What you will and won’t read in your local newspaper these days

If it bleeds, it leads.

Has anyone else noticed that the banner story in the Review-Journal the past four out of five days has been about a horrific double slaying and multiple rapes? The day before that a one-column headline of a constable’s suicide abutted the nameplate.

Suspect's mugshot appear two days in a row in banner position.

I don’t know about you, but after a while I get a bit numbed by reading an incessant series of nouns and adjectives that are the mainstay of the cop beat lexicon: “horrific killings,” “dragged her into the tall weeds,” “brief yet brutal encounter,” “punched, choked and sexually assaulted,” “his skull was fractured in at least two places,” “taking drugs, including Ecstasy and cigarettes dipped in PCP,” “paranoia and aggressive behavior, “grisly scene,” “a savage, heinous crime,” “a furious two-week police investigation,” “innocent until proven guilty,” “felony child abuse and a history of arrests for domestic violence,” and “DNA evidence.”

After he first became publisher in the post election coup of 2010, Bob Brown was asked what he wanted to see in the paper. He said his wife liked crime news.

She should be pleased.

Then there is what you will not see in the paper. Brown — without ever explaining, though it was suspected to be because her anti-feminism rants — banned the columns of Phyllis Schlafly.

Therefore, you will not read in the paper Ms. Schlafly’s column in which she asked, “Where is the mainstream media’s coverage of the shocking memo’ issued by nine state attorneys general detailing 21 specific violations of law by the Obama administration?”

These violations include but are by no means limited to:

— The NLRB telling Boeing it could not locate a plant in South Carolina.

— The Justice Department trying to nullify a vote by Arizona citizens to require ID at the polls.

— HHS telling Catholics to provide birth control against their religious beliefs.

— The EPA usurping Oklahoma’s clean act plans.

— Obama made four federal appointments during a non-recess, making an end run on the Senate’s advise and consent role.

The memo stated that this “administration repeatedly shows disdain for states, federal laws it finds inconvenient, the Constitution and the courts.”

You’ll not read that in the R-J.

16 comments on “What you will and won’t read in your local newspaper these days

  1. Steve says:

    The RJ may yet save the Sun, by going tabloid.

  2. Sounds to me like Bob is focusing on the news that sells, which is not necessarily the most important news.

    I am damn glad they caught this animal tho’.

  3. I’ll have to agree with that, Bob.


  4. Vernon Clayson says:

    And to the last sentence, “this administration shows disdain for states, federal laws, etc.”, she could have added that Obama and his coterie have neutered the House and Senate; he allows them to throw a bone to their constituents IF it fits his agenda. Our very own Harry Reid has proven adept at vacillating in Obama’s radiance by pushing the so-called green energy projects on us. For all of Harry Reid’s braggadocio and false smiles for the local media his currying favor with Obama is a lot like those old yellow labs that drag their behind wagging their tails while in fear of their master. For a while I thought Harry Reid was our Lenin but he’s more peasant than lord in Obama’s scheme of things.

  5. Steve says:

    I used to say a very similar thing Vernon. Harry was only doing the bidding of Nancy and Obama.

    Thing is, we used to get this stuff in the RJ but not anymore. Harry’s threat to Sherm and Tom on numerous occasions is slightly modified but coming true never the less. The RJ is being neutered right in front of our eyes.

  6. Steve says:

    Another thing we dont get from the RJ anymore, comments and thoughts from the publisher and editor. Those two are silent.

  7. nyp10025 says:

    Why is it a violation of the law for the Obama administration to bring a lawsuit against Arizona?

  8. From the memo: “In violation of 10th Amendment, federal government to sue to prevent AZ from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within Arizona’s borders; Affects Arizona because state has a large percentage, compared to other states, of illegal immigrants and need to be able to act to reduce the number.”


  9. nyp10025 says:

    How is it a violation of the law to file a lawsuit that might or might not be rejected by the Supreme Court?

    By the way, Arizona’s lawyer did not even bother bringing up the absurd 10th Amendment argument in oral argument before te Court.

  10. That’s a quote from the memo, Petey. You asked.

    Amicus by the Institute on the Constitution: “As a sovereign and independent State, Arizona has the inherent power to regulate immigration into its own territory. This inherent power is secured by the Tenth Amendment, limited only by Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, and by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, and by the inherent power of the federal government to regulate immigration into the United States.

    “S.B. 1070 is a constitutional exercise of Arizona’s inherent power of self-preservation, the purpose of which is “attrition” of the numbers of illegal aliens living in Arizona.”

    Another amicus: “At the heart of this case is whether one of these ‘indestructible states,’ Arizona, retains the power of self-preservation, a function essential to its separate and independent existence, or whether Arizona and her people are deprived of such ‘reserved’ powers, as secured by the Tenth Amendment …”


  11. nyp10025 says:

    As I said, Arizona’s actual lawyers didn’t even bother to make such a spurious argument.

    But anyway, why is it a violation of the law for the Obama administration to bring a lawsuit? Is there some law prohibiting

  12. Bruce Feher says:

    There used to be a guy, I think his name was Thomas Mitchell, I liked it better when he was at the RJ. That being said, I still get more news from the RJ than Fox, MSNBC, CNN et al combined.

  13. Ask the nine AGs who wrote the memo, Petey.

  14. That’s true, Bruce, about the amount of news. I still pass along news tips to them. But when they need to be critiqued, I will.

  15. Steve says:

    Strangely Bruce we seem to get more info from Thomas Mitchells blog today than we get from the RJ.

  16. Nibot Mus says:

    When something loses its luster, it’s tough to polish it up! The old R-J ain’t quite what it used to be when Mr. Mitchell & Mr. Fredricks held court there.
    With it’s limited resources, that brand of R-J was at the top of the black ink rags in the entire U S.
    Really miss that quality. Still a good product, but…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s