, the way the Republic rebutted the "open" protest--by highlighting the counter protesting nurses and the gratuitously juxtaposed "Expert" story--served to minimize the effect of the larger protest. 

The casual reader is left with the impression that two protests were roughly the same size, and that reader is likely to come away with the impression that the "open" protesters are misguided.

Exactly like the front page editor intended.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Did Goodykoontz do in Chemistry?

Unencumbered by a sense of irony, Republic media critic Bill Goodykoontz tweeted out this meme.

How did Bill do in science class?  Has he not noticed that he and his journalist friends have strong opinions about complex subjects in which they have no training?  Bill isn't even a political columnist or economics columnist; he's the Republic's TV columnist.  Yet Bill and reporter Robert Anglen were quick to criticize Kari Lake for linking to the video of two Bakersfield Doctors who claim that the lock downs are unnecessary.  What training to Bill and Robert have that allows them to claim that the video has been "debunked."

You could insert any profession into the meme--economists, psychologists, supply chain engineers--all have opinions about the balance of opening up the economy while protecting as many lives as possible.   Elected officials are trying to synthesize all of those recommendations and develop a coherent policy.  

Meanwhile, social media is full of people whose high school grades led them into journalism second guessing the elected officials' every move.  And now Bill Goodykoontz with a degree in Journalism plus 30 years as a TV reviewer is sending memes about the unqualified people who spread their opinions on social media. 

The irony is so rich.  

 

Does your Doctor wear a MAGA Hat?

I have a friend who is a successful money manager.  He has a beautiful office overlooking the Biltmore and a string of high net worth clients.  He recently told me that he had an appointment with a young couple who were considering hiring him.   He thought the meeting went well, but towards the end of the meeting they told him that while his credentials and performance were really impressive, they would not be investing with his firm.  Naturally he asked why and they pointed to the flat screen TV on the wall; It was on mute, but it was tuned to Fox News.  

The US has become so tribal that many people will not have dealings with someone from the other party.  I don't think that they are being petty or discriminatory.  I think it's worse.  I think that many people from both sides of the divide think that the other side is either evil or stupid--and they would never hire a money manager, real estate agent or dermatologist who was evil or stupid.  

Many people can overcome this bias.  I certainly work with plenty of people who are Bernie or Biden fans so I don't think that I fall into the category of that couple.  However, I will confess that there is a bias that I find it hard to overcome.  I don't care if you advocate for your side, just don't gratuitously insult my side.  It's not just politics, for example, if you wear at hat that says California is great, I'm fine with that, but if you wear a hat that says Arizona sucks, I'm not going to deal with you.  

So while I would be happy to work with someone who shows up in a Bernie T Shirt, I will frankly admit that I'm not going work with someone who shows up in T shirt that has Trump looking like Hitler.  

Most professionals understand this concept.  Don't identify with your tribe in a professional environment and don't insult the other tribe in any environment.

Most professionals have figured this out, but there's one group that didn't have to figure this out.  They are trained from the outset to keep up an appearance of neutrality--journalists.  So I am constantly amazed when folks like Bill Goodykoontz or Tim Steller retweet or Like the latest Trump Derangement Syndrome screed from the fever pit.   

Why alienate half of your audience? Bill Goodykoontz could have a nice little gig reviewing House of Cards or the Mandalorian.  He could have been the next Clay Thompson.  Tim Steller could write about local Tucson issues.  I'm from Tucson and my family still lives there.  I enjoy Tucson insight and could have been a fan.  But when Bill retweets some debunked story about Trump calling the Corona Virus a hoax or Tim falls for a fake study claiming that Trump supporters are more "Authoritarian," then I move on.  And I don't move on from that day's paper.  I move on permanently.  

Not that they should care.  Sure, I subscribe to the Republic and the Star, but those papers have tons of subscribers.  I'm sure their model is working just fine.  Why should they worry about gratuitously offending people like me?

Laurie Feels Strongly Both Ways.

There are two things to notice in today's Laurie Roberts column. 

 

The first thing to notice is that Laurie is once again making stuff up.  No one has been "fired".  The article makes clear that DHS Director Cara Christ is using different models and has asked this group to pause their work.  They all still have their jobs and Ducey isn't the one who made the decision.  

The second item to notice is more subtle.  Roberts has switched her position.  In the post above, Roberts is critical of Ducey for wanting to reopen the state and her criticism is that he doesn't want anything to stand in his way.  That's why she made up the part about him "firing" the Scientists. 

However, look at what she wrote on April 23rd.

In this column, Roberts mocks Ducey for opening up TOO SLOWLY.

OK, it was a baby step. More like a barely perceptible half shuffle forward. But it is something, at least, that hospitals can resume elective surgeries on May 1.

Incredibly, she also switched positions BETWEEN those two dates. Here's what she wrote at noon on April 29th. 

Ok.  So as of noon on the 29th, he keeping it too closed. 

But here's what she wrote at 6:00 PM on the 29th.   Notice that in this column, Laurie has conflicting positions within the SAME column.  The headline is a backhanded compliment that Ducey refuses to open the state while the sub head criticizes Ducey for keeping the state too locked down.  

Laurie Roberts has slammed every move that Ducey has made.  She spent the last half of March mocking him for not closing the state down.  Here's an example from March 19th.

Then when he did shut the date down, she mocked him for not going far enough.

 

Then as you saw above, she changed her position on April 23rd and said that it was time to start reopening. 

Then on April 29th she held three positions.  At noon, she argued that the order was never meant to be permanent so the state should be reopened.  

Then at 6:00 PM she repeated her argument that the order wasn't meant to be permanent and the state should be reopened  But then she changed her mind and wanted the state to remain closed and gave Ducey the backhanded compliment and praised him for not relaxing the order. 

Then today, she claimed that he fired the scientists in order to open the state up because he doesn't want anything to stand in his way of opening the state back up. 

Laurie has mocked, insulted and ridiculed every move that Ducey has made.   She has changed her position on the issue multiple times--including multiple times on the same day--in order to always be in a position to criticize his latest move. 

What's sad is that I don't think she recognizes her inconsistencies.  I believe that she is an angry, deeply negative, cynical person who has been writing the same handful of columns for a decade longer than is healthy.  So when Ducey makes a decision, she responds with insults and mockery...even when his decisions conform to her previous cajoling.  

She needs to move on and make room for another columnist, not only for the health of the Republic, but for her own health as well.