The Hightower Report

---

THE OFFSHORING OF LOCAL NEWS

Here in Austin, a TV station fired its news director and didn't replace him. Instead, the conglomerate owner decided to put the news director of its Tampa, Fla., station in charge of our "local" news coverage. Rumor has it that the Tampa guy had once visited our fair city, so apparently that qualified him to be the long-distance arbiter of Austin news.

Can journalism sink any lower? Of course it can!

Blazing a new path to the journalistic bottom, a Web journal that covers city politics and government in Pasadena, Calif., has gone much farther than Tampa to get local coverage. James Macpherson, editor and publisher of Pasadena Now, flung his job net all the way to India to find low-cost journalists to report on the happenings in Pasadena.

Macpherson says since City Council meetings can be watched on the Internet, a reporter from anywhere can cover what's happening. Excuse me, but even if you were sitting right in front of most City Council meetings, you still wouldn't know what the heck was happening, because the real deals are cut in the back rooms.

Well, says Macpherson, "Whether you're at a desk in Pasadena or a desk in Mumbai, you're still just a phone call or e-mail away from the interview." Yes, but – hello! – it helps if the interviewer has some clue about the cultural nuances and community dynamics at work … something a bit more solid than having seen the Rose Bowl parade on TV.

Still, Macpherson says he's pleased because he was able to hire not one but two Indian reporters for a combined salary of about $20,000. I'm sure these two are smart and capable, but I'm guessing they'll provide as much insight into Pasadena politics as I would into the politics of Mumbai.

They say that a big part of life consists of simply being there. And in real journalism, it seems to me that "being there" requires more than virtual reality.

---

COME ON, DEMOCRATS, SHAPE UP!

Tell me it's not so. Tell me that the headline I'm looking at is not true. It says: "Democrats Reluctant to Pass Lobbying Bill."

Aren't these the same Democrats who rightly hung Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and the "culture of corruption" around the Republicans' necks in last fall's congressional elections? Aren't these the Democrats who became the majority party based largely on their solemn pledge to stop the corrupt ties between lawmakers and lobbyists?

Yes, they are. And I'm glad to report that most of the Democratic newcomers who got elected on those pledges are staying true to them. But some of the old Democratic leaders, some of the "Moneycrats" in Congress, are now balking at implementing the most basic reforms.

For example, the old guard does not want to stop lobbyists from "bundling" campaign checks – which is a devious way to avoid the ban on corporate contributions. Also, the Moneycrats seem to be party animals. They dislike the reform that would stop lobbyists from throwing lavish parties that "honor" key lawmakers at national political conventions. These party parties further bloat the egos of various committee chairs while earning favors for the sponsoring corporations.

Oh, there's one more reform on the Democrat's chopping block. It would require that retiring or defeated Congress critters must wait two years after leaving Congress to be able to lobby their former colleagues. Can you spell S-E-L-F I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T? Former members can draw seven-figure paychecks as lobbyists – and who wants to wait two years to cash in?

Before backing off of their reform promises, Democratic leaders might note that the public approval rating of the new Congress has dropped five points in the last month, now standing at only 35%. That's the level at which you lose elections. Remember – the people didn't vote for Democrats last November; they voted for reform.