As long as I have been able to recognize that there is such a thing as a shitty newspaper, it has been abundantly clear that The Birmingham News ranks high upon the list[1].
For those of you not up to date on gubernatorial politics in Alabama, a primer:
There once was a highly successful and charismatic politician named Don Siegelman who happened to be both very popular and very much a Democrat. He managed to work up from and be elected to Secretary of State, Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor and finally Governor in a state that had become very hospitable to the GOP[2]. Amazingly enough, once he reached that high, the real knee breakers in the Republican establishment started to salivate a little and the Department of Justice starts an investigation. The most experienced US attorneys in the jurisdiction recommended the case not be prosecuted; later a judge in Birmingham agreed and threw out the case that a more "hungry" US attorney decided to pursue. Ultimately, a new case was heard where Siegelman was ultimately sent to prison for accepting a "bribe" of a donation--which he did not receive one direct cent into his pocket--from former Healthsouth CEO Richard Scrushy. In turn, Siegelman gave Scrushy a position on some hospital oversight board that apparently had (1)no real regulatory power over Scrushy's company (2)was actually just a reappointment to a board Scrushy served on under two previous Alabama governors. It was tried under a judge who by all accounts is a partisan hack (not as if that's saying much. most judges in Alabama fit that bill) and has yet to produce a transcript of the trial in more than 8 months since it has been legally due which would answer some questions about the specifics of the witch-huntproceedings. 60 Minutes ran a segment about some of the details yesterday. It's pretty compelling stuff, and it's where I first learned certain specifics like Scrushy having served on that board under the two previous administrations. Plus, it's 60 Minutes. We're not talking Amy Goodman style lefty journalism here.
Scott Horton from Harper's Magazine has been following this particular case, in particular The Birmingham News so called coverage of it.
[1]See also USA Today, but that's not really a newspaper. Also, as a matter of politeness to the general public, I promise to not make fun of you for wanting a USA Today as long as you promise to not make a snide comment about my store carrying the "liberal" New York Times.
[2]The Republican party played on the regions racism to get the "solid south's" support during the civil rights movement, and I fully believe that no matter the progress that has happened there is no doubt that many of the people I know got their political socialization from the same place as everyone else: parents and peers, and they are voting Republican not out of economic, defensive or moral issues. They vote Republican because of their racism and their parent's racism.
Doug over at Hey Jenny Slater posted yesterday about a high school student who became pregnant and in lieu of abortion/adoption decided to keep the baby as well as putting forth a considerable effort to improve her studies and life in general. So, as an inspirational and cautionary tale, the editors of the particular school's yearbook wanted to include a feature about her. As I recollect from my days of high school student press, since the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case before the Supreme Court, the school administrators have final authority over what can be in a student publication. The admins 86ed the article because instead of grasping that a young person made some mistakes and undertook an incredibly difficult challenge, they seemed to think it somehow "glamorize[d] pre-marital sex," and ultimately it was found objectionable because of the school's policy of abstinence-only education.
As Doug lays it out, sex education in the right wing mind[1] goes a little something like this:
"If you're in high-school, you should only be exposed to an inaccuracy-laden form of sex education that no more likely to keep you from having sex than other forms of sex ed. When you do go ahead and have sex anyway, chances are you get pregnant, because you never got any accurate information about birth control or contraceptives. Once you get pregnant, you have to carry the child to term, because abortion is wrong -- but even if you do keep the baby, we're still going to shun you and treat you like a leper because you never should've had sex in the first place."
Much like the Catholic church giving inaccurate information about condoms, I can't see how failing to provide scientifically sound sex ed isn't a moral issue[2]. Abstinence only education fails to meet its intended goals, damages the public health and in this case, like many others, is an attack against women.
[1]And to those economic conservatives out there, what has your union with the social conservatives wrought? I know people who are plenty too smart to buy into the crazy social conservative ideals but still vote right wing because they're apparently convinced the world's going to end if a Democrat wins the White House. I've got a couple of questions for y'all who fit that category: How much less in taxes have you paid during the time the Republicans controlled the executive and legislative branches of government? How much spending did that "conservative" government curtail? Under whose watch was the worst attack on American soil?
[2]And if only one person dies from AIDS because of the anti-contraception propaganda of the Vatican, I fully believe they are complacent in murder.
