Early Edition

Pundits and emerging political majorities

By Ed Bishop

When Vermont Senator James Jeffords left the Republican Party last month, throwing the Senate to the Democrats, the media seemed confused. They kept asking "why now?" The pundits explained that Jeffords had retained his party affiliation through Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Newt Gingrich, even though he held fundamentally opposing views on their agendas. The pundits said Jeffords never was a "real Republican," meaning he was never a conservative Republican. But why jump ship now?

Well, if the media pundits don't know the answer to this one, what good are they? I mean the editorial writers at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch make pretty good money, not to mention the outrageous salaries for the talking heads on cable news. If these guys can't explain one of the most dramatic political moves in recent memory, they ought to find different work.

But, actually, the pundits have rarely understood American politics.

When the conservative movement began to gain momentum in the 1950s and early 60s, it had one organizing principle: the less government the better. Conservatives believed that most problems in American society could be best solved by free-market forces and that government solutions only made matters worse. They wanted to privatize just about everything, including education. They absolutely hated Social Security.

They faced a huge problem, though. The country was still basking in the prosperity of Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal." Most people thought government was a good thing. They loved Social Security. In 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson proposed sweeping new government programs to combat poverty, he defeated the conservative candidate Barry Goldwater in a landslide.

Pundits said it was the end of the conservative movement. Actually, Johnson's election marked the last time an overt leftist won the White House.

What the conservatives knew-and what the pundits were afraid to talk about-was that conservative Republicans could broaden their base by joining forces with bigots. Which they did. It was an easy fit.

The basic philosophy of the conservative movement said the federal government should stay out of everything, including a state's right to impose segregation. Almost overnight the states of the old Confederacy went Republican with a lot of Democratic politicians switching parties. Additionally, folks in the newly minted lily-white suburbs of the North and Midwest, whose parents had been Democrats, also began to vote Republican. Opposition to busing, to affirmative action, to welfare programs, all covered with shameless flag-waving, was very appealing to the suburbanites. Throw in an uneasy alliance with evangelical Christians and a new majority coalition was born.

Still, as late as 1981, the pundits of the press were saying that Reagan hadn't so much won the election of 1980 as Jimmy Carter had lost it. Within two years, though, the label "liberal" was a death sentence for a politician. Conservative Republicans began purging old-line liberal Republicans from the party. The conservative movement, with his core idea of market solutions, had become as powerful a political force as the quasi-socialist ideas of the liberal Democrats 40 years earlier.

But political movements peak and decline. Conservatism, although still strong, has lost some of its appeal. Massive deficits didn't help. And Democrats moved back to the middle. A conservative has not received the majority of votes in a presidential election since 1988. A look at the political map from this last election shows that conservatives still hold the Old South but little else. Swing states like Missouri can easily be won by a Democrat like Bill Clinton.

But pundits are always behind the curve, always analyzing an obsolete political landscape. They see the current situation as a stalemate, a 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans, rather than a movement away from conservatism.

The reason Jeffords jumped ship is because he could. The forces that held together the Republican coalition are melting away. A new political majority is forming outside of the pundits' old labels of "liberal"and "conservative." They can't see it but it's as plain as the noses on their faces. And Jeffords seems to represent this emerging consensus-economically conservative, socially liberal.

Don't worry, the pundits will be able to explain it to you in a few years.

By Charles L. Klotzer

Whether you call them the " best censored" or the " most underreported" stories of 2000, the message is the same: the mass media have failed to report on these issues and only readers of the alternative media may have gained some knowledge of the issues involved.

In 25 years, "Project Censored" located at Sonoma State University, has culled underreported stories from sources, usually alternative media, throughout the country. They receive several thousand stories each year and a crew of faulty, students and expert evaluators, through a multi-step process, select the final 25 nominations. Obviously, as "Project Censored" admits, that is a "subjective process" but the history of past selections shows that the nominations as a whole are more than justified.

Past records also indicate that about one third of the overlooked stories are "rediscovered" by the mass media in years to come and then become a topic of national interest. The shortcomings are not due to the editors or reporters on the frontline, but the limited interest of corporate media and their system, as Project Censored calls it, "of information suppression in the name of corporate profits."

1. Monsanto's billion - dollar water monopoly plans

The crisis of pollution and the depletion of global water resources is viewed as a business opportunity by Monsanto. Their logic is that population growth and economic development will apply increasing pressure on natural resources markets, making them increasingly profitable. Over the past few years, Monsanto has gained control over seeds, the first link in the food chain. Now Monsanto wants to control the very basis of life, water.

Multinational corporations are trying to monopolize water systems across the globe. San Francisco's Bechtel Enterprise now owns the water system in Cochabamba, Bolivia. When Bechtel pushed the price of water up, the entire city went on a general strike. The military killed a 17-year-old boy, arrested the water rights leader, and censored the media to support Bechtel.

Monsanto plans to realize revenues of $420 million and a net income of $63 million by 2008 from its water business in India and Mexico. By 2010, about 2.5 billion people in the world are projected to lack access to safe drinking water. At least 30 percent of the population in China, India, Mexico and the United States is expected to face severe water stress.

Monsanto is trying to establish control over water and plans to start a new water business with India and Mexico, since the two countries are facing water shortages. Also, Monsanto is exploring nonconventional financing (NGOs, World Bank, USDA, Etc.)

Corporations such as Monsanto, Bechtel and Societe d' Amenagement Urbain et Rural (SAUR), the French multinational company which has taken over the water and waste water services for the next 30 years in the town of Ballito, South Africa, are striving to monopolize the water rights in search of increased revenue.

Sources: International Forum on Globalization: Special report, June 1999 from PRIME, July 10,2000, " The Global Water Crisis and the Commodification of the World's Water supply" by Maude Barlow. / This, July / Aug 2000, " Just Add Water" by Jim Shultz / In these Times, May 15, 2000, " Water Fallout: Bolivians Battle Globalization" by Jim Shultz / Canadian Dimension Feb. 2000, "Monsanto's Billion-Dollar Water Monopoly Plans" by Vandana Shiva and "Water Fallout" by Jim Shultz / San Francisco Bay Guardian, May 31, 2000, " The Earth Wreker" by Pratap Chatterjee / Corporate News Coverage: Toronto Globe and Mail, May 11. 2001.

2. OSHA Fails to Protect U.S workers

Each year more than six million work-related injuries and illnesses occur on the job and about 6,000 workers die from accidents.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is up to the task of overseeing workplaces. The entire federal and state worker health and safety program involves just 2,300 inspectors who are responsible for America's 102 million workers at 6.7 million workplaces. This works out to one inspector for every 44,348 workers. With the current crew, it would take 110 years to be inspect each workplace just once.

The long trail of workers brutalized at factories owned by Titan International is a case in point for how OSHA is failing workers all across the United Sates. Inspectors are often denied access to the Titan factories which is a blatant defiance of the law. Since May 1998, the United Steelworkers of America has been challenging Titan with a slew of unfair labor practice charges including: illegally moving jobs and equipment to avoid a union contract, canceling health insurance, refusing to bargain in good faith, discriminating against union members, and trying to replace striking workers. One of the union demands is for every other weekend off, or a standard fifty six-hour week. Many workers don't complain to OSHA for fear of loosing their jobs.

Source: The Progressive, Feb 2000, "Losing Life and Limb on the Job" by Christopher D. Cook.

3. U.S Army 'Psyops' specialists worked for CNN

For a short time last year, CNN employed military specialist in "psychological operations" (psyops). "Psyops personnel, soldiers and officers, have been working in CNN's headquarters. Have been working in CNN's headquarters in Atlanta through our program 'Training With Industry'," said Major Thomas Collins asserted, "They worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news."

CNN had hosted a total of five interns form U.S Army psyops, two in television, two on radio, and one in satellite operations. The military / CNN personnel belonged to the air-mobile Fourth Psychological Operations Group stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C. One of the main tasks of this group of almost 1200 soldiers and officers is to spread " selected information." The propaganda group was involved in the Gulf war, the Bosnian war and the crisis in Kosovo.

In the first two weeks of the war in Kosovo, CNN produced 30 articles for the Internet. An average CNN article has seven mentions of Tony Blair, NATO spokesman like Jamie Shea and David Wilby or other NATO officials. Words like refugees, ethnic cleansing, mass killings and expulsions were used nine times on the average. The so-called Kosovo Liberation Army (0.2 mentions) and the Yugoslav civilian victims (0.3 mentions) barely existed for CNN.

Colonel Christopher St. John is Commander of the fourth Psychological Operations Group. In a military symposium on Special Operations that was held behind closed doors in Arlington, Virginia, in early February, Col. St. John said the cooperation with CNN was a textbook example of the kind of ties the American Army wants to have with the media. Still the psyops people in Arlington were not entirely satisfied with news handling during the war Serbia. In their opinion, too much information about the unplanned results of the bombings came to the surface.

Sources: Counterpunch, Feb 16, March 1,2000, "CNN and PSYOPS" by Alexander Cockburn / Foreign coverage: Trouw (Dutch daily newspaper), Feb. 21, 2000 / U.S. Coverage: National Public Radio, April 10, April 10, April 16, 2000: Tampa Tribune, April 23, 2000, TV Guide, April 2000.

4. A Tragic Mistake?

The United Sates and NATO seem to have deliberately targeted the Chinese embassy in Belgrade because it was serving as a rebroadcast station for the Yugoslavian army.

The London Observer and Copenhagen's Politiken reported that according to senior U.S and European military sources, NATO knew very well where the Chinese Embassy was located and had listed it as a "strictly prohibited target." The observer sated that the CIA and its British equivalent, M16 had been listening to communications from the Chinese Embassy as a matter of course since it moved to the site in 1996. The Chinese Embassy was taken off the prohibited target list after NATO detected it sending Yugoslavian army signals to forces in the field.

President Clinton called the bombing a "tragic mistake," the result of a mix-up. NATO claimed that they were using old maps and got the address wrong. However, a Naples based flight controller said that NATO maps they were using correctly identified the Chinese Embassy.

A French Ministry of Defense report stated that the flight that targeted the Chinese was not under NATO command, but rather an independent United States bombing raid. In July, CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress that of the 900 sites struck by NATO during the bombing campaign only one was targeted by the CIA-the Chinese Embassy.

Sources: In These Times, Dec. 12, 1999" A Tragic Mistake?" by Joel Bleifuss / In These Times, June 26,2000, " Mission Implausible" bu Seth Ackerman / Pacific News, Oct. 20, 1999, "Reports showing U.S deliberately bombed Chinese embassy deliberately ignored by U.S media" by Yoichi Shimatsu / Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, Feb 9, 2000, "NY Times on Chinese embassy bombing: Nothing to report" by Action Alert (No author given).

5. U.S taxpayers underwrite nuclear plant sales

The U.S Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) is solidly backing major U.S nuclear contractors such as Westinghouse (the owner of CBS), Bechtel and General Electric (the owner of NBC)in their efforts to seek a foreign market of nuclear reactors.

American contractors are pushing a product most people don't want, but the Ex- Im offers terms too good for Third World countries and Eastern European buyers to pass up. Most host countries do not have the capital to back the nuclear power market, so contractors, in order to be competitive, must provide 100 percent of the financing. When the host country defaults on their loan, the Ex-Im steps in with American taxpayer dollars.

In Turkey, the Ex-Im has approved a preliminary loan in support of a Westinghouse-led consortium's $3.2 billion bid to build the Akkyu plant (on an active fault line). The Clinton Administration has allowed American contractors to sell reactors to China, even though Beijing refuses top abide by nonproliferation rules established by the international Atomic energy Act.

The Temlin plant in Prague, while not complete was pushed by the Ex-Im to go online May 2000 despite the faulty design, the sufficient levels of energy that already exist in the country, and Dutch investors pulling out.

Sources: The Progressive, March 2000, " Pushing the Nuclear Plants: A U.S Agency Hooks Foreign Clients" by Ken Silverstein and Ian Urbina

6. U.S blamed for genocide in Rwanda

Bill Clinton and his administration allowed the genocide of 500,000 to 800,000 people in Rwanda claiming he was unaware of the horrific nightmare that had occurred.

A panel established by the Organization of African Unity concluded that the nations and international bodies that could have attempted to stop the killing chose not to do so. The report, which received modest but insufficient media coverage, convincingly condemns the United Nations, Belgium (a former colonial occupier), France (which maintained close relations with Rwanda) and the United States. The report found that after the genocide began, the Clinton Administration choose to believe that it was not, in fact, taking place. Under the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, once genocide is recognized, the nations of the world are obligated to prevent the killings and to punish the murderers.

Canadian Lieutenant-General Romeo Dalaire, who was in charge of UN peacekeeping forces in Rwanda, says he believes he could have stopped much of the slaughter had he been granted more troops; U.S. intervention resulted in no new troops. As the genocide proceeded, the Clinton administration went along with ---or forced---- the UN security Council decision to reduce Dallaire's force to what the OAU report calls " a derisory 270 men," And as the carnage continued, " the UN dithered in organizing any kind of response to the ongoing tragedy."

Sources: Alternet, July 25, 2000, "Loyal Opposition: Clinton Allowed Genocide," by David Corn / Covertaction Quarterly, Spring / Summer 2000, " The Role of the U.S Millitary," by Ellen Ray.

7. Study point to dangers of genetically altered foods

In 1999, the first independent, noncorporate-sponsored study analyzing genetically engineered food was performed.

The study had been undertaken to determine whether or not the particular genes being spliced into the genome could have a harmful effect on mammals. Preliminary data from the study suggests something even more startling. The actual process of genetic alteration itself may cause damage to the mammalian digestive and especially, immune systems. This could cause serious problems to people ingesting genetically altered food over the long term.

When the results did not agree with the position taken by the biotech industry there was an immediate and overwhelming response. Even though the well-respected scientific journal Lancet found the study valid enough to print in their magazine, the study was discontinued and a media campaign of derision and skepticism was begun.

Sources: In These Times, January 10, 2000, " No small (Genetic) Potatoes" by Joel Bleifuss / Extra! May / June 200, " Genetic Gambling" by Karen Charman / Multinational Monitor, Jan / Feb. 2000, " Don't Ask, Don't Know" by Ben Lilliston.

8. Companies push forced drug treatment

Pharmaceutical companies are funding the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI). NAMI, in turn, promotes a program of in-home forced drug treatment. The money is funneled through a sub organization of NAMI called the " NAMI Campaign to End Discrimination."

There is a clear conflict of interest here since the pharmaceutical companies are reaping profits from the drugs the patients are members of Congress, " one of NAMI's key core goal is to bring the {forced drugging} program into every state in the USA by 2002."

In addition, pharmaceutical companies provide perks (such as tickets to sporting events) and outright compensation to doctors for their participation in the prescribing of particular drugs to their mental health patients.

Sources: Washington Monthly, May 12, 200, "Drug Rush" by Stephen Pomper ? Mojo Wire Magazine, Nov./ Dec. 1999, "Prozac.org" by Ken Silverstein / Dendron #43, spring 2000, " NAMI: The Story Behind the Story" by David Oaks / Networker, March / April 2000, "Exposing the Myth makers by Barry Duncan, Scott Miller, Jacqueline Sparks.

9. EPA plans to pump contaminated water into sewage system

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to pump contaminated water into Denver's sewer system. Between 1950 and 1980's, at Lowry Landfill near Denver, millions of gallons of hazardous industrial wastes were let into shallow unlined pits. The EPA wants to treat the contaminated ground water at the landfill and discharge it into the Denver metro sewage system. The sewage system would then use the sludge from the treated water to fertilize Colorado farmlands.

Citizens groups are disturbed about the notion and say the landfill is widely contaminated with highly radioactive plutonium and other deadly wastes. Plutonium is one of the deadliest substances on the planet. According to Adrienne Anderson, a lawyer and instructor at the University of Boulder, the plan is a way to " . . . legally pump plutonium into the sewer line."

In 1991, a document was hand-delivered to the EPA stating that the levels of plutonium and radioactive americium "detected at Lowry Landfill are 10 to 10,000 times greater that the average or maximum background levels reported for Rocky Flats." The Rocky Flats is the notorious nuclear weapons plants near Boulder. The polluters include Adolph Coors, Lockheed Martin, the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News, Hewlett Packard, IBM and Waste Management.

Citizens concerns have caught the attention of senior EPA officials. The agency's inspector general, after receiving a petition bearing over 7,000 signatures, has initiated an investigation of region 8's cleanup activities at Lowry.

Source" The Progressive, May 2000, "Plutonium Pancakes" by Will Fantle

10. Immigrants used to keep salaries low

High-tech companies in Silicon Valley are responsible for exploiting immigrant contractors and in some cases subjecting them to conditions akin to indentured servitude. Under pressure from the high-tech sector, Congress is ignoring the industry's unfair labor practices and plans to dramatically increase the number of H1-B visas issued to foreign engineers, especially in India and other parts of Asia. Silicon Valley will benefit by gaining skilled workers who accept salaries and labor conditions that their American counterparts would reject.

Contractors on H1-B visas complain of industry abuses including salary withholdings, forced overtime, and threats of deportation. Because their employers have the power to affect their immigration status, immigrant high-tech workers are often afraid to stand up for themselves. As contract workers, they also lack the right to organize, making them especially vulnerable to exploitation.

High-tech companies claim that a domestic labor shortage justifies the use of immigrant contractors with H1-B visas. Labor advocates counter that the problem is not a labor shortage, but the industry's unwillingness to pay the salaries that American high-tech workers demand. Moreover, use of immigrant labor protects high-tech companies from strikes and union demands. Civil right groups add that if Silicon Valley companies were interested in increasing the domestic labor market, they could train American workers- and approach that could also increase minority representation in the high-tech sector. The industry's resistance on immigrant workers is not about a domestic labor shortage but about a desire for independent employees and higher profits.

Sources: Labor Notes, Sept. 2000, "Immigrants Find High -Tech Servitude in Silicon Valley" by David Bacon / Washington Free Press, July / Aug. 2000, " Silicon Valley Sweatshops" by David Bacon / Corporate Media Coverage, San Francisco Chronicle, Sept 29, 2000.

Letters

Do better

SJR: Hard work, dogged reporting and courage would be my answer to your headline in your May issue (Crusade: What drove Carolyn Tuft and the Post-Dispatch in the Woidtke case?)

A couple of clarifications about your story: The Post did not attempt to get Editor & Publisher magazine to do a cover story on Carolyn. To suggest that, Carolyn and/or the Post even had that ability or that E&P could be gotten, is not only naive, but inaccurate.

The unsubstantial and unsourced claim that Carolyn is "prize-obsessed" is not a commonly held belief in the newsroom. There's just no evidence to support that. Furthermore, to suggest the Post is concerned mostly about its reputation and to link that to our coverage of Woidtke is just plain silly. Carolyn "all made up for the camera" when Dateline did a story on her and Woidtke? C'mon.

Sorry. Much of your story was fair. But a handful of specific lines came off as mean-spirited and petty. You're capable of better.

Arnie Robbins

Managing Editor

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Shame on SJR

SJR: Your May 2001 article on Carolyn Tuft is one of the worst pieces of journalism I have ever read. It is filled with lies and inaccuracies. I do not know where the information for this article came from, but you folks need to check your sources a little closer.

Shame on you Roy Malone! Are you the same Roy Malone that I know who used to work for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch?

I do not know one reporter here who believes Carolyn Tuft is "prize-obsessed." As a matter of fact, prizes are the farthest thing from her mind, although she certainly deserves a prize for her Woidtke efforts. She is probably the best investigative reporter we will see for a long time, and I believe SJR and Roy Malone owe her an apology. I cannot sign this respectfully!

Robert Bradley

staff artist

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

High water

SJR: With the recent spate of high water and the resulting challenges to navigation on the Mississippi, the river has been in the news on a more regular basis. When bad things-and even good things-happen on the river the local media should take care to get the terminology right.

A group of barges lashed together and tied to a towboat (please don't call it a tugboat) is referred to as a tow, not a barge.

Tugboats are not found in this part of the country. Smaller boats that assemble tows and move barges from one fleet to another are generally called fleet boats, harbor boats or switch boats.

When somebody falls off of a tow and into the river and the body is later recovered, it is more accurate to refer to the deceased as a towboat worker or towboat crewmember, not a barge worker or tugboat worker.

Do not rely on Coast Guard public affairs to use the right terminology. While they're nice people, most of them are blue water sailors.

Ed Rahe

Sales Manager

The Waterways Journal Weekly

Rabbit stew

SJR: With regard to your article concerning KXOK Radio I feel an incumbency to offer the following:

In early 1962 I created the name Johnny Rabbitt which I used on air at KXOK until mid-1964. During that period of dramatic increases in KXOK's ratings, we created a new sound in St. Louis radio and I was particularly honored as being the deejay in this area to break The Beatles and help start the British Invasion. I left KXOK for WIL and due to legal issues over my personally created name I settled in court to retain joint ownership of the Johnny Rabbitt name, image and all colorable imitations thereof. At that time I opted to take a position with KEWB in San Francisco where I introduced The Beatles, at their suggestion, at The Cow Palace. After I left KXOK, of my own accord, the station hired another person to carry on with the name and successes I built. That era ended in 1969.

Storz Broadcasting gave me full ownership of the name in 1975 and I returned to KXOK as Johnny Rabbitt remaining there using the Rabbitt name and persona until 1982 when the station switched to an all-talk format. I am the Johnny Rabbitt mentioned in "Chet; Radio Pioneer"the 1980 autobiography of former KXOK manager Chet Thomas. Since 1988 I have been continuously using my Johnny Rabbitt name on WIL and now WRTH. For the past 4 years I have also taken the name to television with regular reports on KSDK (Channel 5). I have used the Rabbitt name consistently since 1962. My articles and columns have appeared in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, the St. Louis Inquirer, the new St. Louis Globe-Democrat and the Clayton West End Word. My book, "Johnny Rabbitt's 1,001 St. Louis Trivia Questions," has been a local best seller since 1998.

My career and history as the original Johnny Rabbitt have been documented in many publications including front page articles in Profile St. Louis, the Riverfront Times and the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. I have been honored with front page feature spreads in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Belleville News-Democrat. In a Post readers' poll, I was voted "the Johnny Rabbitt most influential" in St. Louis.

A paragraph in your story indicated Woodrow Wilson "Bud" Connell was manager. Actually, the manager of KXOK (from 1941 to mid-1964) was Chet Thomas. Connell was program director. Ramond Oddis (Ray Otis) was hired as a disc jockey after Connell and I heard an audition tape in which Otis's voice sounded much like Ed Wilson who had just been hired at WIL. Jack Sampson replaced Thomas as KXOK's manager.

Incidentally, the lighted plastic letters displayed horizontally facing Kingshighway Memorial Boulevard at Radio Park which previously had vertically graced the northwest corner of the old St. Louis Star-Times building at 12th Street and Delmar Boulevard were green-not red.

You can't forget the past, any more than you can change it.

Ron (Johnny Rabbitt) Elz

P.S. I am, and since 1962 have been, the only person recognized by AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) as Johnny Rabbitt.

Dreary elite

SJR: In his defense of our mutual friend, Bill Woo, and former boss, Joseph Pulitzer, for allegedly being elitists (SJR May 2001), Harper Barnes reports that both "assiduously avoided being part of the dreary local establishment."

That baits two questions:

1) What is the "local establishment?"

2) How does Harper know it's dreary?

John R. Bell II

The Bell Group

St. Louis, Mo.

Sports/Media

Post sports section too narrow

By Joe Pollack

Just before the ice melted, we managed to get the local hockey season over for another year, or at least for another few months-almost two months into the baseball season, and at least a month before those other so-called winter sports, hockey and basketball, finally will conclude.

Once again, the Blues missed the chance to carry Lord Stanley's cup around the ice, but I think they had a good season. Watching them a handful of times in person (the constant, amplified noise at 14th and Clark is almost as headache-provoking as that at Broadway and Delmar) was good entertainment, and I liked watching the telecasts, too, especially in the "mute" mode. Radio was less fun because Kelly Chase kept begging for more violence and encouraging cheap shots, promoting the only type of hockey action that enabled him to reach the big leagues. He and Kevin Slaten seem like two of a kind.

Reading the St. Louis Post-Dispatch a couple of days after the final made me think the Blues hadn't won a game all year. I knew they were not a great team but I had not realized they were that bad. With Dave Luecking harassing the players and Tom Wheatley on the case of Joel Quenneville, the gloom and doom were over-emphasized, but then again, the end of the Blues' season affected more than just the players. Several writers also lost their expense-paid trips to the Stanley Cup finals.

But then, maybe my approach to hockey, and to other sports, is different. I enjoy sports. I enjoy watching fine athletes perform just as I enjoy watching fine actors, musicians and dancers perform. But I don't take any game personally unless I've bet on it.

This is largely because of my father, a confirmed cynic and curmudgeon as well as a man who enjoyed sports, music, theater and other activities.

"When they start to worry about what you do, then you can start to worry about what they do," he advised often, as I moped about a Dolph Camilli strikeout or another loss for my beloved Brooklyn Dodgers.

And gee whiz, would you believe I've never worried for a single minute? After all, a sporting event is not as important as an election, though newspaper space might sometimes make one think differently.

The Post over-covered the Blues, as usual. I wish they'd sent someone to another series or two, so we could have a little more analysis of the other teams in the competition. Then I might have known more about the Avalanche based on what I had learned about earlier series. I think four Blues stories per day would have been sufficient, and the space could have been used to expand our knowledge of all hockey. The same is true, by the way, in terms of baseball and football playoff coverage. Our city and its newspaper have become far too narrow in their vision.

Wheatley seems to make the most sense when it comes to hockey analysis; his take on Quenneville and his handling of Roman Turek seemed mature and well-reasoned. I'm sure Turek has played his last game for the Blues. As Wheatley said, a goalie's most important emotional asset is confidence, and Turek seems to have lost some of his. If he comes back and starts in goal again, my guess is that someone in the organization will have overruled Quenneville, whom I admire as a coach.

Bernie Miklasz is usually a very readable columnist, but he's certainly a fan, which means he's euphoric one day and depressed the next.

It's okay, but I prefer the curmudgeonly type ...

• • •

And that leads us to Leonard Koppett, who has been writing about baseball since 1949. The round-faced, bespectacled Koppett, a joy to listen to in any press room, is more-or-less retired, but like many of us with ink in the blood, he finds pleasure in debate and a moment of curmudgeonliness.

Koppett worked for the New York Post in his early days, then moved to The New York Times, primarily as a baseball writer.

Eventually, he convinced The Times to send him to the West Coast, where he lived and covered sporting events up and down the coast, and he still lives in the Palo Alto, Calif., area. His book, "The Thinking Fan's Guide to Baseball," a decade old, has been revised and published in paperback, and I recommend it to anyone interested in the game.

He recently wrote a piece for The Times, criticizing Commissioner Bud Selig and the pooh-bahs of baseball for their recent drive to downsize the game, to eliminate teams like Tampa Bay and Florida, based in Miami, who, says Selig, have no chance of winning pennants.

Hogwash! Leonard and I agree. We in St. Louis can give him the Browns, as Koppett pointed out.

This team, owned by the father of current Cardinal owner Bill DeWitt, won one (yes, one) pennant in 54 years here in River City. They finished in the second division 41 times. The Washington Senators won three pennants in 60 years, the Philadelphia Phillies two in 68 years, the Boston Bees/Braves two in 53 years before they moved to Milwaukee. There are other examples but these will do for the time being, though let me take a moment for a point of personal privilege and note the Brooklyn Dodgers, a laughing-stock team synonymous with "Wait till next year." From 1921 through 1940, they rarely finished in the first division. The Cubs and White Sox, representing the nation's second city, also fall into this category.

Meanwhile, in the years between World Wars, the Yankees and the Giants, the Tigers and the Cardinals were dominant. The Cardinals didn't have a lot of money, but they had the wisdom to devise the farm system, and they had Branch Rickey. When he moved on to Brooklyn, the Dodgers' golden years began. The As had three pennant winners, the Reds two. The Yankees represented New York then as now, and they probably had the highest payroll, then as now.

In the 1930s and '40s, before there was much radio revenue or any television revenue, the Yankees and Tigers had the most attendance, and therefore the most revenue, and won 15 pennants in 20 years. In the National League, the Giants, Dodgers and Cubs (three largest cities) had the most revenue and won 10 pennants.

What's the point?

Not much, except that the large cities with the fat wallets always have dominated in baseball and probably always will. There still is room for the "small-market" teams to play well, draw well and win games, but it isn't easy. Florida won a World Series, then fell victim to Wayne Huizinga's greed ,and angry fans watched as the team was humiliated. They've had their revenge, however, and simply refuse to buy tickets for the games or to support plans for a new stadium, which will do less good there than it will here. In spite of George Steinbrenner, baseball must come up with some sort of revenue-sharing and salary cap systems.

Off the Record

Kudos to Post

St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnists and editorial page pundits have been in generally strong support of making the public and the taxpayers foot the bill for a new baseball stadium, and therefore it was newsworthy and interesting, and even courageous, for the newspaper to print a list of major political contributions by owners of the Cardinals.

The list of 20 people included 16 whose money went almost solely to George W. Bush and the Republicans, two whose money went to Al Gore and the Democrats and two, who backed every horse by sending similar amounts to both major parties and their candidates.

The Democratic partisans were Michael Pulitzer and his wife, Ceil, who donated more than $50,000 to various Democratic political committees to support candidates like Richard Gephardt, Mel Carnahan and Francis Slay.

Considerable money also went to Democratic Congressional campaign committees.

The largest donor overall was David Pratt, who kicked in slightly more than a half-million dollars, mainly to the Republican National Committee, with some for the Bush Inaugural Party and such individual candidates as Jay Nixon, Kit Bond, Bush and New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

About $15,000 behind him was Stephen Brauer, who kicked in nearly a half-million dollars to Bush, John Ashcroft, Jim Talent, the Missouri Republican Committee and the Bush Inaugural Committee. He also sent a large check to Giuliani. However, Brauer already has received what he sought to buy-he's newly confirmed as the ambassador to Belgium.

By the way, Belgium must be a key spot. Another Cardinal owner, Mercer Reynolds, who gave Bush and friends some $200,000 less than Brauer did, was only named ambassador to Switzerland. Obviously, the Cardinals lead the league in owners who also are ambassadors. A team trip to Europe may be next.

Bill DeWitt and his son, William III, contributed about $396,000 to many Republican committees and to a string of candidates that included Bush, Ashcroft, Slay-and Clarence Harmon, who got $625.

Despite all the money they donated, the Cardinals' owners made another blunder in their relations with Missouri legislators when, for the first time in about a half-century, the team stopped giving free passes to Busch Stadium to all lawmakers and their staffs.

-Joe Pollack

Swinging

Like most other businesses that registered declines, radio saw a dip in commercials in 2000. Nielsen Monitor Plus surveyed 17 markets, according to an article published in the April 20 issue of R&R, and the 237 stations showed a 1 percent drop in ads. The slowdown was evident in the third and fourth quarters. Some Wall Street analysts lowered their projections for the nation's major radio groups based on a continuation of the revenue decline through the first quarter of this year.

Anyone prone to speculation might predict some property spinoffs if revenues fail to cover corporate debt service. Those mega-broadcasters who created the buying frenzy following the Telecom Act of 1996 may end up putting some of those stations back on the market, which could once again change the dynamics of the industry. Watch out for the swinging pendulum.

-Frank Absher

Face-lift

Time was when newspaper advertising sales people could consider themselves doing honorable work as part of an honorable profession. Today, the underpinnings of honor are as shaky as . . . as a fiddler on a roof, or so went Sheldon Harnick's lyric.

Take the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer, one of the Knight-Ridder flagships, pre-St. Louis Post-Dispatch home to Foster Davis and Cole Campbell. Anyway, the Observer recently made its pages slightly narrower, a saving on newsprint but a possible irritant to advertisers, who continued to pay for a page, or a half-page, and discovered that there was less room on a page today than there was yesterday.

Well, in an effort to help the ad sales people paper over the problem, the Observer honchos distributed a memo to the advertising department with some suggested verbiage. Jim Romanesko, former Minneapolis newspaperman who now works for Poynter but who brightens the web with a delightful column of news, gossip, backbiting and other information about journalism and journalists, got hold of it and discussed it.

Discouraged phraseology included (with quotation marks dropped for easier reading): Shrinking the page, Narrower, Smaller, Reduced size, Change. Positive, acceptable descriptions for the changed page size were: New size, Easier to use, New and improved, New and user-friendly format, Updated look and feel, Product improvement, Fresh new approach, Adjusted page size, Easier to handle, fold and read. Most egregious of all was: Environmentally conscious.

-Joe Pollack

Reporter bites newspaper

It isn't as strong as "Man Bites Dog," but "Reporter Sues Newspaper" is rather effective in that genre. The story began in March 1999, in San Jose, Calif., when Chris Nolan, a reporter and columnist for the Mercury News, got a chance to buy some stock in a company's initial stock offering.

Nolan, who wrote about Silicon Valley and its gossip, bought 500 shares of Autoweb.com at $14 a share. The deal came through Dean DeBiase, chief executive of the company and a long-time friend of Nolan.

She said she asked one of her editors about the purchase and received neither a favorable nor an unfavorable response. So she bought the stock, and then sold it shortly thereafter and made about $9,000, and got a chance to make a little more when Fortune Magazine gave her a contract to write a free-lance piece about the adventure.

She had told some co-workers, and she again told her superiors, or so she said. Again, no one disapproved, and then The Wall Street Journal got wind of the deal and the article, and wrote about it on July 15. Nolan promptly was suspended, then reassigned to the Redwood City, Calif., bureau, akin to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist being reassigned to North County, and was publicly criticized for an "unethical stock trade" by David Yarnold, executive editor.

A month later, she wrote a long letter in her own defense to Knight-Ridder and the Mercury-News which was not printed by the newspaper but which eventually made its way to a web site. She said none of her editors would get into a conversation with her about her plans to buy or to write, and added, "But things changed as soon as The Journal piece appeared and the Merc did what lots of organizations do when they're criticized. It shifted the blame away from the organization to me, one employee, using its full power as a daily newspaper to decry my behavior and ethics."

The Mercury News ethics policy, which dates to 1984, forbids business writers from investing in local businesses, and forbids staff members from making news decisions about companies in which they have a financial interest.

Nolan left the newspaper in November 1999, to take a job as a San Francisco-based columnist for the New York Post, and filed a sex discrimination action against her former employer with the EEOC, and a labor arbitration complaint through the San Jose Newspaper Guild. She also was about to file a claim under the California Equal Pay Act, seeking a total of about $1.5 million.

But sometime last month, Nolan and the Mercury News resolved their problems and reached a settlement.

Terms, of course, were not disclosed.

-Joe Pollack

10 Worst

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) named the 10 Worst Enemies of the Press for 2001 on World Press Freedom Day, May 3. Making the press-tyranny list for two consecutive years are Liberian President Charles Taylor; President of China Jiang Zemin and Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Novice press offenders to CPJ's list are Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Colombian paramilitary leader Carlos Castaño.

President of Cuba, Fidel Castro, was placed back on the list for the seventh time. Tunisian President Zine al-abdine Ben Ali is a four-year veteran. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad made his third appearance. Ukranian President Leonid Kuchma was also placed back on the roster, returning from his 1999 debut.

Since August 2000, President Taylor threw eight journalists in jail for espionage and threatened local media with "ferocious" behavior causing several papers to close shop.

Chinese President Zemin, known for his "Big Brother" policies regarding the Internet, jailed 22 journalists-more than any other country-at the end of last year.

Iran's Khamenei ousted more than 30 papers and jailed liberal journalists-nine of whom remain imprisoned.

Zimbabwe's Mugabe continues to police the Internet while following up censorship threats with bomb attacks.

Russia's Putin and the Kremlin have censored Chechnya, tormented private media organizations and closed a Moscow daily.

Castaño, leader of the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), was charged with the 1999 murder of commentator and political satirist Jaime Garzón. The AUC has allegedly murdered at least three other journalists.

Cuba's Castro discovered a new form of oppressing media-arresting journalists and dropping them off hundreds of miles from their homes. CPJ cites Cuba as the only country in the Western Hemisphere currently holding a journalist in jail for his work.

CPJ exposed Tunisia's Ben Ali for having one of the most heavily self-censored presses in its region. Ben Ali's totalitarian propagandists intimidate, threaten and even physically abuse opposition journalists.

Malaysia's Mohamad is also considering regulating the Internet, while continuing to block international news magazines that mention his country, citing the articles as "unfair."

The Ukraine's Kuchma is thought to have directed the murder of Internet editor Georgy Gongadze last year and has continued to censor opposition newspapers.

CPJ's Executive Director Ann Cooper said, "We hope that by naming these 10 press tyrants, we can focus world attention on their deeds and, by exposing them, bring about change."

-Holly Rauch

Drink up

The American Journalism Review, whose May issue showed courage in the face of corporate (read Knight-Ridder) greed, made statements that showed off the individualism and freewheeling style that always have made journalism such a wonderful world in which to live and work.

This long-time reporter has said similar things for years, but it was nice to see an establishment voice like AJR quote Michael Griffin of the Orlando Sentinel in his column marking the end of 17 years of political writing.

Griffin wrote: "Drinking, once the heart and soul of good political reporting, has become a lost art. Reporters don't hang out in bars and get into discussions with campaign staffers much any more. Reporters eat salads and then go to the gym to work out. Campaign staffers get off the bus, grab a bottle of water and go to their hotel rooms to read e-mail."

-Joe Pollack

Channels

Bedian leaves Channel 5

By Tripp Frohlichstein

KSDK (Channel 5) is essentially eliminating its powerhouse community relations department. No longer will it be its own department. It will resurface as a new employee working in the marketing department. That means eliminating two full-time people and one part-time person (actually eliminated in December).

"It was a business decision," said Channel 5 insiders.

But General Manager Lynn Beall says otherwise. She says the change is philosophical. The station will hire a community relations manage to work within the marketing department. Beall says it is a hybrid position that will be dedicated both to the community and strengthening the station's on-the-air marketing direction. "By being part of the marketing department," Beall says, "we will focus on each individual event such as the 'Race To The Cure' and see how we can make it bigger than the year before."

Will this work? Part of what drives the station's ratings is its reputation as a major community player. Its "do-good"programs make a big difference to lots of groups and people in the region.

They may well attract viewers who are loyal to Channel 5 because the station helped them (or their group). It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that if the station isn't careful and the "marketing" part consumes the "good for the community" part, it could cost viewers and, ultimately, advertising dollars.

The community relations department has accomplished much for the community including zillions of hours of volunteer time through the Volunteer 5 program worth millions of dollars to not-for-profit groups. Telethons, walk co-sponsorships, talent appearances and other events all made our community better. Even if they try to continue these worthwhile efforts with a single coordinator, there is a chance some will wither at best and die at worst. After all, there is a net loss of one full-time staffer and one part-time staffer.

Lisa Bedian, who ran the department and handled station public relations, lost her job. Whoever picks her up will get quite a talent. Jeanine Meyer, who has worked with Lisa for several years, also got the boot.

Beall acknowledged their talents. "It is nothing to do with Lisa or Jeanine. They have done a good job, but this is more my vision of where it needs to be down the road," Beall explained.

When asked why she wasn't moving Bedian to the new position, she said based on her conversations with Bedian, "I don't believe Lisa is interested."

Bedian acknowledged she probably wouldn't be interested in that type of job.

She said she was looking forward to moving on. In fact, on the same day the news came out, she received several inquiries.

Bedian said she was proud of what she contributed to the community through Channel 5. She pointed to her starting the Volunteer 5 program and the Friend-to-Friend Breast Cancer project, to name a couple.

Jeff Winget is director of marketing and promotion, and takes over the public-relations function.

The Channel 5 newsroom will feel the loss, said anchor Karen Foss.

"I am really sad about it," Foss said. "I feel Lisa did a great job of helping us focus on the community. She and Jeanine were great about coordinating our appearances.

"I do not know how we are going to do without them. Lisa brought focus and organization."

Foss was concerned the station might go back to the way it used to operate on a "catch-as-catch-can basis." Foss said, "I will miss her help and guidance."

Beall said her most important message is the commitment to the community will remain strong. I believe her. The question is, will this new way of doing community relations be able to match up to her promise?

• • •

I used to admire Channel 5 for keeping its NBC-related news stories to a minimum. So imagine my disappointment when they ran not the normal one-part cover story but a two-part cover story on the newest NBC game show, "The Weakest Link." Unfortunately for the normally talented Leisa Zigman, she drew the short straw and traveled to the west coast to interview the show's acerbic host Anne Robinson. Part one was so worthless and devoid of real information, I passed on part two.

Hey, Channel 5, give Zigman the more thoughtful and harder news stories and let someone else do the fluff. Oh, and put that fluff somewhere other than the 10 p.m. news when valuable news time is limited.

• • •

Okay, maybe that cover story was a waste of time but Channel 5 is bragging, and rightfully so, that three of the station's cover stories during the May ratings bore results.

On April 27, the station aired a story on how valets at BJC were mistreating vehicles including breaking the speed limit with other people's cars. After the report, BJC made policy changes as a result and reviewed all of the employees.

On April 30, Zigman (in a report more worthy of her time) revealed that pressure-treated lumber used in playground construction has arsenic that can leech into ground water (unless the wood has been sealed). Kids who are playing on these playgrounds are being exposed to higher levels of arsenic. As a result, the St. Louis County Council outlined a plan of action that includes removing public picnic tables with pressure-treated lumber and sealing all public bridges, walkways and decks every two years.

The St. Louis County and Madison County health departments both say they are going to look at resealing playgrounds.

The Fairview Heights community also plans to seal the wood at playgrounds.

The Missouri Health Department issued several recommendations from washing hands to not putting pressure-treated lumber in vegetable gardens.

Both Missouri and Illinois state governments said they are reviewing what else should be done.

On May 17, Deanne Lane reported on danger at a Jefferson County fireworks plant, Pyro Products, Inc. There have been two explosions at the company facility. Her story featured an interview with a former employee who expressed great concerns over safety. As a result of Lane's report, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) is expected to announce a reopening of its investigation of the plant.

• • •

The May Neilsen ratings headline is simple: "Little Change."

KTVI (Channel 2) continues its slow push toward higher ratings (except at 5 p.m. where it is basically steady;) KDNL (Channel 30) remains a virtual non-entity in the early local news race (although it has gained a bit at 10 p.m.), and in a year-to-year comparison, Channel 5 has increased its first-place lead over KMOV (Channel 4).

Channel 5's Lynn Beall credits newsroom management for the continuing success. "(News director) Mike Shipley has been outstanding and has put together a great team," Beall said. She also noted News Planning Manager Ava Ehrlich's work in putting together cover stories that bring in viewers.

In the morning news race, the race remains virtually steady. From 6 a.m. until 7 a.m., Channel 5 is still ahead with a 9.2 rating and a 36 share (see below for an explanation of rating and share). Channel 4 garnered a 3.7 rating and a 15 share and Channel 2 came in with a 3.1 rating and a 12 share.

At noon, Channel 4 is making a race of it, trailing Channel 5 by only 7/10ths of a rating point. In May 2000, the difference was 1.8 rating points.

Although it doesn't face other news programs, Channel 5's "Show Me St. Louis" is the ratings winner over all other programming at 3 p.m.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the news race is at 9 p.m. Channel 2's entry into the 9 p.m. time slot has had a detrimental impact on KPLR (Channel 11). In May of 2000, Channel 2 had a slight lead over Channel 11. A year later, Channel 11 has lost a great deal of ground and trails Channel 2 by quite a bit.

The February 2001 ratings are included to show the difference in February viewing patterns as opposed to May. In February, the sun goes down early and the weather keeps us inside. By May, the later sunsets and warmer weather tend to reduce television viewing.

A rating point in St. Louis equals about 11,200 homes. A share point means that one of every 100 homes with their television on at a particular time is watching a specific station. A 27 share for station "X" would mean that 27 of every 100 homes with their televisions on are watching station "X." (Actually, the electronic measurement system lets Nielsen know the TV is on but not necessarily if people are actually watching).

Radio History

We're talking obscure here . . .

By Frank Absher

When the radio business caught fire in the early 1920s, there were several major types of owners, each with good reasons to build radio stations. Newspapers used their stations to promote their papers, broadcasting news and telling listeners they could read more in the next edition. Communications companies like AT&T and Westinghouse would realize immediate benefits as people bought radios: AT&T leased phone lines for programming and Westinghouse sold radios to consumers. In many cities department stores also owned stations to sell radios to listeners.

Here in St. Louis, Stix, Baer & Fuller built WCK in 1922, broadcasting its first program April 18 from 6:45 p.m. to 8 p.m. on 360 meters (approximately 830 Kc.) Mary Jones was in charge of programming, which was aired Monday, Wednesday and Friday evenings. St. Louis Mayor Henry Kiel opened the show, which originated from the 11th floor studios of the downtown Stix building. There were musical numbers performed by former Metropolitan Grand Opera soprano Agnes Hanick, her sister Florence Hanick and the Rush Musical Company.

While this may not sound terribly enlightening or entertaining, it was standard fare on radio through the decade of the '20s. Three years later the station announced it would broadcast exercise classes at 7 a.m. "Tune in on the radio and take on a manly waistline this week" read the lead in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat on Jan. 18, 1925. The "first-of-its kind" broadcast in St. Louis only required a Turkish towel as exercise equipment, and although they "had never been taught to women heretofore...the exercises are equally healthful in their case."

The station was now at 1100 Kc, although there is no documentation showing all its frequency assignments. We do know that WCK changed its call letters about this time to WSBF, reflecting the name of its owner. A publication of the Missouri Historical Society incorrectly stated WSBF signed on in 1922. It also quoted Arthur Baer as saying the station " ... was a great new advertising opportunity, so we thought we should try it." At least one researcher, Mark Roberts, says WCK and WSBF may have been two completely different and separately licensed stations.

Apparently Mr. Baer's interest in supporting a radio station began to wane. On the evening of Feb. 27, 1928, a Miss Hatfield told listeners that WSBF would no longer broadcast. She told newspaper reporters she was not authorized to say anything about the reasons behind the company's decision.

Several months later WSBF rose from the ashes under the ownership of Mississippi Valley Broadcasting. It signed on June 12, 1927, with studios on the mezzanine of the Claridge Hotel. Directors were Michael Bass, president of the St. Louis Public School Patrons' Alliance, J.B. Toles, and Gene Jordan. The trio pledged to work with the public schools in St. Louis.

WSBF was listed at 1160 Kc early in 1928, but had been deleted by the Federal Radio Commission by the end of that year.

More reporting needed on 'Star Wars'

By Don Corrigan

Some officials in the current Bush administration tout it as "Star Wars II," a simple revival of the high-tech Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)‚ first unveiled during President Ronald Reagan's administration.

While we no longer have to worry about a full-scale nuclear attack from a now-defunct Soviet Union, the Bush officials contend that we do need a space defense to protect us from missile attack by "rogue states" and terrorists.

They also contend that the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty should be scrapped as obsolete and immoral, because it is based on the premise of mutually assured destruction-the idea that no one will start a nuclear war since it can't be won, because no one can defend against it.

Additionally, Bush officials contend this new version of Star Wars will come at a relatively small price tag of about $60 billion-a small amount to pay to save American cities from a destructive launch by terrorists or a terrorist state.

Charles J. Guenther Jr., once a senior design engineer at McDonnell-Douglas (now Boeing) and now a full professor of engineering and technology at St. Louis Community College at Meremac, finds plenty of technical and moral arguments to shoot down the contentions of officials in the Bush Defense Department.

Guenther counters:

• At first the bogeyman was villains in the Kremlin; now it's evil "rogue states" and terrorists. The military-industrial complex will come up with any rationale to make space the next frontier for militarization.

• The ABM Treaty has kept the peace for 50 years. The signaling by the Bush Administration that it intends to abrogate the ABM Treaty is already alienating close allies, while some adversaries promise a renewed arms race to counter the proposed U.S. arms programs

• The idea that anybody can pin a $60 billion price tag on a space defense program is laughable. Once approved and underway, it will become a bottomless pit for hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of taxpayer dollars.

"This is just a colossal waste of money-never mind the fact that it can be foiled in so many ways," said Guenther. "This is a system that will require tinkering and testing forever at a cost of billions every year-money that should be spent on health care, medical advances, education and in so many other ways that can make us a stronger nation.

"Does anybody really think that Lockheed or Boeing or Martin Marietta are ever going to sign off on such a space system and say: 'Okay, it's in place now, we're all safe.' This will be siphoning off a finite federal budget forever," said Guenther. "It will go on forever."

"Single dumbest thing"

Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota has described the Bush space defense plan as "the single dumbest thing I've heard so far in this administration." Guenther would argue that Daschle is being kind. Guenther said the plan is preposterous, immoral and bound to make the planet a more dangerous place to live.

"As a nation, we've worked for and signed off on treaties against putting weapons in Antarctica," explained Guenther. "Why would we then turn around and start building a multi-layered defense system that would have us militarizing space? Do we want to make space a new arena for war?

"We have a mentality that we can go it alone-that we don't need to care what the rest of the world thinks," added Guenther. "We can forget the treaties and put together a system of space weapons to protect ourselves, because we are the good guys.

"Well, I'm not sure we are always the good guys-and the rest of the world has these doubts," continued Guenther. "I have a real fear that we would be capable of provoking some small wars, just to test out our new weapons in space. I feel that one of the hidden agendas of the Persian Gulf War was to have a chance to test some of our new high-tech weapons."

Guenther can point to a lot of scientific and military experts who are wary of expanding the arms race into space, and who are convinced there can never be a dependable, fail-safe system to meet our defense objectives.

He cites the work of Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col. USAF retired, and an official with the Institute for Space and Security Studies. Bowman's studies reveal space defense systems to be entirely too "leaky."

Bowman contends that decoy projectiles and alternative means of delivering nuclear devices can always overcome space defense systems. Even a few "leaks" in space shields will spell disaster for any nation that puts its confidence in such systems.

According to Bowman, "Star Wars" plans are "far more than is required to protect offensive weapons for use in retaliation... and far less than is required to protect people." Bowman argues that space should be reserved for civilian exploration and for peaceful research purposes to solve environmental and agricultural problems on earth.

Retired Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll Jr., vice president of the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C., argues that the Bush Administration's bogeyman of missile attacks from "rogue states" is a complete ruse.

Carroll argues that the least likely threat we face is from a third-rate nation developing an ICBM for delivery against the U.S., because that country knows it will get back 50 times what it sends. A more likely scenario is for a terrorist nation to smuggle in suitcase nuclear bombs that inflict harm, but cannot be easily traced for instant retaliation.

Carroll insists that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld knows the "rogue state" argument is phony, but uses it as a pretense to militarize space and as a launching pad to a new, fourth branch of the military, the "Department of Space."

According to Carroll, the national news media have failed to alert the public to the deception involved in the Bush Administration's space defense program. He said the current administration's real objective is to militarize space, not to protect U.S. cities from ICBMs deployed by a wild man at the helm in North Korea, Iran or Iraq.

News media coverage

While the Bush Administration is intent on shifting national policy in space from one of civilian exploration and commercial development, to one dominated by generals with plans for high-tech space warfare-the news media have failed to report on the broader implications of the space military program proposed.

Because of a shifting U.S. space policy that is alarming other countries, a vote was held on a resolution late last year in the United Nations on a resolution for the "Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space." It sought to reaffirm the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, a basic international law on space with the provision that space be preserved for "peaceful purposes."

More than 160 nations voted in favor of the U.N. resolution, the United States-an original signer of the treaty-abstained. The U.S. vote in the U.N. and the apparent shift in national policy have received scant attention in the American news media.

Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, sees corporate power as the major reason for the news media's "sins of omission" in not covering the tilt toward space warfare in U.S. policy.

"My experience is that staffs from the top to the bottom of newspapers, TV and radio are too timid to report on the U.S. program for space warfare because of fear that their corporate sponsors will pull the money strings," Gagnon told EXTRA, in the June edition of the magazine. EXTRA is the monthly of FAIR, a news media watchdog group.

"The result is that this vital information is being censored," added Gagnon. He added that downsizing of media outlets has intensified media employees' fear for their jobs and concern about rocking any boats.

Locally, engineering professor Guenther agrees that there has not been enough national or local news media coverage of an obvious national policy shift to move warfare to the final frontier of space.

The subject of weapons in space appears to be too esoteric for local radio or TV outlets, even though St. Louis is home to a number of aerospace manufacturers. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has editorialized against the Bush space policy, but Guenther feels the St. Louis daily has an obligation to give the subject more news coverage, and also to open its pages to a full debate on the issue of the militarization of space.

"I think the Post editors try to steer us within the bounds of what they believe is 'thinkable thought' -what is acceptable to debate about," said Guenther, who occasionally writes op-ed pieces for the paper. "As a result, we have never-ending letters on abortion, on gun control, on a new stadium... but there seems to be a feeling that we don't have the learning or sophistication to do things on military policy.

"I also don't like this new 'we' policy at the Post that came with its public journalism attitude," said Guenther. "It gives us cheerleading journalism: 'We' got the new jet plane order here in St. Louis ... 'We've' got plans for a new baseball stadium here in St. Louis ... 'We' got the new bio-tech contract here in St. Louis ... Let's all rejoice. Well, maybe some of us don't think a new bio-tech contract is such a good thing."

Guenther's epiphany

Professor Guenther was a bona fide employee of the military-industrial-complex-which he now criticizes-for almost 15 years. After taking his B.S. degree in electrical engineering from St. Louis University in 1966, he worked for McDonnell Aircraft Company at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

In his final years with McDonnell Douglas Corporation, from 1979 to 1981, Guenther was senior engineer in flight test data systems design and development. He worked on fighter aircraft such as the F-4, the F-15 and F-18. Among his work projects, he implemented gunfire vibration tests for fighters to measure the effects of such vibrations on flight worthiness.

"I quit in 1981. I began questioning what I was doing during the Nixon era," said Guenther. "I had a sort of revelation later when my son had a question about a poster of a fighter I had put up in his room. He asked how many passengers the plane held. I had to explain that it was a plane for warfare and I got a sick feeling about it in my stomach."

Guenther said that with the Reagan Administration, federal money began pouring into defense contractors. He said he decided it was time to get off the "gravy train" of weapons work, or he would never make a career move that would make him feel more comfortable about his life's employment.

Guenther added that before he quit McDonnell Douglas, he began asking questions of fellow employees in carpool rides to work. Questions like How many fighters does American really need? Should we be selling fighters to countries that may use them for the wrong reasons?

"The people I worked with were good people, but they didn't think my questions were appropriate," said Guenther. "They told me that it was our job to build the jet fighters; it was not our concern as to how they would be used or who they might be sold to. Those were questions for higher-ups."

As a college professor, Guenther has written a number of position papers on ethics and presented them in such forums as the National Association for Science & Technology. Guenther said he believes ethical questions about weapons and technology should not simply be left to the wisdom of the higher-ups.

When it comes to political leaders shifting the goals of U.S. space programs away from exploration and peaceful purposes and more toward militarization, Guenther thinks all Americans should be concerned.

"We pay the taxes and we all have a responsibility to know how our tax money is going to be used," said Guenther. "We all have a moral responsibility to be aware of what is being done in our name, and how it may have an impact on the rest of the world."

AM/FM

Carney takes on more at KMOX

By Lynn Venhaus

With an opportunity to do more comedy and entertainment, the affable John Carney has renewed a three-year contract with KMOX (1120 AM). Carney will still take the mike from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m.; only starting in July, he'll work Sundays through Thursdays.

Tentatively on July 8, KMOX will unveil a new Sunday entertainment show with Carney at the helm, replacing Harry Hamm's entertainment and trivia show from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. The new show is currently under development, according to Tom Langmyer, operations manager.

"It's going to be a different type of show, not necessarily trivia," Langmyer said. "He'll have a lot of guests and be more entertainment-based.

It's in the planning stages now. John's real excited about that. He'll be able to include comedy stuff and longer interviews."

As for Hamm, Langmyer said he wanted to cut back on the Sunday gig and focus more on entertainment reporting. "Harry wants to do other entertainment-type things, such as specials on entertainment," Langmyer said. "He's going to add a couple more reports during the week."

Hamm took over doing the Sunday night show after David Strauss,' "Mr. Trivia,"defected to KTRS in spring 1996, with entertainment increasingly emphasized more than trivia during its run.

On Friday nights, instead of "The Carney Show" from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m., the overnight guy, Jon Grayson, will handle those duties.

• • •

In yet another shake-up of the KTRS (550 AM) newsroom, reporter Shawn Balint was fired and news director Dale Forbis had some duties shifted to the station's iron man, Tom Calhoun, several weeks ago. Calhoun, the longtime Metro East veteran who survived the WIBV (1260 AM) takeover in 1996, is now acting as news supervisor.

Operations Manager Fred Zielonko said it was just a matter of reorganization. Forbis has been handling morning drive duties. "Since we like what he's doing there, we've turned over some of his duties to Tom Calhoun," he said. "Tom's taking an active role in the newsroom and doing less production work."

With Balint's departure, the news staff has been reduced to five. Forbis came from radio news in Kansas City last summer, replacing the esteemed Joan Boeckmann as news director.

Fired morning host Darrell Ankarlo has slapped the station with a breach-of-contract lawsuit, since he was only eight months into a three-year contract when he got the heave-ho.

• • •

KMOX appears to be in no hurry to find a replacement for Randy Karraker, who signed with KTRS two months ago after contract talks with KMOX stalled.

Langmyer said he's narrowed down the search to five finalists. "All of them are very accomplished," he said. "We're not rushing into hiring someone. We have some really great people who've been filling in. We've been able to showcase some of our other people."

The list of folks who've been heard in Karraker's place include Bob Costas, Dan McLaughlin, Bob Carpenter, Mike Kelly, Joe Buck, Jack Buck and Mike Shannon.

"We were sorry to see him go, but we have a very big sports team," Langmyer said. "Our ratings have gone up, not anything against Randy, but we're pretty happy about that."

The five being considered for the opening include staffers from the Empire Sports Network, ESPN and a West Coast all-sports station. A sports broadcaster in the Midwest market and someone based in Atlanta are also in the mix.

• • •

Radio Rich Dalton is celebrating his one-year anniversary with the live Internet venture, The Best Radio Show Ever. (You can access it at: www.radiorich.com). The former KADI (96.1 FM), KSHE (94.7 FM) and KSD (93.7 FM) host has also assembled an original '60s garage band, The Fourth Row, for an upcoming concert.

The Fourth Row includes Dalton on guitar, Rick Fritz on keyboards, Ray Marklin on drums, Frank Palliser on bass, plus Jean Burman from the Aardvarks on guitar and flute, and Chuck Bonano from the Classics Band and Nickels on bass and percussion.

The group will perform in concert at the Sheldon Auditorium, 3648 Washington Blvd., from 7:30 -9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12.

Their repertoire will include songs of The Doors, The Who, Moody Blues, The Beatles, Jethro Tull, Emerson Lake and Palmer, The Byrds, The Hollies, the Lovin' Spoonful and others.

• • •

KMOX's Carol Daniels is flattered that people think she received an offer from cable's BET network, but it's mere gossip, she reports. And she plans on staying right where she is.

The host of Total Information PM exclaimed, "I don't know where anybody got that from!" with a laugh. "I have one year left on my contract and I fully anticipate re-signing. I have never even talked to anybody at BET," she said.

Daniel said she was busy with her 5-year-old and 17-month-old, but loved to hear juicy gossip. "I was flattered," she admitted.

Media/Politics

Structural racism in local TV reporting

By Terry Jones

If it bleeds, it leads" has long been a belittling comment about local television news. Two recent research studies both document this preoccupation with crime and show it skews community agendas and damages race relations.

A 1997 investigation, "Local TV News: Getting Away With Murder," published in the Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, found that across 56 cities, including St. Louis, crime was the most frequent story topic and that, in some areas, it fills more than three-quarters of the time allotted to all local news coverage.

It is no mystery why crime tops the list. Crime scenes have compelling visuals: revolving red lights, outlines of where the victim's body fell, tearful comments from grieving relatives. They are easy to cover: every newsroom can monitor the police scanner and quickly dispatch a crew. They are readily scripted: a victim, a suspect and speculation about why Frankie might have done away with Johnny.

Crime's pervasive place on local newscasts misrepresents cities as unsafe places, implying that violence is rampant, likely to break out at any time.

In fact, crimes rates, especially violent incidents, have declined almost everywhere the past decade but less actual crime has not meant fewer television news stories. The stations portray specific episodes almost every night, but if they mention trends at all, do so at best once or twice a year.

Local news is where most citizens learn what is happening in their communities. If television stations devote more time to crime than to anything else and if they persist in doing so whether crime is up or down, then the message they are sending is clear: crime remains a constant and pervasive threat and deserves the highest priority on the public policy agenda.

If scrambling priorities was not bad enough, a more recent analysis shows that having crime dominate local news also makes whites have more negative attitudes about minorities and, especially, about African-Americans.

Conducted by two top scholars (UCLA's Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr., and Stanford's Shanto Iyengar) and appearing in the July 2000 American Journal of Political Science, "Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local Television News on the Viewing Public" uses three different methods - content analysis, controlled experiments and field surveys. Each leads to the same conclusions, making the results both more credible and more alarming.

The study first catalogued every local television news story for the six largest stations in the Los Angeles market for two years: 1996 and 1997.

Two patterns emerge: First, 83 percent of the accounts were about violent incidents with 17 percent describing murders. Second, the race or ethnicity of the prime suspect was either pictured (photograph or sketch) or explicitly mentioned in the voice over in more than half the stories.

When they examined the suspects' race/ethnicity by type of story (violent crime, murders, non-violent crime), they found that for murders, minorities were the alleged perpetrators in 67 percent of the television stories, even though they accounted for less than half the actual suspects for all the murder cases in Los Angeles during this period. In contrast, for the non-violent accounts, minorities were reported as suspects in 39 percent of the cases, even though they constituted a majority for all the 1996-1997 cases.

In short, television exaggerated the role of minorities in violent crime, especially murder, and understated it for non-violent offenses. The impression given was that, when it comes to crime, minorities act violently and whites non-violently.

Does this misrepresentation affect attitudes? Gilliam and Iyengar employ a complex, controlled experiment, supplemented by a probability telephone survey, to explore the connection. In the experiment, they went well beyond the convenient college sophomore subjects to recruit 2,331 Los Angeles residents across all demographic categories.

They were then randomly assigned to subgroups, each of which viewed scripts which vary crime type whether or not a suspect was mentioned, and if so, the race or ethnicity of the alleged perpetrator. Each story was embedded within a mock 15-minute newscast, with the crime story coming roughly in the middle.

Here's what they found: First, whites were more likely to recall a black perpetrator than a white perpetrator. Second, 60 percent of the whites who watched segments with no suspect said, incorrectly, that there was one named and, in 70 percent of these situations, said the suspect was a black. Third, whites who saw stories about violent crimes had an increase in racist attitudes, measured before and after the newscast, and those who viewed violent crimes naming a black as the suspect had an even greater rise in racism.

Misinformed priorities and racist views-that's what television local news contributes to the community.

Fired reporter questions RFT integrity

By Alex Posorske

So what's going on at the Riverfront Times?

We all know the familiar complaints against the publication: It has turned its back on alternative journalism; it's just another cog in the corporate wheel of New Times Inc., it didn't used to be like this.

All of which are probably pointless to complain about at this point, as former RFT associate editor Cliff Froehlich pointed out in these pages last month.

But in talking to another former RFT staffer, other, more immediate concerns surface which involve the day-to-day running of the paper as opposed to solely philosophical questions about the validity of a distant, corporate master.

Through conversations with C.D. Stelzer, who was fired recently from RFT, one gets a picture of a publication edging toward an almost British tabloid feeling of sensationalism and editorial pre-judgment, with a focus on looking into an individual's personal life in ways that many find irrelevant.

"It's like they already know what the story is before the reporter does the reporting," Stelzer said.

One example Stelzer gave was from a cover story he did last fall on Metropolitan Sewer District critic Tom Sullivan. Sullivan has played the role of MSD's thorn in-the-side for many years. MSD had a bond issue on the ballot last November. Stelzer said he used the election issue to sell the story to his editors.

Stelzer said RFT Editor-in-Chief Safir Ahmed gave the impression he had an agenda of some sort before the story even got rolling, selecting a headline of "Sewer Crank" before Stelzer had done any reporting.

Stelzer told Ahmed he had strong disagreements with the headline and thought he had won his case. But on deadline day when the proof sheets came out, there it was.

"He chose that headline before he even knew about Tom Sullivan. He said, 'I'm going to use the headline-you're going to have to talk me out of it,' " Stelzer said. "It's libelous, particularly given the fact that he had malice aforethought. If you go to the back of your AP Stylebook, it's right there. It's like Journalism 101. He (Ahmed) thinks he can slam people and he's not going to be held responsible in any way.

"I interviewed many sources for this story, many of whom don't even appear, and not anyone, including his enemies, portrayed him as being eccentric, let alone a crank," Stelzer said.

Stelzer had a series of e-mail exchanges with RFT Managing Editor Roland Klose that morning in which he called the headline libelous and complained about its inaccuracy.

Klose wrote back that he thought the headline was "funny/ironic" and an attention grabber. In the message he said he relayed Stelzer's concerns to Ahmed who apparently listened at last since the headline that ran was the more bland"Down the Drain."

Perhaps a headline dispute is a minor matter, but to Stelzer, "it's indicative of the kind of sensationalism that they feel is necessary."

Stelzer said another problem he had with the Sullivan story was Ahmed's request at one point to look into a specific aspect of Sullivan's personal life which had nothing to do with the hows and whys of sewer system politics in the metropolitan area.

According to Stelzer, Ahmed thought that might make the story more interesting.

"The sewer district was considered by the editor to be boring. It wasn't sexy enough," Stelzer said. "I didn't see how that had any relevance to a story on public policy. I was aghast at the idea that he was telling me to do this."

Ahmed said he would not address specific behind-the-scenes cases, but denied that the RFT now looks to put a story subject's warts and closet skeletons in print for the metropolitan area to see.

"I'm not going to sit down and do personal stories," he said.

The possibly negative sides of one's personal life also took a front seat in Stelzer's March 2000 profile/investigation of Robert Matonis, aka Beatle Bob.

Beatle Bob, for those of you who do not frequent St. Louis music clubs, is something of a legend around town. A 40-ish man with a mop-top haircut and a generally snazzy wardrobe, Bob is known for dancing up a storm in his trademark style, always near the stage at whatever venue he is visiting.

In a town where most concert-goers tend to stand around and nod their heads in a vague attempt to get into the music, such a man makes a worthy subject for the alternative weekly of record to look into.

But Stelzer said that instead of looking at the cultural merits of Matonis, his original assignment was to look into reports of Beatle Bob's alleged kleptomania.

"That was the main reason they initially wanted to do the story," he said. "This guy dances, that's what he does, that's his thing. For whatever reason the RFT management felt compelled to expose this character flaw in this individual. I duly reported it and didn't draw a great deal of attention to it in the story, but nonetheless I had to include that."

Stelzer said he turned down the story idea several times out of disgust for its theme, but finally gave in when he heard it was going to be given to a freelancer who was going to do a "hatchet job."

"To me it was just mean-spirited," Stelzer said. "He's a minor figure, but a public figure. They wanted to destroy his celebrity image."

Stelzer said the theme of exposing character flaws in individuals the RFT might appear nominally sympathetic to came up again during the last story he wrote for the paper, published last month.

The story is about Jim Green, a sort of classic two-bit hood who spent much of his criminal career along the Mississippi, from St. Louis to the Missouri Boot Heel to Memphis and, of course, to jail. The thrust of the story is that Green claims to have knowledge of and possibly been a part of a plot to assassinate Martin Luther King Jr.

The story is a confusing mix of mob connections, FBI agents and Green's account of the day King was shot, a day Green says he spent in Memphis waiting to shoot James Earl Ray if two Memphis police officers failed to do the job.

The problem with Green's account is that records show him in jail until April 9, five days after King's assassination, a fact he says is not true.

"Simply because I don't believe parts of what (Green) says, it doesn't lead me to label him a lying sack of shit. The world's not that simple," he said. "The irony of that is he's not calling the official sources (F.B.I. records) deceptive. They're not being called lying sacks of shit. Jim Green's a poor white guy and he's got a criminal record and he's done a lot of bad things in his life."

Klose said he would not comment on specific editor/writer conversations.

Another example Stelzer recalled was a proposed story from when New Times first took over. In the story, which never ran, he said long-time local anti-nuclear activist Kay Drey was going to be cast as ditzy and goofy.

"The whole point was to be the opposite of what the Riverfront Times used to be," he said. "We were going to show that we weren't bowing to the progressive movement and we're going to be critical of it."

Ahmed, while saying he would not discuss specifics either, said there is no effort at the RFT to view the progressive movement only through the rear view mirror.

"I think if you read (the RFT), it isn't that," he said. "(But) there's no plan to align ourselves with anything."

Stelzer also cited a cover story on the Grand Center entertainment district near St. Louis University. The gist of that story was that nothing good was happening in the area despite the morale-boosting talk of Grand Center Inc.

Stelzer did not write the story, but he said that the worst possible picture taken of Ann Ruwitch, Grand Center Inc.'s president, was used on the cover because, "it made her look like a witch."

Basically, Stelzer said, all the techniques and instances cited thus far are fairly representative of the current RFT as a whole.

"It's both overt and implicit. It's part of the culture of the newspaper," he said. "It just makes you want to cringe or take a shower or something."

That's a fairly harsh assessment of a major publication. Stelzer's former bosses deserve a chance to respond. But it's hard to get a response when no one will talk about anything.

When told of Stelzer's comments, Ahmed first let out an amused chuckle and then said he could not discuss specifics of what was said in the newsroom. He also said he could not discuss personnel decisions, therefore ruling out any talk on Stelzer's firing. (Stelzer says the official reason he was given for his termination was a failure to meet the New Times quota of 10 cover/long features and 10 shorter stories a year; a quota he says no one in the organization meets.)

Fortunately, Klose had a little bit more to say than Ahmed.

He too, gave a hearty chuckle when told of Stelzer's thoughts, and said he could not comment directly on personnel matters and then launched into a defense of the RFT.

He complained of being attacked in SJR too often for being a New Times franchise and complained of not being called for comment on SJR stories earlier this year that focused on the Cardinals' stadium issue and consumer reporting. He said anyone with doubts about RFT's quality should simply read the paper.

He complained of being called for comment too close to this story's deadline and complained that Stelzer was being given too much priority in this story, without anyone else really commenting.

"Just because someone doesn't comment or just because someone doesn't lay out delicate, sensitive personnel issues doesn't mean you can assume what someone says is the truth," he said. "There's a lot of this you don't understand and a lot I won't tell you because it's not your business to know."

When told of Klose's comments, Stelzer shot back, "Just because he doesn't want to respond doesn't mean I'm lying."

He also commented on Klose's complaint that this reporter waited too long to call for comment.

"They have no compunction whatsoever about doing the same thing they're accusing you of," he said.

So what exactly is going on at the Riverfront Times?

Moving backwards to the normal complaints about RFT, Stelzer thinks a lot of it has to do with the editors and more importantly, the New Times ownership.

"It's what Safir Ahmed thinks New Times wants," he said, of the style of veiled personal attacks documented here.

Stelzer predicts more of the same along with a continued shifting away from coverage that is newsy or relevant to current events in the area. He noted a staff meeting in January when Ahmed told the staff that orders had come from above to move in the direction of more "wacky stories," at the expense of public policy stories.

To Stelzer that means a focus on "murders and midgets," a reference to a recent cover story on a downtown midget who hangs out at the Missouri Bar and Grill along with probings of interesting, but long, cold murder cases.

All of which is, of course, the choice of New Times and the RFT. They own it; they can do what they want with it.

But to some out there, especially perhaps Stelzer, an old school lefty journalist who was a teamster for 20 years before trying his hand at writing, it seems, at the very least, a shame.

"Under (Ray) Hartmann there was a sense of what the paper was about," he said. "There is no clear sense of that anymore. I think probably the only hope they have here is if another alternative publication sprung up. (But) I think that's probably much more difficult to succeed at these days."

'Public investment insuring private profits'

A conversation about baseball with Bob Costas

By Ed Bishop

Major League Baseball-the national pastime and St. Louis' secular religion-is in trouble. A combination of sky-high free-agency salaries for ballplayers and vastly unequal incomes for owners is threatening to tear the business of baseball apart.

In fact, the very concept of one city's team competing against another city's team in the hope of eventually ending up in the World Series is all but a myth under current conditions. Clubs in smaller markets can't afford the salaries of established superstars. In the last few years, only the teams on the list of top 10 revenues have played in the World Series.

One of the stopgap solutions proposed by owners across the country is the building of new, publicly financed stadiums. The owners argue that the public must put up millions of dollars if they want a competitive team. In other words, the owners want public investment to insure their private profits. Here's why.

Baseball franchises have three basic revenue streams: ticket sales, the sale of broadcast rights and miscellaneous income from such things as parking, concessions and the sale of T-shirts and caps. The big variable here is the sale of broadcast rights. In huge markets, like New York City, the revenue from broadcast rights is huge. In small markets, like Kansas City, the revenue from broadcast rights is small. So far, the big-market franchises have refused to share broadcast revenues with the small-market franchises. So owners in small and medium-sized markets have asked local governments to pay for new stadiums with luxury boxes that increase revenue from ticket sales dramatically. The owners say that without this new income they can't compete in the free-agency market.

Eight or nine of these new, publicly financed stadiums have been built. And, now, the owners of the St. Louis Cardinals want one too. Their proposal has caused a fierce debate throughout Missouri.

This debate is bigger than a normal sports story. It has ramifications throughout American society. It smacks of socialism for rich people. One example is what happened in Texas. President George W. Bush invested $600,000 in the Texas Rangers. Then he helped talk public officials into building a publicly financed stadium for the team. The new stadium so enhanced the value of the team that when it was sold Bush's share of the profit was $15 million.

One of the leading voices nationally for economic reform in baseball and for revenue sharing is Bob Costas, who lives here in St. Louis. In his book, "Fair Ball-A Fan's Case for Baseball," Costas explains the recent economic history of baseball and argues for massive reform in the structure of professional baseball. He also discusses the Cardinals' situation in the book.

Costas recently sat down with SJR to discuss the local situation.

SJR: Someone estimated that if the Yankees drew the same percentage of the New York metropolitan area as the Cardinals draw in this region, Yankee attendance would be 27 million per season. I guess my question is: What's wrong with the Cardinals' current stadium? The fans seem to like it.

Costas: As I've said many times, if baseball had a sane economic structure, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with the Cardinals' situation. If baseball fans and politicians around the country had been farsighted enough, if they'd had the guts to see beyond their local situation, if somehow there had been a national consensus on this, they would have seen that all of these new publicly financed stadiums are insanity. Then all these communities would have said we'd consider a reasonable public-private partnership only when baseball has reformed its internal economics. Until then, it's just throwing good money after bad.

SJR: So wouldn't public financing for this new stadium only exacerbate existing financial problems in baseball?

Costas: Well, the trend is already set. I understand the public reluctance and skepticism about a new stadium for all the reasons people point out. Not only are the Cardinals successful-they draw 3.4 million fans a year and it's as rabid a baseball city as there is-but you don't hear complaints about Busch Stadium. It's easy to get into and out of. It's spruced up pretty well. I'm sure a new ballpark would be nicer and maybe a better baseball atmosphere. But nobody sees a crying need for it. And, if baseball's economics made any sense at all, there wouldn't be any argument made for one until Busch Stadium began to deteriorate.

SJR: Should we put this current proposal on hold then?

Costas: What I think-and the Cardinals' owners will protest that they're being held to a different standard than other owners in other cities-but why not wait and see? Why not wait and see? We know that push is going to come to shove in 2002 when a new agreement between management and the players is hammered out. Why not wait and see if baseball reforms itself. And, if they do, then consider a new stadium outside the pressures of the present situation. Then you could arrive at a sane and logical deal. Look, a common sense recognition of the nature of baseball, where competitors are partners, is needed. In baseball, conditions are in place that would never be accepted in another business. Scheduling, roster limitations, trades, free agents-all those things are in place because baseball recognizes the nature of its business. It used to be that Kansas City, if they were shrewd and lucky, could still be competitive with the New York Yankees. But now the revenue gaps have grown so large that new mechanisms are needed in order to make the major leagues function as they should. And the first and most important of those mechanisms is comprehensive revenue sharing.

SJR: Collectively the Cardinal owners are worth billions of dollars. What would be wrong with them spending their own money to buy a stadium? It would be a very small amount of their total worth.

Costas: I understand that view. And, the only argument against it is that's not what has happened elsewhere. The owners' view is like the pitcher who says, "Hey, I went eight and six with an ERA of 3.2 last year. I'd like $6 million. Here are 10 other pitchers with similar records last year that got $6 million. Therefore I should get $6 million."

SJR: In other words, it's the craziness of baseball right now.

Costas: Exactly.

SJR: After reading your book and some of your comments in the newspaper, I'm still unclear on whether you're against the owners' current proposal for public funding of a new stadium for the Cardinals.

Costas: It's hard to know what the current proposal is. But I certainly think there could be a larger private component to it. I think that if there is a deal it will have to be more favorable to the public and less favorable to the owners than they originally proposed. My sense of it is that the new stadium is probably inevitable, that it's going to happen. So, if it's going to happen, public officials should drive the hardest bargain possible.

SJR: What's wrong with building the new stadium in West County or even the East Side?

Costas: Yeah, the New York Giants and the New York Jets play in New Jersey, but it just doesn't feel right. Although the Metro East is obviously part of the greater St. Louis area, somehow even St. Louis County has a different sound, a different feel to it. I think moving to Illinois would have a psychological impact-I mean the same state with the Cubs! There's something about that that isn't quite right.

SJR: If the owners do get some public funding, do you think it would be appropriate for the metropolitan region to receive some proportional ownership in the team?

Costas: I agree with that in theory. Or, if the team is sold, the taxpayers are entitled to some equity. George Bush put $600,000 into the Texas Rangers. When the team was sold he made something like $15 million because the equity in that team went up so dramatically when they got the public to build a new stadium. There's nothing wrong with that. There was a public referendum on it, the public voted for it. They got a better ballpark and they got a better team. But, clearly, it was a situation where you socialize the debt but you privatize the profit. So, if it's an investment, then it should be an investment on the part of the taxpayer.

SJR: What if we went even further? What do you think of the idea of metropolitan areas owning professional sports franchises?

Costas: I once said that to George Steinbenner about five years ago. They were talking about $1 billion for a new Yankee Stadium. I said that the Yankees might be the most profitable team in all of baseball but I've never heard their value estimated at a billion dollars. So wouldn't it make sense for the city, rather than spending $1 billion for a stadium, to buy the team for $800 million and spruce up Yankee Stadium and just run it as some sort of public enterprise?

SJR: And?

Costas: He just smirked. (Laughter) That ain't how it's done. (More laughter.)

SJR: Has your opposition to the stadium caused you any personal problems with friends and colleagues who have publicly supported Cardinal ownership? Has there been any tension?

Costas: No. I'm on the road quite a bit anyway so I'm not right in the middle of it. Mark Lamping (Cardinals president) has explained their case to me. All the Cardinals' owners have always been very cordial and friendly. And I think they're good owners. They put a good product on the field. They try to be as fan-friendly as possible. I like them personally. I was the only person in the St. Louis media that I'm aware of-maybe there was somebody from the Riverfront Times-that was firmly against the Rams' deal too.

SJR: What do you think is going to happen next year? Will the owners and players sit down together and reform the game?

Costas: I think there'll be a lockout. Because the players' association is so ideological and so rigid that, even if the owners can get a super-majority among themselves on the subject of revenue-sharing, the players are so set in stone I don't see them moving their position in any way that will get to the heart of the problem. And the only alternative the owners will have is to lock the players out.

SJR: Who will get the backlash this time?

Costas: If the owners do a good job of presenting the reasons for the lockout-what their reform means-I think fans would back them. What I think they should do is pay for a half hour on ESPN and have a credible spokesman lay out the reasons for reform. Talk about what's going on here, talk about how the players as a group aren't going to be hurt-a few superstars might have to take $10 million instead of $15 million. Talk about how they can make the game more stable. If they did that, then I think the players would take all the backlash. But if they do what they did last time, which was just try to shove a salary-cap down the players' throat without any real reform on their own part, then it'll be what it was last time-a pox on both their houses.

The Realist, Krassner call it quits

By Eileen P. Duggan

After 40 years and 146 issues, the satirical magazine The Realist has retired after its founder pronounced that it had served its purpose of providing readers with absurdity and irreverence about social and political developments.

Paul Krassner, who founded the magazine in 1958 with 600 subscribers, published the last issue in spring 2001.

The counterculture favorite, which never accepted advertising, gathered 100,000 subscribers by 1967, but had to take an 11-year hiatus beginning in 1974, due to lack of funding. By its final issue, the circulation was between 5,000 and 7,000, according to the American Journalism Review.

Krassner achieved the magazine's purpose of "communication without compromise" by taking on as many taboos as possible, such as publishing a pre-Roe vs. Wade interview with an abortion practitioner. One of his most notorious pieces, a satirical story of misbehavior with the corpse of President John F. Kennedy by his successor during the flight from Dallas to Washington, triggered a rash of voluntary subscription expirations.

In 1997, Krassner announced that The Realist itself would expire after the next nine issues. At that time, he also claimed responsibility for a bogus college commencement address by Kurt Vonnegut that had spread across the Internet. The Internet and the World Wide Web, he said, have taken over the jobs of spreading conspiracy theories and breaking taboos.

Krassner fed his income-challenged publication by doing freelance writing for Rolling Stone, Spin, The Nation, Playboy, Penthouse, The Village Voice, Utne Reader, High Times, National Lampoon, Mother Jones, New York, the San Francisco Examiner, the Los Angeles Times and the Whole Earth Review. He has written several books, including "The Trial of Peter McWilliams," "Pot Stories for the Soul," "Impolite Interviews," "Psychedelic Stories for the Soul" and "Magic Mushroom Stories for the Soul." Also a stand-up comedian, Krassner has recorded several comedy records, including "We Have Ways of Making You Laugh" and "Brain Damage Control."

Back issues of The Realist are available for $2 each from The Realist, Dept. WWW, Box 1230, Venice, CA 90294.

Eileen P. Duggan is a St. Louis freelance writer.

Media/Law

General assembly 2001-how the media fared

By Ken Jones

As far as its impact on the media is concerned, the 2001 legislative session will be remembered more for what didn't happen than for what did.

Most prominent was the failure to put some teeth into the state's Sunshine Law.

The need for a tougher open government statute is patent. State Auditor Claire McCaskill's recent audit to gauge compliance with the law found that 44 percent of the governmental entities selected "either did not respond, responded untimely, or improperly denied a request for records from the general public."

The audit makes clear that stonewalling by municipalities and agencies is a just fact of life for journalists these days. The rote response -"What do you want those records for?"-must be something government employees learn in bureaucrat school.

The laughably low $500 penalty for violation means the Sunshine Law is not taken seriously. That's why State Rep. Phil Smith, D-Louisiana, wanted to raise the maximum fine to $25,000 in House Bill 237. Imagine any municipal clerk or police department rejecting a request for records with that kind of fine staring them in the face.

Smith also wanted to change the legal standard for judging whether the law was violated. At present, a government employee must "purposely" violate the statute in order to be held responsible. In real life, that means a violation is rarely found-an employee would have to disregard a legal opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes saying that the records should be handed over.

In his original bill, Smith turned the legal standard on its head. He proposed "strict liability," meaning the employee's state of mind would be irrelevant-if the Sunshine Law were violated, the penalties would automatically kick in.

Smith's House colleagues thought these changes were too draconian. The bill sent to the Senate was amended to raise the maximum penalty to only $2,500 and changed the legal standard from "purposely" violate to "knowingly" violate-which practically is not much of a change.

But the watered-down bill was still better than the current statute, simply for its recognition that something had to be done. And it was sent to the Senate in early March-where it died on the vine.

"It's difficult for me to understand why, after we passed the bill in early March, it didn't get on the calendar in the Senate until very late," Smith told SJR. Smith said the Missouri Municipal Association and Missouri Association of Counties were the chief opponents, arguing that people won't run for office if the Sunshine Law fines are too steep.

"I disagree," Smith said. "I don't think anyone decides to run for office or not to run based on the Sunshine Law penalties. People run because they want to make a contribution."

In other areas, however, legislative inaction was beneficial to the media this year, especially in connection with public notices.

With the advent of the Internet, there has been a move in some states to do away with the printing of public notices in newspapers and to require only that they be posted on government web pages.

Obviously, this would have a devastating effect on newspapers. "It would be the death knell of local newspapers," according to Smith, who said no such bill was introduced this year.

So for the time being, Missouri papers have dodged the bullet.

But Doug Crews, Director of the Missouri Press Association, said the Internet specter did appear in other ways. In his MPA report on the session, Crews said an amendment to the "Political Subdivisions" bill offered by Rep. Marsha Campbell, D-Kansas City, "would have allowed financial statements of charter schools to be published on the Internet rather than in newspapers." Another by Rep. Charles Portwood, R-Ballwin, "would have allowed school construction bids to be posted at the school building, with a 'minimal notice' in the newspaper telling where the notice was posted, and also posting the notice on the Internet."

Crews said the bill passed the House but died on the last day of the session in a conference committee.

According to Crews, another big non-event was House Bill 262. The proposal would have closed "personally identifiable student records" of elementary and high school students. In his report Crews said the bill "was so broadly written, it conceivably could close the A and B Honor Roll lists if parents didn't approve of releasing student names in advance."

The bill was passed by the House and was making its way through the Senate when it was killed by amendments. Crews credits Smith and Rep. Randall Relford, D-Cameron.

Missouri got some national media attention, probably unwanted, regarding another failed measure-a proposal to ban bestiality. Its sponsor, Rep. Catherine Hanaway, R-Warson Woods, took some flak for the bill, but was good-natured in responding to the razzing. After introducing the proposal, which was part of an animal abuse bill, she said, "We want to protect our good friends, but we don't want them to be too good of friends," according to the Associated Press.

Our tax dollars at work.

Commentary

By Frank Absher

My conversations with Bud Connell for last month's Radio History column in SJR prompted some serious reflection on the state of radio today. Connell had been at the helm of KXOK during its phenomenal run in the 1960s, and during one of our interview sessions he said none of today's radio "stars" would have been hired at KXOK because they wouldn't have been good enough.

I've made similar statements in the past regarding the quality of radio today, but in the back of my mind, I wrote off this opinion as "old-fartism," a malady that plagues people over 50 and causes them to remember the past as something better than it actually was. I went to the St. Louis Media Archives at the downtown public library, got out some aircheck tapes from the '60s and '70s and listened.

Things were better back then. Granted, the presentation may not have been as slick. We didn't have our music and commercials on computer hard drives. But the content was intelligent, entertaining and much better. Jocks entertained without being risqué or hurtful. It's hard to imagine Dan Ingram, Jack Carney, Johnny Rabbitt, Ed Wilson and the many other brilliant former St. Louis announcers trying to be popular by maliciously making fun of other people.

And although these people did live spots, even personal endorsement spots, they had scruples. Would they have taken money to advertise and personally endorse a questionable diet product? Many of today's so-called "personalities" have no qualms about negotiating for big bucks to do this, even though it wrecks their credibility.

Apparently I'm not alone in my lamentations. John Mainelli, in his column in the New York Post a couple months ago, made the same observations. He asked Dan Ingram, a wisened veteran of over 40 years on the air (including a stint at WIL here), what happened. The problem, says Ingram, is people can't miss something they've never had. "If people have never been fed a good, two-inch-thick steak," he told Mainelli, "they might not know what it's all about. Personality radio is infinitely more complex and challenging to the listener."

Mainelli also spoke with Scott Shannon, who ran the "Morning Zoo" on a New York station and is now a program director. Shannon was asked to name some of today's jocks who will be tomorrow's legends. "You've still got powerhouse personalities like Rick Dees out in L.A. and, uh, well, you've got a good point."

John Gehron, chief operating officer of Inifinity Broadcasting, is quoted in the Post as saying, "I hear a sameness from station to station. I hear wonderful production...I don't hear any personality...I tell our PDs (program directors) to use their deejays or we will cyberjock and voice-track their stations."

So here's a man who can make a difference, and he's threatening to remove jocks from individual radio stations and replace them with options that mean even less personality. Gehron has a serious track record and is best known for running Chicago powerhouse WLS for many years. He now oversees programming on all the former CBS radio stations.

Robert Feder is known nationally for his hard-hitting radio columns in the Chicago Sun-Times. He devoted an entire column to Gehron's remarks last month. Gehron placed the blame for the dearth of quality radio personalities directly on the shoulders of today's program directors. "I blame program directors across all companies for not doing their job, which is to find and train talent...It's hard work and, with the technology that's out there, it's easier to deal with machines than with people. Great talent often is a management challenge, but that challenge presented by talent is what makes radio great. Believe me, it's a lot easier to play records than to work with talent."

Others blame deregulation for today's lack of strong, intelligent personalities. Michael Keith, author and Boston College lecturer, calls it "the Wal-Mart-ization" of radio. In the process, stations owned by huge conglomerates sound alike because they use the same disc jockeys, either in syndication or voice-tracking.

Keith was quoted in the Cambridge Chronicle as remembering the past as a better time. "A lot of people were genuinely trying to do something fresh. They had a great passion for radio. I'm not sure that's true now."

The paper also quotes radio consultant Donna Halper: "Every year radio is becoming more and more irrelevant. Listenership is down. I don't recognize my industry anymore."

Money is a problem. The corporate bigwigs are so obsessed with profit margins and Wall Street expectations that they're unwilling to pay good money for good talent at individual stations. This is one reason we in St. Louis put up with morning drive programs of syndicated announcers or tired, stale sameness instead of creative entertainment. It should come as no surprise that average quarter-hour listening during morning drive in St. Louis is down 2.25 percent from a year ago and nearly 6 percent from 1999. Overall average quarter-hour listening is also down slightly. But if you think that will motivate station managers to spend some extra money to get rid of burnouts or syndication, think again.

When corporate tells managers to rein in costs, on-air folks are an easy target. Why spend a lot of money to hire really good people when you can get passable people for a lot less? Every major market has major radio stations doing voice tracking, some during high listening periods. An experienced jock can track a six-hour airshift in 30-40 minutes, and if you're paying the jock by the hour, look at the money you save. Is the on-air sound spontaneous, creative, live? No, but a certain number of people keep listening anyway.

Literary magazine celebrates 25 years

By Eileen P. Duggan

St. Louis-based River Styx Magazine celebrated its 25th anniversary in March.

The award-winning literary magazine was founded in 1976 by a small band of young poets led by writer Michael Castro, who is still a senior editor.

"The focus of the magazine changes with each editor according to that editor's vision, esthetic philosophy or taste," said Richard Newman, River Styx's current editor. "The one constant over the many years and editors is a diversity of writers and styles, a willingness to publish unknown writers and a lack of interest in 'academic' writing."

River Styx Magazine features poetry, fiction, essays, interviews and art and has published such writers as Yusef Komunyakaa, Nobel Laureates Derek Walcott and Czeslaw Milosz and U. S. Poet Laureates Howard Nemerov, Mona Van Duyn, Rita Dove and Robert Hass. The magazine has won several Stanley Hanks Prizes and awards from the Coordinating Council of Literary Magazines.

In addition to the publication, River Styx conducts an annual poetry contest and presents frequent readings and other literary events. The magazine currently publishes three issues each year.

During its 25 years, River Styx Magazine has undergone changes in format as well as style. Just since Newman became editor in 1994, the format went from a black-and-white, 5 1/2-inch by 8 1/4-inch publication with a circulation of less than 1,000 to a 6- by 9-inch magazine with color covers, more inside art and a circulation of 2,000, Newman said.

Financially, River Styx has had its ebbs and flows. In 1994, the magazine didn't publish any issues because of financial difficulties, although its popular River Styx at Duff's reading series continued. The magazine continues to operate through grants from the Missouri Arts Council, the Regional Arts Commission, the National Endowment for the Arts and various foundations as well as through subscriptions, advertising, fund-raisers and individual donations.

As for the current editor's vision, he's "on a mission to publish accessible literature," Newman said. "Accessibility doesn't mean the work is dumbed down-it means it connects with the reader in the heart as well as the head. The longer I stay in the writing and editing business, the more I value clarity and work that hits me on a gut level; I have no patience for obscure, opaque poetry that even educated readers couldn't say what the poem is about. I have no patience for self-indulgent metafiction that describes the writing process and the importance of the writer as opposed to showing me important aspects of the human experience."

For more information, River Styx may be contacted at 634 N. Grand Blvd., 12th Floor, St. Louis, MO 63103 or at www.riverstyx.org.

Struggling feminist magazine survives

By Eileen P. Duggan

The feminist news journal off our backs recently celebrated its 30th anniversary, making it, by its own account, the longest continuously published feminist newspaper in the United States.

Established in 1970, off our backs is run by a collective that makes all its decisions by consensus.

"Overall, we have not changed very much over the years," said collective member Karla Mantilla. "We are still very committed to providing a forum for feminist viewpoints which are not found elsewhere; to publishing various sides of controversial issues without taking a strong editorial stance; to extensive coverage of international women's issues, news and activism; and to covering mainstream news topics from a radical perspective."

None of the eight current collective members has been with the paper from its birth, but one member, Carol Anne Douglas, has been on the collective since 1973. The tenures of the others range from about one year to 12 years, Mantilla said.

The paper's format hasn't changed much over the years either, but that is due to change this year. The tabloid will be transformed into a magazine format in order to stay stocked in bookstores that tend not to carry tabloids, Mantilla said.

Like many other small niche publications, off our backs has had its financial hurdles over the years, but has managed to stay afloat thanks to the volunteer collective, minimal part-time staff and a very conservative approach to spending money. Until recently, the staff did the layout by hand and had only one desk shared by all collective members, interns and volunteers, Mantilla said.

The Washington, D.C.-based collective is currently undertaking a massive organizational development plan to increase funding streams through donations, grants, bequests, advertising and direct mail pitches for subscriptions.

"We hope through this effort to be able to ensure our longevity over the years," Mantilla said.

off our backs can be reached at 2337B 18th St. NW, Washington, DC 20009; 202-234-8072. The e-mail address is [email protected] and the Website address is www.igc.org/oob.

Henderson knew how to work media

By Roy Malone

We won't be seeing much of Ron Henderson on the tube any more. No other police chief, or other local official for that matter, has been able to get as much face time on St. Louis television as the likeable Henderson.

Now that he is no longer chief, he isn't hurrying to the scene of fires, accidents, shootings and other mayhem. He wore a blue baseball cap with "Chief" on it to let people know who he was.

"I'm one of the most recognizable people in the region," Henderson said when interviewed by SJR.

He expects to become U.S.marshal for the eastern district of Missouri this fall. The federal marshal is not a guy you see on TV, so it'll be hard for Henderson to reprise his top cop role.

Henderson had some minor problems when he became a candidate for chief in 1995. Some in the department and the media thought his imperfect grammar and lack of a college education should count against him as the police board chose a replacement for Clarence Harmon, who had three college degrees.

"After more than 20 years on the force, some were saying I couldn't read or write," Henderson said.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch tried to confirm through city school records that Henderson had a high school diploma, but was unable to prove or disprove it.

Henderson said anyone entering the Police Academy has to have a high school diploma or GED. "I graduated from Soldan," he said. He also enrolled for community college courses.

As for not having a college degree, he said: "Show me where it says you will do better," with one. "Just judge my performance. What people want is a good job."

Henderson proved he could get to the top without all that formal education. He learned early on that most promotions are made in the department by officers getting Aces-politicians or prominent business leaders-to lobby the police board to promote the officers. The Aces can use their police connections to get favors, such as confidential information, record checks, tickets fixed or extra patrolling around their businesses.

One police board, nearly 20 years ago, tried to make promotions based strictly on merit, but it didn't stick and the Ace system returned as strong as ever.

Henderson's Ace was J.B. 'Jet' Banks, a powerful Democratic state senator from north St. Louis. Banks' influence withered when he was forced out of the senate after pleading guilty in 1999 to filing false income tax returns.

Henderson also was quick to learn how to use the media. He began showing up at the high-profile police calls. At the same time he tried to control what information would be given to the press by instituting a public information section that reporters were told to go through, rather than talking to individual cops.

When TV reporters spotted Henderson at a crime scene, he found they always wanted to interview him. "What they want is a sound bite. If you give it to them they'll go away," he said.

(Earlier this year, while a TV reporter was interviewing a citizen at a crime scene, Henderson was seen pacing in the background, waiting for the camera to come his way.)

Something of a workaholic, he wouldn't take his vacations and got the police board to approve paying him extra salary for the time he was supposed to be off. The state auditor said it was illegal and the practice was stopped. "I had it (money) coming and my superiors approved it," Henderson said. "You can't be there and be gone."

He said he has no complaints about the media and if he gets the marshal job, "I'm not looking for any media attention." But don't underestimate him; he has been watching a TV show about federal marshals and his ego may find a way to get back on the tube.

At 53 he decided that 5 years as chief was enough (he says the average shelf life of a police chief is three to five years) and he got U.S. Sen. Christopher 'Kit' Bond, R-Mo., to recommend him for federal marshal. So now Henderson has a Republican for an Ace.

If he gets the job, it will pay $115,000 a year. That's a good kick from the nearly $90,000 he gets as chief. In the meantime, he got the police board to make him its secretary, at the same pay as chief. Assuming he works as board secretary until September he will have 30 years in the department and qualify for a pension of about $60,000 a year.

How's that for working the system?

"I'm just a regular guy who took advantage of opportunities, worked hard and is blessed," Henderson said.

He lets people know he was once an altar boy and that his parents instilled in him a strong work ethic.

Bill Bryan, Post police reporter, said he was leery of Henderson when he put restrictions on the press. But it didn't hurt Bryan's access to information. "I've grown to like the guy. He doesn't sit behind the desk all day," Bryan said. "A lot of people thought he was stupid, but he's won them over."

Roy Malone is a former St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter.

Roller coaster ride for newsprint prices

By Joe Pollack

The battle between newspaper owners and paper manufacturers is heating up again as the law of supply and demand, and the power of leverage, step to the fore in the contentious life of these two groups, each vital to the other.

Through the years, the roller coaster ride has shown paper manufacturers on top for a while and newspapers on top for a while, while those who pay the freight are, primarily, the readers, who pay higher prices for newspapers, and the advertisers, who pay higher prices to run advertisements in those newspapers.

Before 1994, newsprint was under $500 a ton. Since then, the price has spurted, and is now over $600, though it went as high as $740 a ton before some rollbacks a few years ago. Newspaper consolidation, with groups like Gannett, Knight-Ridder, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune getting larger and taking more of a leadership role, kept prices more-or-less steady. Buyers had the leverage, and since paper is about 20 percent of a newspaper's cost, profit margins were improving.

At least until the recent economic slowdown, when advertising revenue dropped across the board and newspapers began printing smaller papers, obviously using less raw material along the way.

However, newsprint manufacturers have begun a similar consolidation.

The three largest producers, Abitibi-Consolidated of Montreal, Bowater of Greenville, S. C., and Norske Skog of Vancouver now control almost two-thirds of newsprint supplies, and are not afraid to use their own strength.

They have sought an increase to $660 a ton and publishers are fighting, stockpiling the rolls of paper they have while reducing use, buying from other sources and generally battling to keep from higher payments.

As Stephen Atkinson, a forest products analyst based in Canada, told The New York Times, "The publishers in the United States, like Gannett and Knight Ridder, are used to taking a baseball bat to the producers. Now they realize that the producers have a baseball bat, too. You have a showdown at high noon."

The producers backed off recently, reducing a $50-per-ton increase by half. In addition to negative action like fewer ads that forced smaller papers, publishers were taking positive action by cutting page sizes and paper sizes, and making other moves to slow their use of paper, including not using paper ordered in the past and stockpiling those rolls, along with some obtained from other sources. In March 2001, newspapers used 10 percent less paper than they had a year earlier. This caused producers to slow price increases.

The continuing struggle looks like a major game of chicken, with neither side willing to back off. Obviously, both money and ego are at stake.

Still, some analysts predict newsprint prices will drop up to $100 a ton and reach a 13 percent decline in 2001. The battle goes on.

In SJR

10 Years Ago:

• Top St. Louis Post-Dispatch management announced a company goal of a 12-15 percent profit.

• Richard May, assistant publisher of the Riverfront Times, resigned after more than 12 years with the paper, saying he was "burned out."

• After almost 40 years of broadcasting, the St. Louis Public Schools' radio station, KSLH, went dark.

5 Years Ago:

• Safir Ahmed was elevated to the position of editor at the Riverfront Times. The paper announced it was moving its offices out of downtown St. Louis and into University City.

• WIBV owner Tim Dorsey discounted his station's flat ratings, saying the Arbitrend measurement didn't cover a significant period of time.

• Benjamin Thomas, founder of the Evening Whirl, sued a former employee and her partners, accusing them of copying his weekly crime sheet and stealing his trade secrets.