Who is Nancy Pelosi? What does Progressive Democrat mean? Watch Obama, Hillary and Pelosi smile and talk with Ortega and Chavez, fellow socialists

OBEY OBAMA

OBEY OBAMA

You won’t see the mainstream media reporting who Nancy Pelosi is.

Citizens: Print,  clip and save this free Obey Obama poster (Void where prohibited by law).

By Mick Gregory

I know quite a bit about her, having lived and worked in her San Francisco district. You won’t see the San Francisco Chronicle or New York Times mentioning that she is a multi-millionaire from earnings on her non-union Napa Valley winerey and resort hotel. Yet, the soon-to-be-crowned Speaker, gets one of the largest shares of union campaign money.

Your 68-year-old grandmother hasn’t spent as much on her home as 68-year-old Nancy Pelosi has on facelifts.
Democrats are America’s neo-progressives, better known as socialists. I lived in Nancy Peloci’s San Francisco, where transsexuals are given special status along with all the other classes of minorities and the city is a “sactuary city” for illegals.

 

Do you think I am exagerating? Progressive Democrats are America’s Democrat/Socialists — Google it for yourself. Why doesn’t the LA Times with it’s 950-person newsroom devote an afternoon of a reporter’s time to check into this?

Socialism in America is growing. Aided by such influential Congressmen as John Conyers, Ranking Member of the House Judicial Committee, and the one who will start impeachment proceedings against George Bush in the coming months. Nancy Pelosi is one of the stars of the nearly 60 other Democrats advancing socialism in America behind the “Progressive” label.

Here are a few excerpts taken directly from the web page of the Democratic Socialists of America.

“The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. DSA’s members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.

“At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. We are activists committed not only to extending political democracy but to demanding democratic empowerment in the economy, in gender relations, and in culture. Democracy is not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives. We call this vision democratic socialism – a vision of a more free, democratic and humane society.

0. We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.
0. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.”
Here is what “Liberty” looks like to a socialist:
“A democratic commitment to a vibrant pluralist life assumes the need for a democratic, responsive, and representative government to regulate the market, protect the environment, and ensure a basic level of equality and equity for each citizen. In the 21st century, such regulation will increasingly occur through international, multilateral action. But while a democratic state can protect individuals from domination by inordinately powerful, undemocratic transnational corporations, people develop the social bonds that render life meaningful only through cooperative, voluntary relationships. Promoting such bonds is the responsibility of socialists and the government alike.
“The social welfare programs of government have been for the most part positive, if partial, responses to the genuine social needs of the great majority of Americans. The dismantling of such programs by conservative and corporate elites in the absence of any alternatives will be disastrous. Abandoning schools, health care, and housing, for example, to the control of an unregulated free market magnifies the existing harsh realities of inequality and injustice.”
The action agenda posted on the socialists’ web site very closely parallels Agenda 21, and the recommendations of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. The web site boasts the creation of the “Progressive Caucus” in Congress, as well as the coalition that is working to promote the socialist agenda in Congress.

Now you know that the third person in line for the Presidency is a socialist.

Secret Service, please make sure that President Bush and Dick Chaney are not ever again with in a mile of each other for the next two years.

Imagine this, the Democrats impeach George Bush for invading Iraq, Dick Cheney becomes president, he dies of a heart attack within weeks because of his spike in blood pressure. Nancy Pelosi becomes the first women President of the United States, and another first of much more import, America’s first Progressive Democrat president.

Sources: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html,
http://www.sovereignty.net/center/socialists.htm

Newspaper editors purged MBAs from management years ago

Newspapers have not been blessed with the best and the brightest managers. Why? The executive editors sabotage real management and have purged MBAs from their ranks. Kill off the competition.

This is from the WSJ Deal Journal column, a Q&A with Mr. Knee, a highly respected  investment consultant

DJ: What would be your advice to newspaper owners?
Knee: You have seen people outsource everything from printing to editorial and indeed, any kind of journalism where your scale in the local community does not provide you with an advantage should be gotten elsewhere. If you find out how many people the large papers sent to the national conventions, you would wonder whether that’s economically justified. You have to focus on your competitive advantage, which is local. When the smoke clears, the local newspaper, which may not be the sexiest part of the newspaper industry but is overwhelmingly the largest and most profitable part of the industry, will be a smaller and more-focused enterprise whose activities will be directed to those areas where their local presence gives them competitive advantage and they will continue to generate as a result better profits than the supersexy businesses in the media industry asking for government or nonprofit help like movies and music.

The newspaper industry has not been blessed with the best managers, and generations of monopoly profits do dull the senses. On the journalism side, I think many managers would rather have avoided a fight with journalists than actually force them to think harder about what their readers want, rather than what they want their readers to want. In the economic environment we’re in, newspapers can’t afford to do every six-part investigative series they could have done before.

Meanwhile, the rank and file newspaper reporters who were busy covering their beats, don’t make much compared to the executive editors. 

Moma don’t let you’re kids grow up to be newspaper reporters. Have them study business, engineering, law or sales, even bar tending would earn them a better living. The executive editors who scratched their way to the top make big bucks for a while, until the host dies from bad management anyway. 

Ever wonder what kind of money the nation’s top newspapers pay their best journalsits? The top rung of the latter is set by the Newspaper Guild. Once you’ve lasted five or six years after about four years at a small daily and tuition of at least $20,000 a year at a respected J-school, this is it.

New York Times pays the most, $1,675.28 a week after two years. But that’s where it stays fixed until the next Guild negotiations. Of course, New York City has the highest cost of living expenses in the U.S.

Reuters pays $1,587.93 a week after six years.

The San Francisco Chronicle pays $1202.24 a week for six years of journalist experience. I know that is top for the Guild scale, but many of the hard workers, who put in more than 38 hours a week get additional pay above scale.

Consumer Reports takes the No. 1 position with $1,80410 a week scale after four years of experience. The union-biased “non-profit” magazine pays more that the New York Times or San Francisco Chronicle for their pro-union advertorial reports on products.

Can new online newspapers chage for its content? Jeff Jarvis of the LA Times says “No!” And he explains himself very well:


How’s that for a direct answer? Every rule has its exceptions — this one only a few: The Wall Street Journal (paid by expense accounts), Consumer Reports (which serves reviews, not news), iTunes (we may play a unique performance over and over, but I don’t read even my articles more than once) and porn (which is suffering the same problem newspapers are thanks to free competition from, uh, amateurs). But the rule of the new, post-scarcity economy is clear: Charging for news online is dangerous folly. Why? Let me count the reasons if not the dollars:

Once news is known, that knowledge is a commodity and it doesn’t matter who first reported it. There’s no fencing off information, especially today, when the conversation that spreads it moves at the speed of links.

There will be no limit to competitors. Readers, like water, will follow the path of least inconvenience. It’s impossible to compete against free. Have papers learned nothing from Craigslist?

In the old-content economy, one could make much money selling many copies of a product. In today’s link economy online, we need only one copy, and it is the links to it that give it value. So rather than complaining that Google should pay them for aggregating their headlines, news organizations should be grateful that Google does not charge for the links it gives and the readers it sends. Indeed, we should be spending our effort figuring out how to get more links to original reporting to support it.

Putting your content behind a wall cuts it off from the conversation and robs it of influence. Just ask New York Times columnists how much they disliked the pay wall the paper finally demolished.

Not all newspapers are going bankrupt. Many, in small monopoly markets are among the most profitable businesses in America with profit margins much higher than oil companies, Apple, EBay, Cisco, Sprint, AT&T, Google or Microsoft.  Gannett has the lion’s share of these markets. And also the highest ratio of MBAs in the media business. 

This will be the first of many terrible years for newspapers

There are no longer any suckers left with deep pockets and the desire to buy newspapers even at fire sale prices.

Last week, Hearst CEO Victor Ganzi abruptly resigned, citing “irreconcilable policy differences” over the future direction of the company.
 
What does he mean by that? Usually executives say “I’m taking time off to spend with my family…”
The New York Times and Business Week reported that the reason for Ganzi to leave a multi-million dollar-a -year, ivory tower position was recent investments and dismal returns in newspapers. He made some bad decisions.
Fortune and Portfolio said no, that was just an obvious-suspect guess and that the conflict was really over something else. Yeah, right.  Becuase Hillary was out of the race, perhaps?
 
Hearst made its last big newspaper acquisition in November 2007, buying the Tribune’s (former Times-Mirror) dailies in the well-heeled Connecticut suburbs of Greenwich and Stamford. Hearst has also signed on to numerous joint ventures with Dean Singleton’s MediaNews (bottom feeders), bought an interest in the company and thus has been poised to take over, should Singleton falter under its heavy debt load. That would be like owning the rights to own Enron in 2006.
This has been the longest, most grueling month for newspapers. Advertising reveue continues to fall like a brick thrown out of the new Hearst building. The editors need to fire the “business side” and get things turned around. That’s the ticket.
How about editors delivering the paper before they come to work in the morning?
A not uncommon position taken by executive editors
The editors may be finding out that their ivory tower positions of filtering only the news that fits their liberal agenda is not viable any more. Each exectutive editor may want to pull their head out of their ass and look around at the massive layoffs.

Journalists are the ‘professionals’ at analyzing corporate, political, religious, social and political issues, with ‘expert’ opinion, yet they don’t understand their own industry

Mick Gregory

2008 is turning out to be the worst of times for newspaper business. Even with the drawn-out Democrat primary election, those ads are not enough to pay for the executive editors at each of the top tier papers.

The News is out. At the San Jose Mercury News, a good 2nd tier paper, reporters were instructed to wait at home on the morning of March 7. If they don’t get a phone call by 10 a.m. telling them that they’ve lost their jobs, they should head to work. This is good risk management. You don’t want any of these far left losers going postal at the office. Their security badges or smart cards will be deactivated. Take note, risk managers at small papers, these are the steps you have to take when trimming the waste at your operation.
Update: That all went down a couple of weeks ago, but like Hillary’s super delegates, the jury is still out.

This is wave two for the Merc, the other was in 1999, window dressing KR did before they dumped it on McClatchy and the “fire sale” specialists, Singleton’s group.

What’s happening in San Jose is happening
all over the nation at a slower rate. RIFs, meaning reduction in force are initiatives at newspapers to trim their biggest expense. in California it is especially harsh because of the deep crash of the real estate bubble. Regular readers of my blog saw that coming. But that’s not all. What other industry does California have besides real estate, film, vegetables and tourism? Along with real estate, advertising in related categories such as home furnishings, hardware and even big-box electronics has been slowing to a trickle.

Last month, the Los Angeles Daily News said bye-bye to 25 more editors and reporters, paring its newsroom to 100 people from nearly twice that many a few years ago. Editor Ron Kaye kept his job, but he gave the news department a tearful address to his staff.

Employees at The LA Times had a few weeks to respond to a voluntary buyout offer aimed at eliminating 100 to 150 jobs. If not enough people volunteer, layoffs will make up the balance. The answer is in. Enough buyouts this time

If Zell’s point is that the real money is in local news, the recent experience of the Daily News, the Orange County Register and the regional dailies ringing the Bay Area — all more locally oriented than The Times — has been a discouraging counter example. Their inability to keep ad revenue from falling at double-digit percentages year over year has led to staff reductions that further hobble local news coverage.

The LA Times reductions will bring the newsroom head count to below 850. At its peak about a decade ago, the newsroom had more than 1,200 employees.

The Chicago Sun-Times stock price falls to $1. It’s now a penny stock.

Shares of Sun-Times Media Group Inc. stopped trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Friday after hitting a red flag, a rule that halts transactions when a stock falls below $1.05. The stock will soon be kicked out of the exchange. The smell of death is in the air of their rented offices.

Trading halted on the floor of the NYSE when the stock opened at $1, down 11 cents from Thursday’s close.

I predicted six months ago that the Chicago Sun-Times would be the next large metro daily to shutter its doors. They sold the roof over their heads just to pay the bills and pay for the penthouse for Mr. Black (who will be living in much more spartan quarters in a federal pen).

But what will happen to all the professional journos? Maybe there will be a few openings at the Hoffman Hearld? Chicken dinner news, obits, high school sports…

Over managed editor-centric suburban papers can’t compete with the scrappy blogs all over the Internet

By Mick Gregory

The alternative blogs are much better reading than the pompus little newspapers as they continue to shed readers like a 330 pound man on a July afternoon in Las Vegas.

The St. Charles Journal wrote about a teenage girl who killed herself over two adults’ postings on MySpace. After the paper didn’t name the pair, bloggers went to work and asked for help in identifiying them. The culprits were outed and the Lee paper was criticized for declining to name them. One person writes on Jezebel.com: “I am a newspaper journalist. Every day newspaper journalism as we know it gets one step closer to death, as readers turn to blogs and TV and other media for information. This wimp of an editor, who doesn’t have the guts to name the wrongdoers involved, has just hastened our eventual demise by at least another week or two.”

Watch the in-fighting as the old rotten hulks take in water.
A good site for this is Poynteronline.org

Business Week Joins the Death Vigil of Newspapers

Mick Gregory

The coverage of the demise of the great newspaper empires is accelerating. Read this by Jon Fine of Business Week. As with Enron, mainstream magazines wait until the “body” is in decomposition before analyzing the health of the patient. How could they be objective? What makes magazines immune to the same disease of expensive, labor intensive print? Magazines have far more expensive coated paper and an expensive subscription and churn rate.

Fine’s on the right track, he’s just picked the wrong old horse. Place your bets on the Mercury News in the high tech South Bay, or the Chicago Sun Times, which is on life support now.

When Do You Stop The Presses?
Why the San Francisco Chronicle is a candidate to exit print

Play with me on this one: Which major American newspaper should be the first to throw up its hands and stop publishing a print product?

It’s a question worth asking. This could be the worst year for newspapers since the Great Depression. The double-digit revenue declines long forecast by doomsters have arrived. While nearly all the major papers still post profits, albeit smaller than before, a few prominent ones are losing boatloads. At Hearst Newspapers’ San Francisco Chronicle, according to a deposition given by James M. Asher, the company’s chief legal and business development officer, losses of $330 million piled up between mid-2000 and September, 2006, better—or should I say worse?—than $1 million a week. During negotiations with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s unions, the owning Block family disclosed that the paper lost $20 million in 2006. Late last year, The Boston Globe was headed for unprofitability as well, according to The Wall Street Journal.

And 2007 does not look materially kinder than 2006 for any of these papers. One senior executive describes the climate like this: “If you told me 24 months ago that revenues would be declining as much as they are today, I’d say you were smoking dope.” Print newspapers require maintaining a costly status quo—paper, presses, trucks, and mail rooms—that, if only through rising gas prices, will only get more expensive.

WHEN, EXACTLY, do you junk something that no longer works? And which major paper should go first—not today, but within the next 18 or 24 months?

San Francisco Chronicle, I’m looking at you.

Killing printrequires acknowledging not just that the old mode is dead but also that the future means less revenue and shrunken staffs. This is why it makes sense soonest at a money-losing newspaper already grappling with those realities, and one in a major city that generates enough local ad dollars to support a sizable online business.

On paper, San Francisco is perfect: a Web-centric town, a cash-drain daily, and private ownership. Which does not mean this will happen. San Francisco is the ancestral home of the Hearst empire, the birthplace of William Randolph Hearst and the town where he ran his first paper. It could be hard for Hearst to consider the move on those grounds alone. (In Asher’s deposition, though, he said Hearst briefly considered selling the Chronicle in 2005.)

There are attractions to the way things are today. The Chronicle claims 265,000 weekday subscribers and sells a year’s worth of home delivery for $138. Even if you assume that discount offers bring the average subscription price to $90, that’s still $23.9 million a year—not an ungodly sum, but one that nervous executives are probably loath to kiss off forever. (Distribution costs, of course, mean those dollars don’t appear for free.) But what’s more relevant, at least today, is that advertisers still pay more for ads in the newspaper than on the Web site. “Even if you double or triple it, the revenue [online] just isn’t there yet,” argues one top executive.

This is why the papers dream about getting consumers to pay for digital or online content. But water has had a hard time finding a way up that hill.

Executives might be better off wondering at what point the Globe’s Boston.com or the Chronicle’s sfgate.com—with unassailable market positions, excellent editorial, and massive traffic—will be worth more as a solo digital play than attached to a print newspaper. Or whether going all-in on digital might make their market’s ad dollars flow there more quickly, especially if they’re the only major paper in town. Or that a paper could buy tons of unsold local ad inventory from the likes of MySpace and Yahoo! (YHOO ), and then resell it profitably through its veteran sales force.

All of this requires big thinking—and spending enough to create networks of local sites and a giant local portal. And it will take a brave man or woman to pull the plug on the presses.

It almost takes a William Randolph Hearst.

For Jon Fine’s blog on media and advertising, go to http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/FineOnMedia