Ripoff Central: Kroger/Fred Meyer is exploiting customers with poor credit

Have poor credit? Not to worry. Some Portland-area retailers will help you get what you want by leasing it. And they’ll do it with a smile, while setting you up for a potentially exorbitant bill.

It’s a blatant contradiction of some businesses’ efforts to portray themselves as socially conscious community partners. “Supporting the communities we work in is central to how we do business at Freddy’s,” says Fred Meyer. “Being a trusted partner in our communities is a top priority.,” says Kroger, Fred Meyer’s parent company.

But, contrary to such platitudes, Fred Meyer Jewelers and other retailers, including BigLots!, Aaron’s, Cricket Wireless, Best Buy, Overstock.com, and Kay Jewelers trap customers with the leasing program.

The program is offered by Progressive Leasing, which is owned by Aaron’s Inc. (NYSE:AAN). Aaron’s describes itself as “the leading lease-to-own specialty retailer that offers flexible payment options for credit-challenged individuals.”  Aaron’s acquired Progressive in 2014, when it was known as Progressive Finance Holdings, LLC.

progressive-leasing-banner

Progressive Leasing says it offers: easy regular payments; a 12 month maximum lease program; a 90 day payment option; and an early buyout after 90 days. Applying for a lease plan is as “easy as one, two three,” says Progressive. “Start your lease and take home what you need today for a small up front cost.”

leaseFreds

But sign up and you could be in big trouble.

A Fred Meyer Jewelers salesperson in the Tigard store on SW Pacific Hwy explained to me how the program works.

Let’s say you want to get a $500 bracelet for your girlfriend. But you have poor or no credit and can’t qualify for one of Fred Meyer Jewelers’ regular credit cards. The salesperson may then offer you the lease option. “You will not own the leased merchandise or acquire ownership rights unless you make payments for the full term of the lease or exercise an early purchase option,” says Fred Meyer Jewelers’ website.

Under the lease option, you would have to make a $79 payment and then pay off the $500 with twice-a-month payments over 12 months. Sounds simple enough. But there’s a catch. If you don’t pay off the entire balance within 90 days, you will owe double the total amount you financed. That’s right double.

In other words, if you don’t pay off the total balance on the $500 bracelet within 90 days, but stick with a 12-month plan, you will have paid $1079 for that bracelet when you’re done. And the extra cost won’t be considered  interest because the program technically isn’t offering loans.

What’s particularly egregious is that customers may not be made aware of the 90-day penalty until long after they have completed their purchase. Fred Meyer Jewelers’ website says:

“PROGRESSIVE LEASING OFFERS:

  • Easy Regular Payments
  • 12 month maximum lease program
  • 90 day payment option available
  • Early buyout after 90 days”

But it doesn’t explain that if you don’t pay off the balance in 90 days the cost of the item doubles. So the people who can probably least afford it get screwed.

Based on online reviews by Progressive Leasing’s customers, an awful lot of them have been blindsided by misleading, incomplete or false information from a retailer or Progressive:

“Leasing Furniture – WOW!!! WHAT A SCAM!!!,” wrote one online reviewer. “I bought a couch on sale for $600 and two $100 bar stools. They are taking $69 out of my account bimonthly. After 5 months I called to see what my balance was. $972!!! More than the furniture was to begin with. I WILL NEVER GO IN THERE AGAIN.”

“I purchased a mattress set from the Mattress Firm,” another online reviewer wrote. ” I was told they used Progressive Leasing. However I was never informed about the interest rate. The total cost was $800. But after making 6 payments of $157 they told me that I still owed $1200…DO NOT BORROW FROM THEM!”

“This company elaborate a contracts to trap a consumer in high interest % – 100% in 12 months loan,’ wrote another reviewer. “This is Legal????”

Fred Meyer Jewelers’ promotion of the leasing option says “It’s a beautiful thing.” Clearly, that’s not always the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just another drug dealer: Revibe Men’s Health/Universal Men’s Clinic and the “low T” testosterone hustle

“You can dress up greed, but you can’t stop the stench.”
Craig D. Lounsbrough

Predatory medical hucksters have always been with us.

During the Roaring Twenties and the depression, John Romulus Brinkley became famous and rich performing procedures in which, for $750 (about $11,000 in current value) he grafted goat testicles into men’s bodies, purportedly to cure sexual dysfunction, impotence, and infertility.

Brinkley 1

The operating room of John Romulus Brinkley, the “goat gland doctor”.

Brinkley’s self-promotion was legendary. He commissioned a biography about himself, The Life of a Man, and there was even a 2016 documentary made about him, Nuts!, based on the biography.

Predictably, the book said that for Brinkley “…money is not an aim, or an end in itself, but a means of enlarging the central idea of his life-work.”

Investigators eventually discovered that Brinkley had no formal medical training and his medical credentials were meaningless documents from a “diploma mill”.  The legitimate medical community also thoroughly discredited his work.

Medical hucksterism lives on

But Brinkley’s success as a medical huckster promoting sexual vitality lives on.  Too many men persist in seeking rejuvenation through miracle devices, creams, pills and serums and hustlers with chutzpah stand ready to exploit them.

Today, the Internet is crowded with advertisements for products that claim they will maintain or restore youth and sexual performance.

Mid adult male consumer checking information on mobile phone while holding product in pharmacy

One controversial anti-aging idea currently being promoted is transfusions of blood plasma from young people (so-called “young blood”). The treatment is gaining wider acceptance even while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing warnings that not only is its value unproven, but its use could be harmful.

On Feb. 19, 2009, the FDA issued a statement cautioning consumers and providers about businesses transfusing blood plasma from young donors into older patients.

“The FDA has recently become aware of reports of establishments in several states that are offering infusions of plasma from young donors to purportedly treat the effects of a variety of conditions,” the statement said. “There is no proven clinical benefit of infusion of plasma from young donors to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent these conditions, and there are risks associated with the use of any plasma product…the reported uses of these products should not be assumed to be safe or effective.”

The most widely hawked anti-aging youth restoration product today, however, is testosterone, a steroid hormone often associated with masculinity.

Dr. Steven Woloshin, co-director of the Center for Medicine and Media at The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, has called low testosterone, often promoted as “low T “, treatment “the mother of all disease mongering.”

testosterone plus ad

The hormone is involved in the development of male sex organs before birth and the development of secondary sex characteristics at puberty. It also plays a role in sex drive, sperm production and maintenance of muscle strength, according to the Mayo Clinic. Testosterone levels peak during adolescence and early adulthood and then gradually decline with age.

Testosterone replacement therapy is approved by the FDA to treat low testosterone, but it is too often prescribed unnecessarily and may do more harm than good.

Men unwilling to embrace successful aging all too often take what the Harvard Medical School calls “a medicinal shortcut” and become willing targets of testosterone promoters.

Michael J. Dimitrion, a doctor in Honolulu, HI, is one person who years ago likely saw the opportunity in marketing testosterone treatments.  Over the past eight years he has been relentless in aggressively exploiting testosterone’s appeal, raking in money by peddling misinformation to susceptible and insecure men.

michael dimitrion

Dr. Michael J. Dimitrion

Dimitrion’s license on file with the Oregon Medical Board says he graduated in 1973 from Far Eastern University – Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation in Quezon City, the Philippines.

Specializing in internal medicine, Dimitrion has reported that he completed an internship at St. Francis Medical Center in Honolulu, HI in 1975 and his residency at University of Hawaii School of Medicine, also in Honolulu, in 1977. He entered private practice as an Internal Medicine Specialist in Honolulu in 1977.

In 2011, he opened the privately-owned Hawaii Male Medical Clinic, focusing on treating men for conditions such as low testosterone and erectile dysfunction, even though he had not specialized in urology or endocrinology.

.“Little was known about andropause, the male equivalent to menopause in women, and few understood the dangers of low testosterone,” Dimitrion said in 2013. “Even fewer believed there were proven erectile dysfunction treatments beyond the little blue pills. Realizing there was a need to address this issue and bring it to the forefront of medical care, and because of new men’s health care developments, I started (the) Clinic with an emphasis on good, evidence-based medical care.”

In 2012, the Clinic’s Director, Terry Harmon, said in an interview for a Hawaiian blog  on healthy living that testosterone treatment is appropriate now because people are living longer.

Two-hundred years ago people lived to be only 40 or 45, he said, so it didn’t matter much that somebody had low testosterone at that point because they were approaching death. Now, however, men have years to live at 45, but have low testosterone a.

“Testosterone replacement therapy is putting back in what nature, unfortunately, took out,” Harmon said.

In 2013, Dimitrion expanded his operations to the mainland, opening a clinic at the Swedish Medical Center in Seattle and changing the name of his business to Universal Men’s Clinic. 

Like an aggressive disease spreading across the landscape, Universal Men’s Clinics have since opened in Portland, OR and eight more U.S. cities (Oklahoma City, OK; Tulsa, OK; Tucson, AZ; Austin, TX; San Antonio, TX; Sacramento, CA; Las Vegas, NV; Salt Lake City, UT). (In 2021, the business changed its name to Revibe Men’s Health by Universal Men’s Clinic)

You may have seen the company’s ads on local television evangelizing for testosterone treatments for men with an appetite for chemical rejuvenation.

Such ads “smack of profitmaking opportunism,” wrote Lisa Schwartz, M.D., and Steven Woloshin, M.D., co-directors of the Dartmouth College Center for Medicine and the Media.

“Whether the campaign is motivated by a sincere desire to help men or simply by greed, we should recognize it for what it is: a mass, uncontrolled experiment that invites men to expose themselves to the harms of a treatment unlikely to fix problems that may be wholly unrelated to testosterone levels,” they wrote in a JAMA Internal Medicine editorial.

The “sell”

After doing research and reviewing online patient reviews* of Universal Men’s Clinic, which are overwhelmingly negative, I decided to take a closer look.

I had my first appointment at what was then named the Portland Universal Men’s Clinic on the 6th floor of the Portland Medical Center building at 511 S.W. 10th Avenue on March 13, 2019.

clinicdoor

Entering a cramped waiting room, I was handed a sheaf of papers to fill out.

An extensive questionnaire asked for identification information, my medical and surgery history, history of injuries, recreational activities, family history and allergies.

One page asked 10 questions associated with what it said was “Androgen deficiency in the Aging Male,” such as:

  • Have you had a decrease in sex drive?
  • Falling asleep after dinner?
  • Have you noticed problems sleeping?
  • Have you had a lack of energy?

I figured I should say something, so I said I was having problems sleeping and identified my “Main Complaint(s) Today” as “Just less zip”.

Included in the paperwork was an Informed Consent form that said at the top:

“You will be attended to by a state licensed physician who will examine you, check your general medical condition, ask about any medications you are presently taking, and discuss with you the specific problem for which you have come to the medical clinic. PLEASE BE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE IN YOUR RESPONSES. OUR PHYSICIANS NEED ACCURATE INFORMATION IN ORDER TO ENSURE SAFE RECOMMENDATIONS IN YOUR MEDICATIONS” (Emphasis in original)

After a short period, clinic staff directed me to an examination room.

From that point forward, contrary to the assertion in the Consent Form that I would be attended to by a state licensed physician, I was not.

My first encounter was with Walt Coxeff, a “Patient Coordinator” who said he wasn’t a physician, but “the middle person between patients and the doctors.”

Coxeff , who said the Portland clinic sees about 50 clients a day,  told me right off that I had to agree to pay $199 for the consultation. He added that private insurance and Medicare typically don’t cover the clinic’s treatments.

Then Ronald King came in.

Like some others at the Portland clinic, King is identified as a Certified Physician Assistant (PA-C), not a physician, on the clinic’s website.

RonaldKing

“I’ve been on it (testosterone) for four and a half years; our 72 year-old doctor’s been on it for 20 years.” Ronald King

Despite the fact that I had left substantial portions of the paperwork blank, and did not sign the Consent Form, neither Coxeff nor King asked that I fill out the missing information or add my signature.

King did suggest, however, that even though some men have no symptoms of low-T, he’ll endorse testosterone treatments for them to make their energy, moods, etc. even better.

King said medical schools don’t teach about testosterone. Instead, they teach about anti-depressants, sleep aids, Viagra, losing weight, quitting smoking, or going to the gym, he  said.

King also assured me that testosterone is safe and doesn’t cause heart attacks, strokes or cancer.

According to the FDA, “Testosterone products are FDA-approved only for use in men who lack or have low testosterone levels in conjunction with an associated medical condition. Examples of these conditions include failure of the testicles to produce testosterone because of reasons such as genetic problems or chemotherapy.”

Ryan C. Petering, M.D. and Nathan A. Brooks, MD, MPH, Oregon Health & Science University, wrote in Testosterone Therapy: Review of Clinical Applications“Physicians should not measure testosterone levels unless a patient has signs and symptoms of hypogonadism, such as loss of body hair, sexual dysfunction, hot flashes, or gynecomastia.”

Although I had no clear medical condition associated with low testosterone and no signs or symptoms of hypogonadism, and was not examined for them, the clinic gave me a blood test to measure my testosterone levels. King said the blood test results would likely be available within a day,

Back at the clinic again

When the test results didn’t show up, I went back to the clinic six days later on March 19, 2019.

At that visit, I was handed one page of blood test results and again ushered into an examination room, this time by an employee who identified himself as Mark, an employee in training.

Mark said the blood test showed my testosterone level was “a little bit on the low end,” with the clinic considering 800-1000 nanograms per deciliter (ng/dl) as “optimum.”

That meant I was a good candidate for testosterone replacement therapy, he said.

This conclusion came despite the clinic having given me just one blood test, contrary to medical recommendations that testosterone therapy should be initiated only after two morning total serum testosterone measurements show decreased levels.

The conclusion was also contrary to guidance from the Endocrine Society, which focuses on advancing hormone research and clinical practice. “In the absence of symptoms in men ages 65 and older, low testosterone levels alone shouldn’t routinely lead to prescribing testosterone therapy,” the Society says.

The clinic gives men an opportunity to increase their testosterone levels so they can  feel more energetic and stronger, Mark said.

The clinic’s “medical provider” recommended, he said, that I start with a 200-milligram injection of testosterone or daily application of a 300-milligram cream.

I began to feel passed around like a rumor when Mark then shifted me to Thomas Pierce for information on the treatment cost. An employee identified Pierce as the clinic’s Area Director; on Linkedin he’s described as Regional Operations Manager.

As with the other people I met with at the clinic, Pierce is not a physician. His Linkedin account says he attended Kaplan College-San Diego during 2009-2010 (the college shut down in Dec. 2018), where he obtained a Technical Certification as a Medical/Clinical Assistant.

Pierce said the testosterone treatment plan at Universal Men’s Clinic is 18 months long and costs $3402, or $189 per month, with a minimum down-payment of $378. The cost is fully inclusive, he said, covering medications, consultations and other items. “It’s kind of a concierge medicine model,” he said.

The treatment goal, Pierce said, would be to raise my testosterone to the 800-1000 level and the clinic has a 90 percent success rate, Pierce said.

Would the treatment end if I reached the goal? “No,” Pierce said. Treatment would continue indefinitely to maintain the right testosterone level.

In other words, once you start the testosterone treatment, Universal Men’s Clinic stands to have a permanent paying customer.

What the evidence shows

injectingtestosterone2

There is evidence that testosterone replacement therapy can have merit in certain circumstances. However, treating symptoms of aging with testosterone can also lead men to avoid pursuing preferred alternatives that can enhance a man’s well-being with less risk, such as leading a healthier lifestyle, losing excessive weight or drinking less.

“You’re better off exercising than putting some silly compound in your armpit,” says Nortin Hadler, M.D., now Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Microbiology/Immunology at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and the author of Rethinking Aging.

Or, as Dr. Robert Alan Clare put it, “I’m not surprised that men with lots of health problems have low testosterone levels, but it’s a big stretch to think that supplementing this hormone will cure any of them. There is good evidence that the real culprit for low testosterone is inactivity.”

And, according to American Family Physician, a journal of the American Academy of Family Physicians, “No consistent relationship has been proven between testosterone levels and symptoms purportedly associated with Low T. Testosterone may increase libido, but testosterone levels do not correlate with sexual function.”

Testosterone also does not reverse or postpone age. “FDA has become aware that testosterone is being used extensively in attempts to relieve symptoms in men who have low testosterone for no apparent reason other than aging.,” the FDA  has cautioned. “The benefits and safety of this use have not been established.”

The fact is, low testosterone is real for only a slim percentage of men. A male aging study in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found that only 0.1 percent of men in their forties, 0.6 percent in their fifties, 3.2 percent in their sixties, and 5.1 percent of men in their seventies would meet the criteria for the diagnosis.

Then there are the warnings that testosterone  treatments can be fraught with danger.

The FDA requires that manufacturers include information on testosterone labeling about a possible increased risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients taking testosterone. Unnecessary testosterone therapy can also increase the risk of mood swings and aggression.

FDA-approved testosterone formulations include a transdermal patch, buccal system (applied to upper gum or inner cheek), injection and a topical gel. Each has its own potential concerns.

If the gel rubs off on a child, for example, the child may develop signs of early puberty; if it smears onto a woman’s skin, it can interrupt menstruation, make her anxious and irritable and she could experience changes in body hair or acne.

The gel can even harm pets if it rubs off on them, causing such affects as lethargy, fever, bleeding, pale gums and hair loss.

exogenous-estrogen-toxicityPETS

What to do?

Medical hucksters aren’t going to go away. The testosterone pushers will continue to exploit men who fear getting old, losing their sexual vitality and having a less thrilling life.

But men can best avoid the hucksters by refusing to be a mark or willing target. Consult with primary care doctors first, not operations focused just on pedaling testosterone treatments.

Government regulators can also be more aggressive and tighten up on the rules on testosterone treatments by unscrupulous profiteers. Research on the safety, efficacy and effects of testosterone treatments can also be accelerated.

Promotional materials by pharmaceutical companies and testosterone providers can be more closely monitored to prevent the spread of misleading and unsubstantiated claims.

And men have a choice. They don’t have to fall for “low T” hucksters run amok. They don’t have to treat getting older as a disease that miracle drugs can cure.

As Maggie Kuhn, Founder of the Gray Panthers, said, “Old age is not a disease—it’s a triumph.”

*A sampling of online reviews of Universal Men’s Clinics

“…these people…should be ashamed of themselves!!! Review of Portland clinic.

DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY HERE!!!. UMC preys on men who are getting older and looking for answers. They sell the idea of a full package including hormone replacement and continuous health and wellness monitoring through blood screening and meetings with healthcare specialists. In truth, they charge between 2 and $3000 for $30 a month worth of testosterone. I met with a “Doctor” one time just so they could sell me on the system. I am pretty sure all appointments after that were with someone who was not even a physicians assistant. Review of Portland clinic.

“Very terrible company, avoid like the plague. – Overpriced. Medication/non-effective – Rude employees – They don’t spend the proper time to understand the patient’s needs and concerns – Completely sales driven, they try to lock you into high monthly payments.” Review of Honolulu, HI clinic.

“This place is a total scam. When you go for your initial consultation they charge you $199.00 then try to sell you a testosterone replacement therapy for $3,000.00 or a ED program for $2,000.00. But they won’t tell you that until your consultation. What a bunch of BS. If you are smart you will just run away and save your money!”  Review of Honolulu, HI clinic.

“Everything was good at first until we started feeling like we were (at) a used cars sales lot. The patient counselor kept hounding us to pay over $3,000 upfront for all of the medication and then they put us in a contract that we cannot get out of unless my husband has medical issues… I would not recommend this to my worst enemy. Don’t get caught up in their scam.”  Review of Murray, Utah clinic.

“Go see your primary care provider and don’t waste your money. They only want to get you on a monthly payment program. They don’t care about your past medical history, family history, or current medical history.”  Review of Oklahoma City, OK clinic.

“There are other, much better, much cheaper options for LowT in the Tulsa area. Do your research – Don’t go to UMC in Tulsa.”  Review of Tulsa, OK clinic

“Stay away from this clinic. Everything they offer has drastic effects to your body. Save your liver and stay away from this place. You’ll have better luck in Mexico with your health.”  Review of Tucson, AZ clinic.

“Stay away it’s a scam. They don’t do your blood work before guessing a prescription and putting you on a payment plan. When there done guessing and got you bank info. They then send someone in to draw blood, but you will never hear back about the blood work. They are prescribing medication that could do you long term harm if they don’t check your blood first to see if you need it and won’t die/harm you permanently. Go to a real doctor to get checked out if you feel you need this kind of help save your money and you health.” Review of Tucson, AZ clinic.

“BEWARE – this clinic engages in lies and manipulation to get you to sign up for an expensive long-term contract.” Review of Tucson, AZ clinic.

“This clinic is a scam to get ppl in the door and rob them of their money. They lie about test results and get u to go with their service with overpriced meds. They even gave me a shot b4 my blood results came in saying I needed it.” Review of Sacramento, CA clinic.

“If you are looking for natural men’s health strategies or a real doctor, keep looking.  This is a drug pushing factory. I found better advice searching on line.  Getting better sleep, working out, reducing stress and healthier eating are better places to start.”  Review of Sacramento, CA clinic.

 “Deceptive high pressure up selling.  They lure you in with a big promise.  For only $199 they say blood work, consultation, and follow ups are included…Treatment plan was $200 per month for 18 months.” Review of Austin, TX clinic.

 “A prime example of junk science run amuck in the marketplace. Do not waste your time and money with scams like these. Do the research.” Review of Austin, TX clinic.

“Unethical business practices…Hard pressure sales, lies, inconsistent medication, micromanaged, no medical background management.” Former clinic employee on Glassdoor.com

“They say you are a Patient Care Coordinator but you are nothing but a sleazy salesman. This company is so micromanaged and all they care about is getting people to sign up for overpriced “treatment.” Former clinic employee on Glassdoor.com

“What a ripoff… When I went in for my appointment, they first send a gentleman in to get you started on the paperwork. Then the Doctor came in and immediately diagnosed me with low T, (before they even drew any blood to test) and E.D. (erectile dysfunction).” Review of Tucson, AZ clinic.

“They charge $200 for your initial consult fee.  THEN they want you to agree to the $2988.00 fee for the 18 month treatment.  My husband felt scammed and said the pressure was the same as when the car dealers want you to get the undercoat on your new car.  Extremely shady!” Review of Seattle, WA clinic.

Teaching the Holocaust: a good idea, a bad bill

holocaust

Who would want to be accused of voting against teaching kids about the Holocaust?

Obviously not the members of the Oregon Senate. On March 12 they voted unanimously  for Senate Bill 664, which would require all of Oregon’s school districts to teach about the Holocaust and genocide beginning with the 2020-2021 school year. The bill is now in the House.

Claire Sarnowski, a freshman at Lake Oswego’s Lakeridge High School, came up with the idea of mandating Holocaust instruction after hearing Holocaust survivor Alter Wiener tell his story. Sarnowski approached state Sen. Rob Wagner, who agreed to introduce a bill.

It all sounds so simple and straightforward, but Senate Bill 664 is, in fact, an expansive progressive monstrosity that only a bureaucrat or lawyer could love. Like anti-terrorism laws, it’s a classic example of mission creep.

The 1338-word bill goes far beyond mandating that students be taught about the Holocaust and genocide. It declares, instead, that the instruction must address: the immorality of mass violence; respect for cultural diversity; the obligation to combat wrongdoing through resistance, including protest, and; the value of restorative justice.

Specifically, the bill says the instruction must be designed to:

(a) Prepare students to confront the immorality of the Holocaust, genocide and other acts of mass violence and to reflect on the causes of related historical events;

(b) Develop students’ respect for cultural diversity and help students gain insight into the importance of the protection of international human rights for all people;

(c) Promote students’ understanding of how the Holocaust contributed to the need for the term “genocide” and led to international legislation that recognized genocide as a crime;

(d) Stimulate students’ reflection on the roles and responsibilities of citizens in democratic societies to combat misinformation, indifference and discrimination through tools of resistance such as protest, reform and celebration;

(e) Provide students with opportunities to contextualize and analyze patterns of human behavior by individuals and groups who belong in one or more categories, including perpetrator, collaborator, bystander, victim and rescuer;

(f) Enable students to understand the ramifications of prejudice, racism and stereotyping;

(g) Preserve the memories of survivors of genocide and provide opportunities for students to discuss and honor survivors’ cultural legacies;

(h) Provide students with a foundation for examining the history of discrimination in this state; and

(i) Explore the various mechanisms of transitional and restorative justice that help humanity move forward in the aftermath of genocide.

Not only must Oregon schools tackle all this, but the State Board of Education, in consultation with a local organization that has the primary purpose of providing education about the Holocaust, is required to develop academic content standards for Holocaust and genocide studies that comply with the requirements of this section.

The bill is currently with the House Committee on Education which, hopefully will take a thorough look at it and narrow its mandate .

I doubt that Oregon’s already underfunded and overwhelmed teachers will welcome the addition of one more labor-intensive, complicated instructional mandate, no matter how well-intentioned.

And it’s hard to believe all this is what Claire Sarnowski had in mind.

 

 

 

 

The college admission fraud: and the beat goes on

fraud

It looks like there are a lot more people who should be charged in the college admission scandal.

William Singer, who used his Key Worldwide Foundation to help wealthy parents fraudulently get their children into top colleges. said in recorded calls in 2018 that he had helped 760 students in the previous school year get into college by what he described as “the side door”, according to the Wall Street Journal.

In  other words, there’s  a slew of parents and students not yet disclosed who participated in the college admission scheme. Federal prosecutors have so far identified only  50 defendants across six states.

Any parents who funneled money through the fraudulent Key Worldwide Foundation to get their kids into colleges could also be targeted if they deducted the payments on their taxes as charitable contributions.

charitablegiving

Then there’s Dawud Raamuh, John Peter Byrne Jr. and Steve Masera.

Never heard of them?

Raamuh is the Secretary of the Key Worldwide Foundation, the 501(c)(3) non-profit that William Singer used to help wealthy parents fraudulently get their children into top colleges. Byrne serves as Director of the Foundation and Masera as Treasurer. They all should be held responsible for this fiasco.

A deeper look into the activities of Singer, who’s the Foundation’s President and CEO, is warranted, too. He may have used the Foundation to reinforce his own son’s attendance at DePaul University. Forms filed with the IRS by the Foundation show it donated $150,000 to the school in 2014, 2015 and 2016 while his son was a student there until graduating in 2017.

Form 990 IRS reports non-profits are required top file annually say the Foundation received $7,065,675 in contributions and spent close to $4,953,630 during 2013-2016. Shouldn’t the Foundation’s personnel be held responsible for the Foundation’s malfeasance?

The Foundation reported to the IRS that in 2016 it received $3,736,160 in Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees and made $860,112 in cash grants and other assistance to domestic organizations, including:

$150,000 to Chapman University, Orange, CA

$11,000 to Community Donations, Sacramento, CA

$50,000 to DePaul University, Chicago, Il

$18,550 to Friends of Cambodia, Palo, Alto, CA

$10,000 to the Ladylike Foundation, Los Angeles, CA

$39,900 to Loyola High School, Los Angeles, CA

$83,181 to NYU Athletics, New York, NY

$100,000 to Princeville Enterprises, Los Angeles, CA

$60,000 to University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL

$252,500 to University of Texas Athletics, Austin, TX

$25,000 to the USC Soccer Program, Los Angeles, CA

$50,000 to USC Women’s Athletics Board, Los Angeles, CA

There are questions, however, about whether even the listed donations occurred or were legitimate.

For example, NBC Bay Area  TV spoke with Elia and Halimah Van Tuyl, who run Friends of Cambodia. They said they’d never heard of the Key Worldwide Foundation and had never received any money from it in 2016 (or 2015, when the Foundation’s Form 990 reported it donated $18,550 to Friends of Cambodia).

In another case, it looks like the $100,000 listed as a donation to Princeville Enterprises in Los Angeles, CA went to the same address as the home of UCLA soccer coach, Jorge Salcedo.

Salcedo was indicted on Tuesday by the U.S. District Court for conspiracy to commit racketeering in the college admissions fraud case. He is accused of taking $200,000 to help admit one female and one male applicant to UCLA under the pretense they were soccer recruits when they didn’t even play competitive soccer.

Donations to the USC Women’s Athletics Board look suspicious, too. According to the federal indictment, Singer’s clients sent more than $1.3 million in bribes to USC accounts controlled by Donna Heinel, USC’s former senior associate athletic director. Many of the payments sent during 2014 – 2018 went to the USC Women’s Athletic Board.

With these cases in question, others probably deserve scrutiny, too.

 

 

 

Is Pete Buttigieg really a bold new choice?

A Feb. 19-20, 2019 national survey of U.S. likely voters conducted by Rasmussen Reports found that 62% of likely Democratic voters believed Democrats should look for a fresh face to run for president in 2020.

The national media have found that fresh face. No, I’m not talking about Beto O’Rourke. It’s Pete Buttigieg (pronounced “Buddha-judge”), the 37-year-old Democratic mayor of South Bend, IN. He has launched an exploratory committee, but hasn’t formally declared he’s a candidate.

AFP_GI6EQ

Pete Buttigieg

I didn’t vote for Trump or Clinton in 2016 and can’t imagine myself voting for Trump in 2020, so I’m open to a moderate alternative. I’ve listened to Buttigieg on television and radio and came away impressed. He’s extremely well-spoken (though he can be a bit long-winded) and comes across as thoughtful and good-natured.

“I’m definitely the only left-handed, Maltese-American, Episcopalian, millennial, gay mayor in the race. So I’ve got that lane all to myself,” he told CNN.

Calling himself a “millennial Mayor” who’s offering “a bold vision for our future,” Buttigieg’s well-educated (A Rhodes Scholar, he graduated from Oxford University and Harvard), has military credentials (Served as an officer in U.S. Navy Reserve 2009-17, deployed to Afghanistan in 2014) and is openly gay (Married Chasten Glezman on June 16, 2018).

In contrast to Trump’s bombast, Buttigieg offers calm deliberation. (He calls the other Democratic candidates “competitors, not opponents”) and says he’s considering a presidential race because, “Our democracy needs a tune-up.”

Like I said, he was intriguing and I found myself thinking, “Maybe he really is different and worth considering.”

Then I looked more closely, read about him, listened to his TV and radio interviews.

Talk about disappointment! He may sound calming and creative, but he’s essentially a carbon copy of the rest of the Democratic pack,. He supports:

  • Giving statehood and political representation to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
  • Abolishing the electoral college in favor of relying on the popular vote
  • Expanding the Supreme Court (to 15 members) “What we need to do is stop the Supreme Court from sliding toward being viewed as a nakedly political institution.”
  • Treating healthcare as a fundamental human right.
  • Offering “Medicare for all who want it.”
  • Ensuring wide reproductive freedom. “The last thing (a woman) needs is a male politician like me imposing boundaries that might even be politically motivated on her healthcare choices.”
  • Initiating stronger controls over access to guns, including universal background checks and banning some weapons. “Not every common-sense rule amounts to an infringement of second amendment rights.”
  • Backing off from a border wall as a priority for border security.
  • Implementing the Green New Deal. “The Green New Deal gets it right that this truly is a national emergency.”
  • Aggressively confronting climate change.
  • Raising K-12 teacher pay “so teachers are treated commensurate with other highly valued professionals.”
  • Regulating the financial industry more aggressively.
  • Restoring the influence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “We Need to be more assertive in insuring that the public interest is met through regulation.”

And on and on.

In other words, Buttigieg isn’t so bold and different from the rest of pack after all. They’re all pretty much uber-progressive peas in a pod.

Peas in a pod

Rent control: and the beat goes on

rentcontroldemonstration

In early January, I argued that Oregon’s enactment of a statewide rent control law would be just the beginning (Rent control: another bad idea out of Salem). Pressure would build quickly to reduce the law’s annual rent increase limit of 7 percent plus inflation, currently totaling about 10 percent, I said.

No surprise, the push for tougher rules has already begun.

It began with a Feb. 1, 2019 editorial in Street Roots, a weekly street newspaper published in Portland that’s sold by members of the local homeless community.

“The profit motive has been allowed to triumph over the fact that housing is a fundamental human need to survive,” the editorial said. “For too many decades, the marketplace has been allowed to skew sharply toward money over humanity, and Oregon is just too attractive of a market to pass up. It’s time for the pendulum to swing the other way.”

The editorial highlighted the need for the prohibition on rent control action by local governments to be lifted and noted that rent increase limits elsewhere are much lower.

“Rent stabilization elsewhere in the country comes in at much lower percentage,” the editorial said. “Take Berkeley, where a different calculation regulates rent increases to no more than 3 or so percent. In New York, it’s approximately 1.5 percent.”

Mary King, a professor of economics emerita at Portland State University, followed up with a March 1, 2019 Street Roots commentary also arguing that the rent increase limit is too high.

Oregon’s new rent control law was “…designed to stop only extreme rent gouging and limit no-cause evictions” and prohibits cities from passing their own, stronger rent stabilization policies, King said.

Ten percent is just too high a limit, particularly when compared with some tighter limits set elsewhere, King wrote. “Capping annual increases at 10 percent would have only slightly limited the unaffordable growth in rents in Portland over the past five years,” she added.

Oregon’s rent control law represented only “…progress against the worst excesses,” King said. “However, if the state would allow it, Portland could pass a much stronger, more effective rent stabilization policy without harming the supply of housing. Our best next step would be to pass a second bill to lift pre-emption on cities hoping to set their own course – and get to work in Portland.”

The Legislature’s rent control bill was essential because it would establish a “better baseline,” the Street Roots editorial said, “but we expect them to keep fighting. We will too.”

Hang on landlords and tenants. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeff Bezos and Howard Hughes: two peas in a pod

Sure it’s a sleazy sexting scandal featuring a trashy tabloid, but it’s immensely entertaining. It also reminds me of Howard Hughes, another filthy rich businessman captivated by Hollywood.

Hughes made his fortune in oil equipment before getting involved in the movie business, producing and directing movies and buying the Hollywood movie studio RKO Pictures. The starlets he seduced, getting younger as he got older, included Ava Gardner, Bette Davis, Lana Turner, Katharine Hepburn, Ginger Rogers and actress Terry Moore when he was 43 and she was 19.

howardhughesavagardner

Howard Hughes with actress Ava Gardner

Like Bezos, Hughes was a flight enthusiast. Hughes went into the airplane business in 1934 at the age of  28. He modified a Lockheed plane and flew around the world in it in 1938. He also built the gargantuan wooden Spruce Goose plane that now sits at the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum in McMinnville, OR.

Hughes Aircraft Company also designed and built Surveyor 1, the first American craft to land on the moon.

Bezos has been a flight innovator of his time as well with his space-launch company, Blue Origin. Founded by Bezos in 2000, the company, which is developing reusable rockets, is working to create low-cost space infrastructure.

Jeff Bezos’ emergence as a wealthy celebrity caught The Wall Street Journal’s attention last September when he showed up at a flashy party at television producer Mark Burnett’s Malibu mansion.

“For more than two decades, Mr. Bezos had built a public persona of a low-key billionaire who did the dishes every night, had a happy home life, valued frugality and was a bit of a nerd at work,” the Journal  wrote earlier this month.

“I go to bed early, I get up early, I like to putter in the morning” reading the newspaper, drinking a cup of coffee and eating breakfast with his children, he told 1,400 attendees   at an event held by the Economic Club of Washington, D.C. in Sept. 2018.

Vogue magazine took the same approach in a syrupy article about Jeff Bezos’ novelist wife, MacKenzie.  “Theirs is, by all accounts, one of those complementary marriages in which the two parts come together to form an even stronger whole,” the Vogue article said. “…until 2013, MacKenzie still drove their four kids to school and then dropped Jeff off at work in their Honda.”

“Family is very important to Jeff, and he absolutely relies on her (MacKenzie) to create that stable home life,” a family friend, Danny Hillis, told Vogue. “They are such a normal, close-knit family, it’s almost abnormal.”

This carefully cultivated image has been crumbling lately, particularly as Bezos’ company, Amazon, has built more ties with the entertainment industry and Bezos has been surrounded by paparazzi and movie stars.

Hollywoodsign

Like Hughes, Bezos made his fortune elsewhere before diving into making films for Amazon Prime. But now his immersion in the glitz and glamour of Hollywood is full-blown and outsiders are what Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard called “all those little people out there in the dark.”

It’s a notable shift for Bezos, from a tech culture that celebrates real accomplishments to a culture of artifice, what Daniel Boorstin described in The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America, as a metamorphosis from traditional “larger-than-life” heroes known for their achievement to “celebrity-personalities” recognized for their “well-knownness.”

On January 6, 2018, Bezos, as a new movie mogul, attended the Golden Globe Awards, where three of Amazon Prime’s shows were nominated for major awards.  Apparently solo, he spent much of his time schmoozing with the stars.

His split from his wife even came out like a carefully massaged story in an old Hollywood fan magazine like Photoplay.

“Jeff Bezos and his new girlfriend Lauren Sanchez are going strong in the wake of their relationship going public,” gushed People  magazine. “They’re madly in love and stronger than ever,” a source close to the new couple tells PEOPLE.”

Never mind that Sanchez and Bezos began their affair when both were part of couples who were old friends in long-standing marriages. Vanity Fair  is one of the few publications with the chutzpah to refer to Sanchez as “Bezos’ mistress” instead of his “new girlfriend.”

The fact is Sanchez and Patrick Whitesell, co-CEO at the William Morris Endeavor talent agency, married in 2005 and have two children together; a daughter, born in 2008, and a son, born in 2006. Jeff and MacKenzie, who’ve been married for 25 years, have four children; a daughter they adopted from China and three sons.

As Celebitchy.com, a celebrity gossip blog, put  it, “I don’t need to hear that Bezos and Lauren Sanchez are ‘stronger than ever,’ as if they’ve weathered some real tragedy or difficult circumstance. Please. They had an affair and now they’re both divorcing their spouses and they’re trying to put a bow on it and pretend like this isn’t a huge, gross mess.”

Sanchez, 49, (whose given name is Wendy Lauren Sanchez), is no Ava Gardner, but she’s  straight out of the Hollywood image machine, where competition for attention is a blood Sport.

She was the first host of “So You Think You Can Dance” in 2005. She was also an entertainment reporter for “Extra” from 2011 to 2017 and a former co-host of “Good Day LA” on Fox 11.

Sanchez, who bears an uncanny resemblance to MacKenzie Bezos, has also been on “The View” as a guest co-host and acted in the movies “The Longest Yard,” “The Day After Tomorrow,” “Ted 2” and “Fight Club.”

bezossanchezMackenzie

Lauren Sanchez (L), Jeff Bezos, MacKenzie Bezos

Jeff Bezos’ real Hollywood coming out party will be on Feb. 24 . That’s when he and Sanchez are expected to appear together at the 91st Academy Awards (The Oscars) on Feb. 24 at the Hollywood & Highland Center.

After Hughes’ death in 1976, the BBC reported,“He is both a fantasy figure of the dashing young tycoon playboy and a cautionary tale about the corrosive power of wealth.”

What comes next for Jeff Bezos is anybody’s guess.

Statewide rent control in Oregon: this is just the start of something

 

ifyougiveamouseacookie

Even as a child, you knew the mouse wouldn’t be happy with just a cookie.

Oregon Democrats won’t be satisfied with their first stab at statewide rent control either.

Senate Bill 608, moving swiftly through Oregon’s Democrat-controlled legislature, proposes to limit annual rent increases to 7% plus the change in the consumer price index, except when the dwelling has been certified for occupancy less than 15 years. Lawmakers in the Oregon Senate approved the bill 17-11 on Tuesday, Feb. 12. It now goes to the House.

In January 2019, Jim Straub, Legislative Director of the Oregon Rental Housing Association, signaled acceptance of, or resignation to, the inevitable, given that the Democrats have a supermajority in both chambers and occupy the governor’s chair. “There is a lot here for landlords to dislike, but more importantly we should recognize it for what it isn’t, an industry killer,” Straub said

He’s dead wrong.

Straub figures landlords can live with the bill because the annual rent increase limit is so high, leaving a lot of wiggle room. In 2018, the all items consumer price index increased 1.9 % before seasonal adjustment. Add 7% and the rent increase limit would be 8.9%.

Although annual rent increases can vary quite a bit in Portland, influenced by a building’s location, age, amenities, etc., annual rent growth in Portland overall averaged just 4.3% in 2017 and, largely due to record apartment construction, actually decreased 1.3% in 2018.

ECONorthwest, an economics consulting firm, has estimated that only 5% of buildings in Portland increased rents above what would be allowed by SB 608 in 2018.

But Oregon real estate interests are going to rue the day SB 608 becomes law.

That’s because once it is enacted, pressure to lower the rent increase limit in response to the pleas of tenant groups will accelerate. And government regulations will beget more government regulations.

In  January, Margot Black, founder and former leader of a renters’ rights group, Portland Tenants United, bitterly criticized the high cap on rent increases.

“If this is the version that passes, and if (Democrat Sen. Virginia) Burdick is the one championing it, then I’ll start my campaign to run against her the day after it passes,” said Black. “I will knock on every renter’s door in the district and let them know that their senator thinks they are no better than a used couch put out to the curb in the rain.”

According to the Oregon Rental Housing Association, some tenant groups have also already gone to the 2019 Legislature requesting that all future rent increases be limited to a maximum of around 2% every 12 months, even if a tenant moves out during  that period.

And don’t expect the Democrats to consider the rent increase limit set in stone.

Government is addicted to constant revision of the rules. The federal income tax began in 1913 with a combined tax rate of 1-2% for the middle class. The marginal tax rate for the middle class now is about 22%.

Oregon’s personal income tax has been all over the map since its inception. According to the Oregon Department of Revenue, in 1930, the maximum tax rate on “single and separate” and “Joint and head of household” was 5%. Only three years later, in 1933, it went up to 7% and by 1955 it had risen to 11.60%. It went back down to 9% in 1987, but jumped to 11% in 2009-2011, In 2018 its was 9.9%.

So, don’t be surprised if SB 608 is just the camel’s first move.

“It is the humble petition of the camel, who only asks that he may put his nose into the traveler’s tent. It is so pitiful, so modest, that we must needs relent and grant it.”

camelnose1403102

Gov. Ralph Northam’s Permanent Record

“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.”

 1 Corinthians 13:11

permanent-record

\Remember when you were in school and got caught doing something wrong?

Some authority figure would say in a deep, threatening tone, “This is going on your permanent record.” Blemished forever, you thought.

But at some point later in life you realized they were bluffing. There was no permanent record. You could reinvent yourself, put the past behind you, or at least those school years of sometimes questionable behavior.

The fact was, just like a boat doesn’t care about its wake, nobody cared about your youth, except, perhaps, for a few buddies who lived through it with you.

Not any more.

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, now 59 years old, is painfully aware of that.

The recent emergence of a photo on Northam’s 1984 yearbook page at Eastern Virginia Medical School— featuring one person in blackface and one person in a Ku Klux Klan-style robe and hood — spurred a cascade of righteous condemnation and demands from both sides of the aisle, including just about all the deeply moral 2020 Democratic hopefuls, that Northam resign,

”The photo of Ralph Northam’s yearbook that surfaced yesterday is both racist and inexcusable,” brayed the Democratic Governors Association in a statement. “It is time for Gov. Northam to step aside and allow Virginia to move forward.”

“We now know what Ralph Northam did when he thought no one was watching,” announced Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. “The person in that photo can’t be trusted to lead. Governor Northam must resign immediately.”

In this case, the damning photo surfaced because one or more of Northam’s former classmates, outraged about some pro-abortion comments he made, tipped off Big League Politics, a conservative website.  More common, however, is the discovery in the online sewer of some long-ago questionable behavior or contentious remark.

And now the media universe is even more fired up.

On Feb. 7, Virginia’s Attorney General, Mark Herring, who’s third in line for the governorship, revealed that he and some friends “put on wigs and brown makeup” when they dressed as rappers at a University of Virginia party in 1980 when he was 19 years old. The mob is salivating over that transgression.

Feb. 7 also brought news that the State Senate’s top Republican, 72-year-old Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr., had been managing editor 51 years ago of a 1968 Virginia Military Institute yearbook containing racist slurs and photographs, some including blackface.

Ferreting out youthful indiscretions is clearly now the name of the game in political journalism.

It sells papers and drives the curious to online news, stirs up a firestorm of outrage on social media and offers opportunities for political grandstanding.

It’s clear there’s a market for long-ago and forgotten, but potentially salacious or accusatory, stuff dug up by political parties and their partisan and activist allies.

But it raises serious questions about exactly how much culpability should be assigned to the actions of young people decades later, whether some youthful indiscretions have a right to be forgotten.

What’s a person‘s moral responsibility for actions of the past? Should somebody whose adult life has been honorable and well-intentioned be found wanting for youthful errors?

“Before the internet, young people who made mistakes—from embarrassing statements to minor crimes—that ended up in the public record eventually benefitted from ‘privacy-by-obscurity,” John Simpson, privacy project director at Consumer Watchdog, a progressive non-profit, said recently.  “Those things slipped out of the general consciousness of the public. Now, a youthful offense can remain at the top of search results indefinitely.”

Some theorists liken moral responsibility to a metaphorical ledger of life. “To be blameworthy is to have a debit on one’s ledger, and to be praiseworthy is to have a credit on one’s ledger…and entries on one’s ledger are made in permanent ink,” Andrew C. Khoury and Benjamin Matheson explained in the Journal of the American Philosophical Association.

But Khoury and Matheson argue that blameworthiness, unlike diamonds, should not be forever.

Whether a person deserves blame for a past action, or not, depends on many things – most of all on “how far and how deeply the individual has changed,” they say. In other words, blameworthiness can diminish through time.

An adult, as research shows, is not necessarily blameworthy for her actions as a child because the adult shares none of distinctive psychological states (e.g. beliefs, desires, or intentions) of the child, and these distinctive psychological features were essential to her committing an inappropriate act, Khoury and Matheson say.

Jonathan Last, an editor of The Weekly Standard, has pointed out that America’s juvenile justice system operates on the same principle, thatyoung people should not be held to the same standards of moral culpability as adults, that they aren’t fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions.

“Personality is subject to a lifelong series of relatively small changes—particularly in adolescence and early adulthood, but continuing even into older age,” reported a study, Personality Stability From Age 14 to Age 77 Years“(This) can lead to personality in older age being quite different from personality in childhood.”

Or, as Khoury wrote, “..when confronted with the issue of moral responsibility for actions long since passed, we need to not only consider the nature of the past transgression but also how far and how deeply the individual has changed.”

The mob, particularly social media vigilantes, will likely continue to ignore all this. But they should remember the proverb, ‘Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

 

 

 

2020: Will the mainstream media make a difference?

trumpandreporters

There’s a lot of tortured handwringing going on among the mainstream media about how they covered the 2016 presidential race and what they need to do to fix things for 2020.

“…we have a chance to do things differently than we did the last time around – to redeem ourselves,” columnist Frank Bruni opined in The New York Times on Jan. 13, 2018. “Our success or failure will affect our stature at a time of rickety public trust in us.”

Bruni’s column focused on the role of the “mainstream, establishment media” and its responsibility to clean up its act, to avoid writing about the spectacle and cover, instead, substance, fitness for office and competing visions of government.

Sounds all very serious and high-minded. But Bruni’s angst is too late.

The fact is, what the mainstream, establishment print and television media have to say about politics simply doesn’t matter as much anymore because people are going elsewhere to find out what’s going on and what people think about it.

“The conversation that should concern everyone, in both media and politics, is not about what gets covered,” Peter Hamby recently wrote in Vanity Fair.  “It’s about what gets attention.”

“At a time when technology is transforming voter behavior at unprecedented speed, this is a problem that the mainstream media, even on its best behavior, cannot possibly solve without a drastic reimagining of what journalism is and how it reaches contemporary audiences.”

Diminishing influence

newspaperreaders1950

In 1950, almost every American household read a daily newspaper

In 1950, almost every American household read a daily newspaper. By 2000, only 50 percent of Americans read a printed newspaper on a daily basis.

As I write this in Jan. 2019, I’m sitting at a large, bustling coffee shop. A couple dozen people of all ages are busily engaged at their laptops. Not a single person is reading a newspaper.

The fact is fewer Americans read a daily newspaper today than in 1950, while the U.S. population has more than doubled. And the prognosis isn’t good. With just 2 percent of teenagers reading a newspaper on a regular basis, few are developing a newspaper reading habit.

Unlike the individualized, algorithm-determined, constantly updated news delivered to consumers online, print newspapers offer identical mass communications to their customers. And by the time the news in print newspapers reaches the intended audience, not only is it stale, but it has been superceded by newer news.

During the 2016 election, a survey of U.S. adults by the Pew Research Center revealed  that print versions of both local and national newspapers were named as key sources for election news and information by only 3% and 2% of respondents respectively. Late night comedy shows did just as well as sources at 3%.  (Maybe that explains why Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) announced she was forming a presidential exploratory committee during a Jan. 15 appearance on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”)

pewresearch2016electiontable

And even if you did read print newspapers during the election, policy issues — what the nominees would do if elected—got little press coverage in print outlets. In the 2016 general election, policy issues accounted for just 10 percent of the news coverage—less than a fourth the space given to the horserace between the candidates, according to a Shorenstein Center study.

And even if you did read print newspapers during the election, policy issues — what the nominees would do if elected—got little press coverage in print outlets. In the 2016 general election, policy issues accounted for just 10 percent of the news coverage—less than a fourth the space given to the horserace between the candidates, according to a Shorenstein Center study.

All this has translated into a drastic reduction in the influence of newspaper editorial endorsements.

“Once upon a time, a newspaper endorsement for a political candidate was about as good as it got,” Philip Bump wrote in the Washington Post  a couple weeks before the 2016 election. “In the era before the internet…big, important newspapers could shift the fortunes of people seeking the presidency. Nowadays, that’s … less of the case.”

Of the 269 U.S. newspapers that dispensed their wisdom by endorsing a presidential candidate in 2016, 240 endorsed Hillary Clinton and just 18 endorsed Donald Trump. Libertarian Gary Johnson secured nine endorsements and independent conservative Evan McMullin got one.

trumpendorsement

Of the top 100 largest newspapers in America with the largest circulations, just two endorsed Trump,

As Politico media reporter Hadas Gold tweeted when Trump’s stunning victory became clear, “… newspaper endorsements DO NOT MATTER.”

That may be partly due to slipping public respect for the mainstream media.  In a Pew Research Center survey taken shortly after the November 2016 balloting, only one in five respondents gave the press a grade of “B” or higher for its performance. Four of five graded its performance as a “C” or lower, with half of them giving it an “F.”

Declining newspaper circulation

Much of the waning influence of print newspapers can also be attributed to circulation declines (or the reverse).

newspapercirculationpercentofhouseholds

In 1960, nearly 120 percent of households bought a daily newspaper (i.e. there were 1.2 papers sold per household). By 2017, fewer than 30 percent of households bought a daily newspaper.

In 1990, circulation of U.S. daily newspapers totaled 62.3 million weekday and 62.6 million Sunday. By 2009, circulation had sunk to 55.8 million daily and 59.4 million Sunday.

According to the Pew Research Center, in 2016, despite the excitement and turmoil of the national elections, weekday and Sunday circulation for U.S. daily newspapers – both print and digital – fell 8%, marking the 28th consecutive year of declines. Weekday circulation fell to 35 million and Sunday circulation to 38 million – the lowest levels since 1945.

The following year, the first of Tump’s term, was equally discouraging. Estimated total U.S. daily newspaper circulation (print and digital combined) in 2017 was 31 million for weekday and 34 million for Sunday, down 11% and 10%, respectively, from 2016.

Some of that decline is because the United States has lost almost 1,800 papers since 2004, including more than 60 dailies and 1,700 weeklies, leaving 7,112 in the country, according to The School of Media and Journalism at UNC.

California lost the most dailies of any state. In one case, the 140-year-old, 500-circulation Gridley Herald used to serve Gridley (population 6,000) in the central California county of Butte, 60 miles from Sacramento. On Aug. 29, 2018, the paper’s staff and the community were notified by the paper’s owner, GateHouse Media, that the final issue of the twice-weekly paper would be published the next day.

Daily newspaper circulation in California totaled about 5.7 million 15 years ago. In 2018, that was cut in half to 2.8 million.

If print circulation continues to drop at current rates, as many as one-half of the nation’s surviving dailies will no longer be in print by 2021, predicts Nicco Mele, director of the Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University..

One of the most striking examples of decline is in Silicon Valley. The San Jose Mercury News, rebranded as The Mercury News in 2016, was once an influential publication with about 400 reporters, editors, photographers, and artists.

According to The Columbia Journalism Review, the Mercury News was one of the first daily newspapers in the U.S. with an online presence, the first to put all its content on that site, the first to use the site to break news, and one of the first to migrate its growing online content to the web.

Its commitment to innovation and hard news led to daily circulation of 200,258 in 2009 making it the fifth largest daily newspaper in the United States.

But subsequent years of bad business decisions, declining classified advertising (including job listings), layoffs, McClatchy’s purchase of the paper’s owner, Knight Ridder, in 2006, and the subsequent sale of the Mercury News to the MediaNews Group caused the paper to slip. “…sadly the San Jose Merc is a mere shadow of its former self,” commented one online reviewer.

Not that long ago, the San Jose paper proclaimed itself “The Newspaper of Silicon Valley,” media business analyst Ken Doctor wrote in Newsonomics. “Silicon Valley has done quite well, becoming the global economic engine and driving great regional affluence. But the economically fecund region has become — in less than a decade — a news desert.”

Here at home, The Oregonian, a paper with a long and storied history, is a story of decline, too.

oregonianbuildingold

The Oregonian Building, at the corner at the intersection of S.W. Sixth and Alder, occupied by the paper during 1892-1948.

In 1950, when Advance Publications bought the paper, its daily circulation was 214,916. For quite a while, things looked promising.

I joined The Oregonian as a business and politics reporter in 1987. It was a robust, well-respected paper, with a proud past and a much-anticipated future. Daily circulation was 319,624; Sunday circulation 375,914.

When I left the paper 10 years later in 1997 to take a corporate communications job, daily circulation was 360,000, Sunday circulation 450,000. It looked like the paper was on a roll.

But good times were not ahead. By 2012, daily circulation had sunk to 228,599, only slightly higher than in 1950. In subsequent years, daily circulation continued to slump, despite robust population growth in the Portland Metro Area.

Meanwhile, talented reporters have fled in droves, some pushed out, others motivated by buy-outs. At the same time the once powerful paper’s clout has diminished as it has abandoned rural Oregon and 7-day-a-week print distribution.

By 2018, The Oregonian had a print circulation of just 158,000 and distributed  to 15 fewer counties in Oregon and Washington than it did in 2004, when it had a circulation of 338,000, according to a UNC report on The Expanding News Desert.

A few smaller local Oregon papers are thriving, but most are suffering, too. And all of them have a tough time covering state and national politics consistently and with any depth.

Oregon Public Broadcasting OPB recently reported that Western Communications, which owns seven newspapers across the West, including the Bulletin in Bend, the Baker City Herald and the La Grande Observer, “is on the brink of foreclosure.” The company hasn’t paid nearly $1 million owed in local property taxes and interest and is between three and five years behind on taxes in counties across Oregon, OPB reported.

Comprehensive political coverage by the Eugene Register Guard is threatened, too. On March 1, 2018, GateHouse Media, the same company that closed the Gridley Herald, acquired the Register Guard, which had survived more than 90 years of independent, family ownership.

GateHouse publishes 130 daily newspapers. It has a reputation for tightfisted financial management accompanied by staff layoffs. It’s impact on the Register Guard has fit that pattern. In Dec. 2017, before the GateHouse takeover, the editorial and news staff at The Register-Guard totaled 42, according to the paper’s staff directory. Today the directory lists 27, of which just 12 are identified as reporters..

Not only has the Register Guard staff shrunk; so has its daily circulation, dropping from 54,325 in 2011 to 41,280 today.

“What’s happening with the Guard isn’t unique to the Guard,” Tim Gleason,professor and former dean at the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication, told the Eugene Weekly. “It’s what’s happening all over the country as these venture capital firms buy newspapers and then largely gut them.”

Of course, newspapers are being gutted whether or not they are investment targets.

In early January 2019, the Dallas Morning News eliminated 43 jobs, according to the Columbia Journalism Review, half of them in the newsroom, with the cuts  hitting reporters covering immigration, transportation, the environment, and the courts.

On Friday, February 1, The McClatchy Company, which owns properties such as the Miami Herald and the Kansas City Star, emailed staffers to announce that 450 employees would be offered voluntary buyouts as part of a “functional realignment,” essentially signaling that the jobs have been marked out of the budget. The news was first reported by the Miami New Times.

If print newspaper circulation across the board continues to drop at current rates, as many as one-half of the nation’s surviving dailies will no longer be in print by 2021, predicts Nicco Mele, director of the Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard.

None of this is good news if you want an educated, informed public in a position to make wise judgments about public policy.

“The way to prevent irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1787.

That is as true today.

How about network television news?

Given the decline of local print media, local network TV news is one of the few remaining sources of locally-focused journalism covering political issues, but local TV news has been experiencing declines as well.

Just from 2016 to 2017, the portion of Americans who often rely on local TV for their news fell 9 percentage points, from 46% to 37%, according to the Pew Research Center. Still, local tv news shows have multiple opportunities to cover educate their audience. The problem is that covering public policy is rarely their forte and it’s not what their audience is seeking.

Instead, local TV news is the outlet of choice by adults for weather, breaking news and traffic reports, although young adults are more likely to turn to the Internet, according to Pew Research.

Public policy and politics coverage is also suffering with a decline in the audiences for the national network news shows of NBC, ABC and CBS, although some scholars believe television news viewing has little effect on issue learning. In other words,  watching increasing quantities of television news will not lead to greater knowledge about political issues because of the paucity of real issue information. You may know more about polls and personalities, but not so much about political issues that affect your life.

Remember when the family used to gather in the living room every night for the evening news, either the Huntley-Brinkley Report, CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite or ABC Evening News with Frank Reynolds and Howard K. Smith? That was so long ago.

family-gathered-around-tv-500x214

All three network evening news shows have been losing audience steadily since then. By 1998, the three network evening newscasts reached a combined average of only about 30.4 million viewers in a country with a population of 276 million.

In 2016, even with a turbulent presidential campaign, the average viewership for the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts was 24 million, according to a Pew Research Center  analysis.

Compare that to the ratings of a single showing of 2016’s number one primetime TV show, The Big Bang Theory, which averaged 19.9 million viewers, or with Super Bowl 50 on Feb. 7, 2016, which got 112.6 million average viewers, according to Nielsen.

By the 2017-18 television season, ABC’s evening news had an average of 8.6 million viewers, NBC Nightly News 8.15 million and CBS Evening News 6.2 million. That’s a total of 22.95 million.

 

lonesomerhodes

Lonesome Rhodes, a master manipulator.

In Elia Kazan’s classic movie “A Face in the Crowd,” Lonesome Rhodes, played brilliantly by Andy Griffiths, rises from an itinerant Ozark guitar picker to a local media rabble-rouser to TV superstar and a political power. “I’m not just an entertainer. I’m an influence, a wielder of opinion, a force… a force!”, he exclaimed at one point.

Newspaper publishers and TV news anchors may once have felt the same way, but their days are numbered.

This doesn’t mean, however, that the demand for news is going to collapse. It just means there’s going to be a need for more imagination in formatting and delivering it in ways that grab an audience and rewards them for their attention.

Vanity Fair’s Peter Hamby cited a twice-daily news show produced by NBC that runs on Snapchat. According to Digiday, the brief show, Stay Tuned, was created specifically for the vertical-screen mobile experience. In 2018, Stay Tuned averaged 25 – 35 million unique viewers per month on Snapchat, according to data provided to NBC News by Snap. Only one-third of that audience also watches, reads or listens to NBC News content on other platforms, so two-thirds are a new NBC audience.

To top it off, about 75 percent of the “Stay Tuned” audience is under 25 and 90 percent is under 34, according to Snapchat, a significant accomplishment given that reaching younger audiences has provers to be a challenge for traditional print and network TV.

So the future isn’t all grim. It will just be different.