Media Panel: Follow Your Passion

Last night I joined a media panel attended by Greg Moore and others. I recorded the event and took notes, so I'll have much more to say about it. Here, I wanted to reply to a question somebody asked that I did not answer last night.

A student said that a teacher of hers tried to scare her into not entering journalism. With print publications struggling, the jobs just wouldn't be available.

Greg Moore sensibly said, "If you're good, you'll get paid." He added that journalism will always be part of the culture.

Wendy Norris, formerly of the Colorado Independent, said that all students should have a "plan B." I agree with that to a point.

Here's what I would have said had time permitted.

It is true that journalism is in transition now, with various print publications struggling and with people figuring out how to make journalism pay through the internet. But this is a transitory problem. Moreover, journalism continues to thrive in many quarters, and new opportunities abound.

For many, a variety of careers is consistent with their interests and goals. In such cases, having a "plan B" makes a lot of sense.

But if you're passionate about journalism, then for God's sake be a journalist! Don't worry (primarily) about the money: follow your passion! This life is remarkably short, so don't reach the end of it with such a fundamental regret as not pursuing the career you love.

Now, there are many different paths a journalist can take. Street news or commentary? Radio, TV, photos, or text? Large corporate publication or independent?

I've met people who love music, so they pursue music. They do not all make a living making music. Some work side-jobs. But you can be a journalist, even if you struggle financially and have to work a side-job for some span of time.

In your life you will spend most of your time working in your career. One's work, one's central purpose, defines one's life. Don't be battered around, aimlessly, by the winds of the times. Define your goals and go for them, relentlessly.

Peter Marcus's Lap-Dog Journalism

While Peter Marcus of the Denver Daily News smeared the Tea Party last month, he has been nothing but a fawning advocate of new tax-and-spend legislation. Marcus seems to see his job as journalist to amplify Governor Bill Ritter's views and agenda. His "news" stories are little more than fawning editorials.

Today's headline offers some indication of the paper's political leanings: "Guv lists goals reached: Ritter happy lawmakers targeted jobs, education, transportation, more." Marcus's "news" story consists entirely of praise for Ritter. Out of the entire population of Colorado or of Denver, apparently, Marcus could not find a single critical voice.

Marcus, for example, praises Ritter's signing of Senate Bill 67, which "commits $2.5 million in public funds to leverage more than $50 million in private bank loans."

But wait just a minute. Do private banks refuse to grant loans unless they are subsidized by tax dollars? As a rule, no. They make money by judicially giving out loans; that's their business. So it's simply wrong to think that the $50 million depends on the $2.5 million. It is true that today credit is crunched -- and that is because the federal government promoted risky loans. The solution is to get government out of the loan businesses.

As we're "helping" politically-connected businesses with the $2.5 million in tax funds, whom are we hurting? We're hurting everyone who no longer has access to that $2.5 million. Robbing Peter to pay Paul does not improve the economy. Moreover, forcibly transferring wealth from some people to others is morally wrong and a violation of individual rights.

But Marcus is not about offering a balanced news story. He is about pushing a political agenda in the news pages.

As to whether the legislature's overall policies in fact serve to benefit the economy, my dad and I will have more to say about that on Monday.

Learning to Love the Denver Post

The Rocky Mountain News was my favorite newspaper in the entire world. I'm not saying it was the best in the world, but it was the best at covering my region. The only thing that mitigated the pain of its closing was that the event was anticipated for many weeks.

But then the Denver Post did something that surprised me, though it makes perfect sense: it hired some of my favorite writers from the Rocky, particularly Vincent Carroll.

Moreover, the Post's editorial board has seemed to put out better work since the closing of the Rocky. I don't know if this is just coincidence, some bias in my observations, the addition of Carroll, or some other factor.

But for a paper with a widely acknowledge leftward tilt, the Post's editorial of the day offers an outstanding defense of legislative sanity:

Mr. President, private companies that have not accepted federal bailout money are not yours to govern. That idea needs to be killed too. ...

Congress, in great haste, gave banks and other lending companies trillions of dollars in bailout money. Then, when passing President Obama's stimulus package -- again, in great haste -- Congress approved an amendment that allowed firms like AIG to accept big bonus payments.

Then, when AIG legally paid out its bonuses, Congress flipped out and, again, in great haste, overwhelmingly approved a 90 percent tax on the executives who earned bonuses.

And the 90 percent tax is not just applicable at AIG. The tax would be levied on executives at any financial institution that received bailout funds, including those banks, such as Wells Fargo, that didn't even want the money and were basically forced to take it. Stories have surfaced of profitable companies, whose parent companies received bailout money, where executives would be penalized with this burdensome tax.

I can quibble with other lines, but the heart of the editorial is an informative and spirited critique of overreaching government.

Also today, the Post published Carroll's article against single-payer health care. He concludes, "I'd rather see health-care reform nudge us in the direction of cost-conscious consumption -- so that 'rationing' is more directly related to individual preferences and costs are driven down through provider competition."

Carroll doesn't quite go far enough -- he complains that real reform is "a pipe dream in today's political climate," when actually it is journalists like Carroll who help create today's political climate. The unpopularity of a good idea is reason to argue for it all the more strongly, not surrender. Besides, the main problem with free-market health reform is not that it is unpopular, but that most people simply aren't aware of how political controls caused the current mess or how real market reforms would help solve the problems.

I'm sure I will continue to find my daily annoyances in the Denver Post. Still, I'm hopeful that the newspaper has improved and will continue to do so.

Lipstick On a Pig

Right now the "story" about Obama's remark, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," which the McCain camp is pretending referenced Palin, is the top story at FoxNews.com. It is the second link down at RockyMountainNews.com. It is the main story at DenverPost.com.

You can put lipstick on the pig of faux journalism, but it's still a pig.

Where's the news story about Palin's views of contraception, including that which may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus? Where's the news story about Palin's former remarks about foreign policy? About welfare? About the relationship between church and state? About anything that, you know, actually matters?