After 100 years, the Christian Science Monitor has folded. It's daily print edition is no more. But print will continue in a weekend form -- we suspect for the time being, at least.
The daily Monitor does survive, however, online.
The paper's editor reasons that, "two million individuals now engage with us online each month, about 40 times the number that have been subscribing to the print daily. We are linked deeply and extensively across the Internet. People who never picked up our newspaper read Christian Science Monitor articles online..."
Is there a lesson here for broadcast? Yes, and I hope we pick up on it faster than we're doing now.
With the small amount of time and resources at KSFR's disposal, we're trying to be "more than just radio.
We have done podcasting of audio for years. They're at KSFR.org,
We've found a way past the limitations of our web service provider to do more than put one piece of audio on a news page. (Check out KSFR's You Tube offerings that we post on many of our news pages. Here's a recent one:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, we began a breaking-story service on Twitter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the percentage growth of the Monitor's, KSFR's online audience is still puny.
We'll be watching to see if we can grow that audience and succeed at being more than "just radio." If not, what happens when the radio tower lights dim?
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
"We can't talk to the media"
Here we go again.
Not long ago, I reported that the FCC was in Santa Fe to brief the public on the coming transition to digital TV. But no one showed up -- except KSFR's reporter. Interview about what the representative was to tell the audience (if an audience had appeared)? Nope. "We can't talk to the media."
Then there was New Mexico's new commuter rail line. Would a trainsman speak with our reporter on tape? No. "We can't talk to the media."
Now comes the U.S. Census Bureau to Santa Fe to recuit people to pound the pavement in 2010 for the census count. It could have been a good news story since, a few weeks before, a similar recuiting episode elsewhere in New Mexico turned out thousands of job seekers. KSFR's reporter showed up to find that, "We can't talk to the media." Seventy five people are taking a test with more to come later in the day and the representative can't talk to the media. After they made several phone calls to regional headquarters, the local agent did speak with us. But it took some doing.
Listen to our full report here. (Sorry, it's You Tube but we have only audio). After the interview, I spoke with our reporter about the incident.
Not long ago, I reported that the FCC was in Santa Fe to brief the public on the coming transition to digital TV. But no one showed up -- except KSFR's reporter. Interview about what the representative was to tell the audience (if an audience had appeared)? Nope. "We can't talk to the media."
Then there was New Mexico's new commuter rail line. Would a trainsman speak with our reporter on tape? No. "We can't talk to the media."
Now comes the U.S. Census Bureau to Santa Fe to recuit people to pound the pavement in 2010 for the census count. It could have been a good news story since, a few weeks before, a similar recuiting episode elsewhere in New Mexico turned out thousands of job seekers. KSFR's reporter showed up to find that, "We can't talk to the media." Seventy five people are taking a test with more to come later in the day and the representative can't talk to the media. After they made several phone calls to regional headquarters, the local agent did speak with us. But it took some doing.
Listen to our full report here. (Sorry, it's You Tube but we have only audio). After the interview, I spoke with our reporter about the incident.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Blogs are now officially "in"
Check out the new White House web site. Clean, welcoming.
And the White House blog.
Times are changing.
And the White House blog.
Times are changing.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
If only on 9/11
This story raises the eyebrows again, seven years-plus later.
Man suspected of fraud flies away.
FAA loses track.
In minutes, two fighters are looking into his empty cockpit.
Minutes! Two fighters! Small plane, not several commercial jets!
Is anyone else trying to connect the dots?
More here.
Man suspected of fraud flies away.
FAA loses track.
In minutes, two fighters are looking into his empty cockpit.
Minutes! Two fighters! Small plane, not several commercial jets!
Is anyone else trying to connect the dots?
More here.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Murdoch media's muddled minds
An editorial in the the Dec. 9, 2008, Wall Street Journal is being touted by the New Mexico Republican Party. It has to do with the former federal prosecutor for New Mexico who was fired after not playing political ball with Republican Sen. Pete Domenici and Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson.
Both tried to talk with Iglesias, when he still had a job with the Bush administration, about a federal grand jury probe of prominent New Mexico Democrats, including Manny Aragon. No need to go into the details of the investigation here because the details are not the point of this comment. The point is that some time after those phone calls, and after Republican political appointee David Iglesias lost his job, Aragon and others were indicted, tried and found guilty.
But back to the Wall Street Journal and Iglesias.
The Journal editorial says it's good that Iglesias was fired because he wasn't the right prosecutor to " root out endemic political corruption in the state."
Bosh. Leaks months before indicated a grand jury investigation was under way.
Iglesias claims and the record of a congressional inquiry shows that Domenici complained to Karl Rove and others that Iglesias did not respond to questions from Domenici and Wilson in October 2006, before the general elections. His comment could have led to "political hay" in favor of Republicans. Iglesias followed the rules of the Department of Justice in not speaking to anyone about the grand jury deliberations.
It's clear that Domenici and Wilson broke the rules of the House and the Senate in bringing up something they shouldn't even have known about.
Rules of the House require a member of the House to file an ethics complaint in a matter of this kind. No complaint was filed against Wilson. Hence, the House Ethics Committee did not follow up.
The rules are different in the Senate. Anyone can file a complaint against a senator. The advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington did that. The Senate Ethics Committee looked into the matter and "admonished" Sen. Domenici for trying to speak with an independent federal prosecutor about a matter under investigation.
Domenici subsequently announced, in the fall of 2007, he would not run for office again, claiming that a fatal, deteriorating brain condition put his ability-to-serve at risk. (As he was leaving office, Domennici in November 2008 disclosed his condition had either gone away or had been misdiagnosed.)
The Wall Street Journal: "Ater Mr. Iglesias's departure, the U.S. Attorney's office issued indictments in and won two major corruption cases, and the new U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, Greg Fouratt, has picked up the pace."
Blog: Iglesias had the investigation underway and Fouratt finished it.
The Wall Street Journal: "All of this looks like vindication of the decision to nudge Mr. Iglesias out the door. Every President is charged with enforcing the law and that sometimes requires removing individuals who resist certain law enforcement priorities. We said at the time that Mr. Domenici crossed a line in lobbying Mr. Iglesias, but it turns out he was right about the possible corruption to explore."
Bosh PLUS baloney. The grand jury was investigating and compiling information months before the Domenici/Wilson talks with Iglesias. After Iglesias was fired, the investigation continued to be built by the new prosecutor.
Rupert Murdoch: Get your timeline straight.
Interested in the whole editorial?
NM Vindication - Remember that U.S. Attorneys hoohah
January 9, 2009 –
Governor Bill Richardson says it's all a matter of timing -- that if only the feds had wrapped up a corruption investigation into his New Mexico Administration by now, he'd be cleared and would be winging his way to Washington confident of Senate confirmation as the next Commerce Secretary. Instead, he withdrew his nomination earlier this week.
And maybe he's right about timing. But we'd dial the clock back not to August, as the national media have in clucking that Barack Obama has a sloppy vetting process. Rather, go back to December 7, 2006. That's the day the Bush Justice Department dismissed U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico. His dismissal, along with that of six other U.S. Attorneys, set the stage for a political firestorm when Democrats claimed the firings were proof that the Bush Administration was "politicizing justice."
Mr. Iglesias put himself at the center of that storm by claiming he was fired because he hadn't pursued voter fraud cases vigorously enough. He also claimed he had been pressured by two Republican Members of Congress to speed up a public corruption investigation shortly before the November elections handed Democrats control of Congress. Those Republicans were Senator Pete Domenici, who has since retired, and Representative Heather Wilson, who ran for his seat and lost.
Democrats eventually ran Attorney General Alberto Gonzales out of town. But the nub of the criticism of Mr. Iglesias -- that he wasn't the right man to root out endemic political corruption in the state -- was never substantially refuted. Mr. Iglesias did nab a pair of state Treasurers. He compelled one to plead guilty to an extortion charge and indicted the other on nearly two dozen counts of corruption. He lost in court on all but one count.
Ater Mr. Iglesias's departure, the U.S. Attorney's office issued indictments in and won two major corruption cases, and the new U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, Greg Fouratt, has picked up the pace.
The investigation that derailed Mr. Richardson involves political donations from David Rubin and his Beverly Hills-based company, CDR Financial Products Inc., in 2003 and 2004 that total $100,000. Those donations were given to campaigns Mr. Richardson ran that registered Hispanic and Native American voters, among other things. And they came at about the same time that CDR won a lucrative contract from New Mexico.
All of this looks like vindication of the decision to nudge Mr. Iglesias out the door. Every President is charged with enforcing the law and that sometimes requires removing individuals who resist certain law enforcement priorities. We said at the time that Mr. Domenici crossed a line in lobbying Mr. Iglesias, but it turns out he was right about the possible corruption to explore.
As for Mr. Fouratt, he wasn't appointed by President Bush. He was appointed about a year ago by a panel of federal judges. The veteran prosecutor and former U.S. Air Force officer doesn't seem interested in meeting political timetables and rarely talks to the press. We hope that after being sworn in on January 20, Mr. Obama gives Mr. Fouratt all the time he needs to finish his investigation.
Both tried to talk with Iglesias, when he still had a job with the Bush administration, about a federal grand jury probe of prominent New Mexico Democrats, including Manny Aragon. No need to go into the details of the investigation here because the details are not the point of this comment. The point is that some time after those phone calls, and after Republican political appointee David Iglesias lost his job, Aragon and others were indicted, tried and found guilty.
But back to the Wall Street Journal and Iglesias.
The Journal editorial says it's good that Iglesias was fired because he wasn't the right prosecutor to " root out endemic political corruption in the state."
Bosh. Leaks months before indicated a grand jury investigation was under way.
Iglesias claims and the record of a congressional inquiry shows that Domenici complained to Karl Rove and others that Iglesias did not respond to questions from Domenici and Wilson in October 2006, before the general elections. His comment could have led to "political hay" in favor of Republicans. Iglesias followed the rules of the Department of Justice in not speaking to anyone about the grand jury deliberations.
It's clear that Domenici and Wilson broke the rules of the House and the Senate in bringing up something they shouldn't even have known about.
Rules of the House require a member of the House to file an ethics complaint in a matter of this kind. No complaint was filed against Wilson. Hence, the House Ethics Committee did not follow up.
The rules are different in the Senate. Anyone can file a complaint against a senator. The advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington did that. The Senate Ethics Committee looked into the matter and "admonished" Sen. Domenici for trying to speak with an independent federal prosecutor about a matter under investigation.
Domenici subsequently announced, in the fall of 2007, he would not run for office again, claiming that a fatal, deteriorating brain condition put his ability-to-serve at risk. (As he was leaving office, Domennici in November 2008 disclosed his condition had either gone away or had been misdiagnosed.)
The Wall Street Journal: "Ater Mr. Iglesias's departure, the U.S. Attorney's office issued indictments in and won two major corruption cases, and the new U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, Greg Fouratt, has picked up the pace."
Blog: Iglesias had the investigation underway and Fouratt finished it.
The Wall Street Journal: "All of this looks like vindication of the decision to nudge Mr. Iglesias out the door. Every President is charged with enforcing the law and that sometimes requires removing individuals who resist certain law enforcement priorities. We said at the time that Mr. Domenici crossed a line in lobbying Mr. Iglesias, but it turns out he was right about the possible corruption to explore."
Bosh PLUS baloney. The grand jury was investigating and compiling information months before the Domenici/Wilson talks with Iglesias. After Iglesias was fired, the investigation continued to be built by the new prosecutor.
Rupert Murdoch: Get your timeline straight.
Interested in the whole editorial?
NM Vindication - Remember that U.S. Attorneys hoohah
January 9, 2009 –
Governor Bill Richardson says it's all a matter of timing -- that if only the feds had wrapped up a corruption investigation into his New Mexico Administration by now, he'd be cleared and would be winging his way to Washington confident of Senate confirmation as the next Commerce Secretary. Instead, he withdrew his nomination earlier this week.
And maybe he's right about timing. But we'd dial the clock back not to August, as the national media have in clucking that Barack Obama has a sloppy vetting process. Rather, go back to December 7, 2006. That's the day the Bush Justice Department dismissed U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico. His dismissal, along with that of six other U.S. Attorneys, set the stage for a political firestorm when Democrats claimed the firings were proof that the Bush Administration was "politicizing justice."
Mr. Iglesias put himself at the center of that storm by claiming he was fired because he hadn't pursued voter fraud cases vigorously enough. He also claimed he had been pressured by two Republican Members of Congress to speed up a public corruption investigation shortly before the November elections handed Democrats control of Congress. Those Republicans were Senator Pete Domenici, who has since retired, and Representative Heather Wilson, who ran for his seat and lost.
Democrats eventually ran Attorney General Alberto Gonzales out of town. But the nub of the criticism of Mr. Iglesias -- that he wasn't the right man to root out endemic political corruption in the state -- was never substantially refuted. Mr. Iglesias did nab a pair of state Treasurers. He compelled one to plead guilty to an extortion charge and indicted the other on nearly two dozen counts of corruption. He lost in court on all but one count.
Ater Mr. Iglesias's departure, the U.S. Attorney's office issued indictments in and won two major corruption cases, and the new U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, Greg Fouratt, has picked up the pace.
The investigation that derailed Mr. Richardson involves political donations from David Rubin and his Beverly Hills-based company, CDR Financial Products Inc., in 2003 and 2004 that total $100,000. Those donations were given to campaigns Mr. Richardson ran that registered Hispanic and Native American voters, among other things. And they came at about the same time that CDR won a lucrative contract from New Mexico.
All of this looks like vindication of the decision to nudge Mr. Iglesias out the door. Every President is charged with enforcing the law and that sometimes requires removing individuals who resist certain law enforcement priorities. We said at the time that Mr. Domenici crossed a line in lobbying Mr. Iglesias, but it turns out he was right about the possible corruption to explore.
As for Mr. Fouratt, he wasn't appointed by President Bush. He was appointed about a year ago by a panel of federal judges. The veteran prosecutor and former U.S. Air Force officer doesn't seem interested in meeting political timetables and rarely talks to the press. We hope that after being sworn in on January 20, Mr. Obama gives Mr. Fouratt all the time he needs to finish his investigation.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Deliver KSFR news on a CD?
I've joked with tongue in cheek before about the problem newspapers have -- printing yesterday's news on paper and delivering it the next morning. The analogy is delivering KSFR's Monday newscasts on a CD to your doorstep Tuesday morning.
I love newspapers, but they're really beginning to feel the pinch.
The Albuquerque Journal is cutting back 10 staffers in its newsroom. They didn't say what percentage that represents.
And the Journal says it will stop home deliveries in 30 non-metro communities. Rack sales there, too.
The cutbacks at the Journal will include home delivery and rack sales north of Las Vegas, including Raton; east of Moriarty on Interstate 40, including Santa Rosa, Tucumcari and the northeast corner; much of the east side, including Clovis, Portales, Artesia, Carlsbad, Hobbs, Lovington, Alamogordo, Tularosa and Carrizozo; and the southwest corner, including Deming, Lordsburg and the Silver City area, Fantl said.
The company said those areas represent a small percentage of its total circulation. The newspaper will continue home delivery and single-copy sales in Santa Fe, Las Vegas, Taos and Espanola, western New Mexico including Grants and Gallup, the Four Corners area, Roswell in eastern New Mexico, the three-county area around Albuquerque and south to Las Cruces.
More on that and other newspaper woes here.>
I love newspapers, but they're really beginning to feel the pinch.
The Albuquerque Journal is cutting back 10 staffers in its newsroom. They didn't say what percentage that represents.
And the Journal says it will stop home deliveries in 30 non-metro communities. Rack sales there, too.
The cutbacks at the Journal will include home delivery and rack sales north of Las Vegas, including Raton; east of Moriarty on Interstate 40, including Santa Rosa, Tucumcari and the northeast corner; much of the east side, including Clovis, Portales, Artesia, Carlsbad, Hobbs, Lovington, Alamogordo, Tularosa and Carrizozo; and the southwest corner, including Deming, Lordsburg and the Silver City area, Fantl said.
The company said those areas represent a small percentage of its total circulation. The newspaper will continue home delivery and single-copy sales in Santa Fe, Las Vegas, Taos and Espanola, western New Mexico including Grants and Gallup, the Four Corners area, Roswell in eastern New Mexico, the three-county area around Albuquerque and south to Las Cruces.
More on that and other newspaper woes here.>
Monday, December 29, 2008
To KSFR: "We can't talk to the media"
Is it the result of the past eight years or has something bad infiltrated the water?
Too often, KSFR gets the response, "We can't talk to the media." It's beginning to bug me.
A year ago at this time, a Santa Fe County commissioner wanted to hold a meeting with a number of different citizen and industry groups on a growing issue. But he explicitly "un-invited" the media. We could not attend. I blew up. He soon backed off when the groups themselves, hearing from me, became uncomfortable with taking part in such a closed meeting.
A month ago, a representative of the FCC was in Santa Fe to talk to the public about the ins and outs of the television conversion from analog to digital signals. They hired a huge hall, hoping for hundreds of people to listen to his presentation. No one showed up except KSFR's reporter. We tried to interview the representative about his pitch, only to hear, "I'm not authorized to talk with the media.
What? He could talk with thousands of people but not answer the same questions before a microphone? The next day, I interviewed his supervisor (who is authorized to speak with the media) about that policy. To say she sounded like an idiot is an understatement. She knew we were taping, by the way.
The Santa Fe County public information officer sent out an email to all county employees, saying talk to the media at your own peril. They're probably out to gather dirt. It's had a chilling effect on good communications with the county. Yet, I just had an informative conversation with the director of one county program who was not afraid to talk. Good chat on the air. Her stock went up, I'm sure.
Yesterday, our reporter interviewed some passengers taking the Rail Runner commuter train from Albuquerque to Santa Fe. In this burg, the train has been the biggest news since Gov. Bill Richardson announced his run for the presidency. Nice interviews with riders. But Dan Gerrity asked some officials with the train, "Hey, how's it going?" The reply stunned him. "We can't talk with the media." Well, Gerrity said, we've been covering this a lot and we've been down here a lot. "Well, then you know we can't talk with the media."
Want to hear the exchange? Send me an email to haveyoursay@ksfrnews.com and I'll send you an mp3 file of 15 seconds.
Boils down to this:
Passenger: What time does the train arrive?
Conductor: 4:30 is the schedule.
Reporter: What time does the train arrive?
Conductor: We can't talk with the media.
No joke.
Too often, KSFR gets the response, "We can't talk to the media." It's beginning to bug me.
A year ago at this time, a Santa Fe County commissioner wanted to hold a meeting with a number of different citizen and industry groups on a growing issue. But he explicitly "un-invited" the media. We could not attend. I blew up. He soon backed off when the groups themselves, hearing from me, became uncomfortable with taking part in such a closed meeting.
A month ago, a representative of the FCC was in Santa Fe to talk to the public about the ins and outs of the television conversion from analog to digital signals. They hired a huge hall, hoping for hundreds of people to listen to his presentation. No one showed up except KSFR's reporter. We tried to interview the representative about his pitch, only to hear, "I'm not authorized to talk with the media.
What? He could talk with thousands of people but not answer the same questions before a microphone? The next day, I interviewed his supervisor (who is authorized to speak with the media) about that policy. To say she sounded like an idiot is an understatement. She knew we were taping, by the way.
The Santa Fe County public information officer sent out an email to all county employees, saying talk to the media at your own peril. They're probably out to gather dirt. It's had a chilling effect on good communications with the county. Yet, I just had an informative conversation with the director of one county program who was not afraid to talk. Good chat on the air. Her stock went up, I'm sure.
Yesterday, our reporter interviewed some passengers taking the Rail Runner commuter train from Albuquerque to Santa Fe. In this burg, the train has been the biggest news since Gov. Bill Richardson announced his run for the presidency. Nice interviews with riders. But Dan Gerrity asked some officials with the train, "Hey, how's it going?" The reply stunned him. "We can't talk with the media." Well, Gerrity said, we've been covering this a lot and we've been down here a lot. "Well, then you know we can't talk with the media."
Want to hear the exchange? Send me an email to haveyoursay@ksfrnews.com and I'll send you an mp3 file of 15 seconds.
Boils down to this:
Passenger: What time does the train arrive?
Conductor: 4:30 is the schedule.
Reporter: What time does the train arrive?
Conductor: We can't talk with the media.
No joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
