Support for the Media Project comes from the College of St. Rose, Albany, New York,
offering a Master of Arts and Communications to advance careers in media, PR, and journalism,
fuller part-time options, 518-4545143, and Rosenbaum Media Group, a Digital Communications
Agency integrating high-definition video into PR, marketing, advertising, and social media
campaigns. Big picture thinking for local and national clients, Rosenbaum Media.com.
From Northeast Public Radio, this is the Media Project, a weekly discussion about issues
confronting the media. Oh, newspapers and meets such interesting people. They know the
lowdown now it can be told. I'll tell you right reliably off the record about some charming people
I have known. Or I meet politicians and grafters by the score. Killers playing and fancy,
it's really quite a bar. Oh, meets peppermint meets such interesting people.
They wallow in corruption, crime and gore tingling, wing city desk, full press, full press,
extra extra read all about it. It's a mess meets the test. Oh, meets peppermint meets such interesting people.
It's wonderful to represent the best.
Dr. Sharktack has important things to do, so we've got to do this show so that he can get
onto the important things. Did you hear that? Well, I was coming with me this time.
Oh, I see. I am the only one that's nothing important to do. It's the Media Project. I'm
Rex Smith, editor of the Times Union, the unimportant one here. Next to me, Irofus Feld,
former publisher of the Daily Freeman of Kingston Longtime, one time a sports journalist,
editor, city editor, man of many hats. Yes. Speaking of hats, Dr. Sharktack has a North
East public radio hat on. Alan Sharktack CEO of North East public radio, many hats himself,
many ties. Well, now wait a second. Wait a minute. Tell you something. Somebody called in
doing the fun drive. What's that? A recent fun drive and said, my favorite show is the Media
Project because Rex and the others beat Alan and is in sufferable egoism. My favorite comment
of the entire show. But you seem to keep bouncing back. Yeah, somehow he seems resilient, doesn't he?
Our best efforts not with standing before you stuck. Can we reassure the listeners that that was
not you who was on the Hurst Tower? I was not the person climbing. No, those poor window washers
out there and there are a lot of windows there. Scaffolding collapse and these guys were.
Well, I got nervous because I don't know Hurst obviously as well as I know my own company and
there are certain companies that if an employee manager was in not in good favor, they might give
them that kind of. Or as the old joke goes, the Viper is coming. The Viper is coming. The Viper is
coming. The Viper is coming. Finally, the Viper shows up. But it's the window Viper.
We're here all week folks. All right. By the way, because I'm sure we're going to say something about
the recently completed fun drive and Alan can take a bow. It was a wonderful thing. It really was.
It was a record breaker. It was terrific. We really loved it. There we go people.
Then as long as we're all bragging a little bit, let's all brag on behalf of the citizens of
Albany. That is the greater capital region I presume, which is second in the nation in terms of
readership of newspapers. That's not just the Times Union. The readership of newspapers. What does
that mean? Well, it means that people here really like to read actually daily print newspapers.
It's kind of amazing. Actually, in the statistic, not reported in this particular article by
editor and publisher of the Trade Magazine, owned by Adage, is that on Sundays, 82% of adults
in the capital region read a newspaper. Isn't that amazing? Now, I wonder, is there a correlation
because we know that older people like newspapers more, is there a correlation between aging cities
and newspaper readership that we know that one might say because the top city for newspaper
readership is Pittsburgh. That would be an aging city. I presume, right? Albany Hartford,
New Haven is tied with Albany Cleveland and then comes Buffalo, Honolulu, New York City,
and Toledo. Well, Pittsburgh is definitely coming back. So I wouldn't make any assumptions
about that. Pittsburgh is a hot place. Hot place. The hot places in the world right now are Brooklyn
and Pittsburgh. Is that right? No, I mean, Brooklyn is hot. Brooklyn is really hot. Speaking of hot,
the places with lowest newspaper readership are all in southern Climes. So there may be something
to what you're saying. The bottom five are Atlantic Houston, San Antonio Las Vegas, and Biggest
Field, California. Yeah. Well, but there may be a correlation with other things that we're not
either going to say or even school systems. Sorry. Yeah, that's a way of sort of saying the same thing.
Yeah. I'm sorry. I was a Texan for four years, but yeah. So it's Tex Rex. It was. It was. That's
that that would or put another way T Rex. So there's been a lot going on in the news. I mean,
it's been a remarkable situation in about the news about the news. There was Glenn Greenwald in the
Guardian of the revolution that the revolution of the national security agency was collecting data
on Verizon customers. The Washington Post story that the NSA and the FBI monitoring internet
activity, the self outing of Edward Snowden, who seems to be the source of those revelations,
the CIA analyst and so on. Something's a little confusing to me when I first saw that name Snowden.
Wasn't there a Snowden who married into the Royal family? Lord Snowden. Lord Snowden.
Yes. Yeah. But I think I don't think it's the same. Oh, it's definitely not. I don't think it's
even same spelling. No, done versus. Well, see the thing I hate about you, print guys,
is you're always concerned about things like spelling. Well, you know, there are any number of angles
that we could discuss all of these kinds of leaking and whistle blowing and revelations and what it
means and how important it is. But from the media standpoint, the one that caught my eye last night,
as we speak, was Congressman Peter King. And we need to consider the source. Congressman
Peter King wants to see Glenn Greenwald, the reporter for the Guardian who wrote these stories.
He wants to see him arrested. Peter King, we should set this up. Is the Republican from Long
New York's Long Island? Right. Product of the NASA Republican organization. Right. Is it
NASA or something? NASA, yes. Yes. Yes. News the Comptroller in NASA County for long time.
Don't forget that Rex Bertrude. Yes. The reason I thought it was suffix, because suffix is
more conservative and certainly King is conservative. Well, he's conservative on some things, but not
on others. When the federal government decided not to include New York in on some of the tough things,
King was right up there. He's not being gored. It's made him another matter. So do we think that
the reporter ought to be prosecuted? So the reporter for doing his job, which is to report the news from
a reputable source and that presumably has been vetted as a reputable source, they want him arrested.
Where does that dominion stop falling? Why is he arrestable? In other words, what are you
doing? He's not arrestable. He, because he, I guess, well, what's the argument that he would make
is that my word, not necessarily his, that if Edward Snowden, the leaker, the whistle blow, or
some might call the traitor, releases this information that using what the thing that happened with
Fox recently with Rosen, is he a co-conspirator? He is helping to disseminate information that may be
harmful to the United States. Well, that's absurd. Of course it's absurd. What may be more problematic
for the Justice Department is whether to arrest Snowden or not for leaking this material. You know,
let me just check in with you guys for a second. And that is that every democracy sooner or later
gets into trouble. When the leaders of that democracy start to say, I'm protecting you, I'm saving
you, I'm stopping harm from happening to you. You could go back and you could look at the
Mussolini's and all the other people. They all did the same thing and that's when the stuff goes down.
And so we're seeing it right here. The question is, what will the public say? The public say, yeah,
I'd rather be protected than have democracy and have civil liberties. You know, I think you're
right. And the difficulty is that the threats are so terrifying at this point. And they're also
less visible. It was one thing when governments were protecting against physical invasion. Now we
say governments are protecting us against both terrorists who operate surreptitiously and so
quietly that you don't even know that they're there until they strike. And against cyber threats,
which are virtually invisible. And so the government can make all these claims that they're
protecting us. And that is what Washington is telling us now. But they're sending people up to
the hill to testify to say, you don't even know how many times we have saved you. You
right. You don't even know. And the terrorists know that these things are going on. You mean to tell
me that people who are out to do us know good or not suspecting that phone calls are being monitored
et cetera. This is not a revelation to anybody except apparently to some people in this country.
Now whether or not we like it is is a separate question. But it's hard to believe that anybody should
really be surprised in this day and age of smartphone and internet and the ability for individuals
to be traced either by the government or by newspapers like yours or mine which use demographics to
place specific advertising on internet sites. And these things are going on. So the government
can't have it both ways in this regard. On the one hand, everybody in the government knew about
this. All of the senators knew about it. All the Congress will knew about it. And then on the
other hand, you've got the NSA guy saying he was. He was. He was. Yeah. He was physically sick
when this this stuff was reviewed. Well, wait a minute. Everybody knew about it. But then they're
physically sick. Well, let me let me try to at least take the opportunity. And by the way,
I'm out of my comfort zone because I'm not talking about media. But go ahead. But now let me take
the other side on that for a moment. Crooks are picked up on wiretaps all the time. They talk and
you know, it convicts them. They ignore the fact that what you're saying is intellectually they
should know. But then there's a whole crowd of imbacils who would do really who would do our harm
to the American people who put bombs in their shoes and who as an individual decide and they're
stupid. I mean, these are stupid people in some cases. And those people get picked up on some of
these taps and the rest of it. So I'm telling you, Ira, it isn't that everybody should know that
everybody's phone calls are being intercepted. But there will be a greater as a result of these
revelations. There will be a greater understanding even among the slow-witted who don't pick up on
this stuff. The quick fact that the digital stuff is out there and it is being monitored. And that is
why, of course, so many lawmakers and others are so angry at this disclosure because now it makes
the security people's jobs harder. But as is often the case with these kinds of revelations,
think about the value that the journalism presents in helping people to understand this. One of
the great weaknesses of government that is exposed by these stories is how much secret material is
in the hands of seemingly low-level individuals, this Edward Snowden who was a high school dropout
who had been working for the government for three months who is somehow being paid according to
the Guardian at a rate of 122,000, whatever that means. Yes, but you're right, of course, Rex.
There's no question. But I do think it's problematic. We want to press to tell us what's going on.
But when you bring a head guy from one of the security agencies up and the congressman say to him,
how could you be letting this guy have this money? His answer was it was wrong and we'll have to fix
that. So apparently it's going on. But revealed by this reporter. That's a very good point. Yeah.
Were it not for the reporter? We would not know and these abuses wouldn't have been happening. So
those who say, well, shame on the media for exposing this stuff or Peter King who wants to criminalize
journalism. Well, he's just pandering. I mean, that's all he's doing. But he's, yeah,
we don't think you're right, but he's pandering to a certain element of his constituency or to
certain elements of Americans who really believe that who would say, you know, lock up the reporters.
And but oh, what terrible stuff this is that's going on. Thank goodness we know about it. Well,
how do you know about it? Because the government's not going to tell you by itself. Okay, Rex,
and Iroh, what's the answer? Well, I think the answer is that people like Grunwald,
Greenwald are fulfilling our role as a media in a free press is supposed to be. We're supposed
to be watchdogs. It's an imperfect system. We have a lot of leeway that's given to us by the
first amendment. There are going to be mistakes and hopefully the mistakes are minimalized and
are not don't have deadly consequences. But that was sort of factored into this imperfect system
as it was made out. And I would like to think, although I'm not convinced of it, that the public
would recognize that these kinds of things are necessary to be done and reported by the press.
Because on balance, it is what we need in a free society because the government's default
position is always going to be secrecy. Okay, but what happens when the next plane blows up? Yeah,
and the authorities come forward and say, you see, this is a pretty good example. We lost all
those people and it didn't have to happen. But with the interference with our security apparatus,
we now have positive proof that this is the kind of thing we would have picked up before, but we
can't pick up that. Why? Wait, wait a minute. It doesn't say that they can't pick up stuff. That is,
oh, you're saying that if people didn't realize that their calls were being monitored, they might
have said stupid things. Or there may have been, look, I'm just playing that. Yeah, sure.
I'm a sure. Or there may have been changes because I, you know, basically, if I understand
a moment, I'm with Iran, this, that was a shot. But it's time for us to put it back. That was a
shot. Okay. But my feeling is that this need for security on the part of people is really a part
of strain. And you know, I wrote to respond to what you said before. There's so many people out
there that the name of the game is just changed with all of the digital stuff that we're having
here now. I mean, this is not the same world that we used to live in. Well, you know, the kind of
reporting that Greenwald did based on his own interviews is different than, for example, what
happened with WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning, where if I understand it correctly, Manning released
unfettered documents and WikiLeaks regurgitated these unfettered documents. Whereas the kind of
material that Greenwald has reported on was edited by them first. They vetted it. Now, you have to
have some trust in the reporting process that in fact, they vetted it and withheld a great deal
of material. They did not publish stuff that they thought was of a limited journalistic value and
be so sensitive that it would have been damaged. As you always point out, you go back to the
Pentagon papers, you go back to the Cuban fiasco, the Bay of Pigs. And you know, those reporters
under some people's rules now would end up in jail? Well, under Peter King's side. That's right.
That's what I'm saying. And some reporters do. I mean, the thing that what's different about this
is that it's digital, that it involves national security, but there's always this conflict. A
Charlotte observer photographer reporter was arrested last week while he was just covering a
protest in the state capital. The other states you were talking about, you're right, in North
Carolina. He was he was wearing his Charlotte observer identification. He was photographing.
And so the cops handcuffed him, took him off, basically shut down his reporting. And the question
is, was it done gleefully or not? Of course it was. I mean, you can't tell me that a cop on the
scene looks at this Charlotte observer identification and says, we're going to arrest him. He was clearly
doing his job. And so the police chief will apologize and eventually and say, gee, we shouldn't have
done that. And they'll do it again. And that's the kind of thing at a larger scale with greater
consequence. I'm sure that's going on right now in Washington and around the world where we see
these things surfacing. But a lot of sort of liberal center left people are quite disturbed that
this is happening in the Obama Justice Department. And that Obama clearly has signed on to some of
this. And they're shaking their heads and they're saying, this is the way I voted for this guy.
Ah, they thought that because they're voting for a black candidate for president. Not only liberal,
right? Yeah. No, no, because that's what it was. Okay. Well, first of all, they thought he was
people project into the come on. Exactly. Don't don't play that god with me, Rick.
But no, no, the fact is people really do project into candidate their own values. And they saw
Obama and his rhetoric was reflective of that as a sort of center left candidate. And they don't
get it when the Justice Department is annoying away at first amendment values. I just think that it
is the dynamic that is always at hand. Those who in power are seeking to hold the line and it is our
job, whether it is on the left or on the right to try to expose for the American people what's going
on. Look, here's a story almost unnoticed in the Washington Post that the online magazine of
Al Qaeda, which is called Inspire, is hacked by US spies that the issue appears and it disappears
immediately. So I think it's interesting for the American people to know that the US government
is in the game. Is in the acting game. Yeah, pretty cool. Interesting. But we just we should just know
that. And I, well, when you saw that, no, when you saw that, Rick, did you say, oh, that's good.
Or did you chuckle or did you say, you know, what if that inspires them to do it to us? We know
that Chinese do it to us all the time. They hack us in one of the major things that the president
and the president China were talking about the other day out on the West Coast. Yeah. And is the
public upset that that report was in the paper that that revealed what US was subsurptitiously doing?
I haven't heard any time. I think it's kind of gotten obscured by all the other stuff going on.
You know, by the way, the last poll that I saw showed that a majority of Americans are not upset
by the notion of the government knowing who their phone calling. No, right. Nor do they think
well, I think it's a sort of mixed bag that they don't like it, but on the other hand,
they don't think it has any consequences personally for them. Yeah. Well, they,
the one of the potential consequences is another erosion of our freedoms.
If you are, wish us to join this conversation. We are media at wamc.org. That was Ira Fussville,
just there of the Daily Freeman in Kingston. Alan Shartock of Northeast Public Radio. And I'm
Rex Smith at the Times Union here from wamc from the posh studios. Luring above. That is,
yes, luring. We're hoping not luring on Central Avenue in Albany.
Anyway, if you spoke about the front drive, I'm going to give one more shot. If you missed last
week's program, we did a program last week and you can listen to it online on the podcast.
Ah, wamc.org. No, that's a bad thing. Ira Fussville, Judy Patrick and I.
That's nice. You know, it's a wonderful thing what is going on. And just to let you know
what the peril of failing to support your public media, PBS NewsHour is laying off staff. They are
closing one of their offices, eliminating some quote, non-critical jobs and going to be using more
freelance video journalists. So the problem is that the production company, which I think is called
McNeil Air from what the show used to be called, is facing a shortfall of up to $7 million,
which is a quarter of its budget. That's a lot of money. PBS, of course, is in a lot of trouble
right now because they're under attack because apparently some undue influence was given to the
Koch brothers in terms of a documentary that was going to be played, which maybe people won't see now,
which under influence we know about because of good reporting in the New Yorker. This was a New
Yorker article that exposed how PBS had caved into the Koch brothers in delaying or maybe not
not even pursuing a documentary. It was going to be somewhat critical of them spelled conscious
pronounced Koch K. O C H S. As we've spoken about before, the Koch brothers are supposedly in line
to be purchasing the Tribune company and the Chicago Tribune in Los Angeles times. Among other publications,
much to the consternation of many of the employees of those newspaper companies and the Koch,
one of the Koch's has recently come out Koch. Recently, he's come out saying, we're not going to
mess around with journalism. Yeah, Charles Koch says that he was interviewed by the Wall Street
Journal and he says that their newspapers quote, would be a marketplace of ideas. They say that
it's not going to be a right wing place. But just to keep things in perspective, there's a group
called Forecast the Facts that's trying to discourage the Tribune company from selling to the Koch's
and they've put out a website that gives you an idea of what they think could happen. Well, Koch's
bias. Well, based on what we just saw with the PBS and not giving the money in all the rest,
obviously, that's a pretty good clue as to what would happen. But do you really think there's a big
difference between them and what Rupert Murdock does at the POST? Obviously, that's got a philosophy
and we know where it is. And I suspect that this would just be more of the same. I just wonder if
because these guys are of course interested in profit, that's why you would pursue this, I suppose.
I wonder. No, I mean, no, we know that Murdock continues to lose a lot of money, don't we?
I mean, did you tell me that on the print side of things? On the print side of the post, yes.
The POST. Yep. I met a guy the other day and he said, my name is POST.
Well, Murdock has already started laying off people at the New York Post. Again,
it speaks to a number of things, not the least of which is how much trouble that publication is
entirely apart from the rest of his enterprises. And then now they've split apart because of the stock
situation. What I read recently was amazing to me is that ESPN, which just can't make money fast
enough, is laying off for hundreds of people. They help it make money faster. Yeah, they want more.
Yeah, I mean, obviously that. I look at the POST and you may be right that they're laying off
people, but I know one thing, they're not laying off the right people. That's a shot, too. But you
wonder if there's really a market in Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, the cities where there are
Tribune Company newspapers, it would be sold to the coax. You wonder if those dominant media there,
if they were turned into papers like the New York Post, if that would be successful. I think that
the difference in the post is that there's a niche market in New York City because there is the
New York Times and the Daily News. There's all this competition. In those other cities, there
isn't a second newspaper. Well, there is in Chicago, but it's already a tabloid. I don't think that
necessarily you would be as successful by in effect postifying. Which you may not do. In other words,
you may not go all the way. For example, let me ask you a question. You know, I subscribe to
Wall Street Journal. I hate to say it, but I do. Oh, yes. There's good journalism there.
Absolutely. So in some cases, he takes something like the New York Post, which was once a MIRRORK,
a beautiful liberal newspaper. And he changes it into this reactionary newspaper with pictures
of women with very little clothing on and the rest of it. But on the case of the Wall Street Journal,
he doesn't go nearly as far to damage his product. Absolutely. And so maybe it's true that the coax
wouldn't be owners as terrible, except what would happen, surely, is the opinion pages would.
They're going to buy if they buy those papers, they're going to buy them at rock bottom prices.
They're going to consolidate a lot of operations. They're going to emphasize digital and they're
going to make some money and making money. Let's hear it once again for WAMC, which did a lot of that.
All right. So come back and. All right. That's enough. Let's get out of here. Just saying.
Just saying. See you next week. Keep on keeping on.
Now lose Superman are such interesting people. They used to work like hell just for romance.
But finally the movie is not with standing. They all got prior to patches on their pants.
They organized the union to get a living wage. They joined with other actors upon a living stage.
Now lose Superman are such interesting people. When they know they've got a people's
fighting rights tingling, lings, paper, gill, got a free new world of bill. Meet the people that's
a thrill all together. Fits the bill on lose Superman are such interesting people.
It's a wonderful thing. Rupers and personal.
Now publishers are such interesting people.
Their policies and act throw bad at thing.
They claim to represent the common people.
Funny Wall Street never has complained.
All the publishers have worries for publishers must go.
To working folks for readers and to big shots for their dose.
Now publishers are such interesting people.
It could be prestige and I don't know.
Tingling, lings, circulation, tingling, lings, advertising, get those readers, get that pay off.
What a headache, what a mess.
All publishers are such interesting people.
Let's give free chairs a free...
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0