Look no further to see a journalist scraping the bottom of the barrel for news than John Archibald’s latest. Really, John, are you so lazy that you have to resort to piggybacking on “hype” generated by political operatives? Would you have even known where to look if not for the efforts of your apparently more capable  “counterparts?” As we say in the news-making industry: you got scooped.

Dang.

The real crux of my criticism of John Archibald today is, however, his hypocrisy (as it so often is.) Archibald criticizes Ms. Parnell for hiring five felons (without documenting who those people are or if he even has the right person or not) to do what, he admits, every political campaign does: canvassing of some sort or other. He suggests that, in so doing, political campaigns have put our homes and neighborhoods in some kind of peril. I guess that’s an interesting perspective, and one that may hold some truth if one also believes that felons can’t be rehabilitated, should be kept from re-assimilating into society, and (heaven forbid) earning at least a little money. 

Tell me something, John: what kind of background checks does your employer, The Birmingham News, require for the people it hires to deliver papers to our homes and neighborhoods? From the looks of it, The News doesn’t really dwell on whether or not its news carriers are felons, just like you don’t dwell on things like veracity and intellectual honesty. In fact, the requirements for a “B’HAM NEWS CARRIER” look like this: “AL drivers license and reliable transportation. Early am hours. Must live near area.” 

With job requirements so loose, it stands to reason that The Birmingham News could have hired more than a few felons for the purpose of delivering its trash to our doorsteps in the wee hours of the morning. And who knows how many of its news carriers are felons? The burden of proof is The News’ to bear. 

By Archibald’s logic, then, The Birmingham News puts our families, kids, pets, and property in jeopardy by hiring felons to deliver its papers. Not just during a special election, or during the drawn-out campaign season, but everyday of every year. Sounds like a more persistent threat, doesn’t it? I hate to ask, but should government continue to subsidize this paper given its apparent willingness to hire felons who may, for all we know, be casing our homes? 

Call it another of the many embarrassments that John has inflicted upon himself and upon his employer by not fully weighing his arguments before opening his goateed mouth — an embarrassment that should be compounded by the fact that Parnell enjoyed The Birmingham News’ endorsement. Maybe this indicates that there’s some bad blood between Archibald and his bosses? 

At long last some “closure” on the slow burning sewer debt crisis—though it is more likely that this decision is just the first inkling of a motion to turn the page to the next chapter in what will turn out to be a protracted saga. The anticipation for what will follow is making me a little nauseated: will we see higher rates and business and industry deciding to locate in pastures greener, and more financially capable, than Jefferson County? Or will it lessen the burden our cash-strapped county is expected to bear and bring us back from the brink? 

The short answer is: who the hell knows? The county commission doesn’t, that’s for sure. The move seems political in nature rather than based on reasonable financial advice: tired of being called out for their ineptness and inaction, they elected to do something, anything. Whether or not that something, anything was a good idea remains to be seen.  

We can expect some or maybe all of these things to happen over time. Maybe only good will come of it—and maybe only bad. In any case it does seem reasonable to expect to see higher rates and to assume that Jefferson County, never exactly the belle of the ball, will now be infinitely less attractive to economic developers of every stripe. (I don’t know about you, but I tend to avoid the aging person with a rotten tooth, bad odor, and a black eye who is in the middle of doing an apparently irresponsible thing. You can never be sure where they’ll take you or what you’ll get.) In any case, today is the first day of our increasingly uncertain future.

One thing is as certain as rain, though, and that is John Archibald’s impotent antipathy. On the day after the biggest municipal bankruptcy in American history, in the wake of probably the biggest decision this county has ever made and ever will make, at a time when his readers are looking for a guide to their first steps through the ridiculously complicated maze of understanding a municipal bankruptcy and what it means for us, Archibald gives us little more than a top-ten list. A top-ten list that’s really more for taking jabs at people John just can’t stand than offering anything of value. Thanks John! 

Does he even try anymore? Stupid question: his laziness is, at this point, self-evident. But for an outcome that has been looming for so long, you would think that a man who is paid for his perspective (however skewed it is) would have some perspective on this very important decision. 

Are we surprised that he doesn’t? 

I said he’d be back and here he is with a real steamer of an Archibald special. John’s first article in over a week does not disappoint. In fact, it has all the trappings we’ve come to expect of an Archibald post: mock outrage, phony sympathy for us common folk, a startling lack of insight, introspection, and investigation, and a good dose of red-faced hypocrisy.

“Just look at the money we spend on power and gas, water and sewer. Monopolized utilities get a bigger chunk of our money than they used to” writes John Archibald in today’s post.

Granted. We pay more for our utilities now than we did back in 2001. Seems like we pay more for everything than we did ten years ago. Health insurance, gas, rent, college tuition, and milk are all noticeably more expensive than they were in the early days of this century.

What he doesn’t mention is that the same is true for The Birmingham News. There has been a 77% increase to advertisers on a cost per thousand basis over a comparable length of time. This even while The News has made significant cuts to its content and lost tens of thousands of subscribers. Which means, basically, that advertisers are now paying more for less — less space, less reach, and less return on their advertising money.

But that’s not all: we must also remember that a substantial portion of The Birmingham News’ income comes directly from taxpayers. You may remember a post I wrote back in early Spring of this year regarding the state forcing itself to use our tax dollars to pay The News for running legal notices and other legal advertising in its paper. Over the past four years, the amount of tax payer money going to The Birmingham News for this “service” is around $1.5 million. Couple that with the fact that The News is not only the only newspaper of record in Jefferson County, but is pretty much the only show in town since it ate The Birmingham Post-Herald, and we have a monopoly subsidized by our state government using taxpayer money. The Birmingham News would go out of business without this money.

So: The Birmingham News is, in essence, a publicly funded monopoly, which has increased its rates by 77%, all the while shedding pages, staff, and subscribers, and while offering a service, both in terms of its reportage and the posting of legal notices, to Jefferson County of questionable utility. The difference between the utilities Archibald cites and the monopoly The News holds is that the former are governed by a regulatory authority that determines the cost of their services. No authority governs the cost of advertising in The Birmingham News. That cost is determined entirely by its ever-dwindling circulation numbers. Advertisers, and taxpayers, are keeping this moribund machine moving by shouldering the costs of its demise.

And, of course, no authority governs John Archibald’s journalistic exercises — not even the standards of his profession. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: every time John Archibald points a finger, three fingers point right back at him. He should consider what he’s saying and how he says it before he opens his mouth — or else he’ll continue to end up with rotten egg on his face. I guess the real question is: how much of that egg needs to splash back on his employer’s face before The Birmingham News has had enough?

Imagine a world in which John Archibald never became a “journalist.” Imagine if he had instead become a baker—an angry baker, pig-faced and sweaty. Or imagine if he never existed at all. What would that be like? 

Archibald’s increasing unexplained absences from his post at The Birmingham News afford us a glimpse into that other world, that ideal, alternate universe. And it certainly is quieter. It’s kind of pleasant too… But other than the silence, the world wouldn’t be too different from what it is now. Birmingham would be the same and in the same mess that it is in today. Larry Langford would have gone to jail when he did for what he did. Certain politicians and some other powerful people would still abuse the public’s trust in much the same way as they do in this universe. 

John — that’s the thing about being irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if you’re here or there or if you’re nowhere. You do not affect change. Your fighting for what you imagine is “the good fight” is meaningless and empty — and it was like that even when you put more of yourself into it, when you gave more of a damn, when you put your fleshy shoulder to that wheel and pushed a little harder. You simply don’t matter.

Don’t get me wrong: plenty of journalists matter. Journalists in Russia die for their profession. Plenty of people fight for the good and some of them even win. I am not a nihilist. I am not too cynical to see that. John Archibald, however, is. It’s the reason why he insists on approximating what the nobler of his profession do on a daily basis in his columns. 

No doubt Archibald will return next week. He is, in fact, probably doubled over pinching off his next sorry excuse for an article as I type. Until then, let me part with this: John Archibald’s absence this week proves that he says as much when he says nothing as when he publishes three articles in a week. 

John Archibald’s career is a dead horse I would like to continue to beat. Thankfully, Archibald and I can at last team up on something since, in my opinion, John is doing a pretty good job of that himself. In a manner of speaking, of course. Let’s recap a few choice pieces from the past week. 

September 2, 2011 - “Stuff you need to know to be governor — or just alive — in Alabama.” 

Archibald starts off headed in the right direction: the governor and his staff’s refusal to send the flag of our great state to Army Sgt. 1st Class Howard J. Blake Jr. who is serving in Afghanistan was certainly a gaffe . It was an embarrassment. It was a faux pas caused by a ridiculous policy that may or may not actually exist. And, according to the governor’s press secretary, Jennifer Ardis, it happens somewhat regularly. 

You are right, John, to imply that the governor and his staff should know better, should exercise some discretion and gumption, should know what is right in a given situation and what is wrong. His criticism may have been a touch on the obvious side, but at least we got to see a little bit of the old “John Archibald holding elected officials accountable magic” that he pretends to do every so often.

The article takes an abrupt turn for the worse, however, as is even his best work’s tendency. A series of seven suggestions for how to govern and/or live in Alabama. Seven? Not ten, but seven lazy and unfunny suggestions that are completely unrelated to Army Sgt. 1st Class Howard J. Blake Jr. Seven lazy suggestions that are completely unrelated to Governor Bentley, governing, or — with the notable exception of #2 “Never schedule a wedding — or a funeral, for that matter — on a fall Saturday in the South without checking the football schedule first” — Alabama. 

I admit that I may lack what Archibald considers a “good” sense of humor. But it would be nice if he had at least made an attempt at some nice, topical humor, if not the incisive wit and devastating satire he believes in his heart of hearts he would be capable of if not for editorial and time constraints. 

To quote the film Star Wars: Stay on target, Porkins. Stay on target and tie the punchline back to the setup. Or else the setup is interchangeable, which in a lot of other circumstance would be okay — bad writing, bad comedy, but okay. Unfortunately, Archibald used this narrowly averted tragedy (because it would have been tragic if Blake had been denied a flag while risking his life for our country) to tee up a joke. He could have begun the article with a description of his latest flatus and ended it the same way. 

To be a good writer, one needs to be empathic and sympathetic, thoughtful and thought-provoking. John Archibald is not a good writer. He is none of these things. He is thoughtless and ham-fisted. And his eagerness to use the Governor’s mishandling of Blake’s request (which, thankfully, was quickly remedied) to make a pointless joke reveals a certain callous cruelty that only the deeply lazy possess. 

September 4, 2011 - “Who knew there were so many nudes in the news?” 

I love how positive Archibald is about himself, his career, his achievements. I love that he has the perception of himself that he has. And I just love this exercise in self-congratulatory delusion. Potentially more than any preceding it, this article gives us a glimpse of John Archibald’s self-perception and worldview — he is David to the world’s Goliath. Grandiose, I know, but there is no better analogy. 

The truth is, I realize every day that my job, and my place under that goofy picture, is both a great privilege and a responsibility. 

Unfortunately, it is a privilege he too often exploits, such as when he uses his column as his personal soapbox to lambast the Federal prosecutors for bungling the bingo trial as opposed to the more likely cause for their failure.

Unfortunately, it is a responsibility he too often ignores, such as when he phones it in: a top ten list of things that tick him off; a list of ridiculous non-sequiturs (described in more detail above); “human interest” stories pondering the fate of lost animals previously reported on by the News while the biggest trial in the state and, after the Casey Anthony trial, nation was in progress; using the real problems of our city, state, and country to express fake anger because anger is his shtick; bringing up issues only to drop them later because he’s too lazy to actually investigate them… These are all things discussed lately on this blog and I think the direction I am headed in is pretty obvious. So I’ll leave it at that. 

It’s a privilege to poke fun at those things that deserve it. It is a responsibility to simply poke at institutions that otherwise would face no such annoyance. It is my honor to hold elected officials to account. 

Archibald likes to do some imitation version of what he describes here. He “pokes fun” more often than not, but not in any meaningful way — which is what I expect he believes he does judging by the tone of this article — and his attempts at humor are never deep and are seldom successful. He also “pokes” at institutions, but I’m not sure that what he does or writes has ever helped anyone in Birmingham, JeffCo, or Alabama, has ever revealed any hidden truth, or would even qualify as investigative journalism. His attention span is too limited for any of that. And, yeah, I’ll credit him with writing about a lot of elected officials and their real or perceived wrongdoings, but more often than not, he’s pointing his flashlight at shadows simply because they are shadows. 

I’ve discussed it before but it bears repeating: the part John Archibald likes to play is that of the protector, the watchdog, the Dudley Do-Right, the bane of the powerful, the voice of the powerless, and David to the world’s Goliath. But it’s just a part, a hat he is fond of, a mask he puts on, something he wishes desperately would stick, and something he needs his readers to believe. He even needed to commemorate his 1,000th article with a recap of the nonsense he’s published to make you believe that he really is who he says he is. 

September 7, 2011 - “Look out for No. 1, Birmingham. But watch out for No. 2.” 

John Archibald is an alarmingly bad writer and journalist. His latest article is a case in point. I am not even sure what he’s talking about if he is in fact talking about anything at all. 

Let’s start with the apparently newsworthy item: Tony Petelos will interview for the job of Jefferson County manager. But rather than talking about the apparently newsworthy item, Archibald takes us on a ridiculous detour through a series of cliched idioms. Why? It’s rather patronizing to have commonly used expressions explained and deconstructed for me — especially in the context of a news story when their presence is completely irrelevant to that story. 

And I do know one thing. We always hear that “it’s not what you know, but who you know that’s important,” the real trick is what you know about who. 

I mean, I guess I get it: there is something potentially wrong with Tony Petelos interviewing for the job of Jefferson County manager — either with him or the circumstances under which he is interviewing for the job. What the issue is, I don’t know — and no thanks to John Archibald’s column for illuminating that for me. 

He must be content, ignorant, or in favor of this man assuming the position of county manager. Otherwise he would have written an article worth reading.

Maybe…

Yesterday’s Archibald column is deeply disturbing in the same way that recognizing a mental illness in a close friend is disturbing. Not that we are anything close to being friends. But I do feel that I’ve come to know the man, and his personality, very well through his writing over the years and especially since I started this blog. Archibald’s column yesterday is disturbing because it shows just how disturbed John Archibald’s mind, and how perverse his worldview, really is.

This just in: John Archibald cannot accept facts as facts if they conflict with his agenda. This, sadly, does not recommend his talents as a journalist.

The fact of the matter is John Archibald made up his mind a long time ago about the defendants in this case. There was never any question as to their guilt because “government” and “corruption” are synonyms in his mind without qualification. Granted government can be corrupt, and corruption certainly exists in our state government. But to write such a petulant column in spite of the facts exhibits Archibald’s disgusting and hateful bias.

But, of course, it’s not the first time his prejudice has revealed itself – even in relation to the bingo trial. Remember this?

“It’s an outrage. It is outrageous today, with indictments and taped voices acknowledging explicitly that campaign money was meant to buy votes on a gambling bill.”

So John Archibald wrote on October 8 – four days after the indictments were handed down. What is outrageous is that he states as fact what was then and what is now clearly un-established.

In the same article, he paraphrased the language of the indictment and said that Sen. Quinton Ross demanded “thousands of dollars for his vote on gambling – even as he ran unopposed.” To Archibald, this was a statement of fact. He did not need a Federal trial to determine Sen. Ross’ guilt – the indictment was enough. In Archibald’s courtroom, he is both judge and jury, and you are guilty no matter what.

Just one week later, Archibald literally thanked God for the Federal Government and its agents for investigating corruption in Alabama because, as he wrote then, “now and forever, Alabama cannot be trusted to investigate itself.”

Well, the Federal prosecutors made their case, the jury voted, and they voted against the prosecution. Archibald says the Feds bungled the case. He does not, cannot, and will not entertain the notion that the prosecution’s case failed because their evidence did not bear out the prosecution’s claim of conspiracy and widespread corruption. To put it bluntly: he can’t understand that it was the evidence, in fact, that undid the prosecution’s case. Yes, John, “thank God for the creeps,” as you referred to the Feds in your October 15, 2010 article – but I guess only when it works out the way you want it to.

This should probably be a post unto itself, but let me summarize here what I learned from the Federal prosecutors’ evidence. I learned that Barry Mask has a corrupt business arrangement with a lobbyist and should be immediately investigated, that Scott Beason is an opportunist, a racist, and an embarrassment, and that those guilty of conspiracy to bribe state lawmakers (namely, Gilley, Pouncey, and Massey) had already pleaded guilty.

I will sign off for now with this: in a particularly ugly moment – ugly even for him – Archibald criticized ADP Chairman Mark Kennedy for stating that he was pleased that Sen. Quinton Ross was found not guilty on all charges. He claims that Kennedy was pleased because Kennedy and Ross are on the same “side.” Not because a man who was found innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt by a jury of his peers got to go home to his family instead of being forced to attend another agonizing day in court or being sentenced to years in a Federal prison – but because everything has to do with what “side” you are on.

In yesterday’s column, he wrote “We are giddy when our side wins.” Logically, then, we are bitter when our side loses. And, boy, is John Archibald bitter.

The News recently published an article that deals with race and economic disparity in Birmingham. If the article had been written by anybody else, it might have been substantial and inspiring. But, no, John Archibald wrote it, and he doesn’t have a substantial or inspiring bone in his body. 

Really, it’s not that I disagree with what Archibald writes - economic disparity is a huge issue in Birmingham and in Alabama and in the US, and sadly we don’t live in a post-racial world. I disagree with the fact that John Archibald exhorts us to talk about the issues and to act on them, but will quickly move on to another subject - like the top ten things that irritate him about Birmingham. We won’t read a follow up to this story tomorrow morning discussing the way that we might improve education despite the fact that education is something, as Archibald writes, “we really need to talk about.” Without a follow up, or without continued direct attention to these subjects, this story is no better than the filler we usually associate with John Archibald’s journalistic attempts. And that’s what I find really distasteful about this article: the fact that this man will use the economic hardships of other people as filler. 

What should I expect from John Archibald? This story is just another example of the way he usually approaches his job. Outrage is his shtick, and substantive journalism is seldom a byproduct of it.

Breaking news – there are things that make John Archibald mad.

This is no revelation.  This is something that the people of Birmingham have known for a while.  Archibald gets ticked off by a lot of things.  He admits to as much in his column, and jokes that there is not enough column space to list all the things that make him mad.  I think that there is room and the things that tick Archibald off could be summed it up with one word – everything. 

Archibald’s column today is a distillation of everything that is John Archibald as a writer. We get a good dose of lame sarcasm intended as humor and a laundry list of things that make the man mad with little as to why they make him mad.  In fact, each paragraph has about as much substance and news as a regular Archibald article – which is sad.

This is the type of “filler” column that he should have used when he mysteriously vanished and was “away” for a couple of weeks.  It is the type of column you have in the can for when there is nothing else to write about.

There is actual news happening now.  The bingo trial is in its sixth week and one of the prosecution’s key witnesses is on the stand.  Another trial – the Casey Anthony trial – whipped some of the nation into a frenzy last week with the jury’s verdict.  There are many ongoing news events (the sewer crisis and tornado recovery efforts to name a couple) that readers are interested in.

But John Archibald (who works for a newspaper) did not write about the news.  He wrote about things that tick him off.

That should tick you off.

Where is John Archibald?  He hasn’t updated his Twitter feed since June 20.  He has not done his weekly chat since June 15.  He did not write a column Friday or today.  The only sign I have seen of Archibald in the past week or so was his Sunday column.

Maybe he has gone into hiding, wanting to be left alone.  Or maybe he wants to be found – kind of like “Where’s Waldo,” except that instead of looking for a little guy in a red and white shirt, I would be looking for a larger fellow wearing all black.

I don’t wish any ills upon him, and do hope he is alright.  But it has been nice to be relatively Archibald-free for a week now.

I could complain about his absence during the trial of the year, or that he missed the Birmingham City Council voting to condemn Alabama’s illegal immigration law, but he wouldn’t report the facts of the stories anyway.  All Archibald would do is throw out a few names and mix in a few quips – just like he did in Sunday’s column.

Archibald’s column on Sunday discussed good guys and bad guys in relation to the bingo trial.  Archibald’s not so surprising conclusion is that “business as usual” in Alabama is corrupt.  Archibald writes that “One is not innocent, we must remember, just because someone else is guilty. And one is not a good guy merely because somebody else is bad.”  But Archibald is not leaving a gray area between good and bad, and he never has.  To John Archibald, most politicians and public officials fall in the “bad guy” category.

It is the same old song.  Archibald uses very little factual information to conclude that some public official is corrupt or bad.  I have seen it used for just about every state and local official who represents Birmingham and/or Jefferson County.  I can only hope that when Archibald returns from wherever he is, he will have a fresh outlook on his reporting and writing.  Until then, I will enjoy his silence.

A top 10 list?  Seriously?  Opening arguments happened on Friday and all John Archibald can come up with for his Sunday column is a top 10 list?  I had hoped the trial would be further along before Archibald resorted to writing a top 10 list.

This marks the second occasion in a week where John Archibald wrote a top 10 list.  The first was on Sunday, June 5 where Archibald wrote about 10 “nuggets” of information he hoped to learn from the trial.  Instead of columns, maybe his Sunday readers should just expect lists 

This just smacks of lazy reporting.  Top 10 lists seem to reflect that the writer has run out of ideas or does not have enough information to come up with an informative column.  The bingo trial had opening arguments on Friday, so there was plenty of information to report.  But instead of detailed reporting, Archibald’s readers get his top 10 attorneys list.

In his Sunday column, Archibald ranks the attorneys based on opening arguments while also providing a little consideration for their reputation as well.  It’s almost like a preseason or week one top 25 poll in college football.

But this isn’t college football.

This is perhaps the biggest news event in Alabama politics.  But Archibald is not reporting it that way.  Sure, he is in the courtroom tweeting about the trial, but aside from a blurb about each attorney on the top 10 list, the information from the courtroom has not shown up in his column.

There is a wealth of information in that courtroom.  The attorneys are laying out their arguments and setting the course for the trial.  People around the state are interested in this case.  There is a demand for information.  But John Archibald is, thus far, falling short in supplying it.

I hope that as the trial progresses, John Archibald gives his readers more information and shares some of those “nuggets” he promised us.