Tucson Weekly: The Skinny (February 19

Skinny A TALE OF TWO HEADLINES: The recent U.S. House of Representatives hearings regarding the closure of the Tucson Rod & Gun Club are a classic example of journalistic spin-doctoring. The headline in Friday's Arizona Daily Star read, "Gun club hearings fail to bring about facility's reopening." The Page One headline in the Tucson Citizen read, "Congress vows to reopen gun club."
The Citizen got a lot closer to reality. Somebody ought to explain to the Star weasels that congressional hearings rarely result in instant action.
The Star piece by Keith Bagwell continued, as is apparently Star policy, to ignore the out-and-out lying by the U.S. Forest Service, which was brought out in the hearings, not to mention the fraudulent "safety report" used as a cover to close the range. Nor did Bagwell address the principal of "multiple use" on Forest Service land, instead spending considerable space interviewing the neighbor of the Gun Club and regurgitating his bitches about living near the noise. Gee, anybody ask him why he bought the house in the first place, since the range was there first?
The Citizen story, written by Fredereka Schouten, identified as "Citizen Washington Bureau" (translation: Gannett staffer), let us know just how ticked several congressional panelists are at the Forest Service's lying and fraudulent activity--something we've been talking about for some time, while the Star has remained silent.
So the Star has hit another new low--aced out on a local story by a D.C. staffer from Gannett. It don't get much worse than that, folks.
We were also amused by the Star's follow-up editorial, which chided Kolbe for arranging the "trouble-making" hearings at all. The paper suggested the decision to close the range "should be made locally, by responsible and accountable Forest Service leaders, not a micro-managing, grandstanding congressional subcommittee."
Now that's a hoot. Can anyone explain to us who these local Forest Service bureaucrats are "accountable" to? Back when we tried to find out how they were "responsible" for paying $25,000 to high-school drop-out Glen Shumsky to conduct their fraudulent "safety study," they wouldn't even tell us how many people had bid on the job without forcing us to file a Freedom of Information Act request. (And it turned out the Forest Service had received just one bid, from Shumsky.)
Ultimately, these federal employees are only accountable to Congress. And if they ended up being humiliated by their actions, they deserved it.
NO CHARGE, NO APOLOGIES: In its Monday "StarDreck," a supplement devoted to boring small appliances, monopolistic Tucson Newspapers Inc. ran a full-page ad with the headline: "If Weeklies Are Such a Great Place To Advertise, How Come They Have to Give Them Away?" We can only assume that TNI is so lacking in creativity, they had to bring in an out-of-town ad agency to "dis" us.
The alleged stigma of so-called free publications has been a non-issue for years--in fact, it's such a bogus issue that when we saw the ad we laughed so hard snot came out of our noses. The reason Tucson Weekly doesn't charge for the paper is simple economics: It's far cheaper to put The Weekly in places where our target readers will pick them up instead of dealing with the bureaucratic headaches of administering 50,000 25-cent transactions.
Of the more than 100 alternative weeklies in the U.S., all are distributed free of charge. In fact, the Village Voice, one of the most venerable of the nation's weeklies, finally threw in the towel two years ago after 40 years of paid distribution and converted to free distribution. The reason: It's vastly easier to get the paper into the hands of the readers advertisers want to reach.
The other claims in the ad's scintillating copy were equally bogus. For the record, you greedy, monopolistic, out-of-town-owned TNI pigs, Tucson Weekly's circulation is independently audited, our readership claims are backed up by reputable demographic information, and the quality of our readers and the cost to reach them makes The Weekly a much more cost-effective buy.
Don't take our word for it--ask our advertisers.
And it's worth noting that no one has died distributing our paper for a measly 25 cents on a busy traffic median. We don't have to stoop to such savagely desperate efforts to prop up our falling readership--Tucson Weekly readers have no trouble finding a copy of the paper on their own.
VETERAN'S TEP GAS-POWERED STADIUM: The Star's Joe Burchell and Hipolito Corella did a good job last Sunday pointing out the problems, both physical and financial, with Pima County's new taxpayer-supported stadium. Looks like Pima County's Board of Supes and bureaucrats are even bigger pigeons than we thought.
But Burchell and Corella missed a couple of things. When the big-money hustlers were conning us for community support, Tucson Electric Park was supposed to be called Veterans Memorial Park. The veterans memorial now consists of a couple of benches and a flagpole in a far corner across the street. Pima County gave away the right to name the stadium and let Jerry Coangelo and the gang sell it off for their own profit.
But even though TEP paid $2 million to name the stadium, the main power source for Tucson Electric Park isn't even electricity--it's natural gas.
CLIFF NOTES, INDEED: We've been sent an Arizona Daily Star promotional sheet trying to convince UA students to subscribe. It's headlined: "Like Cliff Notes for your life," referring to the canned course studies written for lazy students. Cliff Notes are basically cheat sheets that leave a lot out--which does remind us of the Star, come to think of it.
Cliff Notes can get you through the course if the prof is lazy, too; but lots of folks have flunked when the subject matter on the test wasn't in the Cliff Notes. Keep that in mind when you're reading through the morning daily.
MULTIPLE-DIPPING IN THE LOBBYIST TROUGH: Arizona Board of Regents member John Munger continues to function as a lobbyist for numerous other governmental entities. Currently, his law firm has the lobbying contract for the Pima County Board of Supervisors. It also represents the Tucson Airport Authority. In the past Munger has also represented the association of sleazeballs who file appeals on county property taxes--while simultaneously representing the supervisors with whom the appeals are filed. And when Pima County was talking about a private landfill, Munger was trotting around with an out-of-town client who wanted to build it.
This Munger business has come to a head, for us at least, over the incorporation issue currently before the state Legislature. While the supervisors, in their usual dysfunctional manner, have been unable to clearly direct Munger on this matter, it's clear that at least three supes support allowing new incorporations--at least judging by their past votes on Tortolita and Casas Adobes.
But the Tucson Airport Authority, which is concerned about being swallowed up by the potential new town of South Valley, supports a bill that just happens exempt airport authorities from incorporations. That same bill doesn't contain a lifeline clause for Tortolita and Casas Adobes, should they lose a current court fight.
Once upon a time, the political bag men and lobbyists who got appointed to the Board of Regents were considered elder statesman. They were guys who had retired from their sleazy professions. Perhaps it's time Munger retired, too.
LAUNDERING MONEY THE HARD WAY: It's been reported to The Skinny that certain local hospitals are now shipping their laundry to Phoenix to be cleaned--some bean counters have determined that centralization is cheaper.
Is that really the problem in Tucson--that everybody has such high-paying jobs that we now ship out the laundry?
We know the healthcare industry has been screwing us for some time, but are they actually moving the chicken-shit laundry jobs out of town? What's next, Mexican dry-cleaning plants?

Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives