The Day the Dackerville Press became the Dackerville Media

    "Do you promise to find the truth, the whole truth, as well as everything that isn't the truth?" the editor asked his just-being-sworn-in reporter, whose one hand rested on the Bible, with the other raised to the square.

    "So help me God," the reporter replied, solemnly.

    The Dackerville Press had been around for 103 years, having celebrated its 100th anniversary the year President Trump came to office. Now, it was being reorganized. Now it was being rededicated. 

   To truth. This was a day when the nation's president told people the press could not be trusted. And so, some readers of the Press had chided it for being too liberal, for not being fair towards Trump.

   Max Stevens, the editor, hadn't liked those accusations. They set a burr underneath him. To him, the press was to be as impartial as a judge and jury. That people didn't see his paper as being that way rubbed him wrong. Not that he felt his paper impartial, but he seethed and determined to take steps so no one should question the impartiality.

   Nor, its tenacity for going after the truth, begone that this might only give them yet more inclination to assail the paper for being partial. 

   The next reporter came up. "Do you promise to find the truth, the whole truth, as well as everything that isn't the truth. And, to report the full of what you find, and to expose all falsehoods?" he asked the reporter. Candace Jones, the reporter, promised to do so, and the next reporter stepped up.

   "Do you swear to be honest, do you swear to be fair, do you swear be unbiased, do you swear not to yield to those who accuse you of being biased, as they try to intimidate you and shame you into favoring them?"

   "Max, you know I am going to do everything I can. Yes, I so swear."

    Stevens was entertaining a dangerous future for the paper. In a day when newspapers were folding, he was doubling the number of reporters. They would work in teams of two, each being charged with questioning what the other might find, double-checking it. Though both were charged with looking at both sides of the issue, one was to be particularly charged with finding and not missing things on one side of the issue, and the other with especially looking out for the other side of the matter. Co-bylines. When it came time to write, they were to be unified. 

   With all the charges that the president was not being treated fairly, the Dackerville Press was not going to leave those stories to the national press. If the national press was seen as biased, Stevens wanted his reporters to take the wire reports and combine them, double-checking their facts, and going beyond what the national media were saying. "Fox News is reporting this. CNN is reporting this. We ventured a call to the White House and finally got through to a spokesperson, and this is what they said. We then got through to Nancy Pelosi's office and this is what she said."

   The Dackerville Press -- one hundred and three years it had been around. Today, though, it was taking on a new name. Max hadn't told his reporters yet. He let them start to walk away, they thinking the meeting was over, before he stopped them in their tracks. "Hey, hey, wait. Come back. I did fail to tell you one thing. We're going to rename the paper. It just seems we should mark our changes with a new name. When tomorrow's paper rolls off the press, it will be the Dackersville Media. That's a reflection of our times. People refer to us as the media  as the media these days, so that's what we'll call it. Back in the day, they called everything "the press." But these days, "media" is more common. 

   And, so was reborn the Dackerville Press, and so was born the Dackerville Media.

(Index -- Stories, My stories)

Are We Really Safe from Ballot Box Fraud this Election?

    I hear no fear that the Russians will reach into our ballot boxes and pull out a rabbit. I hear no worry that they will alter the ballots. 

   But, yet I fear.

   I think of J. Alex Halderman, as expert as there is on the topic, and of how he called for recounts in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in 2016. I think of how he has shown how electronic vote counts can be altered. I think of how we know Russia has infiltrated our voting records. I think of how it is said it can all be done without leaving a trace. 

   If mail-in votes are entered in the computers -- and obviously they are -- they can be altered as easily as votes done right on the machines. That's my understanding. 

  

Never has a Free Press been of More Need than it is Right Now

    Start underscoring those quotes on the importance of a free press.

   "Our liberty depends on freedom of the press. and that cannot be limited without being lost." -- Thomas Jefferson

   Our nation never has been so in need of the press as it is now. Truth has never been so assailed. In the very day when newspapers are folding, the need for them cries the loudest.

   We live in a day of the campaign flyer. Politicians pay thousands to tell their lies. A hit piece arrives in the mail, and nothing stands to defend against it. We need the newspaper.

   The newspaper -- if it were operating as it needs to -- would step in and scream the truth. No story would be more important than the one debunking the lies of campaign hit piece. But, it is not so these days. The press has so many other things to write about.

   I think of the Ben McAdams/Burgess Owens race for Congress, the millions of dollars being tossed by each side, the false accusations, the misleading statements. Where the press? So much we need the press to be stepping in each day, front page and center, reporting what the mailers from the current day said -- and telling why they are out-of-line, irresponsible, false or misleading.

   Pepper the news articles with quotes decrying the dishonesty of the mailers, quotes demanding that we do better than this. 

   These news articles are essential. Truth will not be told without them. Leave it to the mailers to fight it out, and one untruth will only be met with another. One upmanship. An arms war. The escalation of hatred and deceit. 

   Deceit is on fertile ground when that ground is strewn with money. Just like horse manure makes good fertilizer, so does money. Lies grow where money feeds them. If the truth is to be told, then, it must rely on a source that doesn't yield to money, that refuses to be dictated to by riches.

   That would be the press, the free press. We need it now more than ever. 

   

Nope, Let's not Legalize Raw Milk

  Forget about marijuana, I just want to know if we should legalize milk (raw milk, that is). What is this, anyway, that stores are not allowed to sell raw milk. Where does that come from? Why such a law?

  Off top, it seems the silliest of little laws. I grew up on a farm. We would go to a neighboring farm where raw milk was raised, and buy the milk. Never did us any harm. Not that I know of.

  So, as I sat down tonight, having determined I would write about raw milk, I, off course, decided I better study first. And, a little study has flipped my opinion almost completely on end. Raw milk contains pathogens -- dangerous microorganisms that bring serious health risks.

   Salmonella, E. coli, etc. -- you want them? Tuberculosis? Yes, raw milk can cause that. I reflect on how there was a day when there were so many diseases. Am I conjecturing too much, to wonder if in that day and age, with everyone drinking raw milk, the raw milk was a cause that brought much of the disease?

   Then, along comes Louis Pasteur, and we start heating the milk for a brief moment, killing all the germs, and the world has been a healthier place ever since. Of course, we should do this. Of course, raw milk should be outlawed.

   I do have some reservations. I read of an Idaho dairyman, who fed one set of calves pasteurized milk, and the other raw milk. After a week, he said, those on raw milk just looked better, healthier hair texture and all. 

   Two things I learned are myths: One, pasteurization kills the nutrients. It doesn't. Two, raw milk does not have bacteria that benefit gastrointestinal health. So, no, raw milk is not a probiotic.  

Reorganizing Our Committee Work on Capitol Hill

   Brainstorming, in a way -- what to do with committees on Capitol Hill.

   Keep them, have them . . . but, reduce the in-meeting participation of each such committee to three. One of the three is charged with finding everything that speaks in favor of a bill, another with finding everything that speaks against a bill, and the third member charged with talking both sides and boiling them down with conciseness to give to the whole of the legislative body.

  In the committee meeting, the two on each side of the question would speak. Then, the public would be invited to comment. 

   The committee member charged with combining the information would then take it and present it to the full body of legislators. Should a member of the public feel something was overlooked, or not be receiving adequate play, he or she could then appeal to the speaker of the house or the senate president. And, should the leader of that house agree, then he or she could either address the full body him or herself with the information, or give the floor to the public member to address the issue him or herself. 

   Such an organization of the committee work would help ensure that both sides of the issue receive attention. As is, if no one shows to speak to one side, that side of the question might not even be considered. 

Our Responsibility is to not Let Guns Fall into Their Hands

   Police shot and injured an 18-year old mentally ill man in Ogden Tuesday. The man was said to have been charging toward an officer with a knife.

   We, as society, should do better in keeping weapons out of reach of the mentally ill. It might be hard to keep a butcher knife from him, but a gun should not be anywhere he could get it.  Family members, friends and others have responsibility to keep their weapons out of the reach of their mentally ill associates.

  Of course, it might be that the 18-year-old bought the gun on his own, that it was his. That is a little harder to control. Still, the message remains: If someone you know is mentally ill, you have an obligation to society to keep your gun from falling into his or her hands. 

 

Are Committees Worthy to have up at the Legislature?

   I almost think we should do away with committees in our legislature. They have their faults: One, They slow up the process. Everything has to ride before a committee before it can be considered by the whole body. 

  Two, They accommodate lobbyists. It is in the committee meetings where the public is allowed to participate. Now, that is wonderful, in and of itself. But, public comment mostly translates into lobbyist involvement. I would not be surprised if the good number of our bills originate from the lobbyists. Committee meetings, then, become the place where the lobbyists come in and make their pitch.

   I am not against everyone having a voice, however. It doesn't matter if you are a lobbyist, you should be allowed a voice. How then to handle it? Whether we have committee meetings or not, the bills should be advertised to those who are interested in the topics. Whether you are a special interest group, or just a citizen, you should be able to get on email lists notifying you of the proposed legislation. Already, there is such a list -- I know, as I have received the emails -- but I think the process should be improved on. I consider on how in 2019, a resolution favoring natural gas won unanimous approval from the legislature. Had those most concerned about climate change have been aware, it seems some would have warned the legislators that natural gas still pours carbon dioxide into the air, even if it isn't as much. And, it seems someone would have informed the legislators that the primary component in natural gas is methane, which traps heat in the air 80-90 times more than carbon dioxide.

  If we are to continue committees, we should find a way to involve the public more, not just the special interest groups. Rather, it would be wonderful if members of the public, even when unaffiliated with special interest groups, studied the issues so much they were experts. Involving such people in the policy-making decisions of our state would be wonderful. Indeed, involving the public more would be wonderful even if they were not experts, and not doing a lot of study.

(Index -- Climate change info)