Doing the whole more with less thing, the Daily News continues to put out quality stories on the City. There was the article on violence and the police force from Dave Davies that Gaetano discussed a few days ago, and today, as Mayor Street leaves office, Mark McDonald looks at the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, in the first of a two part series.
I will refrain from commenting more until I see tomorrow's piece, except to say that I think NTI was a great idea, that was not really carried through in the way it was intended.
Also in the DN is the update on Nutter's cabinet appointments- including these three:
Deputy mayor for public safety: Everett Gillison will work with the Police Department and all other criminal justice agencies to coordinate crime-fighting efforts.
He is a senior trial lawyer for the Defender Association of Philadelphia.
Deputy mayor of health and opportunity and health commissioner: Donald Schwartz, associate professor of child advocacy at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, will take on this new position, which was designed to coordinate health policy and better deliver health and social services.
Director of multicultural affairs: Longtime community activist Izzy Colon will act as the mayor's adviser and liaison on multicultural issues.
I don't know any of these people- I am sure most of us don't. But, someone with a lot of experience with kids, an activist from Angel Ortiz's office, and a Deputy Mayor for Public Safety who is a 20 year Public Defender seem like pretty interesting, admirable choices. As always, the proof will be in the pudding.
Finally, there is this weird article:
The civic watchdog group Committee of Seventy today will propose city-charter changes giving Philadelphia's police commissioner more management authority and permitting the city to hire cops willing to move in from the suburbs.
The proposals would involve a relaxation of civil-service rules for promoting and transferring police commanders.
If approved, they would allow incoming commissioner Charles Ramsey to bring more commanders in from other cities if he chooses.
"In the 21st century, any CEO needs the ability to manage his or her organization," said the Committee of Seventy's president and chief executive officer, Zack Stalberg.
"That's especially true for a paramilitary organization like the police department, and under the existing rules, the commissioner has very limited control."
This is a little strange. I understand they are a good government group, so getting their opinion on taking away civil service jobs and moving them to appointments makes sense. But, doesn't it seem strange that instead of being asked about whether they would support a move, they are actually proposing policing policy changes?
I don't know, something is strange about 1)hearing from the Committee of Seventy about the need for more control over our "paramilitary organization" and then 2)this quote, when asked about the potential for a return to a patronage system in the force:
"I'm concerned, but I'm not so concerned that I want the current public safety crisis to go on," he said.
Again, if I were the Mayor or Commissioner, I would want Seventy's input. But, it seems more like the Committee of Seventy is either greatly expanding its mission, or that someone asked them to issue this call for change, so as to use their goodwill in the media, etc.
That is not to say our "paramilitary organization" does not need changes. I am sure it does. But, still, pretty weird.
The DN
Has really started to impress me lately with their coverage of local issues. So, I agree, buy the DN. Today's article on NTI (first of two) was very, very good-like last week's Dave Davies article.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Value
As I used to say to potential customers when I was soliciting subscriptions back in the day, "Dollar for Dollar, the newspaper is the best value in America." Back then it was $.35, so a six day subscription was $2.10 for the week. (At least a third of the people on my route told me that they didn't have it and would get me next week. I didn't realize it then, but I guess the 80's economy did suck for a lot of people in my community).
We need healthy newspapers in this town. Like Dan said, buy the Daily News. And tip your paperboys, even if they're all adults now.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
It's a great paper...
...but no one will ever beat the Washington Post for dollar impact locally. When I left D.C. in 2002, it was .35 on the newstand and .25 a day to subscribe, including Sunday.
That's economies of scale rocking out right there.
I'm sure it's not a lot more now, though it's probably gone up some.
Still, I love the DN.
---
This Too Will Pass, treating grave matters lightly and light matters gravely, since 2001.
One problem w/the PDN
The main problem w/the PDN is its reading level, My Mom- whose Master's dissertation was on the reading level in various newspapers- says that the PDN's reading level is ~ 3rd grade. Mind you, most newspapers, broadsheets included, aren't much better. The Inquirer is ~ 5th grade, and the highest reading levels of any mass market newspaper are the NYT + WSJ- a whopping 9th grade.
Compare a newspaper column from, say, the 1930s to one from today, + you'll be amazed at the difference. The older one will seem like literature by comparison.
I chose the 1930s on purpose, as that was before the wide market penetration of TV. Before TV, people got their news in one of two ways (other than word-of-mouth): radio + newspapers. Today, people don't read as many newspapers, and that leads to lack of reading more generally. Just like anything else, if you don't read, you get out of practice. And, since most journalists today grew up in the TV age, they right at a lower level than their predecessors- they're explicitly taught to keep their articles as simple as possible.
-Z
questions about this
The main problem with the DN and every other mainstream media source is their lack of editorial depth, their propensity to be "stenographers to power" (in Mark Hertsgaard's words), a lack of good investigatory reporting, and the amazing lack of critical thought featured by most journalists. They aren't only taught to write simply, it seems to me, but to write simplistically. (See: why people are dumb enough to believe that Iraq *still* has WMD, or htf Bush was reelected). Claiming that the problem is with the reading level misses the mark for a lot of reasons: what is the reading level of the evening news, were it written down? What about the reading level of the posts here on YPP? Denigrating something for a low reading level assumes that 1)everyone in the target audience is able to read at higher levels, that 2) papers with higher reading levels are delivering better content (which may be true but isn't necessarily). The real issue is crappy journalism, not the writing style/level in which it's composed.
Deputy mayor for public safety: Everett Gillison
I have known Everett, as a former public defender, more than 20 years and he is an excellent choice for this position!
AJ: Excellent comment.
I couldn't agree more. Superb enterprise by Davies and McDonald the past two weeks. Plus it's fun to hold and easy to read.
Experise and history are what makes the DN worth reading
Dave Davies and Mark McDonald know the city and really are about it and it shows. There is a tendency among editors at some papers to think that a good reporter can do a good job on any story. There is some truth to it. But a good reporter who has some experience and historical knowledge really can tell the whole story--and know who to talk to get to get the part they don't know. And he or she can come up with stories just based on historical memory. Every once in a while Dave Davies does that, like the story he did last year about the true costs of the stadia.
The city’s failure to keep records re. NTI
What I find really astonishing in Mc Donald’s article:
Keeping Our Eyes on Ethics
I saw Zack Stalberg today on Live at Issue; surprisingly, he said that with the change in office, the Committee of Seventy was likely to turn its attention away from ethics violations (the main issue during the Street Administration) and towards "good government," i.e., efficiency, the quality of city services, etc. The proposed changes to the city charter, then, would fall under how the Committee is now interpreting its mandate.
But I found this troubling. While efficiency and good management are definitely important -- and, along with the promise of a less ethically challenged mayorship, a good part of the reason why many people have found Nutter to be an attractive mayor -- we can't keep our eye off of ethics violations, even for a minute. The presumption that a change of the top office holder somehow changes both the prevailing dynamics and universal potential for corruption is ludicrous. Even if Nutter and the people he surrounds himself with are squeaky-clean, any office holder, any city worker, any candidate, and anyone who does business with the government can find themselves in ethically dubious waters -- as the recent IG investigation of Curtis Jones shows. I think it helps everyone to know that someone both in and out of government is paying attention.
The IG's office is changing over, along with the mayor, the police brass, and plenty of other positions. The Committee of 70 is unique in that it can continue its watchdog role as an incumbent. It would be a shame if the lure of having a bigger voice in city policy led them to lose this focus now.
Committee of 70 still committed to campaign finance reform
Tim,
Your general point is well-taken, but I think Committee of 70 is broadening rather than changing its focus. Zack Stalberg recently affirmed the organization’s commitment to campaign finance reform. From Committee of 70 website: