Jim Bernstein wrote:
Gary says that "the media is big on encouraging car over-use". As a
longtime reader of both the STAR TRIBUNE and the PIONEER PRESS, as well
as various alternatives publications like SOUTHWEST JOURNAL and CITY
PAGES, many magazines and some broadcast media, this statement was cause
for pause. I cannot think of a single example of the media encouraging
"car over-use"!
I've read all those newspapers at times as well, and am a regular reader of the Star Tribune and Southwest Journal now. I also read a lot of other media.
Normally I find Jim Bernstein's statements to be well-reasoned and generally a bit more astute than the average observation, as well. I often agree with him. The following is not to say his posting is not well-reasoned, either.
But here's the crux of the issue, which perhaps is exactly what Gary has been trying to get at.
Jim sees not ONE SINGLE example of media encouraging over use of cars.
Yet virtually every issue of the Star Tribune contains advertisements that do precisely that, and the very format of several issues per week also do precisely that.
To wit:
There is a special "Autos" section in at least 2 issues per week. This section is chock full of incentives to own more cars, and drive more often.
Is there is a "Bicycles" section twice a week? A "Walking" section? A "Mass Transit" section" A "Trains" section? A "Conservation" section? A "Recycling" section?
No.
There are also several Real Estate sections per week. Special real estate development sections are frequently contained in the paper. Just this past weekend was a glossy magazine-like insert all about "building a new home." I actually read it because my wife and I would someday like to build our own home. It was mostly useless fluff unless the reader was (1) completely naive and clueless about building a home and (2) only a buyer of a home built in a tract subdivision. The primary gist of most of the writing about real estate, though certainly not all of it, is to the benefit of new housing developments on the fringes of the metro area. This most certainly encourages sprawl and the concomitant ever increasing automobile usage.
Those are just two common and large instances -- perhaps the most obvious. There is a non-stop stream of subtle encouragement.
We are a car culture. The point is that even our thinking is so altered by that fact, that smart people like Jim miss that distortion when thinking about car usage. I think that's part of what Gary is trying to say. Our "vocabulary," if you will, is so intertwined with being a car culture, it's very challenging to step outside and look back at our situation's big picture.
It should not take a miracle for us to get to the point where those who live and work in Minneapolis, most should not need to use a car to get to work.
The huge number of people that Jim refers to who bicycle recreationally but don't consider it practical for commuting just demonstrates the fear or ignorance of some significant fraction of those people about bicycle commuting. Even if that fraction only commuted by bicycle during non-snowy, non-subfreezing weather, it would make a big difference. One of the challenges to doing so beyond the weather is the infrastructure to do it safely and efficiently, and that goes back to being a car culture again.
Minneapolis won't have larger numbers of bus and bicycle commuters until we change our way of thinking, at least a little bit.
Chris Johnson, Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
