Even though I know Paul Darrow’s work has graced the COURIER
pages for longer than I can remember, it’s been 20 plus years since we spoke in
person.
As I recall, we met with my father Martin, when Mr. Darrow
hand delivered his work directly to the COURIER office. I remember little about
the actual meeting (other than we shook hands), but it was easy to see why this
editor and artist got along so well.
Humor and/or politics have a way of connecting people, and
it certain was the case here. My father was not known for his conservative
thinking, so Mr. Darrow’s liberal take on politics fit right in. But it was
humor that bonded them, especially when hearing enormous laughs from what
seemed to be an ongoing conversation.
Humor is why the COURIER has published Darrow’s cartoons for
decades. What’s ironic however, is my favorite Darrow work is a lifelike
portrait of Martin Weinberger as a young man, bowtie and all. It sits in our
study at home next to his old typewriter.
Fast-forward to 2013 and here I stand next to Mr. Darrow at
his gallery opening last Friday, taking pictures, listening to my wife tell
him, “It’s Martin’s son! It’s Martin’s son!” Some people have been known to
call me Peter.
It was great to shake Mr. Darrow’s hand once again. As I
followed him through the crowd, even at 91 years, it was easy to see that
personality and sense of humor my father connected with.
As usual, Mr. Darrow’s work can be found on page 6 of this
edition of the Claremont COURIER.
Public notice bill axed
in committee
You may remember from a previous column me talking about the
AOL/Patch sponsored bill AB 642, which was an attempt to classify California Patch
websites as newspapers so they could publish (and get the revenue from) public
notices. The bill would have eliminated the requirement to publish in print.
There was a reason Patch sponsored this bill. It was
literally tailored for their online business. I’ve already gone into details,
but the local Democratic Club ought to note freshman assemblyman wrote it
(Anthony Rendon, D-Bell) given this was a classic case of big business, against
small business scenario.
From our decades of experience, because public notices are
legal documents with specific publishing requirements, we found public notices need
to be published in print. With most newspapers, they are published online too.
Since this bill would largely impact community newspapers,
the California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA) worked hard to reach a
compromise by creating a website specifically designed to publish the state’s
public notices (capublicnotice.com). This seemed to satisfy other committee
members in the assembly involved with the bill. So it’s been tabled for this
year.
Although I’m sure revenue starved AOL/Patch believed these
notices should be online given the digital age. The reality is it mostly was
already being. What isn’t being said is bill 642 would also have wiped out a
large percentage of California’s community newspapers that count on this
revenue. Our readers would see noticeably less coverage from the Claremont
COURIER.
These community newspapers (with their websites) are also
direct competitors of Patch websites. So this bill would literally have been a
win-win for AOL.
No comments:
Post a Comment