Paris Tuileries Garden Facepalm statueI’ve blogged previously about the foibles of journalism and the mass media. Mostly I’ve complained that they take things like pseudoscience and pseudomedicine too seriously; follow a “duellistic” approach to reporting (i.e. telling two opposing, and usually wrong, sides of something, expecting the truth will magically pop out of them — somehow); think regurgitating press releases actually helps readers understand things; and treat anyone with a book to sell or documentary to promote like a credentialed expert on a topic, even if they’ve got their heads up their asses.

Most of these horrible trends have come about because of the long decline of journalism in the advent of the Internet; it’s hard for them to make money in an era where most news is free to anyone with an Internet-connected device (which have become ubiquitous). This means newsrooms have very little staff any more, and those who remain in them have little time for serious investigation of anything. Everyone connected with the media have offered endless excuses for this, but the bottom line is, journalism is now pretty fucking bad and only getting worse.

But lo! Chris Powell, managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, CT has got it all figured out. The problem, he claims, is not with the economics of journalism in the World Wide Web age, but rather, because there are too many single-parent households (locally-cached article):

Even in a supposedly prosperous and well-educated state like Connecticut, how strong can demand for those things be now that half the children are being raised without two parents at home and thus acquiring developmental handicaps; 70 percent of community college and state university freshmen have not mastered what used to be considered basic high school skills; poverty has risen steadily even as government appropriations in the name of remediating poverty have risen steadily; and democracy has sunk so much that half the eligible population isn’t voting in presidential elections, 65 percent isn’t voting in state elections, and 85 percent isn’t voting in municipal elections?

This social disintegration and decline in civic engagement coincide with the decline of traditional journalism just as much as the rise of the Internet does.

If you thought Powell blaming the demise of journalism on the existence of single-parent households, and accusing single parents of giving their children “developmental handicaps” isn’t bad enough, hold on to your seats, because he digs in even harder and insults single-parent households even more:

Indeed, newspapers still can sell themselves to traditional households — two-parent families involved with their children, schools, churches, sports, civic groups, and such. But newspapers cannot sell themselves to households headed by single women who have several children by different fathers, survive on welfare stipends, can hardly speak or read English, move every few months to cheat their landlords, barely know what town they’re living in, and couldn’t afford a newspaper subscription even if they could read. And such households constitute a rising share of the population.

This is such a vile verbal assault, I hardly know where to begin critiquing it. I’m truly astonished that anyone in 21st century Connecticut can be saying that single mothers all live on welfare, are illiterate, move often in order “to cheat their landlords,” are ignorant of their whereabouts, and can’t afford newspapers. Where did he get these ideas? I suspect he would answer that by saying he knows of a single mother or two that have done these things, which (in the cavernous, echoing void which is his brain) constitutes irrefutable “proof” that all of them are like that. His complaint is probably more appropriate to the 1980s and early 90s, before welfare reform, because welfare benefits have an expiration date, now; no one can viably “live on” them. I wonder if he’d planned to mention Ronald Reagan’s legendary “welfare queen” but, for some reason, left it out.

I know folks raised by single mothers who are very educated (including several who’ve graduated from college, one a CPA, another a lawyer even), very literate, and who read and buy newspapers. So I can’t really imagine what Mr Powell’s problem is with these folks.

Moreover, Powell’s historiography is off. Single-parent households have been on a long rise since the 50s, yet the decline of journalism was more precipitous, and didn’t begin until the late 90s and early 00s. That alone shows he’s blaming the wrong bogeyman.

I suggest that, instead of childishly and petulantly railing against and outright insulting single mothers and their children, Mr Powell should grow the hell up, pull on his “big boy” pants, and actually work as the managing editor of his paper. It may be difficult to do, and I imagine he’d much rather blame his industry’s problems on someone or something else … but too fucking bad. It’s his job. He picked it. He needs to fucking do it … or resign.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Hat tip: Hypervocal.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.