Is Monday the New Sunday?

This is a decidedly unpolitical post, but a thought struck me over the weekend that I think is worth consideration. Maybe the attention given to Rupert Murdoch's recent decision is what caused the thought:

Is Rupert Murdoch bluffing? Making a bold high-stakes gamble that will save the troubled newspaper industry? Or pursuing a pipe dream that can only end in failure?

The News Corp. chairman has prompted a fierce debate among media watchers with his accusation that Google is "stealing" from his vast newspaper empire and his threat to block the search engine from accessing its content.

Personally, I don't see this strategy working. There are just too many sources of information. Basic information have become commodities (i.e. weather, sports scores, classifieds, catastrophes, etc). Does that mean news organizations are going to go away? I don't think so. People still crave and need news, especially local news. But, as the continued closures of local news organizations have made clear, the current model is broken.

I used to be a dead tree news subscriber. However, I haven't been for at least two years now, but I do still peruse the Albuquerque Journal daily. Well, at least I did. Now, it's becoming more difficult because I'm finding I've often "used up my sponsor pass trials for the week." So, what do I do when I'm presented with the option to pay $60 to become a six month subscriber? Naturally, I go elsewhere to get my news fix for the day.

See, the offer is out of sync with the action. I want to read a particular article. I don't want to spend $60 to get access to all of the articles for six months that I'm not interested in reading. What if the ABQ Journal allowed me to pay for just that particular article? Would I do it? Probably depends on the price. But, if that article only cost me a dime to read. I'd probably do it.

In fact, if the Journal allowed me to pay $10 for credits that I could apply toward reading articles of my choice at a dime a pop (think: iStock.com approach to news), I'd probably be all over it. After all, a dime is still a small enough amount of money for me not to think twice about spending.

So why don't they do it this way? I don't know. Actually, very little about how the Albuquerque Journal approaches sales makes any sense to me. Consider for a moment that if I want to sign up for home delivery, they'll charge me $60 for six months. But, if I want to sign up for six months of eJournal, it will cost me $76.50. Where is the logic in that? In what world does it cost more to deliver digitally than it does to deliver hard copy to my door?

My first job when I was 12 years old was delivering newspapers. Within a few months, I became the drop captain for all of the newspaper boys in my neighborhood. This meant a couple hundred newspapers were dropped at my house every morning, and at the end of the week, after they had collected from their customers, the newspaper boys came and paid me. I had my own delivery route, plus I made a little extra for taking on this added responsibility.

Paying a small amount weekly is an easier commitment to make. Heck, the smaller the amount the more likely we are to pay. News is an impulse buy. If you think about the heyday of the newspaper industry, hawkers selling papers on street corners for just a few cents, you'll realize that it has always been an impulse buy.

Consider something else...

What's the largest newspaper of the week? The Sunday paper, right? Yet, every online information source will tell you that attention to news drops significantly over the weekend. The next generation of news followers take a break on the weekends. Why isn't the biggest edition of the news on Monday? Because they're still doing business like they did in the past.

The Albuquerque Journal better figure out what it is doing wrong and soon, or we're going to find ourselves in a situation that the largest city of the state doesn't have a local newspaper reporting style source of information.

Not Enough Screaming Insults

Must have been an unbelievably slow news day. The front page of today's online Albuquerque Journal has an "article" which is basically a free ad for Lt. Governor Diane Denish's request for contributions:

Lt. Gov. Diane Denish is asking New Mexicans to restore civility to state politics — by contributing money to her gubernatorial campaign.

In an e-mail sent out to supporters Wednesday, Denish, the sole Democrat to enter the 2010 race thus far, said many New Mexicans have told her they're tired of the name-calling and negativity of current politics.

"Stand with me against the screaming and the insults," said Denish, who added that a contribution of $25, $50 or $100 would help her "put her foot down and say 'enough is enough!'"

Sorry folks this isn't news. There are lots of candidates out there asking for money, and unless the Journal plans on giving each and every one of them equal time, I think they ought to revisit their editorial policy.

As to the content of the Journal's in-kind contribution to Lt. Governor Diane Denish's campaign efforts, I can't help but wonder what exactly the Lt. Governor wants everyone to stop screaming about? Does she want New Mexicans to stop screaming about the fact that this administration's tenure has been marked by more criminal indictments and pay to play scandals than any other administration in recent history? Maybe she wants New Mexicans to stop screaming about a public education system that is failing more and more children every year?

As a former Chairman of the Democratic Party, does the Lt Governor find it insulting that a member of her own party would point out that OVER A BILLION DOLLARS is spent without required audits. Or, could it be that Lt. Governor Denish finds it insulting that she is being held accountable for failing to blow the whistle as tens of millions of dollars in taxpayers funds disappeared because of highly questionable investment practices.

Sorry, but if you ask me, there's not near enough screaming going on in the Land of Enchantment. In fact, I hope the "screaming" grows louder, and I'm really not going to lose any sleep if the crooks, or their enablers, are insulted.

ABQ Journal Online Health Care Reform Debate

So, I'm a little late to the table due to travel schedule, but I was invited to participate in the ABQ Journal's Online Health Care Reform Debate. I just submitted my response this morning to yesterday's question. I'm also cross posting it below, but I'd encourage you to hop over to the Journal and read what the other panelists had to say.

What is the ideal way to expand coverage and cut costs in our health care system?

Let's look at the basic problem with this question. First, it is a contradiction. You can't expand coverage and cut costs. You can do one or the other, but it is not possible to do both at least not without degrading the quality of available care.

Moreover, it's a classic example of a one-size fits all type of question. The thing is that there in not a one-size fits all type of answer. In many cases the costs of health care are directly tied to the malpractice insurance doctors are required to carry as a result of lawsuits - some frivolous, some not. In other cases the rising costs of healthcare are the result of government regulation and mandates intended to reform the system or protect consumers. Then, there is the subjective nature inherent to providing "health insurance that covers all medically necessary care." To a family, it might seem that no expense should be spared to keep a loved one alive, but is it really society's responsibility to pay for that care? I would argue it is not.

Let's also examine the question of expansion of health care coverage. If someone smokes two packs of cigarettes a day, do they deserve the same access to health care and level of care as someone who does not? If someone chooses to live a rural lifestyle is it really the responsibility of society to build them rural health centers. If you choose to get cable television and a cell phone instead of paying for health insurance, should everyone else chip in to pay for your insurance. Again, I would argue not.

So, let's look at the latter first. The best way to cut costs in the health care system is on a case be case basis on the local level. Looking at the individual costs, be they hospital, doctor or individual, and coming up with solutions to reduce those costs. And, acknowledging that cutting those costs may very well involve making tough decisions about the type of health care services that will be made available. Incidentally, this is also the trick to expanding coverage. Get away from trying to provide the same level of coverage to everyone, everywhere. Health care is a service it is not a fundamental guaranteed right. Any more than than we should guarantee equal types of housing to everyone in America.

Does the current focus on costs undermine the importance of quality of care, as discussed in Win Quigley's article on Sunday?

Without moving to a barter system there is absolutely no way to separate costs from quality as it relates to health care. The two are inherently tied together. In our form of society the quality of every service or product purchased is related to price paid, up to the point of diminishing returns. Shifting to a government run health care system only shifts those costs from one entity to another (i.e. business-to-consumer to government-to-consumer).

It is the demand for quality and quantity of care that is causing escalating costs. In a government run system the costs will only increase not decrease. In fact, I challenge you to find any government run program where costs do not increase year over year. They don't exist. Medicare, public education, public housing... pick a program and the costs always increase.

Anyone who has ever worked inside a government funded institution understands why. Government run programs have no incentive to cut costs. Quite the contrary, they are incentivized to spend every last dollar in order ensure that they can receive the same level of funding the next year. This makes it all the more ludicrous for government to try and devise solutions for cutting costs. It's like asking a vegetarian what's the best way to cook a steak.

How can we change the incentive structure that leads to the use of expensive procedures that may not lead to optimal health outcomes?

There is only one way to significantly do this and that is at the consumer level. Something along the lines of health savings plans wherein individual consumer choices regarding the quality, quantity and type of care they receive directly impacts the dollars in their pocket. Also, I believe that consumers should indemnify medical providers, so that we remove the burdensome costs malpractice has introduced into the system.

And, finally, what proposals or ideas in Congress strike you as smart and feasible?

All of the proposals in Congress are feasible. Feasible in that they can be implemented. However, implementing a program is never the same as achieving a goal. I'm not aware of a single smart proposal in Congress. Anything Congress passes is going to be a one size fit all approach for the nation, and that is a mistake, a very costly and ineffective mistake made time and time again.

Albuquerque Journal Watchdog Links

If you're paying attention, you'll notice this at the bottom of the online front page of the Albuquerque Journal:

Now more than ever, you need to keep an eye on government and speak your piece. To help you in that regard, the investigative team of the Journal have developed a new resource page called Watchdog.

Hats off to the Albuquerque Journal for compiling and publishing this list. It's a heck of a resource. For example, if you're wondering who makes more money, the Governor's Residence Chef or a Public Defender, you can find the answer among the links on this page.

Or, let's say you're curious about the difference in pay working as the Chief of Staff for the majority versus the minority party up at the Roundhouse. Well, that information is readily available.

Maybe, you're a college student considering your career options. If you're wondering what pays better, say Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or Executive Director of the Spaceport, you can find your answer among these links.

The links on the page are not just limited to salaries. There are several other useful links as well ranging from a searchable database of disciplinary actions taken against Doctors to State open records and meeting laws.

Take a look and explore.

Why Not Just Provide a Complete Correction?

More and more people everyday get their news from blogs. The argument has been made that blogs don't do as good of a job of presenting the news as the mainstream media. Now, in a lot of cases, I would agree with that. For example, I've never pretended to be a reporter. In fact, I go out of my way to make it clear that everything written here is my opinion, albeit based on the facts as I see them.

With all that said, there is one place where a great many blogs clearly outperform the mainstream media - correcting mistakes. Let me give you one example. Yesterday, I wrote about an article published a little over a year ago in the Albuquerque Journal in which they incorrectly reported that Republican candidate for the 1st Congressional District, Darren White, attended a Department of Justice meeting during the 2006 election cycle regarding the inaction by then U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in prosecuting voter fraud cases.

I also pointed out that if either his opponent, Democrat Martin Heinrich or, his alter ego, the DCCC, tried to use that information in an ad, they would be continuing Heinrich's track record of misrepresenting the facts. I was confident in making this statement because I had looked up the article in question [subscription] and noted that a correction had been added to the article on the Journal's website:

FOR THE RECORD: This story has been corrected to reflect that Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White met with Kyle Sampson, chief of staff for U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in Washington in 2005 — not in 2006.

I thought that was that until I got an email from Darren White's campaign with a little more information. They sent me a copy of an email they received from Journal editor Ken Walz [Note: I edited the email to remove ">" that were appearing before each line and so the paragraph formatting may be a little off, but other than that it remains unedited]:

------ Original Message --------
Subject:
[Fwd: Re: white]
Date:
Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:01:00 -0600
From:
Kent Walz
To: dwhite@bernco.gov, Mike Gallagher

Sheriff White:

I have reviewed our David Iglesias stories with investigative reporter Mike Gallagher. It appears that in a story published April 15, 2007, we incorrectly placed you in a convesation with Kyle Sampson of DOJ during a meeting in the spring of 2006. We reported that you complained to Sampson about Iglesias and that Sampson produced statistics showing Iglesias was doing a good job.

In fact, based on other reporting, it appears to us the participants in that conversation with Sampson were Pat Rogers and Mickey Barnett and that you were not present.

Your met with Sampson in 2005 on a different topic, although Iglesi as came up during casual discussion. We have no information that you registered complaints about Iglesias during that meeting.

We did interview you for the story published in April of 2007, and you commented on other matters involving direct dealings between Iglesias and youir office. We no longer have notes from this period, so we cannot cite to additional specifics.

Kent Walz

cc: Mike Gallagher

And, herein lays the problem. This emails verifies that the content of the story is dramatically changed. It's more than just the incorrect usage of dates. So, in the interest of setting the record straight, shouldn't the Journal have prefaced the online archived version of the article with the entire letter above? There is nothing wrong with making a mistake. It happens to everyone, but not fully correcting the mistake, that's just wrong.

The Albuquerque Journal needs to take a page here from bloggers and keep in mind that in online postings, there is no cost per inch factor. So, there is no reason not to provide a full and complete correction. It keeps everyone honest. The good news is that it's not too late. All they need to do is go back to the article and put it up now.

ABQ Journal Reporters on the Defensive

A Duke City Fix (DCF) post on First Mate Sandra Richardson's email detailing Captain Greg Payne's role in Honey Bee Paulette De'Pascal's campaign is generating a very animated comment discussion on the responsibility of MSM reporters.

Two of the Albuquerque Journal's reporters, John Fleck and Dan McKay have been pulled into the discussions. Most notable is this comment by Mr. Fleck:

"Great story. Better if true."

Corroboration is the difference between a wonderful tale (and a delightful blog item) and a defensible newspaper story - in this case, the difference between a bizarre email by a whack job and wrongdoing by a city official.

The problem is that Mr. Fleck's excuse for the Journal not covering the story (i.e. Mrs. Richardson is a "whack job") does not hold water. In fact, a quick Google search indicates that Mrs. Richardson is a very involved community member:

Albuquerque Tricentennial
Library Advisory Board
Participant in the Town Hall on Albuquerque's Energy Future
Quality of Life Initiative - Campaign Member

And the list goes on. I'm not sure why the Journal continues to ignore this story, but some of the DCF's readers have some great ideas about how the Journal might go about reporting it - if they were so inclined.