MSM proves earlier column right

Less than a month ago, I used this space to discuss the fall of the mainstream media.

You may recall:

There was a time when blogs were used for commentary on stories that had appeared in that days paper or on the TV news. Now TV, radio and the newspapers are being scooped regularly by the blogging community.

In the time since, the media has shot out against local blogs, criticizing them as being unsourced rumors ill-fit for human consumption. Blogs came under fire due to the breaking of a story about Sam Hoyt's affairs with two women by the website PoliticsNY.net.

Of little importance to the likes of the Buffalo News and WBEN is the fact that PoliticsNY.net isn't a blog ... and Joe Illuzi, the penman of the "articles" that appear on it isn't a blogger. He's a paid smearmerchant, but that's neither here nor there.

What the News and Buffalo's biggest talk station knew was that they got scooped ... by some guy. Some Joe ... quite literally. So rather than refute the facts on Illuzi's website, they took the opportunity to shred his character and question his motives.

Granted, Illuzi seems to have a rather colorful past which gives them a lot of fodder to shred him with. And his motives are definately not of "journalistic" nature.

But it doesn't negate the fact that PoliticsNY.net broke a story that the "reporters" at Buffalo's biggest newspaper and biggest news radio station couldn't break. And it doesn't negate the fact that his report has been shown to be factual.

Much more factual than the story that lead the paper ... and that WBEN ran with all morning long on Monday. I'm talking about the story in which Nicole Kidman was working to save Buffalo's Studio Arena.

It later came out that Nicole Kidman "has never heard of Studio Arena."

How oh how could WNY's most powerful media outlets get a story like that wrong? What was their source? "Show business web sites," the Buffalo News said on Monday. WBEN, meanwhile sourced "The Mirror," a web site from the UK. Earlier today, the Buffalo News blamed the story on PR-inside.com.

Local bloggers have had trouble maintaining their glee over the MSM's faux pas.

• The Buffalo Bean headlines a post about the snafu: "Who looks stupid now?"
• Buffalo Pundit headlines a similar post: "The assault on blogs backfires (or Buffalo mainstream press gets PWN3D)

And can you blame 'em? They've spent the last week being told by the media that they're the bad guy. They're the problem.

Bloggers typically get their information from sources ... just like the MSM. Sometimes they get their information from press releases ... just like the MSM. And often, they opine about what they've heard/learned/seen ... just like the MSM.

The primary difference? Most bloggers do what they do because they have a passion for getting information in front of as many eyes as possible ... while the folks at the Buffalo News and WBEN are in it for a paycheck.

I'm not saying there's something wrong with getting paid ... or even getting paid as a member of the media. That is, afterall, my primary job.

But some of us in the media have realized that there is a new game in town ... and they don't like it. They're afraid it's going to eat their paycheck.

Ironically, The Buffalo News has been begging people to blog ... on their website. Driving people to their advertisers. Then, blogging is okay. But when WNY's "alternative media" do it, it can't be trusted.

It's almost like they're promoting their own demise.

Money problems? Cap your own spending!

As I write this, the state Assembly and Senate have been called back to Albany for a special session to try to trim $1 Billion from the state budget ... in an effort to bring our budget deficit down to $5 Billion.

Make sure you read that right. They're trying to bring our deficit down to $5 Billion ... not the budget itself. The budget itself will still be in the $120 Billion area.

And senators and assemblymen from Nassau to Niagara have been sending mailers to their constituents telling them how much they care about their pocket books. So much that they're proposing a tax cap. No, not on their own spending. They want to cap what your local school board spends.

So a group of politicians who are writing in red ink want to dictate what a duly elected school board they have no control over can spend. And they think they're doing you some favor.

No doubt, school districts spend too much money, hire too many people, and create too many new programs. But that's not for my state senator or assemblyman to decide. They've got their own budget snafus to worry about.

State government has a way of creating problems, then asking other people to fix them.

They did this with health care facilitiess, doling out handfuls of cash to every hospital in their district, then complaining that the state was spending too much on hospitals. So they created a committee (the Berger Commission) to then dictate to these privately-run hospitals whether they should remain as-is, close, or merge with a competing privately-run hospital. The simple truth is had they not given money to the hospitals in the first place, the market would have dictated which hospitals would remain open.

Now they're doing it with schools, passing rules and requirements for school aptitude, testing, building requirements, special education, etc. But at the same time, they're complaining that those schools spend too much money. Is there any possibility that the reason those schools spend soo much money is because the state GIVES them money ... with strings attached?

I've been to enough school board meeting to know that the answer is 'yes.' School districts apply for grants or are simply offered cash from Albany, but have to spend "X" amount of local dollars to get that money. And then the school board tells the local taxpayers, "We're only paying 'X.' Albany is paying the rest."

If Albany would stay out of everyone else's business and concentrate on their own problems (I remind you again, we're $6 Billion in the whole), maybe they could actually accomplish something.

Taxpayers, if you want to curtail spending at your school district, run for school board and do it yourself. If you want your state senator or assemblyman to curtail spending at your local school district, you've been duped into believing a) that (s)he cares ... b) that (s)he wasn't the problem in the first place and c) that the state doesn't have it's own problems to worry about.

If they're so good at handling money, how'd they get a $6 billion budget deficit in the first place?

Hate crimes: Lesson in inequality

If you've read, heard, or watched the news lately, you've likely heard the term "hate crime" bandied about.

Some recent headlines:

• Camera catches alleged hate-crime beating
• Erie County District Attorney Frank Clark will prosecute cross burning as a hate crime
• Springville Beating is Possible Hate Crime
• Victim of Suspected Hate Crime talks to 7 News

In each instance, the fact that a crime is motivated by some sort of prejudice gives the charge more weight. The above examples are instances of racially-motivated and sexuality-motivated hate crimes.

I'm just as opposed to prejudice as I am in favor of law and order. But the notion that motivation makes a crime worse, cries of hypocrisy to me.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed following the Civil War. In essence, it guarantees equal protection under the law for ALL U.S. citizens.

Some history: As is typical, what I learned in grade school and what is historically correct, differ. I learned that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were a package deal. The 13th prohibited slavery. The 14th offered equal protection. And the 15th says voting cannot be denied based on race.

In actuality, the 13th was passed, outlawing slavery. So many southern states drew up new laws specifically for blacks. That was the impetus for the 14th, which banned such practices. And the 15th is somewhat of an exclamation point ... just so people understood. We're all equal.

Of course, equality has been a long time coming. And frankly, we're not there quite yet, unfortunately. Many people still believe themselves to be superior to others. And that's where hate crimes come in.

The problem I have, though, is this: Isn't the existence of a hate crimes law an assault on the 14th Amendment itself?

While the 14th Amendment says we should be treated the same, the existence of hate crimes laws says we should be treated differently.

Am I to assume that random acts of assault are somehow less of an affront to social order than those based on contempt for an assumed quality or trait of the victim? Cause that seems to be the message I get from the mere existence of the phrase "hate crime."

Who commits "love crimes," after all. Or "indifference crimes?"

Is it okay to assault heterosexual white men? Or is it just not as bad? If a straight white guy and a black lesbian are both murdered, are they not equally dead?

I understand that some politicians want to work to remove the bias from people. But you can't legislate the thoughts in someone's head. I can't fathom someone saying, "I'm not going to hate (fill in the blank) because it's illegal."

People don't choose not to hate. They learn not to hate. And they don't learn it from a law.