Santa Cruz Observer

Another step in the death march of newspapers

By TOM HONIG

Call it the next step in the slow death of the print newspaper business: copy editors are being laid off.

The copy editor is the silent representative of the newspaper reader -- the one who historically never gets his name in the paper but who is a key cog in the publishing wheel. The copy editor is the one who knows "'who" from "whom" and whether you lie down or lay down. It's the often-ignored copy editor who manages taste, style and accuracy -- ideally -- in the hastily put-together piece of chaos known as the daily paper.

But as economic realities continue to lay waste to the legacy business of newspapers, it's the copy editors who are next in the layoff chute. Reporters and photographers already have  been put out to pasture in great numbers.  And so have pure copy editors -- the ones who just read copy and then turned things over to the production people. But now comes the next step -- as news continues to go digital, news executives are turning to the idea reporters themselves (they're now known as "content generators")  handling the editing jobs themselves.

The Denver Post has announced a major upcoming change (the Post is owned by MediaNews Group, the same owner of the Sentinel and San Jose Mercury News). Editor Gregory Moore -- a good guy himself -- sent out the following memo to the staff (courtesy of the Poynter Institute)

We have focused our attention on consolidating steps in the editing process so that traditional copy editing is done at the content-generating level. That is going to result in a reduction in the ranks of copy editors. Following this, virtually every job in the newsroom will change in some way. The editing and crafting of our copy will have to be shared throughout the newsroom.

Expect this trend to continue.

It's good copy-editing that has distinguished the best newspapers in America. But as the form of delivering news changes, copy editing is a  step that doesn't pass the economic test. Newspapers now compete with online, with radio and television, and none of those news organizations care much about a higher quality of writing. Blogs (including this one) exist without that extra degree of care.

It's a sign of the times. Self-publishing moves ahead, and legacy businesses are forced to change their economic model. But it ain't a good thing.

Middle class leaving the Golden State

When I first moved to Santa Cruz in 1971, it was one of those places described as home to the newly wed and the nearly dead. That's because the cost of living was (incredibly, as viewed in 2012) far less than other places in California.

It's different now. But Santa Cruz County is reflective of something that's happening aroound the state -- a disappearing middle class. Leave it to a demographer -- in this case, Joel Kotkin of Chapman College -- to analyze what's happening.

The Wall Street Journal published an important interview with Kotkin over the weekend. Here's what he has to say: "The state is run for the very rich, the very poor and public employees."

About 40 percent of Californians pay no income tax. A quarter are on Medicaid. High taxes are paid by the rich -- but also by the middle class. So the rich are staying and so are the poor. Those in the middle take a look at high taxes, a high cost of housing and they're relocating. They have other places to go, says Kotkin, because employers more and more are going out of state. Twitter, Adobe, eBay and Oracle have moved staff to Salt Lake City. Apple, Facebook and eBay are building operations in Austin.

Take 10 minutes and read the interview right here.

Why we're fat and what to do about it

By TOM HONIG

CAPITOLA -- Science writer Gary Taubes questions the medical community’s conventional wisdom about why Americans get fat, and he’s bringing his message to Santa Cruz County.

The author of the best-selling book “Why We Get Fat,” Taubes takes aim at the role of refined sugars and carbohydrates – and says that dietitians and doctors are misreading “fairly obvious” data about why America has an obesity epidemic.

Taubes spoke Wednesday at New Brighton Middle School in Capitola at an event sponsored by the County Office of Education. County Superintendent of Schools Michael Watkins introduced him by saying that obesity and Type 2 Diabetes have reached epidemic proportions in Santa Cruz County.  According to the California Healthy Kids Survey, 38 percent  of  students in grades 7, 9 and 11  in Watsonville are overweight and 30 percent of teens in Santa Cruz are overweight or in danger of being

Taubes, in an interview, said, “It’s clear that refined carbohydrates and sugars lead to insulin resistance in the human body.  And that leads to a suite of the diseases well known in Western civilizations. It comes down to getting carb-rich foods out of our diets.”

Taubes studied applied physics at Harvard and aerospace engineering at Stanford before receiving a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University in 1981. He’s the author of several books and is on the staff of Discover Magazine. He also is a fellow at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health.

But it was a cover story for the New York Times Magazine in 2002 that brought him into prominence as an expert on diet and weight loss. The article, “What if it’s all been a big fat lie,” questioned whether the often-recommended low-fat diets popularized by the likes of Dean Ornish actually benefited Americans who have only been growing more obese each year.

Taubes, a college football defensive lineman and a man who himself was overweight, had lost weight on the controversial Atkins diet – which favors meat, other animal products and vegetables. It excludes most carbohydrate-rich food like rice, bread, potatos, cookies, pasta and, perhaps most of all, soda pop.

“The typical advice from the medical community is that people are fat because they eat too many calories and don’t exercise enough.”

Surprisingly, he said, the evidence doesn’t support that statement. “It’s sugar that does it.” And that’s not just sugar, but also the carbs that convert to sugar.

“If I’m right, they’ve got it wrong,” he continued. Fewer calories and more exercise is “a paradigm of energy balance.” Rather, he sees obesity as resulting from a “hormonal defect” – and that can be the result of taxing the insulin system.

And more exercise isn’t necessarily the answer to weight loss. In fact, he argues, that exercising won’t help if it leads to someone chowing down on unhealthy carbs.

“Look at it this way. A basset hound is chubby and is basically a couch potato. A greyhound is sleek and fast. You can withhold all the food you want from the basset  hound and put him on a treadmill for hours every day, but you won’t get a greyhound. You’ll just get an emaciated basset hound.”

Taubes asserted that doctors and the U.S. government have misinterpreted scientific data on dietary research. Counting calories and eating low-fat foods exclusively has been proved not to be true. His evidence? That Americans continue to get fatter.

He said that research essentially proves what American parents told their kids prior to  the 1960s --  go light on bread, pasta and sweets. “Those people were right all along.”

“It’s’ not about eating less and exercising more,” he repeated. “The issue is this. Is a bowl of oatmeal with skim milk better for you than eggs and bacon? The data say that eggs and bacon is the healthier way to eat.”

At the COE-sponsored event Taubes repeated an oft-sounded call to get sodas and fruit juices out of the schools. But substituting those items for sugar-rich carbohydrates isn’t the answer.

Taubes  is the second speaker in the field of obesity to be invited by the COE. Last year, Dr. Robert Lusting – who recently was featured on 60 Minutes – brought a similar message.

For a YouTube presentation by Taubes, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4 

 

Panetta comes home a lot -- big deal

Is anyone else as not-bothered by the recent Associated Press report that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has flown home to Carmel Valley more than two dozen times, largely at taxpayer expense?

Even at some $800,000 -- it's a minuscule amount, compared to the Pentagon's estimated $614 billion budget. (It's .00000130 of the budget).

But as so often is the case, no one answers the more important question -- what has Panetta added to the public good -- not only as defense secretary, but as a congressman, White House budget director, White House chief of staff and CIA director?

Good heavens -- the man is 73 and running perhaps the most important institution in the world. Hey -- our safety stem directly from his judgments. I'm glad he's heading home on weekends to wife and family. It's in our interest to take good care of him.

With all the major budget issues, the public dialogue continues to focus on inane details. President Obama's "dates" to New York with his wife. Mitt Romney's perfectly legal 15 percent tax payment. Good God, people used to complain about Nixon flying to California too much.

It's insignifant. And these people have some pressure on them. Let them de-stress. (Even Clinton needed that).

It reminds me of that great Shel Silverstein song ("May the man who has his finger on the button have a lovely day today. I hope nothing hangs him up or ticks him off or bums him out in any way...")

May they all have a good day.

Pro basketball in Santa Cruz -- why not?

By TOM HONIG

The Sentinel has published an excellent q-and-a about a proposal to move a Warriors-affiliated D-League basketball team to Santa Cruz. The q-and-a was provided by the Golden State Warriors.

It'll be fascinating to watch next week when the City Council considers whether to proceed with the project. Will some complain about the price tag? (The capital cost is estimated at $2.5 million, with the city fronting the money through its general fund. The Warriors say they'll make up half of that in repayments -- plus take on another $500,000 in operating costs.) The money will go to build a temporary arena on property owned by the Seaside Co., owners of the Boardwalk. It would be located at Front Street and Laurel Street Extension.

Is the city ready to take on a pro team? Why not? My guess is that games will be well attended and other organizations could borrow or rent the facility. A quick check of the Sentinel's comment section shows that most folks seem to like the idea.

Stay tuned to see what happens at the first hearing on the subject -- Tuesday at City Hall.

On a recent night in Santa Cruz, it was two groups fighting for the same thing

EDITOR'S NOTE: Is the word "compromise" in the local activist's dictionary? Apparently not, judging from this post by Robert Singleton of Santa Cruz, who attended the recent City Council hearing on a multi-use trail through Pogonip. This fight -- enviro vs. enviro -- features old-time activists and a new breed of progressives.

By ROBERT SINGLETON 

It’s a Tuesday night and it’s sprinkling outside, much to my dismay, as I head over to City Hall to witness what is expected to be a long and onerous council meeting. As I near the chambers it becomes obvious that a large swath of people have already begun to pour out onto the patio outside of the meeting hall, surely a sign of things to come. The issue being debated tonight is whether or not to accept a proposal by the city’s Parks and Recreation department to create an additional multi-use trail in the Pogonip, a large and scenic area on the north side of the city.

Santa Cruz is one of those cities where even the most mundane of issues can become a hot, and very much heated, topic of debate. Tonight was no exception. It would pit the old school progressives, who largely oppose anything that they feel at all resembles growth, versus the new school, the much younger and pragmatic, yet still extremely conscience progressives. I know, what would seem to any outsiders as virtually the same type of people, fiercely opposing one another and mobilizing their respective constituencies for what eventually concluded a 4 hour long city council meeting.

What can be seen as even more strange is the fact that both groups claim to fighting for the same thing, the preservation of public land for public use and sustainability. They just differ on what they believe to be appropriate public use and their diagnosis of what was preventing that use.

On one side you have the Friends of Pogonip, the old guard, who claim that the land should be preserved by utilizing existing trails, rather than building another. They claim to already be having problems with mountain bikers using the existing trails illegally, which they claim makes it difficult to hike in the traditional sense because of the constant worry of encountering “vehicles,” (mountain bikes). Those in support of the trail, many of who are openly avid mountain bikers, claim to need another trail to avoid having to share the highway with cars and to fight against the crime that has persisted in the area for some time. They  also claim to not have enough trails to practice as it is, a somewhat weaker claim because of Santa Cruz’s notoriety as a wonderful place to go mountain biking.

Regardless of their respective positions, both of which resonate with me to some degree, the real issue at hand is how this community wants to collectively resolve its differences. As it stood on this particular night, both sides presented their side of the story, complete with petitions from supporters and mobilized volunteers. However, the one thing that was noticeably absent, from what I would otherwise call an extremely active and robust civic process, was any notion of compromise. In fact, it appeared to me as if neither side had even considered, let alone tried, to reach out to the other. The mayor even began the meeting with a general call for civility because apparently both sides had been sending nasty and defamatory e-mails to him, and each other, for days leading up to this meeting.

Now as much as I appreciate the general level of participation, I do not appreciate this polarization, which only manifests itself to an even higher degree on the state and national levels.

Is it even possible to claim the middle ground anymore? If we can’t even agree on the placement and use of a 4-foot wide patch of dirt than how can we expect to solve some of the most pressing and perilous problems of our day? And to be honest, I really don’t have an answer.

 I am just tired of the way things work, and would love hear suggestions on how to deal with this entrenched mentality of “my way or the highway”, because in a world of policy winners and losers, the real victim becomes our democracy.

Robert Singleton is a co-founder of Civinomics, a startup that  helps communities develop solutions to local issues through a collaborative online platform and direct iPad polling.