Early Edition

Hitting Post over the head

By Ed Bishop

In a recent article by Thomas Crone in STLtoday, Crone says that SJR has become too predictable, that you can always find "routine whippings of the (St. Louis) Post-Dispatch" in this publication and shots at the area's elite organizations. A little later in the article, he writes: "Now that the Cole Campbell (era) has passed, maybe the 'stadium issue' will become the newest monthly bugaboo. Seems to be shaping up that way."

Crone is perceptive on a couple of levels.

Most of the SJR Board of Advisers-loosely an editorial board-do believe that most of the coverage of the proposed public financing of a new stadium for the Cardinals' owners is appalling. Here's an example:

On Wednesday, Feb. 27, the Post carried a large front-page story on the latest stadium deal. In a sidebar to the story, a Post reporter talked to two college professors who had done economic studies on other publicly financed stadiums. Both professors agreed that by and large these publicly financed stadiums are bad deals for the cities involved. Both professors also agreed that the Cardinal ownership was putting up slightly more money than other recent stadium deals-40 percent as opposed to around 30 percent. One professor said he thought the positives of the Cardinals deal probably outweighed the negatives. Still, the other professor cautioned: "But all (publicly financed stadium) deals are bad to some extent."

The sidebar's headline read: "Two reviewers generally applaud deal."

Well, that's one way of interpreting the story, I guess. But I think it's interesting to point out that the reporter wrote a fairly balanced story in this case, but he did not write the headline. An editor did.

Editors at the Post consistently give the benefit of the doubt to the Cardinals owners in headlines, photographs, story placements, story structures and on the editorial page. What's worse, they seem to be satisfied with flat, uninspired reporting on the issue. No editor at the Post has said: "Hey, listen, this is the biggest story in the region right now. It will define political alignments, voter attitudes, city and county finances, the effectiveness of grassroots movements in opposition to powerful, politically connected men-not to mention the paper's credibility-for years to come. Let's put three or four reporters on this full time and publish a series of well-reported, well-written stories that lay this issue out for everyone to see. Let's not screw this story up like we did the football stadium deal."

One of the stories they could write would be an in-depth look at the new stadium's opposition. Let's face it, if this thing would ever get to a state-wide vote, it would lose in a landslide. Surely editors at the Post know that. If they don't, all they need to do is read their own letters-to-the-editor.

Crone is also right about SJR harping on issues.

But we have a good reason for it. The resources of SJR are limited. We simply can't do every story that deserves coverage-and that's a shame. So we have to zero in on a topic, a kind of theme, that exposes the larger picture. We start with a couple of premises, look at all the information we get from our sources, see how that information fits our premise, single out a topic from all that and then hit that topic over the head again and again.

That only works, of course, if our premises are good. Obviously, we think they are. Here are some of them: The people of the metro area deserve a better daily newspaper than they're getting; local television news is so shallow that it's difficult to critique its substance; the press is not liberally slanted but rather biased in favor of corporate agendas; and, last but not least, that information not published or aired is often more important than information that is published and aired.

A couple of years ago, I had drinks with a reporter from the Columbia Journalism Review who had parachuted in to do a story on Cole Campbell. She asked me how often we published. Every month, I said. "Geez," she said. "How do you have enough to print that often?"

I told her that if I had the budget and the staff of CJR I could double my pages and publish weekly. I don't think she believed me.

Letters

By design

SJR: Whether by accident or design, the February issue of SJR worked together almost seamlessly.

Let me begin here: The Libertarian Model of Journalism advocated by Don Corrigan in his review of Merrill's book is essentially faulty for the same reason that the libertarian model of economics is faulty: it describes a world that no longer exists.

As documented in the articles by Ed Bishop and Charles Klotzer in this issue, huge corporate combines control the information flow. There are not 1,000 channels competing with each other. They are instead determining how to slice the pie between themselves.

They work hand-in-glove with the government to keep each other in power.

This corporate/government "synergy" is documented in the articles about the hopelessly corrupt institution of the Olympics.

What we have is Walter Lippman's professional information class dispensing information to the public on a "need to know" basis. The problem is that our need to know collides with their interests.

The solution is in the articles by Dan Hellinger and C.D. Stelzer. Citizens/journalists are taking up the ball dropped on purpose by the information class and welding bottom-up activism to journalism (this is "a far piece" from the top-down public journalism being purveyed by the information class).

Shame, however, on Hellinger for not mentioning that the Independent Media Center has a collective here in St. Louis. If you log onto www.stlimc.org you can see articles on bike activism, the death penalty and other issues the information class won't put forth.

Besides being a member of this collective I am studying this phenomenon for my master's thesis at SIUE. If SJR would like to do an article on this movement and the local collective, I can hook them up.

Or, you can commission me to do the article.

Spectacular issue folks!

I remain your servant,

Jon R. Pike

Wrong number

SJR: While we are appreciative of the recognition afforded our award-winning, online magazine by Dan Hellinger in the Feb. 2002 issue ("Alternatives to Corporate News"), readers wishing to see for themselves what all the hype is about would have difficulty doing so from the URL provided in the article.

TheCommonspace.org actually exists out there on the wild and wonderful World Wide Web at www.thecommonspace.org; there your readers can find what the St. Louis Web Developers Organization has called the "best St. Louis-oriented web site" around.

Thanks for noticing.

Amanda Doyle, Co-editor;

Thomas Crone, Co-editor;

Brian Marston,

Producer; Hafiz Huda, Art Director of

TheCommonspace.org

Great minds

SJR: Thanks for Ed Bishop's column and the cover article on media conglomerates in the most recent issue of The St. Louis Journalism Review. I thought you might be interested in a cartoon I did about the problem last year and that was sent out on Herblock's syndicate when I was substituting for him. Isn't there a line about "great minds swimming in the same channel," or something? It's scary to think of Rupert Murdoch's First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press' bottom line ... "

The recent federal appeals court ruling might help wake up some folks, but it will be increasingly hard for the few independent voices to be heard, so you'll have to keep after the subject.

Tom Engelhardt

Clayton counteracts Hazelwood

By Don Corrigan

After a decade of hitting a brick wall in the state legislature, advocates for a student free expression bill in Missouri are taking their case to the grassroots level-the level of the school board.

This spring, Clayton school board members will consider adopting a policy written by journalism students and their advisers, a policy that would bring back to the district's student press traditional American First Amendment protections.

Those traditional protections were lost in 1988 with the U.S. Supreme Court's Hazelwood ruling, which allows principals, superintendents and other school administrators to censor or "edit" high school publications.

Under Hazelwood, such "editing" can go beyond what might be deemed as potentially libelous or defamatory, to what might be considered as too mature or too controversial in the opinion of administrators. Student expression decisions prior to the 1988 Hazelwood ruling placed a much greater burden on administrators to justify any actions that would curtail student press rights.

The policy to be submitted for approval to the Clayton School Board-with a first reading slated for March 22-would give the students explicit responsibility for editorial content. Covered under the policy are: Clamo, the school yearbook; Globe, the school newspaper; The WORKS, a literary magazine; and KCHS-TV, the school's new web television station.

The five-page policy takes a firm stand on prior restraint: "No student media, whether non-school sponsored or official, will be reviewed by school administrators prior to distribution or withheld from distribution. While prior review and restraint is unacceptable, students who violate these regulations by engaging in unprotected expression may be subject to disciplinary actions after the distribution of the material."

The Clayton policy acknowledges the Blackstonian definition of freedom of the press as ultimately, "no prior restraint"-a concept espoused by First Amendment absolutists on past high courts, but opposed by justices who take a dim view of press freedoms.

Under the policy, students have autonomy for content in protected areas of speech, but are to steer clear of "unprotected speech," such as material that is obscene, libelous, a violation of copyright, or content substantially disruptive of the school learning process.

According to the policy, school officials could not ban material just because it was controversial, distasteful, sex-related, critical of school officials or political in nature. The school district is prohibited from cutting off funding of high school media because of differences over editorial content.

School board impressed

"I think what the students are really attempting to do is to simply codify what this district has been doing for a long time," said Board President Amy Murphy. "I also think their action was inspired by a principal, who is no longer with us, who made some attempts at censorship that caused all of us to be concerned.

"The students and their advisers have done a good job working with administrators, and they've done a lot of research on this," added Murphy. "The board had a working meeting with the students on this, and I think we were all impressed with their high level of sophistication on the issues. They asked for our suggestions, and we gave suggestions. It's been a useful process with no surprises."

Nancy Freeman, adviser to the Globe, said the students used a document from the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) as a template and then revised it to meet the needs in the Clayton district. She said the school board sent the policy to the Missouri School Board (MSB) attorneys for review, but only took the MSB lawyers' recommendations under advisement.

"Their attorneys had all kinds of problems with it. No wonder the state legislation has had such problems," said Freeman. "Fortunately, our school board did not cave to what the MSB attorneys said. Our board brought its own legal advisers into it, and we have worked together on what would be agreeable language."

Freeman echoed Board President Murphy when she said Clayton already operates in an atmosphere of press freedom-and the policy is simply to codify a tradition. She also cited instances when she has advised students against publishing potentially offensive content, while leaving the final decision up to them.

"They did a satire in connection with the pope's visit to St. Louis, that I knew some Catholics would find offensive," said Freeman. "I went home not knowing what their decision would be, and I was pleased that they decided not to publish it after they talked it over with each other for several hours.

"But it would have been no less a learning situation had they published that material," said Freeman. "There would have been controversy. It would have been a painful experience. But students need to know about making decisions and the consequences."

Rolling back Hazelwood

Mike Hiestand, staff attorney for the SPLC in Arlington, Va., said students around the country are increasingly working with their school boards because of recalcitrant legislatures. Legislatures have passed Student Free Expression bills in nearby Arkansas, Kansas and Iowa, but it has been bottled up in states like Missouri.

In Missouri, a bill introduced by state Rep. Joan Bray, D-University City, caused some rural legislators to go into apoplectic fits when it came to the House floor in 1993. Some legislators charged that the bill was an "ivory tower" license for students to run amok with wild pornographic and libelous expression.

"There's a lot of frustration among students about legislatures. They haven't given the students very good lessons in freedom and democracy," said Hiestand. "Students have learned the hard lesson that unless you are a corporation with a lot of clout, you don't get much of a hearing in many of the country's state houses.

"As students more and more do what is happening in Clayton, perhaps that can be an example to legislators and end all these fears about the student press," said Hiestand. "What kind of lesson are we teaching now: If someone in authority is uncomfortable with what you have to say-don't run it. That doesn't bode well for the future of journalism or democracy in this country."

Adviser Freeman said that even if the Clayton board passes the student free expression policy, she and her students will continue to work to counteract the Hazelwood ruling in the legislature. She said she agrees with the minority opinion of justices in the 1988 Hazelwood case-freedom of the press should not stop at the classroom door.

Clearly a student free expression advocate, Board President Murphy said she is aware of Rep. Bray's numerous failed attempts to get legislation through the Missouri state house.

"I can't speak for Joan Bray, but if our board passes this, I think she will do a little dance," said Murphy. "It could be a boost for her efforts. But I am not optimistic that as Clayton goes, so goes the state. We're a community surrounded by universities with strong traditions of aca-demic freedom. Our residents appreciate that liberty. I am not so sure the wisdom of our policy will move our state lawmakers."

Off the Record

New math

Counting newspaper circulation figures has become a little different, and the Gannett Company and its USA Today have leaped upon the new style of mathematics. When the newspaper claimed daily sales of 2,242,000 and the national circulation lead for the six-month period ending last Sept. 30, the Audit Bureau of Circulation figures also showed that 44 percent of those newspapers-or 986,480-were sold in bulk, in large numbers to conventions, colleges, hotels and the like.

Behind USA Today, which noted a circulation drop of 0.6 percent from the previous six-month period, the highest daily circulation figures, and percentage changes were: Wall Street Journal, 1,781,000 (up 1); New York Times, 1,109,000 (up 1.1); Los Angeles Times, 973,000 (down 4.9); Washington Post, 750,000 (down 0.7); New York Daily News 734,000 (up 4.6); Chicago Tribune, 621,000 (up 0.2); Newsday, 577,000 (unchanged); Houston Chronicle, 552,000 (up 1.1); New York Post, 534,000 (up 22). Some of the Post's increase may be attributed to a retail price cut, from 50 cents to 25 cents. Bulk sales were counted by all the newspapers, not just USA Today.

In terms of Sunday circulation, the top three were The New York Times, 1,669,000; Los Angeles Times, 1,369,000; and Chicago Tribune, 1,011,000.

-Joe Pollack

Monopoly warns of monopoly

The lead editorial in the Feb. 26 issue of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch warned the populace of the dangers of media monopoly. On the business side, ad rates can be hiked and controlled by a media monopoly. On the information side, the public suffers from a reduced number of sources for news because of media monopoly.

Great editorial points, although the Post neglected to point out the Pulitzer role in creating media monopoly in St., Louis. No mention was made of the deal between Pulitzer and Newhouse, which effectively eliminated the St. Louis Globe-Democrat and left St. Louis a one-daily town. No mention was made either of the Post buyout of the largest local weekly newspaper chain in the country, the St. Louis Suburban Journals.

With a stranglehold on the daily and weekly newspaper market in St. Louis, the Pulitzer operation is now ripe to be sold to a larger media conglomerate. Indeed, the Post's own business section on Feb. 22 suggested that the operation would be a great buy for Gannett Inc., which owns KSDK (Channel 5).

With recent court rulings that roll back restrictions on companies owning TV stations and newspapers in the same market, a Gannett buyout of Pulitzer is no longer a monopolist's fantasy. In fact, it could be with us tomorrow. Think of it! We could get the same editorial warning us about media monopoly in our weekly newspaper, our daily newspaper and on our nightly TV news broadcasts.

-Don Corrigan

Death dues

Smaller newspapers, operating on a thinner profit margin, are leading the way, but if larger papers follow, it may be a new source of newspaper income.

What's the trend?

Paid obituaries.

It isn't a new arrangement, since the Asbury Park (N.J.) Press has been doing it for several years, but the Portland (Mich.) Press Herald, Florida Today in Melbourne, Fla., and the Fort Collins (Colo.) Coloradoan are newcomers to the group.

The Press prints a 15-line obituary at no charge, but charges $5 a line after that, and prints just about everything it gets from survivors or the funeral home. Rates at the other newspapers vary.

Most newspapers run obituaries on people the editors consider newsworthy. The New York Times published almost a full-page obituary on Cyrus Vance. But all newspapers, including the Times and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, charge for "death notices," which are classified-ad sized and slightly more stylized obituaries in smaller type, listing survivors, military honors, civic awards and other information provided by family members.

-Joe Pollack

Best and worst

Ask the nation's TV critics and they'll tell you how bad this year's offerings are. But Electronic Media also gives them a chance, twice a year, to pick the best. This year, their choice for No. 1 is the Fox drama "24." But, their praises haven't helped the sleeper series pick up the kind of ratings Fox had hoped for. In its Friday 8 p.m. time slot, "24" regularly ranks 5th out of six network programs.

Other programs in the critics' top 10 fare better with the viewers. In ascending order, their favorites are: "The West Wing," "Gilmore Girls," "Buffy," "Malcolm in the Middle," "Friends," "Curb Your Enthusiasm," "Everybody Loves Raymond," "The Bernie Mac Show," "Scrubs" and "The Tick."

At the other end of the scale, the critics' choice for the worst shows on television are: "Wolf Lake," "Danny," "According to Jim," "Love Cruise," "Temptation Island," "Men, Women & Dogs," "Inside Schwartz," "Off Centre," "Emeril," and the worst show of the season: "Bob Patterson."

But does it really matter what the critics like? To the networks, the only thing that matters is who is watching the shows. They want bodies, preferably bodies with high incomes. The top show among viewers with incomes above $65,000 is "The West Wing." Joining it among high income favorites are "Ed," "Law & Order," and "NYPD Blue."

As for those households with lower income (under $40,000), favorite shows include "Men, Women & Dogs," "The Hughleys," "Steve Harvey," "Family Law" and "Family Guy."

NBC ranks at the top of the median income ratings, followed (in order) by CBS, ABC, Fox, WB and UPN.

-Frank Absher

Newspapers in education

More than a few professors of journalism have found occasion in the classroom to recite the inspirational words of the Pulitzer creed: " ... always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare ... "

Unfortunately, there are skeptical students these days who dismiss such words as nothing more than public relations. The words are mere window dressing atop an editorial page that advocates millions in tax subsidies for rich sports team owners-public plunderers, while services and aid for the poor get the budget axe.

Students also are skeptical about textbooks in ethics which counsel about conflicts of interest in journalism. The profession should scrupulously avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. "But what about a daily newspaper that owns stock in a ball team and editorializes for public money to be given to team owners?" ask the skeptical students.

How is a professor to answer these audacious students who scoff at the high ideals and codes of journalistic ethics? Tell these lads and lasses it's all just journalism history, professor. All these ethics and ideals are history.

-Don Corrigan

Passion for food

A new and expanded food section is in the works at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and a search for a food writer has been under way since Thanksgiving, with the actual hiring dependent on final approval for the new pages from the executive suite.

It's obvious that the newspaper is looking for someone special. The job posting says: "We want someone who has a passion for-and wide-ranging knowledge of-food and cooking. This journalist should be as comfortable writing about applesauce as zabaglione, about comfort foods and cutting edge cuisines. This person needs to be: Attentive to details, such as the proper ingredients and directions in recipes; attuned to the latest regional and national trends in foods and cooking styles; able to craft compelling stories showcasing the connection between culture and food; able to profile chefs and others in the forefront of cooking in an informative, yet breezy writing style.

"Above all, our food writer must be sensitive to our readers' tastes and time and able to produce stories and recipes that are practical and useful.

"Feature-writing experience is essential. We're looking for someone with a deft, light touch. Editing experience is preferred as this person may fill in for Food Editor Judy Evans during vacations."

-Joe Pollack

Media/Politics

Media money makes media money

By Terry Jones

The House of Representatives' passage of the Shays-Meehan campaign-finance-reform bill last month was not a complete victory for the forces of reform. Thanks to an all-out lobbying effort by television and radio stations, orchestrated by the National Association of Broadcasters, a provision which would have limited their revenues from campaign spots was taken out of the legislation.

That's good news for St. Louis's electronic market. According to figures compiled by the Campaign Media Analysis Group, the region's television outlets alone took in $21,619,964 in the 2000 elections. St. Louis led the nation in the total number of spots (34,889) and, despite its mid-tier size, finished 8th overall in total revenues, well ahead of locations like Chicago (13th) and Atlanta (23rd). Those revenues would have been reduced by a third or more, about $7 to $8 million, if the restraint on charges had prevailed.

All this is about something called "lowest unit charge." The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 required stations to give candidates "most favored treatment," allowing them to purchase time during the 60 days prior to a general election at "the lowest charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the same period."

Sounds straightforward but, as campaign spending on television grew, stations quickly became frustrated about having a growing share of their inventory in the autumns of even-numbered years being sold at bargain basement prices. So they began looking for ways to evade the letter of the law.

Soon the following scenario developed. Campaigns would ask to purchase a spot, say, on the 10 o'clock news, prime advertising time for political candidates, at the lowest unit charge. Sure, replied the stations, but you must understand that at that price your campaign's ad is "preemptible." That meant if someone else, including other candidates as well as regular businesses, were willing to pay a higher price, then the campaign spot would be bumped to another time. Stations call that a "make good" but, for candidates, it is more "make bad."

Not controlling when a spot would air plays havoc with campaign tactics. Beyond a total disaster, nothing is more worthless than a political commercial shown after the election. There are also other major complications. The ad might be responding to an attack made during the same newscast two days ago. To be most effective in countering the charges, it should reach roughly the same audience. Or it might be targeted to a certain demographic. That pro-woman spot designed for Oprah Winfrey does you no good if it is shifted to the gun-and-fish show where the guys then wonder what in the heck this is all about.

Of course, the stations say, if you pay top dollar rather than lowest unit, then we can guarantee when the spot plays. So most campaigns swallowed hard and put at least part of their message into the pricier category, especially during the last few weeks leading up to the election. By 2000, according to a study of more than 16,000 ads in 10 major markets conducted by the Alliance for Better Campaigns, the average premium paid was 65 percent higher than the lowest unit charge.

To plug this loophole, the Senate added an amendment to the McCain-Feingold bill last year which would have mandated that electronic media charge the lowest unit rate without qualifications. It passed handily, 69 to 31, receiving support from both Democrats and Republicans, catching the broadcast industry by surprise.

When the Enron bankruptcy returned campaign finance reform to the front burner, with a discharge petition forcing the House Republican leadership to bring it forward for a debate and a vote in mid-February, this provided the television and radio stations with an opportunity to remove this revenue killer. With all the attention focused on stopping soft money, maybe they could operate beneath the radar screen, aided by the fact that their news operations determine much of what the screen scans.

They were politically prepared. During the 2000 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, broadcasters as individuals and through political action committees had contributed $6,836,827 to federal candidates and the two political parties, about triple what they did in 1998 and 1996. According to a "Money in Politics Alert" issued Feb. 13 on the center's website (www.opensecrets.org), five days following passage of the Senate amendment, the National Association of Broadcasters contributed $15,000 to each of the party's House campaign committees and, within the next two weeks, also gave more than $60,000 to individual members.

It paid off. On Feb. 13, the House voted overwhelmingly, 327-101, to eliminate the language requiring lowest unit charge. Shays-Meehan will go to conference absent this provision. According to the Feb. 15 issue of Broadcasting & Cable, "back in their headquarters, the National Association of Broadcasters popped the champagne."

Campaign finance reform aside, this incident demonstrates the vulnerability created by the conflict between media as business and media as informer. When the media have something financial at stake, they play the political game. That's fair, but only if they cover their own machinations. Can we realistically expect that to happen?

Sports/Media

Just an old-fashioned scam

By Joe Pollack

Wouldn't you just know it! Go out of town for a couple of days, and when you get off the plane-wham!-there's another stadium proposal, with those poverty-stricken club owners on their knees in the corridors with hands out and wide open, just waiting for you to toss in a few coins.

Meanwhile, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which never used to roll over quite so unashamedly for civic interests, has rolled over, and Mayor Francis Slay, obviously living in his brick dream world at Market and Tucker, remains convinced that if the citizens don't abandon schools, transportation, hospitals, welfare and so on in favor of enriching Bill DeWitt and his cronies, the Cardinals will move to Illinois. At that point, St. Louis will dry up and blow away like a seed pod in a breeze.

This is so much arrent nonsense.

St. Louis needs a new stadium like Bud Selig needs more yes-men. The old one is not quite 40 years old. In the city of Arles, in southern France, the citizens hold sporting events in a colosseum built by the Romans some 2000 years ago. No, it does not have luxury boxes, nor a Colosseum Village, but it works for the citizens of Arles.

And if St. Louis falls for the soft soap of the wealthy whiners and wheedlers of major league baseball, the following scenario will play out. The Cardinal owners will delay on the so-called Ballpark Village, which has about as much chance of being built as new houses and activities along the Mississippi River (even Cincinnati, where DeWitt lives, has some of those). They may even dig a little hole here or there. That will screw up traffic, and at the same time, signs will remind drivers and pedestrians that these delays are caused by waiting for the progress and prosperity coming with the Ballpark Village.

And at the same time, they will be busy selling the team for an immense profit.

That's what DeWitt and pals did in Arlington, Texas, when they owned the Texas Rangers. They, with help from George W. Bush, a ne'er-do-well playboy given the opportunity to become a part owner and make a financial killing because his father was a man of importance, convinced Texans that they desperately needed a new stadium. Once they had it, they packed their carpet bags with money and left town. Being a part owner of a swindle was one of the "jobs" that gave our president all his experience with "bidness," as "business" is pronounced in the halls of the Texas legislature and the columns of Molly Ivins.

It bears a certain resemblance to the traveling medicine show that a couple of swindlers named the King and the Dauphin used to con money out of locals in towns along the Mississippi River. Their adventures were described in a book, "Huckleberry Finn," by a Missouri author named Mark Twain. Those locals-unlike many of today's St. Louisans-finally realized a swindle was in progress, and while Huck, Tom and Jim hid along the river bank, the King and the Dauphin, garbed in feathers and tar, exited on a convenient rail.

Times have changed, and St. Louisans are just too nice to take action like that against men who have made millions, and are about to make millions more, out of the national pastime. Selig and his co-conspirators, working with inside deals that involve breaking all the rules of off-the-field baseball, keep whining that baseball teams are losing money. Meanwhile, the men who supposedly have lost all this money as baseball owners, and had to sell their teams to buy this year's Mercedes, a la Montreal and Miami, are lining up to spend even more money to buy new teams and, I guess, lose even more money.

Amazing, isn't it!

Meanwhile, a man wants to buy the Minnesota Twins and build his own new stadium with his own money, but Selig keeps blocking the deal so that the Twins will go away. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that Selig (his daughter's name is on the stationery) owns the Milwaukee Brewers, who would then have a monopoly on radio rights, and fans, and territory, all the way to Seattle?

No matter what the Missouri legislature does, the Cardinals are not leaving St. Louis. They are sitting on top of far too much valuable downtown real estate.

The irony in this scenario is that the current stadium was built to keep the Football Cardinals from leaving St. Louis for Atlanta, where Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium was a new lure to grab a big-league team. And at the same time, stadiums were built in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cincinnati and other cities. All were round, like St. Louis, because they all were built to be used for more than one sport. An exception was Kansas City, where two stadiums were built. It was common knowledge that it was cheaper and better to build separate stadiums for football and baseball, but only if land acquisition was not a factor. This was true in Kansas City, but not here.

•••

And the Olympics are over, too, and all the jingoistic nationalism can be put away until 2004, and the games in Athens. There were some wonderful moments throughout, and some splendid coverage by television and by the Post's Vahe Gregorian, even if all the NBC balderdash about live coverage was about as accurate as most television balderdash.

I'd like to see more of Bob Costas, as a play-by-play announcer or a commentator instead of just being a traffic cop. And I'd like to have seen the last of Scott Hamilton, whose hysteria rapidly became unbearable. I loved watching the Swiss ski jumper in flight and I thought all the figure skaters and ice dancers, whose routines seemed identical, were boring.

Media/Law

It's that time of year

By Ken Jones

It's become an annual rite of spring in the state legislature. Open-records bills are introduced, much ink is spilled over toughening the Sunshine Law, and then nothing much is accomplished by the end of the session.

Will it be any different this year?

The most significant proposal is Senate Bill 685, sponsored by Sen. Sarah Steelman, R-Rolla, which would make several revisions to the open-government law. The provision attracting the most attention would raise the maximum penalty from $500 per violation to $2,500 or 5 percent of the government body's annual budget, whichever is lower.

Moreover, if the violation is "knowing," the offending government body or member must pay the legal fees of the plaintiff who prevailed in the case. Currently, a trial judge has discretion over whether to award fees-something judges have been reluctant to do.

The bill provides a safe harbor for members of a government body who want to avoid a penalty-if they object in the minutes of the hearing that they believe that "the body is wrongfully closing a meeting or vote," this is an "absolute defense" against liability for the penalty.

At a Feb. 11 hearing, State Auditor Claire McCaskill testified in support of the bill. She reminded the Senate panel of an experiment her office conducted last year to test the level of compliance by state agencies with the Sunshine Law. According to an April 2001 Associated Press story, "almost half of state governmental bodies surveyed did not adequately respond to requests from her office, disguised as letters from citizens, for copies of public records." In addition, "54 percent of the surveyed agencies charged fees higher than the cost of copying the records."

The bill also specifically names the curator of the University of Missouri and any bi-state development agency as entities subject to the Sunshine Law. In addition, votes at open meetings must be by roll call-currently required only at closed meetings-unless they involve procedural or ministerial matters. And the bill expands the enforcement powers of the attorney general in investigating Sunshine Law complaints.

SB 685 would also modify the county-coroner statute, which is not under the umbrella of the Sunshine Law. A county coroner investigating a death would be required to make a public report within 72 hours of death, disclosing information such as the identity of the deceased, the location of death and the results of any autopsy performed.

Another Steelman-sponsored bill, this one regarding the sealing of court documents, is being trumpeted by plaintiffs' lawyers and lambasted by insurance companies. Senate Bill 686 essentially bans the use of confidentiality agreements in the settlement of lawsuits.

The measure provides that both records filed in court and records possessed by the parties to a lawsuit but not filed in court-that is, deposition transcripts, documents produced during litigation and interrogatory answers by parties-are public documents.

If enacted, the bill would prevent insurance companies and product manufacturers from settling lawsuits secretly and avoiding the publicity that a big verdict would bring. Plaintiffs' lawyers contend that confidential settlements hide important news from the public about dangerous products. Insurance companies say plaintiffs' lawyers are not interested in safety, but only in sharing information so they can file more suits and make more money.

SB 686 would allow a court to seal a case in only very limited circumstances-juvenile matters, lawyer discipline cases, and matters involving corporate trade secrets.

Opposing the trend of greater openness, three pending bills would restrict access to certain records. Under Senate Bill 779, public hospitals could close records regarding payments made in contracts with health carriers, the discussion and analysis of new health services or facilities, and the amount of compensation paid to physicians.

In addition, law enforcement groups are supporting House Bill 1258, which would make confidential the identities of officers involved in incident reports or investigations "which do not result in formal disciplinary action or filing of charges relating to the complaint." The bill is in response to a Missouri Supreme Court case, Guyer v. City of Kirkwood, which held that a report about an officer who was the subject of an investigation was still an open record after he was exonerated.

Finally, a restrictive bill has been filed in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. House Bill 1098 would permit closing government meetings where plans for handling terrorist attacks on water supplies and sewers are discussed.

Missouri Press Association director Doug Crews, who opposes the bill, told the Associated Press: "Sept. 11 has provided the perfect excuse for going into the Sunshine Law and protecting certain records from disclosure, even when there is clearly a public right to know."

AM/FM

Oldies get younger

By Lynn Venhaus

In an effort to sound fresher and more energized, KLOU (103.3 FM), has dropped its "Good Times and Great Oldies" format for a "St. Louis' Super Hits" sound. Gone are '50s tunes, replaced by additional '70s songs from the likes of Billy Joel, Elton John, James Taylor and Carly Simon. Owner Clear Channel, which has revamped several of its stations this way, had planned the KLOU tweaking for several months.

"We are not going for a younger demographic with KLOU, we're just adjusting as a new crop of listeners moves into our demographic. 'Oldies' is not preserved in a bottle, it is a living and breathing thing that needs to be updated as the audience needs, wants and past musical experience change," said Mike Wheeler, operations director at KLOU. "We find that the word 'oldies' connotes '50s and '60s to most people. Since our music is now predominately mid '60s through the '70s, the word no longer makes sense for us-thus 'St. Louis Super Hits.'"

Also out is veteran morning man J.C. Corcoran, who was unexpectedly fired Feb. 22. He maintains that it was a bottom-line decision dictated by Clear Channel corporate hierarchy. "It was a salary dump, plain and simple," Corcoran said. "I was told, 'We're taking the station in a different direction and you're not part of it.'"

Instead of "J.C. and the Breakfast Club" weekday mornings, former Corcoran sidekicks Brian McKenna and Karen Kelly, who is also the producer, have joined forces with Smash (aka Asher Benrubi).

Corcoran, who joined KLOU nearly two years ago, had been involved in contract negotiations for 11 months. He said before his contract expired on Sept. 30, a three-year financial package had been agreed to in August. But, three weeks after Sept. 11, another proposal was presented to him, cutting his salary by 40 percent. "They were crying poor, saying the economy was down. I felt betrayed, totally betrayed, but it was a very weird time, so I decided to ride it out," he said.

After months of getting nowhere, Corcoran said he planned to accept the pay cut but suggested the contract be shortened to two years, in the event the economy got better, and that it be finished by Jan. 15. That didn't happen. In talks with the corporate attorney, things were being added to the contract, such as he wouldn't be guaranteed an office and Clear Channel reserved the right to give him 30-days notice.

Corcoran said both Lee Clear, the local GM, and Wheeler had previously expressed confidence that a deal could be done, and also had been pleased with the show. "Lee Clear put his arm around me," he said. "I was told by Wheeler that 'you're definitely doing your part.'"

Then, the boom was lowered. "To the listeners, it's been like a death in the family, nobody saw it coming. I've had 800 e-mails since Friday," he said.

His tenure at KLOU was his seventh job in 18 years in this market. Since coming to St. Louis in 1984, Corcoran has worked in rock music formats at KSHE, WVRV The River, and KSD-FM twice, plus two short-lived stints into talk radio at KMOX and KTRS.

While some of those firings involved tiffs with management or on-air tirades, Corcoran denies that this was the case. "Mike Wheeler's the best boss I ever had," he said.

"I know people think, 'What did he do now?' There are professional J.C. Corcoran haters out there. But I've done very well here. The show isn't for everybody, not everybody appreciates my style." Corcoran also said he's changed from the abrasive, outrageous angry young man persona earlier in his career, a reputation that he continually tries to shake.

Corcoran said he is convinced a corporate higher-up made the decision. "I was making too much money," he said. Wheeler declined to elaborate, saying, "I can't and won't comment on the J.C. situation other than to say that J.C. is still one of my favorite people and I wish him nothing but good things in the future."

Corcoran said he will stay here because of his two daughters, whether he lands another radio gig or not. He is, however, talking to stations about opportunities. "I wish Karen, Smash and Brian the best-they're my friends. Karen and I had been together 10 years. There are no guarantees in this business."

•••

Further Emmis Communications' cost-cutting moves have resulted in dismissal of five employees from the company's St. Louis operations (KSHE 94.7 FM, KIHT 96.3 FM, KPNT 105.7 FM, WMLL 104.1 FM, and KFTK 97.1 FM).

Steve "The Gatekeeper" Hammond, who had helmed the evening shift at KSHE for three years, was let go, along with sales assistant Kim Hohman, who had been with the station since 1982. Three employees who worked for all five stations were also discharged-Gary Bennett, who was the Internet technologies person, had started at KSHE in 1968, and had worked both on-air and in production; Maggie McKenna, an accounts receivable bookkeeper since 1995; and Abigail Pollay, marketing/promotions director who had been there since 1986.

John Beck, senior vice-president for Emmis/St. Louis, said the layoffs were purely bottom-line driven. "We had another cutback driven by the economy," he said. "We gave them all nice severance packages."

Besides advertising dollars being down nationally, Beck noted that Emmis owns three radio stations in New York City, which were particularly hit hard with revenue loss after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks (classic soul WRKS 98.7 FM, hip-hop WQHT 97 FM, and smooth jazz WQCD 101.9 FM). In addition to the NYC properties, Emmis Communications operates 22 stations in Los Angeles, Chicago, Phoenix, Denver, Terre Haute, Indianapolis and St. Louis.

A year ago, Emmis/St. Louis released a dozen people around when the new fiscal year budget began March 1, because the purchase of the Sinclair properties in October 2000 had caused the duplication of some jobs, Beck said. Employees also took a 10 percent pay cut in November, which was made up in company stock options, but employees who needed to cash those in could do so every payday, Beck noted.

Currently, Emmis employs about 140 people in St. Louis, and Beck was hopeful that no more cuts would be necessary. "This is it," he said. "That's enough. It is the worst part of my job. I hope the people find new jobs and get happy again."

•••

The longstanding KMOX line-up has been shuffled, with the new weekday shifts effective Monday, March 18.

After two years together, "The Morning Meeting" co-hosts Charles Brennan and McGraw Milhaven will go their separate ways, with McGraw helming the show from 9-11 a.m. while Brennan moves to the afternoon drive shift. "Total Information PM" will now be an hour earlier, from 3-6 p.m., which had been hosted by Carol Daniel and Milhaven.

Daniel will continue her "In Focus" segments at 4:35 and 5:35 p.m. She will anchor newscasts at 10 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. and produce in-depth special features and series. She will also host a talk show, "Between Friends," from 1-2 p.m. on Saturdays 10 times a year.

Charles Jaco will forego his 2-4 p.m. "Newsmakers" show for an evening opportunity, "Nightwatch," from 8-10 p.m. on non-sports nights, which will focus on Jaco's conversations with people in the news, both on the local and national level. "Charles' duties as the station's senior correspondent and investigative reporter give him the inside track on the top stories and a more in-depth approach when interviewing his guests," commented Tom Langmyer, KMOX operations manager. The show could possibly be syndicated if Jaco builds a strong audience.

KMOV (Channel 4) anchor Larry Conners will be the new host of "KMOX Live!" from 2-3 p.m., which will feature special guests, interviews and listener phone calls.

Staying put are Nan Wyatt and Doug McElvein on "Total Information AM" from 5-9 a.m., syndicated Rush Limbaugh from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., "The Budweiser Sports Open Line" with Mike Grimm from 6-8 p.m., "The Carney Show" with John Carney from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. and "The Grayson Files" with Jon Grayson from 2-5 a.m.

•••

The Trading Station, a Saturday morning institution on KMOX for nearly 30 years that allowed locals to swap treasures and trash, has gone the way of word processors and party lines.

"The program was put on the air before there was an Internet, online auction services, eBay, big neighborhood garage sales or as many trading publications as there are today," Langmyer explained. "When I got to the station nearly 10 years ago, the show used to be nearly three hours long in the morning. Our listeners wanted more news and information." That's when "Total Information AM/Saturday" took over and the Trading Station was shortened to one hour.

Effective March 3, the Saturday line-up features Bill Reker and Megan Lynch on "Total Information AM" from 5-9 a.m., then Mike Miller will host the "Garden Hotline" from 9-11 a.m., with Scott Mosby doing "The Home Improvement Show" from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

"This adjustment is just part of the evolution of KMOX, based on our listener feedback. We have already received positive feedback on Mike Miller's "Garden Hotline" moving up an hour. Mike will also no longer be preempted by sports play-by-play."

Langmyer noted that at www.kmox.com, alternative ways of trading have been given to listeners, with a list of local publications and websites.

•••

Veteran broadcaster Bill Wilkerson has come out of retirement to host a weekend morning news/talk information show on KTRS (550 AM).

"Weekends with Bill Wilkerson" airs from 6-9 a.m. Saturday and Sunday, and will also feature former TV reporter Rachelle Rowe. The program will be a mix of news, sports, weather, features, interviews and talk, according to station manager Fred Zielonko.

Wilkerson spent 27 years working at KMOX before joining KTRS in 1996. He retired in 2000 after working 30 years in St. Louis at both FM and AM stations. He once did play-by-play for the St. Louis Cardinals and University of Missouri football, and joined Bob Costas to announce the old ABA Spirits basketball games in 1972.

•••

Company duties have been added to KMOX's operations manager Tom Langmyer. He has been designated "Format Captain" for the news/talk stations in the CBS/Infinity stable, which includes KMOX, KDKA in Pittsburgh, WCCO in Minneapolis, KRLD in Dallas, WTIC in Hartford, WPHT in Philadelphia, KXNT in Las Vegas, KTSA in San Antonio, KMJ in Fresno, and WPTF in Raleigh.

"I'll be mostly coordinating communication with the stations, leading the conference calls and assisting on projects as needed," he said.

Radio History

Radio Hall of Fame will grow

By Frank Absher

People who are members of the Baby Boom generation can look back on their years as teen-agers and conjure up a name or two of their favorite disc jockeys. That's because radio was important to us back then, and the deejays were talented, intelligent people who seemed to understand and care about their listeners.

It was out of a desire to spotlight the accomplishments of some of these St. Louis radio pioneers that the St. Louis Radio Hall of Fame was founded.

There are 37 members in the hall's inaugural "class," each of them honored for a contribution to radio in our city. There were 75 people nominated by the board of directors, and voters chose from that list. Five new members per year will be added in the future.

Who was the first lady of St. Louis radio? That would be Virginia Jones, who was known on the air as "Miss Jones," and later, "V.A.L. Jones." She was at KSD when the St. Louis Post-Dispatch station signed on in 1922. Serving as an announcer, scheduler and program director, Miss Jones was admired for her deep, resonant voice and her outstanding organizational abilities. Gracy, meanwhile, was the first black lady of St. Louis radio, beginning her announcing career on KATZ in the late 1950s.

Who can be credited with giving birth to "Real Rock Radio?" In 1962, Ed Ceries and his wife Leona signed the station on from the basement of their home in Crestwood. Ed's vision was of a station that would play classical music, and he dubbed it "KSHE-The Lady of FM." When it was obvious his format wouldn't be a financial success, Ceries sold the station, and the new owners eventually found the rock format in the late '60s.

Some of those elected to the hall of fame are still on the air, giving listeners the chance to hear a part of history: Lou "Fatha" Thimes, Gabriel, Buddy Moreno, Leo Chears and Paul Harvey-yes, that Paul Harvey. Using his given name, Paul Aurandt, he was a newsman at KXOK when it signed on in 1938.

The names of other members may not be familiar, but each of them contributed to St. Louis radio. Bud Connell is the man credited with creating KXOK in the 1960s, turning it into a nationally known Top 40 powerhouse. Lester Arthur Benson built the market's earliest radio transmitters, putting KSD on the air and later building his own station, WEB, which became WIL.

Nellie Booth was the first president of the St. Louis chapter of AFRA, the American Federation of Radio Artists. She served the union here until the 1960s. Harry Eidelman put KCFM on the air in the early 50s and spent many long nights with his engineers keeping the equipment operating.

Some members who have passed away are remembered for what they did on the air. Robert BQ, Spider Burks and Dave Dixon were pioneers on the "race radio" scene here. Harry Fender, John McCormick, Jack Carney, France Laux, Rex Davis, Bob Hardy and Bob Osborne had long runs on KMOX.

There were the news voices of Gene Hirsch, John Roedel, Bob Shea, Robert R. Lynn and Sterling Harkins; and sports voices of Buddy Blattner, Jack Buck and Harry Caray. Gil Newsome wowed the teens on KWK in the early 50s and later broadcast on KSD.

Bernie Hayes is still around, sharing his broadcast experiences with Webster University students. Ed Wilson was the man who could sell anything with his folksy approach to announcing.

Roy Queen is still around, sharing memories of that day in 1929 when he auditioned on the air at KMOX. His hillbilly singing act was a hit, though he was only 16 at the time. Jim White has memories of thousands of late night shifts on the 50,000 watt powerhouse that was KMOX.

Don Pietromonaco is listed in the hall, but his loyal listeners remember him as Johnny Rabbitt on KXOK. And Robert Hyland is also there. Anyone who knows anything about radio history here needs no introduction to him.

But while it may appear that the St. Louis Radio Hall of Fame is all about the past, it's also about the future. Radio's future employees-management and talent-should take time to learn from the leaders of the past.

Ad/PR

Going against the ethics tide

By Rick Stoff

In a world that seems increasingly unethical, many professional groups are trying to salvage or restore credibility. One of them is the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), which recognized February as "Ethics Month" to focus attention on an updated code of ethics that was adopted in 2000.

The new code stresses six values: Advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty and fairness. Pursuing some of these values may create conflicts with some clients and employers.

The code says of advocacy, "We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent. We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts and viewpoints to aid informed public debate."

Of independence it explains, "We provide objective counsel to those we represent." Of fairness, it says, "We respect all opinions and support the right of free expression."

Much of today's public discourse, however, seems to be based on hewing strictly to the company or political-party line while stifling, demonizing and discrediting any who hold differing viewpoints.

As a result, public relations has become one of those professions that is lacking in public esteem. To many people, public relations "is all about spin," said Liese Hutchison, APR, the ethics officer for the St. Louis chapter of PRSA. She is an assistant professor in the Department of Communications at St. Louis University who also does outside consulting work.

"There are too many people who throw about the term 'public relations' and don't know what it means," she said. "There are people practicing in the field who have no clue what it is."

The highest goal of public relations is to encourage businesses and organizations to do the right things as well as say the right things, Hutchison said. "We really need to be the ethical conscience of the organization. We not only need to put our clients in the best light but also help them do the right thing. We are seeing companies that do that and, unfortunately, companies that don't."

She believes the biggest ethical problem facing organizational communications is "lack of communications."

"People are trying to obstruct communications, stop it, saying no comment, not providing a spokesperson, not telling their publics what is going on. You don't catch too many people lying. The problem is being unethical by omission."

Tough situations can make times tough for the public-relations practitioner dealing with a client who does not understand media relations or realize the risks of short-term obfuscation.

PRSA's Board of Ethics and Professional Standards has prepared seven case studies that illustrate ethical dilemmas facing the profession. Several of the cases deal with pressure to withhold important information or "control the media."

"When I see a corporation that is not doing a good job of public relations, I wonder if the public relations staff is not counseling the president and CEO or if they are not listening to the public relations staff," Hutchison said. "We are going to get pressure from clients and employers. It is up to the public relations practitioner to tell the client what is not right. We shouldn't bow to pressure. If we are going to be a 'yes' person, we shouldn't be in public relations. People who are 'yes persons' are the ones giving the profession a bad name."

For most of its first 50 years of existence, the PRSA Code of Ethics included a judicial process for handling complaints and enforcing sanctions against violators. The new code largely drops sanctions in favor of ethics through "inspiration." The society's newspaper, Public Relations Tactics, recently explained that enforcement was a difficult proposition in a voluntary organization.

"During the first 50 years in which PRSA had a code of ethics, only 10 in 232 cases investigated resulted in formal sanctions against members for unethical behavior." In six of those cases, sanctions followed findings in public courts, "meaning that only four formal sanctions resulted from investigations ... the enforcement system simply was not effective in holding members accountable."

There is some disagreement within the society over the new focus, Hutchison said, "but I think it is very refreshing to try to strive and reach the highest levels of honesty and expertise by looking at it as a positive."

The new code came with a recommendation that each local PRSA chapter have an ethics officer who can lend a confidential ear to members facing ethical dilemmas. Since the new code was adopted, Hutchison has been contacted by about half a dozen members here. "We talk through the situation and discuss the possible solutions," she said.

Some companies look to questionable public relations tactics to provide a quick fix for the bottom line, she said.

"Too many companies are thinking short-term," she said. "Let's not talk to the media; let's cover up. Public relations is a long-term endeavor about building trust and credibility. Unethical behavior hurts the bottom line. The long-term solution is doing the right thing."

... And it just got worse

Fox v. FCC decision opens door to even more concentration of ownership

By Alex Posorske

In the last issue of SJR, Editor Ed Bishop compiled a list of companies which own the various media outlets in the St. Louis area. The list and accompanying story showed that, with the exception of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Suburban Journals (both owned by Pulitzer, Inc.), the St. Louis American and KETC (Channel 9), every major media outlet in the area is owned by large, out-of-town corporations that also possess a range of other media holdings in assorted cities throughout the United States.

The same situation of course reigns supreme in most American cities where, as in St. Louis, shareholder contentment seems to rank higher than committed local ownership and a diversity of viewpoints in the media.

But if that now seems outrageous to some, then it looks like it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

While the 1990s gave us the Telecommunications Act to propel deregulation and media mergers into the fast lane, the new century has given us what some experts think might be the next Great Leap Forward in the ongoing war of capital vs. the public interest-Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. the Federal Communications Commission.

For those unfamiliar with the case decided on Feb. 19, here is a brief rundown: The United States Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. struck down an FCC rule prohibiting owning cable systems and broadcast stations in the same market and ordered the FCC to reexamine a rule that prohibits one company from owning a certain number of television stations, which, when combined, reach more than 35 percent of the potential television audience in the country.

The decision has corporations like AOL-Time Warner and Viacom looking to the future with eager, optimistic eyes while many smaller players in the industry and media watchers say they are waiting to hear the bells toll an end to truly independent mass information and media outlets.

"It's appalling," said John Pauly, chairperson of the St. Louis University Communications Department, laughing like a man who just heard the funniest joke from his executioner. "It's almost as though the last illusion that broadcast ownership has to (defer) to democracy is gone."

Perhaps Pauly's reaction might seem melodramatic to some. After all, the court did not strike down the 35 percent rule, it merely told the FCC to reexamine it. But media watchers say that with the current FCC and its free market champion of a chairman Michael Powell-who cast one of only two dissenting votes in the FCC ruling that led to the court case, the court remanding the case is as good as striking down.

"We're in the depressing situation that the people who are technically supposed to be looking out for the public's interests on the airwaves are in the back pockets of the people who want to control them," said Robert McChesney, a communications professor at the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana who has written and lectured about the issue. "This is something that Powell is eager to get rid of."

Jim Schuessler, the general manager of the ABC affiliate in Springfield, Mo., voiced similar sentiments.

"The question is whether (the FCC has) the stomach for it or is television going to become what radio is, with three or four large players and a lot of smaller players struggling to get by," he said. "It's probably a progressive thing and what's going to happen is there won't be any limits (eventually)."

Schuessler added that once the limits are struck down, a number of mergers are almost certain to happen.

"We're beholden to Wall Street on this thing and the mergers are probably going to have to happen to keep Wall Street happy," he said.

Once those mergers happen and the dust is cleared, Pauly said, we will be looking at and listening to a very different world. In this new world, he said, broadcast news will have less and less relevance as a vital part of a free press as it becomes clear that the news is emanating from fewer and fewer outlets and viewpoints.

"I think it's going to be hard to work in broadcast news and have any credibility," he said. "I really think people are going to say that democracy is somewhere else."

Pauly pointed out what used to be common knowledge, that democracy is not served well when a few groups attempt to consolidate power, especially in something as far reaching as the field of communications.

"Traditionally in democratic societies people are suspicious of too much power. They think that's a bad thing," he said. "The attitude now is almost that it's OK for us to be big. 'You just have to trust us and it's not going to be too bad.'"

McChesney said he could foresee the television world taking on a form similar to what the radio world became after the Telecommunications Act. The 1996 law raised the number of radio stations a company could own in one market from four to eight and nationally from 28 to an unlimited number, which quickly led to a number of mergers and takeovers.

Although radio in 1995, like television today, was not exactly a paradise of divergent views and information, McChesney said it is hard to argue as a consumer-unless you are a 12-year-old girl-that radio is better off today than it was before the Telecommunications Act.

"Radio is commercialized in a way that was unthinkable even 10 years ago," McChesney said. "Right now those days look like the golden days."

Of course some might argue that the decision in Fox v. FCC is not all doom and gloom. In rationalizing the remanding of the television ownership rule, the court cited the Administrative Procedure Act-basically saying the FCC did not handle the matter properly from an administrative standpoint.

The court rejected the television company's argument that ownership rules inherently violated the First Amendment rights of the companies. In fact, the court even said explicitly that the government has some right to regulate the industry.

" ... the Congress may, in the regulation of broadcasting, constitutionally pursue values other than efficiency-including in particular diversity in programming, for which diversity of ownership is perhaps an aspirational but surely not an irrational proxy," reads one section of the court's opinion.

Thus some media watchers may be heartened that the government at least appears to still have the power to regulate the industry. But McChesney said that while it would have been a much larger disaster if the court had said government regulation violates the First Amendment, he is not about to invite all of his friends over to celebrate.

"That's really not something you should break champagne bottles over," he said. "That's like getting excited over the fact that you're allowed to vote."

The legal validation of government regulation just signals another battle, McChesney said, as the industry gears up to attempt to get rid of all government regulation.

"They've got all the relevant politicians in their pocket," he said.

Others might argue that the decision doesn't matter because corporations in the news business have to deliver what the consumer wants-in this case objective, accurate news.

Spencer Koch, the general manager of KTVI (Channel 2), is one of those people. He is in a good position to talk about the topic since Channel 2 is currently the only St. Louis station owned by a network (Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation). The corporations owns Fox, and Fox filed the suit. Koch said that from his standpoint the station's local news commitment got better after News Corporation bought the station.

"I can't speak for the other companies, but I think that for a company that owns 35 percent (of the media market) in this country, Fox has done a pretty good job of serving the needs of the community," he said, citing the seven hours of local news he says his station now puts out daily.

Koch said what matters most is what sort of people are present on the staff of the local affiliates.

"It starts from the individual stations that are part of a company," he said. "Everybody has been looking from the top down. They need to be looking from the bottom up."

Pauly, to put it mildly, does not see it that way.

"This is the scam," he said, speaking from a hypothetical network position. "The scam is that we control things nationally or internationally and then we appeal to the local news as a public ceremony. Local coverage is just a way of saying, 'You can trust us because we cover your ceremonies and your beautiful baby contests.' That doesn't amount to anything.

"'Trust us. It's not going to make any difference because we're your hometown team.' That's just bogus to me."

Pauly said one of his only hopes for the current situation is that average citizens start paying attention to the fact that companies like Viacom and Fox now own huge chunks of the market and become outraged.

"It's so bad that it will give credence to critics of deregulation," he said. "I just think in a more robustly democratic society we wouldn't find this OK."

Pauly said more grassroots organizing will be necessary and is hopeful that media like the Internet will continue to develop in ways that allow them to get around the traditional information channels but still reach a large enough number of people to be relevant.

McChesney said more directly: political action is going to be necessary. He pointed out that deregulation came from Washington, D.C., so therefore it is necessary to fight back in the political arena where a large enough group of people should still nominally have some clout.

He admitted that it will not be an easy fight with the current make-up of our government and the premium that government has placed on deregulation since the Reagan years.

"Politically, it's going to be World War III," he said.

New blood needed for SPJ chapter

By Tammy Merrett

In 1999, some officers and members of the St. Louis chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) were cautiously optimistic about the future of the local organization. There was talk of new programs to educate and support journalists and to turn around dwindling participation. There was also a plan to bring in new leadership or inspire members to take on leadership roles in SPJ.

The St. Louis chapter at one time was "one of the best chapters in the country," said Robert Leger, former regional director and national SPJ president-elect.

"I attended a regional conference there a couple years ago, and it was one of the best regional conferences I've attended," said Al Cross, SPJ's current national president.

But almost three years after an SJR article let readers know about the plan to turn the local chapter around, even cautious optimism seems to be gone.

What's going on with the local SPJ chapter?

"The short answer is not much," David Nicklaus, the chapter's most recent president, said. "I don't believe there have been any events in at least two years, probably more than that."

Staci Kramer, a St. Louis chapter member for 15 years who has served in various capacities in the local organization, said the chapter is basically "frozen" and that Nicklaus technically still is the president. The other officers voted in during the last election apparently still hold their offices as well.

Frozen is a good word to describe the condition of the local SPJ professional chapter. "I don't think we've met in 3 or 4 years," Nicklaus said. " The chapter still exists on paper, I guess."

To some officers, it was not even clear to them that they technically still hold office.

Reasons for decline

Nicklaus was at a loss for a reason why the chapter has deteriorated. "I don't know. That's a good question," Nicklaus said.

The chapter has experienced a membership decline from 1999-down from 100 to a small group of 30 local dues-paying members, according to Adam Goodman, the last elected treasurer.

But the group has always seemed to have a small, active core group that organized and carried out programming for local journalists that kept the group visible-programming such as an educational series to help journalists navigate the Internet before some of their newsrooms were even connected.

As that core group decided it was time for them to concentrate on other things, they put plans into place for the local SPJ chapter to still have leadership. "We had a very carefully thought-out succession plan that should have carried us through several years," Kramer said.

But those who were committed to assuming leadership in the organization moved on as well. "We had a core group at one time that kept it going, but there weren't any new volunteers to take over," Nicklaus said.

Kramer said that increased demands upon journalists' time, as well as fellowships and different jobs out of the area, contributed to the loss of those leadership commitments. But the original core group did not step back in either.

"I was able to do this and did it at the risk of my own work. At some point you have to balance it a little differently," Kramer said of her decision to scale back her involvement in the local SPJ chapter. "Every hour I spent doing that was an hour I had to find somewhere else to do work."

Kramer said the local chapter's real problem is not its dwindling number of members but lack of people who are willing to organize and lead.

"Getting members isn't the issue," Kramer said. "There is a need for multiple people to take part. I could schedule a year's worth of programming tomorrow, but the point is not for me to do it."

Kramer has been one of the local chapter's key organizers for about 15 years and is still involved in SPJ at the national level as part of the national ethics committee. She runs the national organization's journalism ethics listserv as well. But she has not been involved in local chapter programming recently-no one has apparently-and that has drawn some criticism from journalists who are or used to be members of the local chapter.

"People are happy to go to things," Kramer said. "Some people I've heard have made comments, but they haven't necessarily volunteered either."

Though Kramer says membership is not a problem, getting new members would, hopefully, bring new leadership to the organization. But, how can you draw new members in if there are no longer events showing what the group can accomplish?

"I'm willing to take full responsibility for no programs right now," Kramer said. "Should we program three programs and at the end, if no one volunteers, what do we do?"

Scholarship

One of the things the local SPJ chapter no longer does is provide an annual scholarship to the Journalism Foundation of Metropolitan St. Louis. Nicklaus said money for the scholarship came from soliciting funds separately from annual dues from its members.

"SPJ was not involved last year, and we haven't been able to find anybody who knows anything about what's happened to them," Marge Polcyn, executive director of the Press Club of Metropolitan St. Louis, said.

Polcyn said SPJ used to provide $500 per year to the scholarship fund and that the Press Club would then match that amount. But SPJ has not provided funds since 1998-99.

The national level

Being a chapter of a national organization it would be easy to assume there are some sort of consequences for inactivity. But, Leger said, there is no policy at the national level for what to do if a chapter falls inactive. There is not even a definition of what is considered inactive. Leger said a committee has been formed to look into setting such policy on the national level.

Both Leger and Cross said there has been a decline in membership on the national level and the St. Louis professional chapter is not the only one suffering. Cross said national membership is down to around 9,000 and that a national recruiting drive is being launched to try to turn that trend around.

Leger said a letter will be sent to former members and a larger group of people with the names coming, in part, from local chapters. The letters will also refer to local SPJ events in an effort to draw people in on a local and national level, but with nothing happening in the St. Louis chapter that won't help much.

"I know all the things we can do to help. I literally wrote part of the membership handbook. Maybe I'm being personally stubborn, but I don't think it should all come down to me," Kramer said. "I see this as the personal failure of something that for many years was a personal success."

No doubt others across the country share Kramer's feelings about their own defunct SPJ chapters. Leger said the Atlanta chapter a while back was set to be host of an annual national convention, but two years out the chapter just folded.

"Since it's such a media town, we really ought to be active there," Leger said about Atlanta.

Organizations can fail for many reasons, one being no new blood in the group. Leger said there have been surveys to determine demographics of the national SPJ membership and that the median age is progressively getting older.

"It's higher than what we would like it to be. It's getting grayer and grayer," Leger said.

He also said there have not been any particular campaigns to recruit younger journalists. "We hope that a lot of younger journalists come from SPJ college chapters," Leger said, adding that the national organization is not doing as well as it should in recruiting a younger demographic to the organization.

What about the money?

Though there is no formal SPJ definition of what an inactive chapter is, the St. Louis chapter would almost certainly meet those criteria when they are set. The only thing the chapter does with any kind of regularity now is collect $15 annual dues from its small group of local members. While approximately $450 per year is not a large chunk of change, those who faithfully send in their checks might want to know what is going on.

Goodman said the chapter still maintains a bank account and pays some occasional bills, such as keeping the domain name for the local chapter's website.

Nicklaus said they are hanging on to the funds in the hopes that someone will come forward to revive the organization.

"The organization still exists on paper and has some modest funds. If some group of journalists wanted to start it up again, it would be a good thing for St. Louis," Nicklaus said.

Kramer and Goodman expressed similar feelings.

"It would be a shame if everyone said, 'Let's just give it up,'" Kramer said.

"We are still hoping we can find some very enthusiastic people to help rejuvenate the organization," Goodman added.

Tammy Merrett is the faculty adviser of The Montage at St. Louis Community College-Meramec and the online editor of SJR.

Ambush journalism

Davis, Baricevic clash over protocol

By Tripp Frohlichstein

Elliott Davis has done it again. One of his subjects is angry with him. It goes with the territory. This time, it is St. Clair County Board Chairman John Baricevic.

In early February, on a Sunday night broadcast, the KTVI (Channel 2) "You Paid For It" reporter confronted Baricevic wanting to know about the losses for St. Clair County since Pan Am moved out of MidAmerica Airport.

Viewers saw Davis' first tried to interview MidAmerica Airport Director Rick Hargrove. We saw Hargrove say, "Elliott, I'm not going to do this," as he walks away from the camera. Davis was told to see the director of administration. But he wasn't talking either. Davis then filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request in Baricevic's office as he was told to do. But that didn't answer his questions either.

When Davis caught up with Baricevic in an elevator on his way to a public meeting, Baricevic told Davis, "If you'd call for an appointment, I can get answers for you." Davis' narration then noted: "But I had tried going through channels many times to get information on what you're spending for Mid-America Airport." Davis pursued the interview, asking another question. Baricevic responded, "If you would call me before instead of shoving cameras in my face, I could get answers for you, and I'll be happy to do that." Davis then said to Baricevic, "We went to your office and put in a Freedom of Information request so we've made formal requests for answers from the office, John." An exasperated Baricevic replied, "You have not talked to me. You haven't called me. I didn't know you were coming. You shoved the camera in my face. I don't have perfect memory of everything that happens in St. Clair County."

Then, the story took a twist as Davis' narration indicated: "What he said next surprised me considering I've been doing interviews with John Baricevic for at least 15 years and he obviously knows my name."

Baricevic says to Davis: "If you call me ahead of time and let me know you are coming, whatever your name is, Rufus or something, I will be happy to get you whatever information is appropriate. You are rude. You are obnoxious. You will not respond professionally. I will get you whatever information you want if you let me know you are coming."

Davis concludes by saying, "That exchange was more than a week ago. There is still no response." After giving Baricevic's phone number, Davis fires the final shot. "By the way Mr. Baricevic, my name is Elliott."

There are two stories here. One is Davis' tactics in attempting to get an interview with Baricevic and the other is the reference to Davis as "Rufus."

The tape shows the first two attempts failing. Davis is repeatedly told to get his information from Baricevic. But here's the problem. Davis was told to file a FOI request, which he did. But Davis never picked up the phone to call Baricevic directly.

"To this day, he has not called to ask questions about the airport. This guy was literally laying in the weeds," Baricevic said. "Before he opens his mouth, the camera is literally inches from my face with the light on. I told him I don't have the answer and to call me and make an appointment. He never has. The letter I got (from Channel 2) said he made repeated efforts to interview me. I am accessible. My home phone is listed. All you have to do is open the phone book. Why to this day has Elliott not called me? Because he doesn't want a story, he wants confrontation. I'm not saying he has to but a professional news reporter interested in facts is interested in positive relationships. He has made no attempt to do that. Ask him if he called and asked for an interview. If he says yes, he's a liar. From his first Freedom of Information request until today (Feb. 21), he has not asked for an interview."

Davis sees it differently, though he admits he never actually called Baricevic directly.

"I did not call John to do an interview," Davis said. "I went to his office to ask for the information. They said you need to fill out a Freedom of Information request to get it. I went to three others before I went to his office. He knew of my desire. I think that in this situation, one of the main points is that I made many efforts to get their side of the story and had doors slammed in my face at every turn. I went through every step they told me to go through. His office told me to fill out the Freedom of Information request. That's when I decided to get him at a public meeting. A public servant at a public meeting should be able to answer those questions. He knew what we wanted. He may quibble over protocol, but I followed the proper protocol. He should expect public questions heading to a public meeting. Politicians are anxious to speak at ribbon cuttings or announce a new project. They will call the media and make themselves available if it puts them in a positive light. When you begin to question their failures, they become evasive as Mr. Baricevic became."

I have to side with Baricevic. He has a right to prepare for an interview. Davis never called him directly. He assumed his office would tell Baricevic that Davis wanted some answers. But journalists should assume nothing. Davis apparently doesn't know that filing a FOI request is not the same as asking for an interview.

Davis should have called and asked Baricevic for an interview which Baricevic claims he would have granted-and still will, he says, even at this late stage of the story. At the end of the story, Davis said, "That exchange was more than a week ago. There is still no response." Had Davis watched his own tape, he would have heard Baricevic say several times that all Davis had to do was call. It wasn't Baricevic's fault that Davis didn't have the information, it was Davis' fault for not picking up the phone.

"I have not called Mr. Baricevic since that interview as we are in other projects," Davis said.

Sorry, Elliott, poor excuse. Davis owes the viewers the story he began and certainly could finish. Baricevic, although he has no obligation to do so, could have made things easier on himself by calling Davis after the confrontation and asking him to come back for the interview.

Baricevic needs to remember another lesson, and that is to hold his temper. In essence, interviewees are talking through the media, not to the media. Interviewees need to understand who their real audience is and how that audience will perceive them. Baricevic could have come out just fine here. Unfortunately, he didn't. Another lesson Baricevic has learned: Don't argue with someone who buys their ink by the barrel or their videotape by the case-even when they are wrong.

The second part of this story is the "Rufus" reference. Baricevic says calling Davis "Rufus" was not a racial slur.

"Everybody I've talked to says it's not a racial slur, including black people," he said. "I couldn't remember his (Davis') name so that's the name I pulled out of my head. The only Rufus I've ever known was an administrator at Lincoln High School, a good man and a wonderful human being." Baricevic added, "In the sense I called him a different name, I made a mistake-it's no different if I would forget your name."

Davis sees it very differently.

"The thing I resented most in that story was being called Rufus," Davis said. "I have a thick skin, so I wasn't concerned with being called rude and obnoxious. I've heard Rufus used in a derogatory sense where it refers to lazy or shiftless or worthless black people. I interpreted it to be a racial slight. When you get down to using a racial slur, that is uncalled for because I approached Baricevic in a very professional matter. If I would use a term like that-an ethnic or racial or gender slur-someone would demand my head on a platter. We would like an apology from Mr. Baricevic and the station sent a letter to that effect."

Baricevic received the letter but calls it inaccurate.

"The letter says Elliott Davis made repeated attempts to interview me," he said. "That is absolutely untrue. Davis never ever one time attempted to interview me (until he ambushed me in an elevator) so I am not responding to a TV reporter or editor, whatever this guy is (who sent the letter), that has untruths in it. His facts are not accurate-which is the case with Elliott Davis. He cares about himself. He is rude and unprofessional. He sees his job as confrontation."

Baricevic said he will not apologize for the remark.

"He didn't have to air the tape. He accelerated the incident. I wish I hadn't got mad at him, but I did. And if I had to do it again, I would get mad again. I'm not taking it back. I had every right to be mad and say what I did," Baricevic said.

I have to side with Elliott on this issue. I took the liberty during my recent travels to ask more than 20 people how they felt about the reference. Every one of them, acquaintances and strangers, black and white, men and women, said "Rufus" is, indeed, a racial slur.

In the Belleville News Democrat on Feb. 16, writer Scott Wuerz noted in an article that Rufus was "a common name used in minstrel skits in which white actors in blackface depicted black people as backward and stupid."

Wuerz also reported that Johnny Scott, president of the East St. Louis Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was offended by the remark.

Channels

Channel 5 got it right

By Tripp Frohlichstein

OK, I admit I was wrong about KSDK (Channel 5) sending Mike Bush to the Olympics. I thought the network could do the job. I didn't see more than a few St. Louis-related stories. I thought management made a poor decision. I was wrong.

They were right. Mike Bush did an exemplary job covering the events. There were several locally related stories and relevant interviews. One such interview came after the crash in the 1,000 meter men's speedskating race. Bush found St. Louisan Jim Chapin for an interview. Chapin was present on the ice as a referee during that race and gave his unique perspective to St. Louis viewers. Bush also did a superb job of anchoring some of the national stories. Bush has again proven why he is the best sportscaster and perhaps one of the most talented people on St. Louis television. I admire his abilities and thank him for excellent Olympic coverage, both local and national.

•••

It was a sad state of affairs in St. Louis that at 10 p.m. during the Olympics, the traditional time of the "main newscast of the day" was occupied by only one station-KMOV (Channel 4). Channel 5's news was delayed by the Olympics until 10:30 p.m. Channel 4 created some clever promos to remind viewers of this distressing fact. In one of them, the question is asked how much news there is at 10 o'clock (other than Channel 4's). Three sets of hands hold up Olympic type score sheets with "0.0."

•••

Lots of times the media tell us stuff and we just believe them. But how do we know they are right? Often, they may not be. One such example was during Mardi Gras. The stations told us that other than New Orleans, St. Louis has the largest parade and celebration. Maybe and maybe not. Perhaps we are third.

The magazine Southern Living suggests that Mobile, Ala., hosts the second largest parade and celebration, not St. Louis.

You have to wonder where these media got their information and if they checked it out.

•••

Somebody must like those "I watch Cindy" commercials with drawings of Channel 5 meteorologist Cindy Preszler on a big-hair day-along with rough look-alikes of Jay Leno and Art Holliday. Anyway, as I was saying somebody must like those because they keep running them. I'd like to vote for that concept to be retired-permanently.

Speaking of promos, hearing Channel 5 using the music "Still the One" reminds us the more things change, the more things stay the same. It wasn't that long ago that KTVI (Channel 2) used the same music.

•••

There will be no discussion of the normally important February ratings this year. Because of the Olympics (and the Super Bowl for that matter), the ratings are so skewed, they are not representative of true viewing habits. January's ratings (more reliable due to more normal viewing) gave us the usual with Channel 5 on top across the board for news, Channel 4 in second and Channel 2 in third but still growing in the earlier newscasts. Channel 2 has seen a slight fall off in viewers at 9 p.m. compared to January 2001 while KPLR (Channel 11) has seen a slight gain at 9 p.m. in the last year. Channel 2 remains comfortably ahead, however.

•••

Vickie Newton appears to be an excellent choice as an anchor for Channel 4. As long as she doesn't get too trite and fall into the "in joke" trap of Larry Conners and Julius Hunter, she has the makings of a fine addition to the St. Louis airwaves.

•••

Where is Cordell Whitlock's mind? As noted last issue, Channel 5 has blasted us with promos reminding us they are the station carrying the Olympics. But at the end of the late news of Saturday, Feb. 9, when Olympic competition was underway (and NBC was carrying late night Olympic programming), Whitlock told viewers to stay tuned for Saturday Night Live. Huh?

A short history of repressed speech

By Dan Hellinger

In reaction to the attacks of Sept. 11, congress passed and the president signed an act called the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT)."

Civil libertarians fear this law significantly weakens judicial safeguards of the rights and privacy for both American citizens and resident aliens. Supporters claim the threat of new terrorist attacks has created an unprecedented situation justifying the risk to civil liberties.

The United States has a long history of politicians curtailing civil liberties and whipping up the public's fear of external enemies for political purposes. The Declaration of Independence included an article accusing the King of England of having "excited domestic insurrections among us" and bringing on "the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all sexes and conditions." An early draft condemned the slave trade not because it was morally offensive, but because southerners feared slave revolts.

Of course, women, slaves, Indians and sometimes property-less white males were excluded from the civil liberties guaranteed in the new Constitution. Settlers and planters regarded the violent resistance of slaves and Indians much as we today think about terrorism. Slave revolts and Indian attacks were viewed as evidence of their savagery, making it easier to dismiss their rights and justify the use of military force at home. Tactics included deliberately introducing smallpox-infested blankets into Indian communities, an early form of biological warfare.

During the French Revolution American politicians led one of the early attacks on the Bill of Rights. President John Adams, George Washington's successor, was determined to quash unfounded accusations that he was conspiring to establish a monarchy and also had sent agents to England to procure mistresses for himself and the Vice President. Agents of the new revolutionary government in France were not above using bribes to induce newspapers to criticize Adams as pro-England and attack his integrity.

This mixture of scandal and international intrigue motivated Adams in 1798 to get Congress to pass the alien and sedition laws. Much like 2001's Patriot Act, the Alien Act allowed the deportation of legal, resident aliens without judicial process. The Sedition Act allowed federal authorities to jail anyone found guilty of slandering the government. This led to the jailing of some of Adams' opponents, mostly politicians aligned with Thomas Jefferson's "Democratic Republicans." The acts were allowed to expire by the next president, Jefferson, who pardoned its victims. In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court finally declared that the laws had been unconstitutional.

Civil wars are hostile environments for civil and human rights, and the American case was not any different. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Constitutional guarantee against indefinite detention. Defying a contrary ruling by the Supreme Court, the president arrested 13,000 draft resisters and Southern sympathizers. Editors, judges, lawyers and elected legislators were among the jailed. Several newspapers were shut down.

States, not just the Federal government, have from time to time repressed civil liberties. After the abolitionist John Brown raided Harper's Ferry in 1859 in an attempt to touch off a slave rebellion, many Southern legislatures attempted to suppress incendiary speech against slavery.

After the Civil War, state officials used a variety of conspiracy laws against unions and union organizers. Adams' Sedition Act was the model for laws aimed at the Industrial Workers of the World. The old armory buildings found in many cities today were constructed after the Civil War not to defend against external enemies but to arm the National Guard when deployed against workers in times of labor strife.

World War I brought yet another new edition of the Sedition Act. Woodrow Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Act allowed the government to censor the foreign language press and bar it from publishing anti-war sentiments.

In that era of massive European immigration, it was not surprising that some immigrants were sympathetic to their home countries. But there were other motives for repression as well. The foreign language press was also an important voice for working-class views and radical ideologies, like socialism and anarchism.

Among the 2000 people prosecuted under the act was the Socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs, who spent 10 years in prison as a result. Charles Schenck served a similar sentence for authoring a pamphlet claiming the military draft was illegal. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction.

Wilson's Attorney General, Mitchell Palmer, took advantage of labor violence and anti-Bolshevik hysteria (in the wake of the 1917 Russian Revolution) to stage a chilling rehearsal of the Cold War and McCarthyism. Palmer was a Democratic member of the House of Representatives who had supported women's suffrage and trade-union rights, but events in Russia and several violent incidents at home were the occasion for him to shift his views. When he was appointed Attorney General in 1919, Palmer charged that Communist agents were planning to overthrow the American government.

Much like anthrax letters have exacerbated fears of terrorism today, Palmer's credibility was enhanced after the revelation that 38 bombs had been sent to leading politicians. An Italian anarchist blew himself up outside of Palmer's home in Washington.

Palmer reacted with a campaign to enforce the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 to persecute radicals and left-wing organizations. He put the young J. Edgar Hoover in charge of a "General Intelligence Division" that carried out the infamous "Palmer Raids" of November 1919. Six to 10,000 people were arrested. Many were held in jail cells or beaten to extract confessions.

Whatever his original motivations, Palmer was now whipping up hysteria to improve his chances for the 1920 Democratic presidential nomination. But after his prediction of a major terrorist attack on May 20, 1920, failed to materialize, Palmer's chances faded.

World War II brought on the internment for three years of 120,000 ethnic Japanese, mostly American citizens, under an executive order hastily signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The governor of California, Earl Warren, who would later become Chief Justice of a Supreme Court that strongly supported civil liberties, supported the internment. Ironically, Hoover, now director of the FBI, saw no real threat to national security in the immigrant population, and opposed it.

During the war, Roosevelt set a precedent for President George W. Bush's recent declaration of intent to try suspected terrorists in secret military courts. In 1942, eight German saboteurs were caught when two of their number revealed their plot to authorities. All eight were arrested, secretly tried and convicted. Six were executed for crimes that ordinarily would have brought several years in prison.

The Cold War meant a new round of anti-Communist hysteria and limits on civil liberties. The Smith Act was the basis for convictions of members of the Communist and Socialist Parties on charges they advocated the violent overthrow of the government. Some people were jailed simply for studying the works of Marx and Lenin. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions.

In 1947, President Harry Truman signed an executive order to root out "infiltration of disloyal persons" in government, leading to 6.6 million investigations of citizens in the next five years. No treason was found, but 500 people were fired after the secret investigations identified them as insufficiently loyal.

Things worsened after the 1949 Chinese Revolution. The American political right was convinced that only Communist infiltrators in the State Department could have allowed China to be "lost." Many of our best Asian experts lost their jobs, including many who advocated withdrawing support for French colonialism and recognition of the popular Communist government of Ho Chi Minh, whom they regarded as nationalist and friendly to America.

The outbreak of the Korean War brought the infamous era of McCarthyism. Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy's special Senate committee and the House Un-American Activities Committee used their investigative powers to identify "enemies" in both the private sector and government. Their witch-hunts led to the blacklisting of Communists and other leftists from jobs in show business, academia and unions. Only when McCarthy cast aspersions on the army did politicians and the press turn on the paranoid Senator from Wisconsin.

Some liberals, including Senator Hubert Humphrey, sought to shield themselves from McCarthyism by sponsoring even more aggressive legislation to persecute and imprison Communists. When Republicans sponsored "The Internal Security Act" of 1950, which outlawed the Communist Party, Humphrey tried unsuccessfully to one-up them with a proposal to establish detention centers where those declared subversive by the President could be held without trial.

Under Hoover, the FBI posed a major threat to civil liberties and grew so powerful, with its files on politicians of all stripes, that no president dared challenge the director. This was the fruit of the bureau cooperation with allies in Congress during the McCarthy period. Its agents also gathered much of the questionable testimony used to convict (in 1950) and execute (in 1953) Julius and Ethel Rosenberg as atomic spies. The trial judge in the case met with prosecutors secretly to determine the sentence, and the Attorney General and justices of the Supreme Court met to discuss ways to minimize the ability of the Rosenbergs to pursue appeals of their convictions.

In the 1970s, journalists and congressional investigators revealed an extensive, illegal surveillance program, "CoIntelpro," carried out by the FBI, the CIA, U.S. Army intelligence and law enforcement officials. The surveillance, including illegal wire-tapping, was broad (Martin Luther King was among its targets), but also was an excuse for the FBI and police to attempt to sabotage the activities of various civil rights and anti-war movements. Law enforcement agents harassed activist organizations, following Hoover's directive to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit and otherwise neutralize" groups like the NAACP, National Lawyer's Guild, the United Farm Workers and many others.

Investigators of the Watergate scandal exposed much of this activity, which led to legislation in 1974 attempting to limit such abuses. But, since 1980, the pendulum has swung back toward "security."

In 1981, under a Reagan executive order, government agents were implementing a plan orchestrated by Lt. Col. Oliver North and the National Security Council, to disrupt activities by opponents of the U.S. war in Central America. Hoping to involve American ground troops in a war against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and with the lessons of Vietnam fresh in his mind, North made plans to deal with the anti-war movement. He and officials at the Federal Emergency Management Administration developed contingency plans to implement martial law, suspend the Constitution and prepare detention camps. This was too much for Attorney General William French Smith, who scotched the plan after he became aware of it, but years later the congressional committees investigating the Iran-Contra scandal refused to take testimony on the matter.

Herb Goodrick: Guild makes progress at organizing Journals

By Alex Posorske

It is now well over a year since Pulitzer, Inc. bought the Suburban Journals from the Journal Register Co. and the new management made their infamous (in some circles) pledge/plea to employees, asking them to take a test drive with the new management model before any attempt at unionizing really got rolling.

It is unclear from here if a majority of the Journals' underpaid employees ever took Journals Publisher Joe Pepe and Pulitzer CEO Robert Woodworth's pleas seriously and gave them an honest chance. But it is clear that a number of employees felt their interests would be better served by organizing and saw a golden opportunity to do so within a company whose flagship publication, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was already unionized. Thus, another union campaign was born.

Now flash forward about a year and a half to the present day. The situation appears depressingly similar in some aspects. Journal salaries still pale in comparison to the Post's, management still tells its employees they are better off without a union, and Journals employees asked to comment for this article respond only by e-mail, with one respondent not wanting his name, location or even years with the company printed for fear of losing his job.

But despite all of that, or probably more accurately, because of all of that, union organizers say they are still swimming in a straight line rather than treading water.

"The campaign is more of a marathon than a sprint," reads one posting on an Internet forum for Journals employees. That's a sentiment Herb Goodrick would probably agree with.

Goodrick, the executive secretary of the Newspaper Guild of St. Louis, the Journals employees' would-be union, said organizers have already gotten more than enough signatures to legally call for a vote on unionizing. That magic number is 30 percent of a company's employees. Once an election is called a simple majority of employees must vote yes for the union to become their official bargaining arm.

The problem, Goodrick said, is that the Guild wants to have closer to 65 percent of the employees on record as supporting the union. He said that unions approved by slim majorities are not considered especially strong when it comes down to the dirty details of negotiating a contract with management.

That's where organizers appear to have run into a couple of problems. One, the transient nature of Journals employees makes it tough. (As an example, consider that this reporter only made it three-and-a-half months with the company before leaving for the greener pastures of freelance writing).

"We sign up one today and the one we signed up yesterday left," Goodrick said. "It's really hard to calculate on a given day exactly where we are."

Another problem that has apparently risen is a gap in expectations between the editorial and sales employees. Goodrick said that employees on the advertising side have been more reluctant to side with the union given their different compensation formula that relies more heavily on commission.

"I think that sales people in general are just harder to organize. They're less receptive to the concept of unity bringing power," he said.

A third potential problem is efforts by management to derail the unionizing effort. Goodrick said that Woodward recently gave a speech to Journals employees where he told them that joining the union would be a big mistake. Goodrick and a Journals employee who did not want to be named both said, without being too specific, that intimidation is definitely a factor at the west St. Louis County offices where the corporate headquarters are.

Julie Kelemen, a copy editor at the south St. Louis County office, wrote in an e-mail to the SJR that management has engaged in subtle forms of intimidation towards organizers.

"Managers never say it has anything to do with the organizing effort. That would be stupid and illegal," she wrote. "But I do see where some known pro-union workers are more closely scrutinized for their quality of work, get more than average amounts of work given to them, are left out of the communication loop or even get the silent treatment or get written up for paltry violations that are overlooked in other workers."

Pepe, the Journals' publisher, denied that intimidation occurs within the Journals.

"I don't know anything about that," he said. "I would hope that isn't true. It's against the law."

For his part, Pepe said that management simply feels Journals employees are better off without a union-or "third party" as he calls it-getting in the way of honest employer/employee relationships. He said that since Pulitzer has taken over, two Journal publications (in Collinsville and Swansea, Ill.) have gotten new buildings, a better benefits package has been started for employees and new desks and chairs have flooded the various offices.

"Why would you want to get a third party to represent you when you can do it on your own? We try to provide an open-door policy. If we weren't leasing (the west St. Louis County office where Pepe works) I wouldn't have any walls around my office," he said.

Goodrick had a good chuckle over Pepe's statement.

"We always laugh about that and say (the door) opens on one end and they push you out on the other end," he said. "When you go approach Joe Pepe, who is (the publisher) of the whole organization, and you're an individual employee, is that really a fair match up?"

Whether there is actual intimidation or not, Goodrick said management is clearly campaigning against the unionizing efforts. He said they have been using the services of a Nashville, Tenn., law firm, King and Ballow, to advise them of the best path to take to ensure that the guild stays out.

King and Ballow's website brags of conducting "several hundred successful union avoidance campaigns throughout the United States." The Business Wire reports that King and Ballow received recognition in the 1980s and 1990s "for its high profile representation of the Chicago Tribune and the New York Daily News in labor disputes."

Bob Ballow, a member of the firm, said he did not have any knowledge of his firm being involved with the Suburban Journals. He said though that in most cases King and Ballow just advises clients what they can and cannot legally do when confronted with a unionizing effort.

"Supervisors aren't necessarily labor lawyers," he said. "If you don't tell them what to do you'll get in trouble with the law."

Pepe said that King and Ballow is not doing any work for the Suburban Journals at the moment. He said the firm is solely working with management at the Post in preparation for labor negotiations there (the labor contract at the Post is due to expire in January 2003). Goodrick said that isn't true.

"King and Ballow is a corporate attorney's firm that works for the entire Pulitzer Corporation," Goodrick said. "So what he's telling you is not correct."

Either way, the union campaign continues, with signatures hovering somewhere above 30 percent, but below 65 percent. There are problems, concedes Goodrick, but he said they can be overcome, even if the ultimate form of an organized Journals workforce is different from what is originally envisioned.

"I've been organizing for 30 years," he said. "The road map you take is you do whatever you can."

In SJR

10 Years Ago:

• St. Louis Post-Dispatch Publisher Nick Penniman said, "Budget tightening is the order of the day, order of the year, order of the decade," and added, "We're in the process of downsizing the entire newspaper."

• KMOX radio boss Robert Hyland announced the return of Bruce Bradley after a short hiatus.

• KMOV (Channel 4) and KSDK (Channel 5) both sent news anchors undercover to do reports on homelessness in St. Louis for February sweeps.

5 Years Ago:

• Readers' advocate Chuck Stone quit his position at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch during a meeting of the paper's African-American staffers organized by Yvonne Samuels and Cynthia Todd. Samuel refused to comment on the incident.

• Viacom swapped KMOV (Channel 4) to Belo for a station in Seattle.

• KDNL (Channel 30) ran a news segment during sweeps entitled "Is Your Bra Causing Cancer?"

Late Edition

Experts agree: Public support for stadiums is madness

By Charles L. Klotzer

Missouri state legislators and the media have gone mad. It has happened before and it may happen again. In the face of massive research proving that the financing of sports stadiums are a drain on public resources, are of minimal or no economic benefit to a region, and enrich primarily the owners of sport teams, St. Louis City, St. Louis County and the state might succumb to the frenzied push and dole out many millions for decades to come.

Has this writer done original research to support these conclusions? No, but he has done a lot of reading thanks to Gordon I. Herzog, who in a letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called attention to the April 2001 issue of the Regional Economist published by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank. That journal led to many other studies published by Brookings Press, Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, and other sources. The studies are available to anyone. Their websites are noted at the end of this column.

It would take quadruple the size of this entire issue of SJR to offer our readers their research. Here we can only offer a few of their conclusions. In view of these findings the St. Louis Post-Dispatch should have become the leader of the opposition. It is incomprehensible that it has caved in to whatever pressures were exerted on its editorial staff. We say caved in because in June 2000 the Post editorialized,

If the experience of other cities is any indication, the economic benefit to anyone but the owners is limited. . . . A study prepared for the mayor concluded that ballparks are not economic bonanzas for a city. More important, if other cities' experience is any guide, ballparks are not the catalysts for urban development they're often portrayed to be. A new ballpark will not revitalize downtown.

But in 2001 their tune changed.

"The Cardinals' plan offers real hope for downtown revitalization." (Sept. 10, 2001)

"Keeping the Cardinals in downtown St. Louis is critical to the city's future." (Nov. 11, 2001)

"Downtown cannot afford to lose the team. Therefore, the deal should be done." (Feb. 17, 2002)

While the news coverage has been thorough and cites in detail the arguments of both proponents and opponents, and while the letters-to-the-editor section also reflected all views, their headline writers occasionally twisted the contents of their own reports.

The head "Two reviewers generally applaud deal" (Feb. 27, 2002 A4) is misleading. While the two experts named, Robert Baade, nationally known expert on stadium financing, and Patrick Rishe, Webster University economist, agree that the St. Louis deal is better than average, Baade also said, "But all deals are bad to some extent." And Rishe was even more explicit, "Given current attendance levels, it would be hard to imagine that a new stadium would have significant long-term impact on the number of visitors to the St. Louis region." He was also quoted that the economic benefits of a new stadium would accrue mostly to the Cardinals' owners, its players, its fans and entertainment related business around the stadium.

Do such comments indicate that they "applauded" the deal? A better headline would have been, "Two reviewers find severe shortcomings in deal."

But most disappointing is the editorial stance of the Post.

Their position reflects either a lack of knowledge or a wilful misleading of the public. The staff of the Post is highly intelligent. They know of the available research better than we do. Thus, the inevitable conclusion in this instance is that considerations other than editorial principles have influenced their stance.

Among the leading scholars on stadium financing or its benefit are Robert A. Baade, Joseph L. Bast, William J. Hunter, Raymond J. Keating Roger G. Noll, Adam Zaretsky, Andrew Zimbalist, and Dennis Zimmerman. All well-known economic professors or affiliated with research bodies and have published their findings on these issues for many years.

A few of their conclusions follow.

• Baade writes in "Stadium, Professional Sports, and Economic Development: Assessing the Reality,"

An empirical analysis of an unprecedented quantity of data related to professional sports and host area economic performance does not support the conventional argument that pro sports development has a significant impact on economic growth.

The findings indicate that public funding of sports, including funding of stadiums, is not a sound civic economic investment. The data suggests that stadium subsidies and other sports subsidies benefit not the community as a whole, but rather team owners and professional athletes.

Baade also found that in the 30 metropolitan areas where a stadium or arena was built or refurnished in the past 10 years, only three areas show a significant relationship between the presence of a stadium and real per-capita personal income growth. And in all the three cases-St. Louis, San Francisco/Oakland and Washington, D.C.-the relationship was significantly negative (italics added.)

• There isn't a single county anywhere in the U.S. where professional sports accounts for more than one-half of one percent of that county's private section payroll, asserts Bast in "Sports Stadium Madness:

Why It Started, How to Stop It." All available data suggests, he states, that continued public investment in sports stadiums is madness. Most stadiums do not attract "new money". . . . Few businesses are attracted by the presence of a sports facility. Stadium revenues are not spent locally. Sports generate low-paying seasonal jobs. Subsidies divert public funds from more important services.

• "During the 20th century, more than $20 billion has been spent on major league ballparks, stadiums and arenas," claims Keating. This does not include "tax-free municipal bonds, interest paid on debt, lost property and other tax revenues not paid on facilities, taxpayer dollars place a risk of being lost if the venture failed, direct government grants to teams, and billions of dollars spent by taxpayers on minor league facilities."

During the next several years, Keating estimates that at least $13.5 billion more will be spent, with taxpayers" expected to pay more than $9 billion of that amount."

The economic facts, however, do not support the position that professional sports teams should receive major taxpayer subsidies. The lone beneficiaries of sports subsidies are team owners and players. . . . Indeed, the results of studies on changes in the economy resulting from the presence of stadiums, arenas, and sports teams show no positive economic impact from professional sports-or a possible negative effect.

• A very pertinent and incisive summation was published by Adam M. Zaretsky, an economist right in our backyard. A former professor of economics, he is now with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Writing in Regional Economist (April 2001), he concludes that subsidizing sports facilities usually do not affect a city's growth and, in some cases, may even hurt growth.

The additional labor and income a community obtains from a sports-related facility . . . generally is inadequate to justify public subsidy of that facility.

Between $14 billion and $16 billion is expected to be spent on these post-'99 stadiums and arenas, with somewhere between $9 billion and $11 billion of this amount coming from public coffers. . . . Are these good investments for cities? The short answer to this question is 'No. . . .' Almost all economists and development specialists (at least those who work independently and not for a chamber of commerce or similar organizations) conclude that the rate of return a city or metropolitan area receives for its investment is generally below that of alternative projects. . . . Evidence suggests that cities and metro areas that have invested heavily in sports stadiums and arenas have, on average, experienced slower income growth than those that have not.

Estimates of income that will be generated and, hence, spent in the region are often overstated. Most of the "big" money in sports goes to the owners and players.

These facilities usually do not bring new revenues into a city or metropolitan area. Instead, the revenues raised are usually just substitutes for those that would have been raised by other activities.

When a city chooses to use taxpayer dollars to finance a sports stadium, the city's leaders must consider not only what the alternative use of those funds would be-such as schools, police, roads, etc.-but they must also figure what return the city would receive from other ventures. Then, the return from the city's next best alternative must be subtracted from the total return of the "winning" choice to arrive at the "actual" return of the stadium investment. This adjusted calculation, though is almost always missing from stadium impact studies. Why? Because in just about every case, the adjusted calculation would show that the next-best alternative was actually the better alternative.

Many of the scholars named also advocate a public referendum on the subsidy. Under the pretext that there is too little time to explain the project, local leadership opposes any referendums, because it would place the future of the project with the taxpayers, who, after all is said and done, will be paying for the stadium for years to come.

We can understand that elected leaders-city, county or state-are incapable of opposing the money grab by the owners of the Cardinals and permitting the public to have the final word. We do not have the most courageous political leadership in our state. The broadcast industry has long ago abdicated any editorial leadership and has subjected everything to the game of ratings.

But we expect more from the Post. While the Riverfront Times columnist Ray Hartman has repeatedly lambasted the stadium deal and items in RFT have been critical of the proposed stadium financing, the burden of opinion making in the metropolitan area rests with the Post.

They know better and should act accordingly.

Websites:

• www.heartland.org/studies/sports/madness-sum.htm

• www.stls.frb.org/publications/re/2001/b/pages/lead-article.html

• www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/pub/review/summer 97/noll.htm

• www. brookings.nap.edu.books/0815761112/html/119.html

• www.cato.org//pubs/pas/

pa-339es.html

People

Media

Charter Advertising

Donald Vollmayer has been appointed director of finance and administration, Kathryn Voskuil has been appointed marketing services manager, St. Louis region; Kevin Joyce and Larry LeCompte Jr. have been promoted to local sales managers; and Angela Love and Rebecca Finch have been named account executives.

Ad/PR

College Media Advisers

Don Corrigan, professor at Webster University, received the Association's 2001 National Distinguished Newspaper Advisor Award.

Garden Writers Association

Barbara Lawton was named a Fellow by the Association for her professional skills, ethics and dedication to the objectives of the group.

Pulitzer, Inc.

Jan Pallares has been appointed corporate controller.

Awards

Creative Producers Group

The agency has been named a three-time National Finalist award winner in the 2001 Vision Awards competition. The honors were received in the Non-Broadcast, Corporate Image category, in the Non-Broadcast, Motivational category and in the Non-Broadcast, Miscellaneous category.

Falk Harrison Creative

The agency won an award of excellence in the internal newsletters category in the 2001 International Pro-Comm Awards program.

The Vandiver Group

The agency has received a 2001 Crystal Award of Excellence for the production of a public service campaign.

Deadlines

n The family of a Sept. 11 victim speaks out on March 9, in a morning program 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The program, "A Call for Peace, Justice and Reconciliation," will be held at the Nerinx Hall School, 530 E. Lockwood, Webster Groves and is sponsored by the Catholic Action Network for Social Justice. Speakers are relatives-wife, sister-in-law, and brother-of Craig Amundson who was killed at the Pentagon.

n Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state 1994-2000, will speak on "The Age of Terror: America and the World After Sept. 11" on Wed., March 13, 11 a.m. at the Graham Chapel at Washington University.

n Frank H. Wu, journalist, associate professor of law at Howard University, and activist, confronts the "color line" of the twentieth century with his new book "Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White" (Basic Books, Dec. 2001). Professor Wu offers new ways to think about American society and the races within it. Wu will discuss this latest work at St. Louis County Library Headquarters, 1640 S. Lindbergh Blvd., on Sun., March 17, at 2:00 p.m. Programs are free and open to the public.

n The Missouri Historical Society will feature Alan Ehrenhalt, executive editor of Governing Magazine, for the upcoming St. Louis Urban Forum on Thurs., March 14, 2002, 7 p.m. at the Missouri History Museum, Lindell and DeBaliviere in Forest Park.

Ehrenhalt will discuss how Louisville, KY became the first major American city to consolidate with its surrounding county since 1969. In November 2000, after forty-five years of grass roots efforts, voters finally accepted the idea of consolidation.

Ehrenhalt is the author of three books and a regular contributor to the New York Times Op-Ed page. Lana Stein, professor of Political Science at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, will join Ehrenhalt to discuss how these issues affect our region.

Treasure State Review

reborn on the Internet

Two years ago the last edition of the Treasure State Review was published by Nathaniel Blumberg. The publication enjoyed taking on the mass media and major corporations in Montana.

After taking off for two years, Blumberg now announced that Internet Issue 1 is under construction and will "serve the interests of the citizens of Montana in contrast to the avaricious out-of-state corporations that drain our economy and control the major sources of information and opinion."