It was a week ago that we ran the column highlighting concerns that the local paper is not only out of touch with its readership, it has probably and more importantly – at least for them – failed to recognize its core competency and maximized it.
In an era where we have a much truer democracy of news sources, the mainstream news has to survive by being accurate and impartial. And when news sources fail on either of those accounts, they undermine the only path they have to sustaining themselves.
In the last week, we have seen that nationally – a full on attack on the institution of journalism by the president in a rally at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
“They’re very dishonest people,” the president attacked reporters. “They are a fake, fake, disgusting, crooked media. Horrible, horrendous people.” He then repeated his attack line phrase, “The press is the enemy of the American people.”
Bob Dunning, with whom, as most know, I often have my issues, offered up a pretty eloquent defense of his own profession, noting the efforts of the Redding newspaper, in the face of the devastating 
fire, to keep in publication to inform their community as to what was happening.
Newspapers, reporters and local news are at their best in the face of tragedy as they bravely put aside risk, danger and personal feelings to do their job.
The efforts of the Redding newspaper should be lauded and I have little doubt that the local Davis newspaper would do no less should there be a similar threat or natural disaster hitting this community.
That is why, above all else, as I stated a week ago, even most critics of the local paper do not wish to see the paper go away. However, that also does not negate the criticism.
The core competency of the paper is fair, objective, accurate and impartial reporting on the news affecting our community. Where they go wrong is when they stray from that important role and that is where my criticism and many other people’s criticism lies.
Yesterday a reader provided me with a scanned copy of this cartoon that appeared in the local paper yesterday.
Their email to me was: “Talk about being tone deaf to its audience, today’s Enterprise cartoon equating democrats with Marxists, wow!! They’ve surely lost me and perhaps others, too.”
Undoubtedly some readers are cheering on the local paper right now. They are probably saying, “What’s wrong with that?” or, “That is the truth.” Or some variation of it.
The problem is that it is insults without providing much in the way of insight.
Is there really a movement toward Marxism in the modern Democratic Party? No. I know right wingers who will argue otherwise, but that’s my point – this is a view of the far right. This is not a mainstream view. It is certainly not the view of a community that will vote this fall between 75 and 85 percent for the Democratic candidates. Why are you posting an incendiary cartoon that insults your readership without offering insight or something to actually reflect upon?
Second, is this highlighting some burning modern contemporary issue? The main things happening in the news right now aren’t being led by Democrats. So you’re missing a lot of the contemporary picture.
But even if you want to criticize Democrats, there are plenty of ways to do so – accurately. Democrats have turned their back on the white working class. Sure, Democrats have become overly corporate – go for it. I often criticize the Democrats for selling out on core values.
Third, this is a local newspaper that some have criticized for dropping its subscription to the Associated Press and is thus not covering national news, so why then have a syndicated cartoon that focuses on such polarizing national issues?
Bottom line – there are plenty of solid reasons to support your local paper and I actually hold up the column that Bob Dunning wrote this weekend as being at the top of the list. What happened in Redding is a true tragedy and out of that tragedy we gain insight into the value of the local paper.
But, at the same time, Mr. Dunning’s own paper undermines his message by publishing an insulting and pointless cartoon. Right wingers, if you think that’s okay, imagine that the picture is of the KKK and the caption depicts Republicans. If you want to argue that’s business as usual, you’re actually making my point – it shouldn’t be.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
This article is hilarious on so many fronts. All it shows is your total bias. There have been many vile cartoons posted in the Enterprise over the years depicting conservatives in a bad light. Where were you then, why didn’t you write this article at that time? Now that you and some of your fellow “left wingers” have had the tables turned you all have got your panties in a bunch. I’m so enjoying this.
Keith is right. I have no problem with a newspaper presenting a range of political viewpoints. But I disagree that the cartoon depicted puts liberals in a bad light. To the contrary. If reviving McCarthyism is what passes for mainstream conservatism these days, then this cartoon is a sad commentary on how bankrupt and destructive conservative ideology has become.
According to Wikipedia “McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.” So tell us Eric with all the unsubstantiated accusations coming from the left from those afflicted with TDS who are the true McCarthyites of today?
As I wrote: ” If you want to argue that’s business as usual, you’re actually making my point – it shouldn’t be.”
Once again, I’ve been reading your blog from almost its inception. Where were your articles denouncing vile cartoons or columns critical of the right? Why an article now? Are you still upset that they didn’t endorse Johannson?
Why not write it now? It was timely in terms of the column last week, a reader pointed it out to me, and it was a pointless cartoon. Since I don’t read the (physical) paper, I don’t usually see the cartoons. However, I would encourage you to email me one the next time you see one that you think illustrates this point.
And to answer your other question – I don’t care who they endorse because I don’t believe it makes any difference. I use the endorsement as an indicator of the distance between the paper and its audience, however.
Their political cartoons can be found online too, just like their Reisig endorsement was.
I didn’t know that. But in general, not something I would read unless someone flags them to my attention.
It’s starting to sound like some people in Davis will only support a local paper as long as it goose steps and leans left, doesn’t mock Democrats in cartoons and supports their preferred candidates. Otherwise they’re all for free press.
WRONG. You’re not reading carefully.
“The core competency of the paper is fair, objective, accurate and impartial reporting on the news affecting our community. Where they go wrong is when they stray from that important role and that is where my criticism and many other people’s criticism lies.”
So when they stray from that role and post a political cartoon or an opinion column or endorses a right leaning candidate that you and others might not agree with than they’re wrong to do so and are out of touch?
I get it.
The point of the cartoon was that some in the Democratic party believe that its future lies in the principles of democratic socialism. That is a reasonable debate to have, and the cartoon — as editorial cartoons do — simplifies that down to a serious issue: socialism is equated with Marxism.
This is an unreasonable criticism of the Enterprise. This political cartoon does exactly what it is supposed to do.
Don is right especially with the recent rise of Socialist candidates Bernie Sanders and more recently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in NY.
Scary…
Scary that David finds the cartoon pointless and offensive… scarier still, that Don, Ken O and I are in fairly perfect agreement about the quoted text.
Three fairly (closer to greatly) different “world views”, same basic conclusion…
As opposed to blogs which survive by being inaccurate and biased.
I would replace “should be” with “often end up being” – take that comment for what its worth with regards to this site.
> an insulting and pointless cartoon.
You have completely missed the point of the cartoon. It’s that even mainstream Democrats are troubled by the left left of the party. Witness the babyish protests in Berkeley the last few days, with black-masked coward vandals confronting [edited] bigots. The Berkeley police finally got it right and kept them apart and arrest the “anti”-fascists in great numbers — because these wannabe Marxists instigated it.
BTW, speaking of Journalism, the blog “berkleyside” is one of the great local journals of our time, and makes the Vanguard, the Enterprise, and the other blog who’s name you can’t mention lest your post turn to melted goo, all look like a 2nd grader’s cartoons. And look at the comments there from “left” Berkeley — they all hate the “anti”-fascists — too left wing for the Berkeley mainstream!
Except that that’s not the left-left of the party. Those folks don’t vote for Democrats. They’re not registered as Democrats.
“They’re not registered as Democrats” Neither is Bernie.
I’m wondering if he has actually talked to the “antifa” people arrested in Berkeley and asked each of them who they vote for and if they are registered voters or if he is just “hoping” that they are not registered Democrats when he says “Those folks don’t vote for Democrats. They’re not registered as Democrats”…
[edited]
Pardon, that did deserve to be taken out.
Mainstream/traditional newspapers have always printed political cartoons. I don’t necessarily assume that the cartoons even align with their personal or corporate views. Nor do I find anything particularly “offensive” regarding this particular cartoon.
Keith also makes an important point, here:
As long as the paper treats all letter-writers evenly (e.g., regarding their submissions to the paper), then I’m failing to see what the point or “problem” is.
If anything, the Vanguard is the publication that takes one-sided “reporting” to an extreme level. Of course, David has pretty much acknowledged that this is the Vanguard’s “core mission”. As long as folks understand this (and don’t view the Vanguard’s views as the “voice of the community”), then that’s also not necessarily a problem.
“As long as the paper treats all letter-writers evenly (e.g., regarding their submissions to the paper), then I’m failing to see what the point is.”
But the complaint is that they haven’t haven’t. I haven’t seen enough evidence to be convinced that was the case, I that was the consistent complaint. On the other hand, as much as you like to complain about our publication, you’re comments have been dutifully posted and we’ve never turned down a local article submission.
I’m generally aware of that particular complaint (regarding submissions to the paper), and that’s the reason I brought it up. Sounds like there might be a problem, there. But (like you), I haven’t taken steps to verity that.
Regarding posting on your publication, the reason I do so is to counter your one-sided reporting. (Actually, I suspect that’s the motivation of a lot of your commenters, in general.)
Yes – it’s admirable that you will publish submissions. However, it does seem that some commenters/letter-writers are drifting toward the other blog. Some may do so because they disagree with the views that the Vanguard espouses, and/or don’t want to spend all day/week “defending” their submissions.
What would you prefer? A sychophant publication, slanted to only reinforce the views of the majority of the community, or one that leans towards challenging the status quo? Be careful as you answer, David, as it might result in a “mirror time”…
If you are asking me, Howard, I view the roles of the Vanguard differently than the role of mainstream news. I believe the Vanguard has effectively challenged the mainstream views of this community. On the other hand, I view the core mission of mainstream news differently. As I posted in the article and have repeated already once in the comments.
“The core competency of the paper is fair, objective, accurate and impartial reporting on the news affecting our community. Where they go wrong is when they stray from that important role and that is where my criticism and many other people’s criticism lies.“
There is a difference between what is expected from the news desk and that from the editorial page. I expect news to be reported fairly straight, but I expect the opinion pages to have a slant. The editorial page is supposed to demonstrate the view of the publisher or editor and frankly, I would be concerned if it did not. I don’t see evidence that the local paper is biased in its reporting other than the obvious bias in favor of local news. From what I have seen, the new Editor of the Enterprise is doing the job just fine, but clearly, some locals are uncomfortable with change (which we already knew).
Blog sites, by their nature, are more akin to the editorial pages. They are expected to be biased in favor of the views of their operators. The good blogs, however, (and good newspaper Editors for that matter) appreciate having their views challenged and are not afraid to change their opinions and positions over time as they learn from the resulting conversation. Anyone who has been here for a few years can attest to David’s willingness to be challenged, to learn from those challenges, and to allow his views to evolve as a result. Not all blogs demonstrate that same level of maturity.
[moderator] edited
I found the cartoon mildly amusing, and a tad thought-provoking… the kernel of truth thing… which cartoons, on an editorial page, are meant to be.
Ah… crossed a “party-line”, along with Alan, and Jim, as I recall [his post regarding “the term” was deleted completely, apparently… makes me curious as to who edited/moderated, and whether it was “report”-driven by an uber-sensitive individual…
But not very curious… moving on…
[moderator] “makes me curious as to who edited/moderated”: I’m the only moderator here. — Don
Maybe “Adipose Abundant” would be more acceptable? Zorro aside people who engage in extreme politics are not generally taking time out from a full dance card.
The REAL story here should be David’s reaction.
I think some people have developed an opinion that they are entitled to never be tweaked about their political views. Or said another way, they have lowered the bar for what politically offends them to far below any reasonable standard.
As a conservative in liberal land, let me extend some advice to David and others not used to being constantly tweaked and easily offended about what they read in the local paper and local community blog. Think of this as similar to working out in the gym… it it is hard, it hurts… but you will be stronger and healthier for it. Because being easily offended is a weakness that can be manipulated by others. In fact, at a global level, this weakness of American people is what Putin is tweaking. The people that are highly emotionally reactionary over the 2016 election are basically Putin’s puppets. He was after American division and he wins because about 50% of the people in this country cannot rationalize their strong feelings about the election… about losing. And Trump also leverages this weakness in his political opponents by constantly poking them to keep them emotionally upset.
Sure, there are bullies out there… and arguably our current POTUS exhibits bullying behavior… but where is the line of personal responsibility for coping with difference of opinion? And where is the honest assessment of the passive aggressive bullying that happens in return?
I have noted in some people that they are more likely to blame the source for feeling offended instead of looking in the mirror and considering that they might be close to needing cognitive behavior therapy. Other people that having developed adult emotional intelligence can easily see the danger in allowing strong feelings to carry the opinion instead of being uses as energy to rationalize the opinion.
My judge of balance in news reporting is if conservatives and liberals are both irritated by the reporting. And in this, the Enterprise is more balanced than most… especially given the fact it reports in an 80% liberal town. That is how I look at it. David should do the same instead of just running with his strong feelings over a single political cartoon.
“arguably our current POTUS exhibits bullying behavior”
Arguably? Let me share a 45* quote with you, maybe slightly paraphrased:
“I will destroy the careers of those who attack me”. This is our president threatening those who not arguably wield much less power than he does.
“That is how I look at it. David should do the same…”
Really, your version of how things should be is that David should see things the same way that you do? That sure sounds fair and balanced to me!
LOL. That quote from Trump was related to GOP candidates that viciously opposed him like Corker and Flake. He was talking in a passive voice… that his political strength in GOP territory would destroy GOP candidates that opposed him.
What is funny about you quoting Trump on this is that the actions of Barack Obama (which his Chicago thuggery political training) would be to aggressively attempt to destroy his political opposition exploiting the Justice and Intelligence agencies to illegally spy on Trump and use the fake premise of Russian Collusion from a fake dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign. And the IRS under Obama going after Republican-oriented nonprofits. Talk about abuse of power! But I am sure you are fine what that type since it benefits your political views.
David does not need to take my advice. I doubt he will. But there isn’t a post that I can see here that agrees with his position. Even you have disagreed with it. So it seems the advice is ubiquitous.
The point of political cartoons is to present complex topics in a simple, often funny, and sometimes provocative manner. If it makes you stop and think, even for a second, the artist has done his job, especially if you get a chuckle or two in the process. If you feel insulted by a political cartoon, the problem is in your head, not with the artist or the publication.
“If you feel insulted by a political cartoon, the problem is in your head, not with the artist or the publication.”
As a general principle, and with regard to this particular cartoon which I found silly, but not offensive, I agree. However, at the extremes I think the problem can be with the artist or publication. Some examples from the past: cartoons depicting Jews as rats or other forms of vermin. The problem is definitely in the cartoonist not in the minds of those offended. Same with the depiction of a recent comedian holding up Trumps severed head. Problem was in her trying to depict this as “funny” instead of blatantly offensive.
Seems like all of the commenters are pretty much in alignment so far, regarding the relative importance of the cartoon. Perhaps it won’t even lead to the “downfall” of the Enterprise, the Democratic party, or Western civilization itself.
Also referred to on the Vanguard as the “dark/seedy underbelly”. 🙂
(O.K. – I added “seedy” for dramatic effect.)
I think this is about the third time in a decade when Don and Keith have agreed on something so it looks like Davis really needs to bury the hatchet with the Enterprise and get over the fact that a paper will not always endorse your pal when he is running for DA…
I respect the mission of the Enterprise. That being said, some of their endorsements (Reisig) and the opinions of their columnists such as Bob Dunning on police issues disturb me. The Vanguard is a much needed “rival” because they can be lopsided at times.
Too bad about the “disturbance”… implicit in first amendment is the right (one may even say responsibility) to be disturbing… I’d be more disturbed in a publication that followed, in lock-step, the views of the majority of their audience.
No editorial, column, nor cartoon can take away your right to your views, or your right (and in my view, obligation) to vote in accordance with your views…
Hopefully the vast majority of voters are not of the genus ovis. Sometimes, I wonder, though…
I finally got around to reading Dunning’s column. Yeah, it’s a good one. I particularly appreciate his love of the press, and small-town papers. I guess I’m a junkie that way, as well.
I probably disagree with Dunning more often that I do with David. But, both are talented writers. David is also a good photographer. (I wish he would focus more on environmental concerns, but understand that his concerns do not necessarily align with mine.)
The problem with modern Democrats these days is that they are mostly liberal progressives. And liberal progressives can never admit mission accomplished as agitation for cause defines them, and criticism of the status quo is their stock and trade.
So, although maybe the label of Marxist or Socialist being stapled to the Democrat Party identity is not completely accurate today, it has been the trend and it is already showing to be a potentially dominant trend (Bernie Sanders might very well be President today if not for the Crooked Hillary-DNC collusion to take him out and buy him a new beach house.)
If Democrats fail to take over the House this election, and/or if Trump is re-elected in 2020… I would expect the Democrat party to split into two factions. And I would expect the Marxist/Socialist faction to be the dominate of the two, because it is the younger cohort… the working class have left the party and all the old more conservative white baby boomer liberals are getting old and dying off.
Whatever that means. All I know is that the Sanders crowd doesn’t think so.
Bernie Sanders got 43% of the vote against Clinton.
Edward Kennedy got 38% of the vote against Carter, with Jerry Brown picking up another 3% of it. Both were ostensibly running against Carter from the left.
I don’t think the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party is all that much stronger today than the liberal wing was in 1980. The only difference is that now some candidates from urban areas are willing to use the term socialist, as that no longer frightens voters. Voters under the age of 40 don’t have the same attitude that anybody from the Cold War era did about socialism.
I don’t think democratic socialism is going to sell well in most areas, but Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez and others of their philosophy will probably do fine in the Bronx, the Bay Area, parts of LA, etc. There’s room in the Democratic Party for them. To the extent that they think they’re a majority, I think they’re mistaken.
What I meant is that the Democrat Party is not the old Kennedy Democrat party. It has lost most of the working class that used to define the party. It is now dominated by liberal progressives.
I think the tilt toward socialism is greater that you make it out to be.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/democrats-poll-socialism-219600
Funny, when I ask someone with these views to tell me of a socialist system they see as a good model, they generally point to the Scandinavian countries. However, this is really ignorant as those countries are generally more capitalist than is the US. They score much higher on economic freedom indexes than does the US. They are also starting to change policies on their big social safety nets and open immigration as big cracks are starting to show… especially as they are stuck by Trump to pay their 2% GDP on their national defense.
There is a lot of ignorance out there in terms of what capitalism and socialism really are and what outcomes derive from them.
This is satire, but I think it makes a valid point. These kids really don’t understand what they opine for.
http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/images/AvocadoToast.jpg
Interesting. I read this the other day:
Avocado toast aplenty for Norwegian millennials