Monday, April 09, 2012


The reporters at the Albuquerque Journal must shudder when they turn in their copy to be worked over by the right wing editor at the paper.  The usually solid and fair Mark Oswald wrote a story about the city of Las Vegas, NM passing an ordinance that prohibits oil and gas drilling and fracking with in the city limits.  Unless Oswald was forced to take an editorial stand in the story, my guess is the editors stuck in a phrase that, "the ordinance contains several provocative provisions" which were meant to protect water and ecosystems.  That's provocative?  While they might say this in an editorial I don't think I have ever seen it used in this way in a story.  But of course the Albuquerque Journal somehow, (or perhaps someone) has been unduly influenced by the oil and gas industry in this state.  Maybe some brave journalist, with in the organization or outside of it can get to the bottom of it.  It is just plain bizarre.

I have a great idea.  I think the Journal publisher  should allow a drilling rig in his back yard and a compressor station in his front yard to see how he likes it.  And when they are done there they can go to the editor's front and back yard and do the same.  They really have no idea of the hell they would live through.  Maybe they could just go live within a quarter mile of those operations for six weeks and get an idea.

Meanwhile a Journal reporter was picked up for a DUI and the paper wrote a story about it.  How could they not do so?  I feel they did the right thing.  Now that might be provocative.

1 comment:

Bubba Muntzer said...

Merriam Webster defines provocative as "serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate."

The ordinance definitely provoked, excited or stimulated the Albuquerque Journal editors, so in that sense the story is accurate. Still, it should have plainly stated who was being provoked, excited or stimulated, or at least had photos showing Journal editors in a provoked, excited or stimulated state.

The Journal is just pathetic. This is what happens when you have no competition, on top of being so ill informed that you can be seduced into thinking that Reaganomics is an actual economic theory and not merely a group of campaign slogans put together after advertising agencies tested them on focus groups to see if they made people froth and slobber or not. I.e., if they were provocative in the desired ways, which, as we can see from reading the Journal, they were.

I did a post once about a Journal article where they called money being spent to clean up the massive underground fuel leaks at Kirtland AFB that threaten the water supply of the entire southern Rio Grande Valley as 'throwing money at the problem.' This, too, was right in the body of a news story, a supposed news story.

I can't access the story now but if you're a subscriber maybe you can: