Let’s take our country back. No, I don’t mean stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tea Partiers who are oh so angry at the wrong people (mostly the skinny black guy on Pennsylvania Avenue).

No, we need to take it back from those who deny reality in order to serve their corporate masters. They could be Republicans (OK, they are Republicans), or Conservadems (hello, Ben Nelson) or even the so-called Democrats who enable them. You know the ones, the wholly owned two-legged subsidiaries of Big Oil, Big Banks, etc. The ones who make villains out of the victims.

Unions are to blame, they say. Unions must face the new reality, they say — meaning accept lower wages, benefits and security as the new normal as they line their pockets at our expense. But at the Boston Globe, the Guild accepted cuts of $20 million — and then watched ever penny of that money handed to the top two executives of the New York Times Co.

People without jobs are to blame, they say. If we give them unemployment benefits, they’ll be happy to sit on the couch chugging PBR and won’t have incentive to look for a job.

“Entitlements” are to blame. Simply raising the payroll cap on the Social Security tax fixes the system. But if the conservatives and corporate enablers take over Congress in the fall, Job No. 1 will be impeaching Obama. Job No. 2 will be killing Social Security and Medicare and funneling that wealth to Wall Street.

Homeowners are to blame for taking mortgages they “knew” they couldn’t afford — after generations of being told that home ownership is the key to the American Dream. (By the way, The New York Times reported July 8 that one in seven rich folks are mortgage delinquents, compared with one in 12 of the rest of us. Wonder how many of them will lose their homes.)

From the birthers to the Bush tax cut crowd (the tax cuts did not rob the Treasury of revenue!!) to the climate change deniers — the assault on reality is relentless. We need to fight back, as a union and as individuals. We will never solve our problems if we don’t.

The Supreme Court’s decision that struck down federal law limiting campaign contributions by corporations is lamentable. Especially because the activist judges on the court took the opportunity to greatly expand the rights and powers of corporations — as if Bank of America or Exxon or AT&T needed protection from ordinary citizens like us.

If President Obama isn’t able to appoint sensible judges quickly enough to overturn this corporate friendly court, we may have to expend the lengthy and time-consuming effort of passing a constitutional amendment.

But in the meantime, lets face up to the fact that corporations and special interests could not buy elections if we didn’t let them. Nearly all the money spent on election campaigns goes for advertising, media blitzes, mail campaigns, billboards, etc. We should rename the ruling the “Broadcast Advertising Revenue Rehabilitation” decision.

Corporate campaign chests don’t buy VOTES. At least not directly. It’s all spent in the quest to persuade you and me to cast our votes their way. While surveys and polls can be commissioned that can skew opinions and make them seem to be more one-sided than they are, the only poll that matters is the ballot box.

These massive war chests are overwhelmingly spent on legal activities (not counting election fraud). Or in the case of Rupert Murdoch, the money is spent on buying his own network.

No one holds a gun to anyone’s head and forces them to vote against their own interests. If we are fooled by these flashy, expensive campaigns, we have only ourselves to blame.

So this next election, when you are bombarded by commercials, ads, phone calls and so on, take time to read a trusted publication the Post-Dispatch or the Labor Trib or Truthout.com or other respected news organizations. Study the issues and the candidates. Take the campaign hype with a ton of salt and vote intelligently.

They can’t steal our vote with a media buy, no matter how much they spend. They need our cooperation. If we let them persuade us with corporate-bought advertising, then we just committed the citizenship version of responding to a midnight infomercial for cellulite cream.

I hope U.S. voters are smarter than that.

Virginia Gilbert is a retired member of the St. Louis Newspaper Guild, a former unit chair at the Post-Dispatch and a volunteer in urban ministry.

Journalism is under assault, from evolving technology that challenges how news is distributed to media corporations whose only response to economic downturns is to slash and burn.

Journalists and our brothers and sisters in advertising see this as a time to strengthen our newspaper and improve our value to readers; Lee Enterprises and its corporate cousins see this convergence of technology and economy as a perfect storm, a convenient opportunity to cut staff far beyond what is required and to assault the foundations upon which our union is built.

These corporate suits and dollar-strangling publishers also are beginning to breach what for generations has been a solid wall between advertising and editorial. They see the newsroom as a potential arm of advertising, with tailor-made “niche” publications (”Style,” “Summer Fun”) and stories made to order.  Merging advertising and features, for example, would destroy our readers trust: Which stories are honest? Which were written in return for ads? Which were bought and paid for?

It is time to think about an ethics policy for the Post-Dispatch, one generated by the journalists and advertising professionals who work here. Let’s start a discussion right here. To kick things off, here are links to two ethics documents:

Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics

Newspaper Guild-CWA principles of Professionalism and Honesty in the News Media

Speak up! This is our union; this is our profession. It’s up to us to protect them.

(This post was written March 26, 2009; we apologize for the delay in publishing it — admin)

I was called in to HR on 2/27/09 to be told that I was amongst several being laid off that day at the Journals.  I was not allowed to return to my desk to gather my personal belongings….it was done FOR me and placed in a box and I was escorted out of the building.  I was told during my “exit” interview that it was me this time around…based on my numbers…sales.

It is easier for Lee Enterprises to lay off the Journals employees because they are NOT Union – I wish we had been.  The Union had approached the Journals at West County only to be told to vacate the premises….WE were told that if we valued our jobs we would NOT talk to the Union at all!  There is a person who is leaving my old department now – has taken a position at the Post-Dispatch and do you believe this?  There is a help wanted ad to replace her in my old department?!  Is this even legal if there was a layoff?  Aren’t companies supposed to CALL BACK employees that have been laid off?

I was so distraught that day over the complete shock of losing my job that I signed an agreement with the HR Director.  It was a termination agreement with a severance offer.  Mind you – our “severance” packages are equal to two weeks pay per year.  I was let go on 2/27 and my two years would have been on 3/1/09.  Therefore I only got 1 year severance – in which was taxed at a higher bonus rate to boot!  Over $400 in taxes was taken out of my check!   I am not sure if LEE got one over on me or not in my “lay off”….however….I really need to know from someone if they can re-hire in my department without calling back employees first?!  Or is Lee actually going to get away with it because the Journals are NOT Union.  That is the way LEE likes it…NO UNIONS!

Someone please advise me on this one because I am not only confused but livid at this point and want to make my point CLEAR when I call tomorrow!

That, according to Advertising Age, is for the 12 months ended Sept. 28, 2008. Not too shabby.

Would have been nice to know this before the furlough vote last week.

AdAge says, under the hedline

It’s Not Newspapers in Peril; It’s Their Owners

For all the apocalyptic news about newspapers, there’s a distinction worth making: Newspaper owners are far more endangered than the medium itself.

Even as they take blow after blow from recession and digital media, newspapers themselves still earn decent profits. They do even better outside big cities, which tend to get all the attention.

Read the rest of the story here.

David Swensen and Michael Schmidt, writing in a New York Times op-ed piece, suggest:

Although the problems that the newspaper industry faces are well known, no one has offered a satisfactory solution. But there is an option that might not only save newspapers but also make them stronger: Turn them into nonprofit, endowed institutions — like colleges and universities. Endowments would enhance newspapers’ autonomy while shielding them from the economic forces that are now tearing them down.

Read the entire column here.

Thanks to Suzanne Thomas, senior PR coordinator of eHealth Inc., who submitted this information to one of our memebers.

Here are some tips to ride out unemployment while keeping your health insurance:

• First, check to see if you can get on your spouse’s employer plan. Learn how much, if any, the employee share of the premium would increase if you join the plan.

• If you have either lost or left your job and are offered COBRA continuation coverage (the same plan you had with your employer, but now you pay both the employer and employee contributions), learn exactly how much your COBRA premiums will cost each month, and exactly what the benefits are. COBRA often provides very comprehensive benefits to satisfy a broad audience, so think about which benefits you really need. Note that COBRA can provide important protection for people who have pre-existing medical conditions that may prevent them from getting approved for a new health insurance plan on their own. Read the rest of this entry »

Thank you, Lee and P-D management, you’ve helped answer a question many of us have faced on questionnaires: What is your occupation?

All these years, we’ve been writing in “journalist.”

But in this week’s layoffs, our top editors made clear that they exempted reporters, photographers and designers from the guillotine because they didn’t want to adversely affect “journalism” and lose more “journalists.”

Copy editors and online content folks, among others, were fired. Now we know why. By your definition, they are not “journalists.”

It’s good to know.

And it’s good to know – as if we didn’t know before – that we retain your professional respect.

Let us assure you that you also have ours.

Marty Kaplan writes in the Huffington Post:

The trouble with this conception of journalism [so-called balanced and objective] is that it inherently tilts the playing field in favor of liars, who are expert at gaming this system. It muzzles reporters, forbidding them from crying foul, and requiring them to treat deception with the same respect they give to truth. It equates fairness with evenhandedness, as though journalism were incompatible with judgment. “Straight news” isn’t neutral. It’s neutered – devoid of assessment, divorced from accountability, floating in a netherworld of pseudo-scientific objectivity that serves no one except the rascals it legitimizes.

Check out Kaplan’s bio: professor, writer, former journalist, former White House speechwriter, former movie and TV producer, etc.

Read the complete column here.

“I wanted to protest,” Sinclair said. “I don’t want to pay them money to send jobs to India and make it impossible for the people in this town to buy an automobile.”

Read the story here.