Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. October 3, 2023.
Editorial: Censorship is dangerous, no matter where it is
We want to talk about censorship today. A pair of items put it back on our agenda.
It’s Banned Books Week. Unlike prior decades, when many of the challenges to books focused on negative depictions of people and the use of racial slurs (think of the challenges to Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn), six of the seven most challenged books over the course of the previous year focused on LGBTQ+ content.
There’s no question that such content varies widely in its appropriateness for readers of different ages. The need for a distinction between a young reader in the early grades versus a high school student on the cusp of adulthood is real.
That isn’t so different from any other subject, though. You wouldn’t drop a first grade student exploring fractions for the first time into a high school calculus class. It wouldn’t be appropriate to bring a course of study that focuses on the detailed history of the Holocaust to a young student, either, without adjusting the approach.
There’s a key difference between questioning whether the specific presentation of an issue or concept is appropriate and saying the subject matter is intrinsically inappropriate. Many of the attempts to ban books focus on the latter argument, and it’s one with which we don’t agree. Schools are places where tricky issues should be discussed in age-appropriate manners.
Let’s take this out of the classroom for a moment into the public sphere. We’d argue PBS is, in many respects, the television equivalent of a public library. Just as those libraries have been pressured to remove content, so has PBS.
Back in 1969, when “Sesame Street” first aired, it drew complaints. Not about the blending of fantasy elements (Big Bird) with humans or the fact a major character lived in a trash can. The protests focused on the fact two characters, Gordon and his wife, Susan, were black but lived alongside white neighbors. The PBS station in Jackson, Miss., pulled the show under pressure from viewers.
The drive to remove what makes people the least bit uncomfortable isn’t new. It’s the wrong approach.
That goes for the second item that brought the subject up this week in our newsroom as well. A recent poll found only 20% of adults think conservative students can speak freely on college campuses. The count of who said the same of liberals was 47% — not a majority but substantially higher.
The perception cuts across party lines and ideologies. Only 30% of self-identified Democrats believe conservatives can express their views freely on campus. Incidents like students shouting down a judge at Stanford University earlier this year give weight to the argument.
So does the more recent incident in which a conservative professor from Princeton was drowned out while speaking at Washington College in Maryland. The subject? Free speech.
Back in February the UW System released a survey of students’ views on free speech. The survey raised some clear concerns. A strong majority — 57% — said they had not spoken up about controversial subjects despite the desire to do so. Some 40% said they were concerned their grades would drop for disagreeing with instructors. A substantial portion said schools should ban speech with which they disagree.
In both book bans and college speech, people are failing to understand that disagreement isn’t the same as disparagement. Nor does disagreement inflict harm, provided it is expressed calmly.
Libraries and campuses both function best when they are part of a broader marketplace of ideas. Neither should be subjected to bigotry, be it from the left or the right.
Censorship is corrosive. It encourages future erosion of ideas, circumscribing thought within a shrinking circle of what is acceptable. Whether we’re talking about the campus or the library, it’s a mistake.
Unfortunately, it’s a common mistake.
___
Wisconsin State Journal. October 1, 2023.
Editorial: Don’t blow it. Wisconsin has its best shot at fair maps in a generation
Assembly Republicans moved too fast.
Their nonpartisan redistricting bill wasn’t properly vetted.
Speaker Robin Vos is playing politics.
All of that is true.
Yet none of it is an excuse for Democrats — including Gov. Tony Evers — to reject out of hand Wisconsin’s best shot at fair maps in a generation. Democrats need to engage with their Republican colleagues to help get this done right, with bipartisan support. That way, a neutral process for redistricting can last and be durable, regardless of which political party is in power.
Many Democrats are pinning their hopes for fair maps on favorable rulings from a liberal-leaning state Supreme Court majority. But any court decision on the shape of Senate and Assembly districts is only as good as the next high-court election in two years, when a conservative majority could regain control. The courts can’t fix the problem of gerrymandering for good.
Democratic leaders also should be wary of being left behind if they don’t get involved now. The Republicans might be able to push Iowa-style redistricting into law with the few Democratic votes they already have — and then take credit for adopting this good-government solution.
Assembly Bill 415, which the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) describes as “almost identical” to the Iowa model for nonpartisan redistricting, cleared the Assembly last month with a two-thirds majority, 64-32, that could potentially overcome a veto by the governor. Rep. LaKeshia Myers, D-Milwaukee, voted with all but one Republican in favor. Two other Milwaukee Democrats, Reps. Marisabel Cabrera and Sylvia Ortiz-Velez, didn’t cast final votes, though they did support several amendments that made the original GOP bill better.
Neither Cabrera nor Ortiz-Velez responded to calls or emails last week seeking clarity on their positions. (The Republican who missed the vote, Rep. Joel Kitchens of Sturgeon Bay, is a cosponsor and missed because of a family commitment, his staff said.)
In the Senate, the GOP could pass AB 415 and override an Evers’ veto without any help from Democrats, assuming all Republicans voted “yes.”
AB 415 was introduced by Reps. Todd Novak of Dodgeville, Travis Tranel of Cuba City and a few other Republicans who have long favored the Iowa model for nonpartisan redistricting. They rose above partisan politics to cosponsor Democratic versions of the bill in the past. They say AB 415 moved so fast in the Assembly because the votes were there after Vos, R-Rochester — long a staunch opponent — suddenly flipped and wanted it done.
That’s no excuse for passing legislation in just two days without a public hearing. Yet Novak and Tranel correctly note that Senate rules will require a public hearing in that house, where they say Sen. Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green, is pushing for action.
The Democrats — who have been clamoring for Iowa-style redistricting since they lost control of the statehouse in 2011 — have raised some legitimate concerns about the Republican proposal.
For example, under the bill, after the nonpartisan LRB draws the lines in a fair way without catering to political interests or using past voting data, the Legislature could approve them with a simple majority vote. That’s how Iowa does it. Democrats want to change that to a supermajority, which the latest version of the Democrats’ Iowa bill had prescribed.
Republicans worry a three-quarters vote is too high of a bar. It might allow a relatively small number of incumbents who don’t like their new districts to quash the process. Novak and Tranel amended their proposal to require a bipartisan vote. If that’s not good enough for Democrats, how about a two-thirds vote?
Democrats also question what happens if state leaders can’t agree on one of the LRB’s nonpartisan maps by a Jan. 31 deadline. Novak and Tranel say the Supreme Court would presumably get involved and pick a map. OK. Then put the high court’s involvement specifically in the bill to show legislative intent. The sponsors also should include congressional maps in this fair process.
Testimony at a Senate public hearing can illuminate these and other concerns. Experts can testify. The two sides can engage in some give and take in front of the public.
Yet none of the Democratic concerns should stop progress. The amended Republican bill is undeniably better than Wisconsin’s current system of blatant gerrymandering. And while the GOP has gerrymandered Wisconsin’s current voting districts, Democrats have done the same thing in other states.
Both sides in Wisconsin can and should agree on an Iowa-style process that treats voters fairly. That’s what voters across the state have said they want in advisory referendums. The days of partisan-drawn, oddly shaped districts that undermine our democracy must end.
___
Janesville Gazette. October 3, 2023.
Editorial: Bill seeks to fairly compensate news organizations for content used online
In Janesville and communities across the U.S., local businesses and their hometown newspapers have long had a symbiotic relationship. Each serves a vital role and both are better off because of their strong shared connection.
The Gazette can trace its origins back to 1845, three years before Wisconsin became a state. From the print edition to the e-edition, Gazettextra.com website, smartphone apps and social media sites, local journalists have for generations provided the information you need to be informed, engaged and active residents of Janesville and the surrounding area.
None of it would be possible without the support of our customers. Without readers, there’d be no reason for us to exist. And without the businesses that advertise with us, we couldn’t pay the salaries of those who report and write the stories, take the pictures, produce the ads, design and print the pages and make sure it gets to you.
Unfortunately, two U.S. newspapers per week are closing their doors, unable to keep the lights on because the revenue they depend on to pay the bills isn’t there.
Where has that revenue gone? A significant portion, we contend, is unfairly lining the pockets of big tech. As we’ve made the transition from an all-print to a hybrid print and digital model, mega-platforms like Google and Facebook (Meta) have sucked up more than their fair share of publishers’ incomes.
Politicians at the national level are aware of this unfair distribution of digital revenue and have proposed solutions. Last week, 84 journalists, publishers and others representing small- to medium-sized media companies — including Adams Publishing Group, which owns The Gazette — spent time in Washington, D.C., urging members of Congress to back two key pieces of emerging legislation.
In the Senate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and John N. Kennedy, R-La., have sponsored the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (S. 1094). It would force Big Tech companies to negotiate with news publishers and broadcasters with the aim of providing fair compensation to media companies for the news shared on their platforms.
In the House of Representatives, Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., and Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., have sponsored the Community News and Small Business Support Act (H.R. 4756). It proposes a series of tax credits over a five-year period that would benefit both sides of the media-local business relationship.
For small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, it would provide a five-year, non-refundable credit of up to $5,000 in year one and up to $2,500 in each of the next four years to local businesses to spend on advertising with local media. The credit covers 80% of total advertising costs the first year and 50% in the remaining four years.
At the same time, local media organizations that employ at least one full-time journalist and have fewer than 750 employees would qualify for a five-year refundable tax credit, earmarked to pay journalists. The credit would cover up to $50,000 a year per journalist. A similar bill is expected to be introduced in the Senate by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who is currently seeking a Republican co-sponsor.
In recent studies, 73% of U.S. adults said they have confidence in their local newspaper. Yet, since 2005, the country has lost more than a quarter of its newspapers and is on track to lose a third more by 2025. And communities with less local news see more government corruption and waste, higher taxes and less civic engagement, including voter turnout.
None of the bills is by itself the silver bullet that will save the news industry. It is part of a multi-faceted solution. That’s why we sent Gazette Editor Karyn Saemann to our nation’s capitol last week, to encourage members of Congress to pass these bills, as well as to impose strict controls on artificial intelligence to protect the integrity of our news content.
What can you do? Contact your U.S. senators and representative and urge them to sponsor and/or support the Senate’s Journalism Competition and Preservation Act and the House’s Community News and Small Business Support Act. And continue your support of the relevant and trusted local news and advertising content you’ve come to expect from The Gazette’s 178 years in business in Janesville.
