Decode DC: Next On The Chopping Block
Well, I can't say I didn't see this coming. Andrea Seabrook, former NPR Washington correspondent, went to a different project some time ago, Decode DC, a podcast purported "to help Americans understand how crucial political issues affect everyday life."
We do this by using every narrative tool we can - from straightforward analysis to podcasts to interactive graphics to video. We want to be a reliable, honest and, when appropriate, highly entertaining source of insight and explanation of Washington, D.C.'s people, culture, policies and politics, but mostly we want to be useful.
She's had a few insightful episodes, true. The last I've heard, though, tipped things back into Silly Town. If you can, check out Episode 32: Inside the Investigation, where Andrea interviews Scripps reporter Mark Greenblatt on his discovery that . . . wait for it . . . government agencies are paying "too much" for travel expenses.
It turns out there is some kind of law on the books, according to Greenblatt, requiring "government employees to fly coach for domestic and international trips except in rare instances. . . . The rules say travelers flying at taxpayer expense are required to use the same spending restraints as 'a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal business.'"
Here's the problem. While I am all in favor of being like "a prudent person" on "personal business," I see absolutely no reason to extend that attitude to someone traveling on business, even if it is government business.
Buried in Greenblatt's piece, is this more nuanced overview:
Most agencies have slashed spending on premium fares, responding to a budget directive to reduce travel costs, according to the GSA. It reports a 40 percent decline in recent years for agencies overall, and says premium travel accounts for less than one percent of overall travel. NASA says it has reduced overall travel spending by 38 percent since 2009.
So while it hasn't been a leader in reducing "excessively expensive" travel, it has moved roughly with the rest of the government.
Ah, but I didn't hear that on Decode DC. All I heard about was how hard it was to get the information, how Greenblatt got the run-around, how reporters can't get information to keep the citizen "informed." We hear recordings of Greenblatt's interviews where information providers cover for their boss, or of instances where other info is classified as "off the record," and therefore lost to the citizens.
Here's a question, one never asked: Why is the head of NASA required to fly coach?!? Why is someone in charge of coordinating billion-dollar space missions made to squeeze into the ridiculous seating commercial airlines have concocted to maximize revenues at the expense of our backs and patience? In his piece, Greenblatt cites "alternate" fares for the same trips. Another question: Did these come from the same airlines the officials wound up flying, or are these quotes from airlines so cattle-car-esque as to be branded by someone (like me) as un-fucking-flyable? Strangely, this question was never pursued in his article.
As for Seabrook's seeming promise with her podcast, there is one final straw that breaks me. During this episode, for the first time a sponsor is mentioned three fucking times. That's right. Someone found it appropriate for a 20 minute podcast to mention the same fucking sponsor not just once, not just twice, but a god-awful three times.
Yet again, the worst reporting a reporter puts out there corresponds with the most egregious abuse of sponsorship practices. Yet again, commercially-sponsored reporting casts a close and micro-managing eye at our government while giving the private, for-profit funders of the media a complete pass at scrutiny.
If she really wanted "to be a reliable, honest and, when appropriate, highly entertaining source of insight and explanation of Washington, D.C.'s people, culture, policies and politics", perhaps she could start by peering into and explaining with greater clarity this corruption of the public process driven by those who wish to drown government in the bath, leaving the excesses of private enterprise leave to ride roughshod over a citizenry now devoid of all protection and oversight.
Since you haven't even made this attempt, Ms. Seabrook, your podcast is off my playlist.
So, with that, here's what Decode DC will open in the email soon.
Dear Ms. Seabrook,
I was appalled and disgusted by Decode DC's Episode 32: Inside the Investigation. It was a banal, shallow and rote attempt to cast our government as wasteful and deceitful, but somehow missed bigger stories, one of which must be of how government officials-some required to oversee billions in expenditures and therefore decisions-are required to fly for the cheapest tickets available in cattle car conditions no sane person would tolerate.
To further explain my dismay and disgust at your "reporting", I read Mr. Greenblatt's article and was struck by this paragraph:
"Most agencies have slashed spending on premium fares, responding to a budget directive to reduce travel costs, according to the GSA. It reports a 40 percent decline in recent years for agencies overall, and says premium travel accounts for less than one percent of overall travel. NASA says it has reduced overall travel spending by 38 percent since 2009."
It seems, then, that while it may not have been a leader within government, NASA at least has followed the general trend. Why wasn't this salient fact mentioned in the Decode DC piece? This omission makes your reporting seem more salacious and unnecessary, down there with slimy tabloid material.
Finally, I note that one of your sponsors required you to mention them three [expletive] times in one twenty-minute piece, lowering your outlet from the lofty heights promised in your webpage, one filled with helping "Americans understand how crucial political issues affect everyday life," to yet another mainstream press beholden to private advertiser interests that must not be upset lest the funding disappear. It is therefore no wonder that you join the chorus of "reporters" that pester top government officials not about important subjects-such as, for example, the corrupting influence of private money on our public decision-making process-but about which demeaning cattle car airliner they should have flown.
Instead of hearing in greater detail from reporters like yourself about your efforts to peer into and explain with greater clarity how this corruption of the public process-driven by those who wish to drown government in the bathtub-gives the excesses of private enterprise leave to ride roughshod over a citizenry now devoid of all protection and oversight, we hear from your sponsor three times in twenty minutes.
As the twin trends of your declining standards regarding the quality of your reporting matches your declining regard for your audience by increasing the intrusive nature of your sponsors, I am forced to permanently cut Decode DC from my listening, and spread the word (as much as one person can) about this deplorable situation.
Sincerely,
[Perry Staltor]
Sigh. I miss good reporting.
We do this by using every narrative tool we can - from straightforward analysis to podcasts to interactive graphics to video. We want to be a reliable, honest and, when appropriate, highly entertaining source of insight and explanation of Washington, D.C.'s people, culture, policies and politics, but mostly we want to be useful.
She's had a few insightful episodes, true. The last I've heard, though, tipped things back into Silly Town. If you can, check out Episode 32: Inside the Investigation, where Andrea interviews Scripps reporter Mark Greenblatt on his discovery that . . . wait for it . . . government agencies are paying "too much" for travel expenses.
It turns out there is some kind of law on the books, according to Greenblatt, requiring "government employees to fly coach for domestic and international trips except in rare instances. . . . The rules say travelers flying at taxpayer expense are required to use the same spending restraints as 'a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal business.'"
Here's the problem. While I am all in favor of being like "a prudent person" on "personal business," I see absolutely no reason to extend that attitude to someone traveling on business, even if it is government business.
Buried in Greenblatt's piece, is this more nuanced overview:
Most agencies have slashed spending on premium fares, responding to a budget directive to reduce travel costs, according to the GSA. It reports a 40 percent decline in recent years for agencies overall, and says premium travel accounts for less than one percent of overall travel. NASA says it has reduced overall travel spending by 38 percent since 2009.
So while it hasn't been a leader in reducing "excessively expensive" travel, it has moved roughly with the rest of the government.
Ah, but I didn't hear that on Decode DC. All I heard about was how hard it was to get the information, how Greenblatt got the run-around, how reporters can't get information to keep the citizen "informed." We hear recordings of Greenblatt's interviews where information providers cover for their boss, or of instances where other info is classified as "off the record," and therefore lost to the citizens.
Here's a question, one never asked: Why is the head of NASA required to fly coach?!? Why is someone in charge of coordinating billion-dollar space missions made to squeeze into the ridiculous seating commercial airlines have concocted to maximize revenues at the expense of our backs and patience? In his piece, Greenblatt cites "alternate" fares for the same trips. Another question: Did these come from the same airlines the officials wound up flying, or are these quotes from airlines so cattle-car-esque as to be branded by someone (like me) as un-fucking-flyable? Strangely, this question was never pursued in his article.
As for Seabrook's seeming promise with her podcast, there is one final straw that breaks me. During this episode, for the first time a sponsor is mentioned three fucking times. That's right. Someone found it appropriate for a 20 minute podcast to mention the same fucking sponsor not just once, not just twice, but a god-awful three times.
Yet again, the worst reporting a reporter puts out there corresponds with the most egregious abuse of sponsorship practices. Yet again, commercially-sponsored reporting casts a close and micro-managing eye at our government while giving the private, for-profit funders of the media a complete pass at scrutiny.
If she really wanted "to be a reliable, honest and, when appropriate, highly entertaining source of insight and explanation of Washington, D.C.'s people, culture, policies and politics", perhaps she could start by peering into and explaining with greater clarity this corruption of the public process driven by those who wish to drown government in the bath, leaving the excesses of private enterprise leave to ride roughshod over a citizenry now devoid of all protection and oversight.
Since you haven't even made this attempt, Ms. Seabrook, your podcast is off my playlist.
So, with that, here's what Decode DC will open in the email soon.
Dear Ms. Seabrook,
I was appalled and disgusted by Decode DC's Episode 32: Inside the Investigation. It was a banal, shallow and rote attempt to cast our government as wasteful and deceitful, but somehow missed bigger stories, one of which must be of how government officials-some required to oversee billions in expenditures and therefore decisions-are required to fly for the cheapest tickets available in cattle car conditions no sane person would tolerate.
To further explain my dismay and disgust at your "reporting", I read Mr. Greenblatt's article and was struck by this paragraph:
"Most agencies have slashed spending on premium fares, responding to a budget directive to reduce travel costs, according to the GSA. It reports a 40 percent decline in recent years for agencies overall, and says premium travel accounts for less than one percent of overall travel. NASA says it has reduced overall travel spending by 38 percent since 2009."
It seems, then, that while it may not have been a leader within government, NASA at least has followed the general trend. Why wasn't this salient fact mentioned in the Decode DC piece? This omission makes your reporting seem more salacious and unnecessary, down there with slimy tabloid material.
Finally, I note that one of your sponsors required you to mention them three [expletive] times in one twenty-minute piece, lowering your outlet from the lofty heights promised in your webpage, one filled with helping "Americans understand how crucial political issues affect everyday life," to yet another mainstream press beholden to private advertiser interests that must not be upset lest the funding disappear. It is therefore no wonder that you join the chorus of "reporters" that pester top government officials not about important subjects-such as, for example, the corrupting influence of private money on our public decision-making process-but about which demeaning cattle car airliner they should have flown.
Instead of hearing in greater detail from reporters like yourself about your efforts to peer into and explain with greater clarity how this corruption of the public process-driven by those who wish to drown government in the bathtub-gives the excesses of private enterprise leave to ride roughshod over a citizenry now devoid of all protection and oversight, we hear from your sponsor three times in twenty minutes.
As the twin trends of your declining standards regarding the quality of your reporting matches your declining regard for your audience by increasing the intrusive nature of your sponsors, I am forced to permanently cut Decode DC from my listening, and spread the word (as much as one person can) about this deplorable situation.
Sincerely,
[Perry Staltor]
Sigh. I miss good reporting.