media

Aug 262013
 

Congrats to abqjournal for entering the 21st century, but I’m not going to let them pat themselves on the back without a flog in their hand. The journal website was gawdawful for more than a decade and that was in large part due to management’s cluelessness and hostility to the Web. I used to use it as the best BAD example I could find in my web design classes. Yes, it is much better. Yes, mobile formats and RSS are a boon. But, it is still hard to find specific stories on this site (such as this one – start at abqjournal.com and tell me how long it takes you). And the epaper version (which costs money) is maddening to use. But, congratulations, none the less.

“Readers tell us they like to take advantage of some of the digital benefits”

ABQjournal web, mobile traffic soars | ABQJournal Online

 Posted by at 7:12 am on Mon 08/26/13
Nov 222012
 

As evidenced by today’s paper, Abqjournal is no longer a “news”-paper but solely an advertising deliver mechanism designed to enrich it’s appallingly conservative owner. We mostly subscribe for the comics, the puzzles, and the letters to the editor. I will not look at ads this long weekend.

 Posted by at 10:00 am on Thu 11/22/12
May 302012
 

The following letter is a cogent and thorough argument for marriage rights for all adults. Marriage is a contract. Indeed, Merri has made this argument for 25+ years. Kudos to David Paul Blacher.

A different letter insists Americans bow to Leviticus as the law. Not in America, bub. We have the Constitution. You are free to let the Bible rule your life, but not to force that rule on the rest of us. Amen. peace, mjh

Contract Law Applies To Marriage Licenses

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER’S comments (“The Same-Sex Marriage Dilemma,” May 19) are interesting, but he misses the fundamental issue— marriage is a contract. In fact, in America, it is most often actually two contracts: one civil and one religious. I absolutely support the right and obligation of religious organizations to define, pursuant to their own doctrines, who may enter into a contract that they validate and recognize.

However, the civil contract — usually in the form of a “marriage license” — automatically provides the individuals who sign and register the document with several unique and valuable government- issued and -sanctioned advantages. First and foremost is a significantly lower income tax rate, both federal and state. Add to this the way married couples may choose to own real property — usually as community property — and the inheritance advantages which are thereto attached.

Also, married couples have access to a capital gains deduction upon sale of the primary residence that is double that of a single owner. Add to this the general inheritance rights and tax levels provided by governments to married couples but not single couples.

Furthermore, the ability for hospital visitation, treatment and health-decision participation are treated differently for married and unmarried couples. The list of civil rights available only to married couples is extensive. … Most, if not all, governmental entities have laws that disallow discrimination on the basis of sex in the fulfillment contracts — both oral and especially written. The most significant contract that most people will ever sign is their civil marriage contract.

To abrogate a contract based on the sex of the signatories goes totally against the grain of the history of the United States as to the sacrosanct nature of contracts — see Article I, section 10, clause lof the U.S. Constitution that forbids the states from passing any “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”

DAVID PAUL BLACHER
Albuquerque

[Curiously, this letter is not available on-line. What’s up with that, abqjournal.com?]

 Posted by at 10:47 am on Wed 05/30/12
Apr 142012
 

Does the Albuquerque Journal let political bias write headlines on the Business Page?

Buffet Rule in Play Already
Economists Call It The ‘Stupid Rule’

"The Buffett Rule, amongst economists, could also be called the stupid rule," said Kevin Hassett, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington group that supports free enterprise.

Did you see that "could" in a quote from a guy who isn’t an economist but works at at a leading Conservative "think" tank? You can hear the sniff as our senior fellow says amongst.

Still don’t think abqjournal is playing politics? Here’s the original Bloomberg News (by Richard Rubin) heading:

Top Earners Pay Higher Tax Rate Without Buffett Rule

Stupid abqjournal.

 Posted by at 8:35 am on Sat 04/14/12
Feb 132012
 

I find the following “reasoning” amazing: if we don’t let Keystone cross the US, the Canadians and the Chinese will wreck the environment in Canada. But the pipeline in the US would be absolutely safe. Huh?

The Journal repeats the lie (until it becomes truth) that this pipeline has anything to do with US energy independence. ALL of the product will be shipped overseas. This is ALL about who profits; screw the environment, screw the nation, screw everybody but the board and the shareholders (and don’t let them know you’re screwing them, too). Greed motivates liars.

ABQJournal Online » Editorial: Keystone XL Decision Impacts Energy Edge

Already in the permitting process is a proposal by another Canadian company — with investments from China — to build a pipeline from Alberta to a remote and culturally sensitive area on Canada’s west coast, home to the Gitga’at tribe. It also would go through the protected Great Bear Rainforest, one of the world’s largest remaining unspoiled temperate rainforests and home to the “spirit bear,” a rare white black bear. Some locals fear that giant tankers threading through narrow channels to Kitimat, the pipeline’s proposed destination, could result in an Exxon Valdez-like disaster.

The U.S. is the most logical market for oil sands crude. But the Obama administration, instead of coming down on the side of job creation and energy security, jilted one of our strongest allies in an apparent bid to curry election-year favor from environmentalists.

If Canada does develop a West Coast oil port, U.S. refineries and consumers will be left out of this energy independence game — and the oil will still be moved, refined and consumed. Who wins? [mjh: Who profits?]

This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.

ABQJournal Online » Editorial: Keystone XL Decision Impacts Energy Edge

Journal Acknowledges a Crack in the Keystone Jobs Argument By Denise Tessier, www.abqjournalwatch.com

Media Matters found that industry claims of the pipeline’s importance in terms of energy security was rarely questioned, either:

Print Media Frequently Touted Keystone XL As A Step Towards U.S. Energy Security. The purported contribution from the Keystone XL pipeline to American energy security was mentioned in 52% of print coverage, 22% of broadcast coverage, and 28% of cable coverage. USA Today, whose editorial board supports the pipeline, mentioned energy security in 67% of its coverage, more than any other print outlet. Fox News mentioned it more than all the other television networks combined. Only items in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times questioned the energy security benefits of the pipeline.

Journal Acknowledges a Crack in the Keystone Jobs Argument

 Posted by at 12:45 pm on Mon 02/13/12