What I had given considerably more thought to is the ability to write stories as I view the facts rather than at times artificially attempting to create balance out of the express need to adhere to the principle of “fair and balance.” Unfortunately, I would suggest that such approaches at times lead one to actually bias the coverage. The freedom to write as one sees it, has a great deal of benefit at times–while at the same time running the risk of falling prey to criticism of bias. What I would suggest here is that bias can at times be a good thing, so long as you are willing to be upfront about it (and this blog certainly has been pretty open about its political bent).
All of this came to mind last night as I read Claire St. John’s story in the Davis Enterprise, “Fewer council meetings but longer nights.” Those who are regulars to this blog will recall my story from April 26, 2007 entitled, “Analysis: Asmundson’s Attack on the Mayor Unfounded.”
From the titles alone you can see that my story has a definite slant, whereas the Enterprise story obtains a more balanced approach. (I would be remiss if I did not point out here that there have been examples in the Enterprise where the title is less than fair and impartial, and that almost invariably those titles are negative towards the more progressive side of politics in Davis).
Remember that the usual assumption is that fair and balanced is more accurate. That is the mantra that mainstream reporting generally follows and what it affords is protection for the news agent against the charge of bias. (Although I suspect every reporter reading this will be screaming bs, and I understand.)
Let’s delve into the story a bit to illustrate that this widely championed but rarely practiced principle can be misleading.
St. John reports on the exchange that we dealt with in our story from two weeks ago:
At the last three council meetings, Greenwald has asked her colleagues to keep comments succinct, avoid repetition and ask their questions of city staff members ahead of time.
“The public does not like it when our meetings go this late, and I am trying as mayor to do a reasonable job in pacing our meetings so they can be over by 11:30,” Greenwald said, at the April 17 meeting.
The council has a policy that at 11:30 p.m., a motion must be passed to continue the meeting. Each time, the meeting has carried on by at least a 4-1 vote, but never without commentary.
On April 17, Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson responded to Greenwald’s comments with a barb.
“It is just unfortunate that the mayor cannot run a meeting,” Asmundson said. “If we have a more efficient meeting, we can finish these things. We can be more efficient if the mayor could just run this meeting more efficiently.”
“I talked less than anybody at this meeting,” Greenwald replied. “I would challenge anybody out there to take a stopwatch …”
“You’re still talking,” Asmundson snapped. “Let’s go.”
What St. John does not do at this point, which I was able to do, was take Mayor Greenwald’s challenge of keeping track of the time used by each member and chronicle how long each councilmember took when they spoke at the meeting.
That’s precisely what I did in the April 26 piece and found that indeed, Greenwald spoke far less than any other councilmember and that Asmundson along with her ally Saylor had taken up the most amount of time. That was a lengthy endeavor that had me sitting down for a couple of hours and tallying up how long each member spoke.
Here were the findings:
|
Saylor |
39 |
|
Asmundson |
35 |
|
Souza |
26 |
|
Heystek |
25 |
|
Greenwald |
18 |
That leads us to the very natural question of why is it that a Davis Enterprise reporter cannot report on the actual time used by each member?
The simple answer appears to be that such reporting may impart bias if their findings were as skewed and one-sided as the ones I found (and anyone watching that meeting probably would not have to use a stop-watch to figure out that Mayor Greenwald was speaking far less than her colleagues). It would take a side in the story. In short, it would not be “fair and balanced.”
Now we can argue that perhaps the Davis Enterprise does pick sides at times, but let’s assume at this time that they do not. Let’s assume that they adhere to this principle consistently. What do we take away from it?
For me it demonstrates that fair and balanced is not necessarily more accurate. And that sometimes you need to be able to take sides to accurately report a story. The moment you accept even the possibility that there may be validity to this point, you have to look at media such as blogs in an entirely different fashion because the assumption has always been that bias equals less accuracy, but perhaps the truth is that sometimes bias gives you more information than artificial attempts to maintain the journalistic ethos of fair and impartial reporting. Sometimes, we need to get to the truth and the only way to do that is to take sides.
To me it would certainly be defensible to take the time to report on how much each city councilmember spoke if you are going to report on the broader issue of why the meetings are last as long as they are. Perhaps it is too much to ask a reporter to referee in a fight between elected officials, but perhaps that is something that the public ought to know as they weigh in on the accuracy of the claims made by each side in an attempt to come up with their own opinion.
To me giving facts is always in the realm of reporting and we should not shy away from reporting unfortunate and at times one-sided facts. After all, is it not still news if a given office holder makes a charge that turns out to be not backed up by the available facts?
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
It seems to me, mainstream media’s role is to cover the “who, what, when, where, and why.” It is not to resolve or analyze accusations between individuals involved in the story. That is what editorials are for.
Mainstream media provides us with a certain flavor of information, just as blogs like this provide a different flavor. This blog is a valuable source of information and sheds light on topics and issues that the mainstream media does not. However, as you state, this blog is heavily biased and you cherry pick variables and facts to support your argument. You then use that argument to make policy recommendations that are neither reasonable nor implementable. This is somewhat expected but as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, it erodes your credibility on certain subjects, particularly land use and growth. You cannot be expected to be completely versed in every subject you cover. But if you’re using this blog to influence public opinion, you should not disregard or ignore very important variables in your analysis even when blog contributors call you on it.
It seems to me, mainstream media’s role is to cover the “who, what, when, where, and why.” It is not to resolve or analyze accusations between individuals involved in the story. That is what editorials are for.
Mainstream media provides us with a certain flavor of information, just as blogs like this provide a different flavor. This blog is a valuable source of information and sheds light on topics and issues that the mainstream media does not. However, as you state, this blog is heavily biased and you cherry pick variables and facts to support your argument. You then use that argument to make policy recommendations that are neither reasonable nor implementable. This is somewhat expected but as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, it erodes your credibility on certain subjects, particularly land use and growth. You cannot be expected to be completely versed in every subject you cover. But if you’re using this blog to influence public opinion, you should not disregard or ignore very important variables in your analysis even when blog contributors call you on it.
It seems to me, mainstream media’s role is to cover the “who, what, when, where, and why.” It is not to resolve or analyze accusations between individuals involved in the story. That is what editorials are for.
Mainstream media provides us with a certain flavor of information, just as blogs like this provide a different flavor. This blog is a valuable source of information and sheds light on topics and issues that the mainstream media does not. However, as you state, this blog is heavily biased and you cherry pick variables and facts to support your argument. You then use that argument to make policy recommendations that are neither reasonable nor implementable. This is somewhat expected but as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, it erodes your credibility on certain subjects, particularly land use and growth. You cannot be expected to be completely versed in every subject you cover. But if you’re using this blog to influence public opinion, you should not disregard or ignore very important variables in your analysis even when blog contributors call you on it.
It seems to me, mainstream media’s role is to cover the “who, what, when, where, and why.” It is not to resolve or analyze accusations between individuals involved in the story. That is what editorials are for.
Mainstream media provides us with a certain flavor of information, just as blogs like this provide a different flavor. This blog is a valuable source of information and sheds light on topics and issues that the mainstream media does not. However, as you state, this blog is heavily biased and you cherry pick variables and facts to support your argument. You then use that argument to make policy recommendations that are neither reasonable nor implementable. This is somewhat expected but as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, it erodes your credibility on certain subjects, particularly land use and growth. You cannot be expected to be completely versed in every subject you cover. But if you’re using this blog to influence public opinion, you should not disregard or ignore very important variables in your analysis even when blog contributors call you on it.
Since I’m in an atypically critical mood of this blog, I’ll also add that I listened to the last 20-25 minutes of the KDVS interview a few weeks back. I thought the interviewer’s comment relating to cops and donuts to be about as juvenile as it gets. A stereotype that you let just slide on by…
Since I’m in an atypically critical mood of this blog, I’ll also add that I listened to the last 20-25 minutes of the KDVS interview a few weeks back. I thought the interviewer’s comment relating to cops and donuts to be about as juvenile as it gets. A stereotype that you let just slide on by…
Since I’m in an atypically critical mood of this blog, I’ll also add that I listened to the last 20-25 minutes of the KDVS interview a few weeks back. I thought the interviewer’s comment relating to cops and donuts to be about as juvenile as it gets. A stereotype that you let just slide on by…
Since I’m in an atypically critical mood of this blog, I’ll also add that I listened to the last 20-25 minutes of the KDVS interview a few weeks back. I thought the interviewer’s comment relating to cops and donuts to be about as juvenile as it gets. A stereotype that you let just slide on by…
I thought the job of the reporter is to report on what happened. If the reporter is going to do a story as St. John made, which looks into the length of meetings, it seems only reasonable to answer the question that you are essentially posing.
“this blog is heavily biased and you cherry pick variables and facts to support your argument.”
I’m not sure that’s completely accurate.
“You then use that argument to make policy recommendations that are neither reasonable nor implementable.”
From your perspective perhaps. I assume you are referring to the question of sustainable growth here, I agree that is a conundrum, what I am not sure is that his analysis is necessarily neither reasonable nor implementable. There are serious questions about sustainability that I do not think we have addressed.
I thought the job of the reporter is to report on what happened. If the reporter is going to do a story as St. John made, which looks into the length of meetings, it seems only reasonable to answer the question that you are essentially posing.
“this blog is heavily biased and you cherry pick variables and facts to support your argument.”
I’m not sure that’s completely accurate.
“You then use that argument to make policy recommendations that are neither reasonable nor implementable.”
From your perspective perhaps. I assume you are referring to the question of sustainable growth here, I agree that is a conundrum, what I am not sure is that his analysis is necessarily neither reasonable nor implementable. There are serious questions about sustainability that I do not think we have addressed.
I thought the job of the reporter is to report on what happened. If the reporter is going to do a story as St. John made, which looks into the length of meetings, it seems only reasonable to answer the question that you are essentially posing.
“this blog is heavily biased and you cherry pick variables and facts to support your argument.”
I’m not sure that’s completely accurate.
“You then use that argument to make policy recommendations that are neither reasonable nor implementable.”
From your perspective perhaps. I assume you are referring to the question of sustainable growth here, I agree that is a conundrum, what I am not sure is that his analysis is necessarily neither reasonable nor implementable. There are serious questions about sustainability that I do not think we have addressed.
I thought the job of the reporter is to report on what happened. If the reporter is going to do a story as St. John made, which looks into the length of meetings, it seems only reasonable to answer the question that you are essentially posing.
“this blog is heavily biased and you cherry pick variables and facts to support your argument.”
I’m not sure that’s completely accurate.
“You then use that argument to make policy recommendations that are neither reasonable nor implementable.”
From your perspective perhaps. I assume you are referring to the question of sustainable growth here, I agree that is a conundrum, what I am not sure is that his analysis is necessarily neither reasonable nor implementable. There are serious questions about sustainability that I do not think we have addressed.
Was she looking into the length of the meetings or reporting that it was an issue for the Councilmembers? Those are two different questions and change the approach to the story. I recall reading the the story and didn’t feel the need for the reporter to answer that question.
Of course my opinions are from my perspective. But I’m not trying to influence public discourse on very important topics to the City’s future. I have asked DPD on several occasions to address issues that are very relevant to the discussion, particularly with respect to implmentation, and he has punted on many of those occasions or just disregarded them entirely.
His questions about sustainability are generally inherent in western civilization and virtually impossible to address at the local policy level. He then chooses to ignore the likely secondary effects of his policy recommendations. Thus, the recommendations he makes often completely conflicts with the goals he wants to attain.
I realize he has plenty of supporters here, and as I stated, it’s a valuable source of information. But I’m not sure he should be criticizing anyone’s coverage of topics considering his is flawed in many respects.
Was she looking into the length of the meetings or reporting that it was an issue for the Councilmembers? Those are two different questions and change the approach to the story. I recall reading the the story and didn’t feel the need for the reporter to answer that question.
Of course my opinions are from my perspective. But I’m not trying to influence public discourse on very important topics to the City’s future. I have asked DPD on several occasions to address issues that are very relevant to the discussion, particularly with respect to implmentation, and he has punted on many of those occasions or just disregarded them entirely.
His questions about sustainability are generally inherent in western civilization and virtually impossible to address at the local policy level. He then chooses to ignore the likely secondary effects of his policy recommendations. Thus, the recommendations he makes often completely conflicts with the goals he wants to attain.
I realize he has plenty of supporters here, and as I stated, it’s a valuable source of information. But I’m not sure he should be criticizing anyone’s coverage of topics considering his is flawed in many respects.
Was she looking into the length of the meetings or reporting that it was an issue for the Councilmembers? Those are two different questions and change the approach to the story. I recall reading the the story and didn’t feel the need for the reporter to answer that question.
Of course my opinions are from my perspective. But I’m not trying to influence public discourse on very important topics to the City’s future. I have asked DPD on several occasions to address issues that are very relevant to the discussion, particularly with respect to implmentation, and he has punted on many of those occasions or just disregarded them entirely.
His questions about sustainability are generally inherent in western civilization and virtually impossible to address at the local policy level. He then chooses to ignore the likely secondary effects of his policy recommendations. Thus, the recommendations he makes often completely conflicts with the goals he wants to attain.
I realize he has plenty of supporters here, and as I stated, it’s a valuable source of information. But I’m not sure he should be criticizing anyone’s coverage of topics considering his is flawed in many respects.
Was she looking into the length of the meetings or reporting that it was an issue for the Councilmembers? Those are two different questions and change the approach to the story. I recall reading the the story and didn’t feel the need for the reporter to answer that question.
Of course my opinions are from my perspective. But I’m not trying to influence public discourse on very important topics to the City’s future. I have asked DPD on several occasions to address issues that are very relevant to the discussion, particularly with respect to implmentation, and he has punted on many of those occasions or just disregarded them entirely.
His questions about sustainability are generally inherent in western civilization and virtually impossible to address at the local policy level. He then chooses to ignore the likely secondary effects of his policy recommendations. Thus, the recommendations he makes often completely conflicts with the goals he wants to attain.
I realize he has plenty of supporters here, and as I stated, it’s a valuable source of information. But I’m not sure he should be criticizing anyone’s coverage of topics considering his is flawed in many respects.
I think there are a couple of key points that need to be addressed.
First, I’m not certain that this is really a criticism of the reporting, though the article did catch our attention last night and led to some discussion around the city, at least as far as I was involved. I read this more of a general commentary about practices of newspapers.
Second, I think all activism has to begin at the local level. While we cannot control what the broader country can do, the broader country cannot tell us to put solar panels on our houses or what land to develop. Those are local questions that determine the scope of global factors.
Fact is some of these problems do not have workable solutions. That doesn’t mean they should be discussed.
And some of our goals (royal our) do conflict. Some of those conflicts need to lead to more innovative solutions. That’s one thing I would like to see.
Nevertheless this blog is well equipped to report on problems and probably less so to solve those problems. I’m not sure that should be seen as a criticism so much as a reality that I’m sure the author would readily acknowledge.
I think there are a couple of key points that need to be addressed.
First, I’m not certain that this is really a criticism of the reporting, though the article did catch our attention last night and led to some discussion around the city, at least as far as I was involved. I read this more of a general commentary about practices of newspapers.
Second, I think all activism has to begin at the local level. While we cannot control what the broader country can do, the broader country cannot tell us to put solar panels on our houses or what land to develop. Those are local questions that determine the scope of global factors.
Fact is some of these problems do not have workable solutions. That doesn’t mean they should be discussed.
And some of our goals (royal our) do conflict. Some of those conflicts need to lead to more innovative solutions. That’s one thing I would like to see.
Nevertheless this blog is well equipped to report on problems and probably less so to solve those problems. I’m not sure that should be seen as a criticism so much as a reality that I’m sure the author would readily acknowledge.
I think there are a couple of key points that need to be addressed.
First, I’m not certain that this is really a criticism of the reporting, though the article did catch our attention last night and led to some discussion around the city, at least as far as I was involved. I read this more of a general commentary about practices of newspapers.
Second, I think all activism has to begin at the local level. While we cannot control what the broader country can do, the broader country cannot tell us to put solar panels on our houses or what land to develop. Those are local questions that determine the scope of global factors.
Fact is some of these problems do not have workable solutions. That doesn’t mean they should be discussed.
And some of our goals (royal our) do conflict. Some of those conflicts need to lead to more innovative solutions. That’s one thing I would like to see.
Nevertheless this blog is well equipped to report on problems and probably less so to solve those problems. I’m not sure that should be seen as a criticism so much as a reality that I’m sure the author would readily acknowledge.
I think there are a couple of key points that need to be addressed.
First, I’m not certain that this is really a criticism of the reporting, though the article did catch our attention last night and led to some discussion around the city, at least as far as I was involved. I read this more of a general commentary about practices of newspapers.
Second, I think all activism has to begin at the local level. While we cannot control what the broader country can do, the broader country cannot tell us to put solar panels on our houses or what land to develop. Those are local questions that determine the scope of global factors.
Fact is some of these problems do not have workable solutions. That doesn’t mean they should be discussed.
And some of our goals (royal our) do conflict. Some of those conflicts need to lead to more innovative solutions. That’s one thing I would like to see.
Nevertheless this blog is well equipped to report on problems and probably less so to solve those problems. I’m not sure that should be seen as a criticism so much as a reality that I’m sure the author would readily acknowledge.
It is not a question of bias but rather the reporter asking themselves, “Is what I am being told accurate?” rather than just reporting the statements, a la Judith Miller of The NY Times as she “reported” the official line about Iraqi WMD’s. Good reporting requires searching questions and futher research/investigation as this blog author did here. Claire St. John brought this healthly level of jounalistic skeptism plus follow-up investigative research to her reporting on the Measure X campaign. It is disappointing not to see it continuing.
It is not a question of bias but rather the reporter asking themselves, “Is what I am being told accurate?” rather than just reporting the statements, a la Judith Miller of The NY Times as she “reported” the official line about Iraqi WMD’s. Good reporting requires searching questions and futher research/investigation as this blog author did here. Claire St. John brought this healthly level of jounalistic skeptism plus follow-up investigative research to her reporting on the Measure X campaign. It is disappointing not to see it continuing.
It is not a question of bias but rather the reporter asking themselves, “Is what I am being told accurate?” rather than just reporting the statements, a la Judith Miller of The NY Times as she “reported” the official line about Iraqi WMD’s. Good reporting requires searching questions and futher research/investigation as this blog author did here. Claire St. John brought this healthly level of jounalistic skeptism plus follow-up investigative research to her reporting on the Measure X campaign. It is disappointing not to see it continuing.
It is not a question of bias but rather the reporter asking themselves, “Is what I am being told accurate?” rather than just reporting the statements, a la Judith Miller of The NY Times as she “reported” the official line about Iraqi WMD’s. Good reporting requires searching questions and futher research/investigation as this blog author did here. Claire St. John brought this healthly level of jounalistic skeptism plus follow-up investigative research to her reporting on the Measure X campaign. It is disappointing not to see it continuing.
Points taken. But there are clearly areas where DPD is stronger in coverage than others, and his weaknesses are easily exposed in growth, land use, and sustainability subjects.
I do find it ironic that DPD and others on this blog criticize mainstream media for not digging deep enough into a story but give DPD a free pass when he doesn’t.
Clearly grassroots discussion is what results in real change. The question is whether it can be translated even into local policy. Open discussion is valuable. However, the true value in this blog becomes apparent when we discuss an issue and *all* its factors (not just those cherry-picked), then come up with real, implementable recommendations that can then surface up to local policy.
Points taken. But there are clearly areas where DPD is stronger in coverage than others, and his weaknesses are easily exposed in growth, land use, and sustainability subjects.
I do find it ironic that DPD and others on this blog criticize mainstream media for not digging deep enough into a story but give DPD a free pass when he doesn’t.
Clearly grassroots discussion is what results in real change. The question is whether it can be translated even into local policy. Open discussion is valuable. However, the true value in this blog becomes apparent when we discuss an issue and *all* its factors (not just those cherry-picked), then come up with real, implementable recommendations that can then surface up to local policy.
Points taken. But there are clearly areas where DPD is stronger in coverage than others, and his weaknesses are easily exposed in growth, land use, and sustainability subjects.
I do find it ironic that DPD and others on this blog criticize mainstream media for not digging deep enough into a story but give DPD a free pass when he doesn’t.
Clearly grassroots discussion is what results in real change. The question is whether it can be translated even into local policy. Open discussion is valuable. However, the true value in this blog becomes apparent when we discuss an issue and *all* its factors (not just those cherry-picked), then come up with real, implementable recommendations that can then surface up to local policy.
Points taken. But there are clearly areas where DPD is stronger in coverage than others, and his weaknesses are easily exposed in growth, land use, and sustainability subjects.
I do find it ironic that DPD and others on this blog criticize mainstream media for not digging deep enough into a story but give DPD a free pass when he doesn’t.
Clearly grassroots discussion is what results in real change. The question is whether it can be translated even into local policy. Open discussion is valuable. However, the true value in this blog becomes apparent when we discuss an issue and *all* its factors (not just those cherry-picked), then come up with real, implementable recommendations that can then surface up to local policy.
Remember John Lennon’s call to IMAGINE? This is the necessary first step which almost always looks unworkable and quixotic when viewed through the prism of the cynical pragmatist. When a critical mass of the people accept the idea, a way is found to make it a reality. The burgeoning anti-global warming movement is a good example.
Remember John Lennon’s call to IMAGINE? This is the necessary first step which almost always looks unworkable and quixotic when viewed through the prism of the cynical pragmatist. When a critical mass of the people accept the idea, a way is found to make it a reality. The burgeoning anti-global warming movement is a good example.
Remember John Lennon’s call to IMAGINE? This is the necessary first step which almost always looks unworkable and quixotic when viewed through the prism of the cynical pragmatist. When a critical mass of the people accept the idea, a way is found to make it a reality. The burgeoning anti-global warming movement is a good example.
Remember John Lennon’s call to IMAGINE? This is the necessary first step which almost always looks unworkable and quixotic when viewed through the prism of the cynical pragmatist. When a critical mass of the people accept the idea, a way is found to make it a reality. The burgeoning anti-global warming movement is a good example.
Hi all,
I just wanted to make some comments here.
To Doug Paul David: I think counting the minutes would have been entirely appropriate in my article. The number of minutes that council members spoke is a cold, hard fact, and no one could really accuse me of being biased by reporting it. The time it would have taken versus the value it would have lent to the article is what kept me from doing it. As you said, you didn’t need a stopwatch to keep track of who was taking up the most time.
To Davisite Gene: I’m disappointed that you think my writing is all bad since the Covell Village series, especially since I recall you writing on this blog that you’ve canceled your subscription. If you’re making statements about the quality of my writing without even reading it, that’s difficult to swallow.
One final point to DPD: I’m pretty sure Fox News is the only media outlet using the catch phrase “Fair and Balanced.” No one’s getting that fed to them in journalism school. I know you’re not the Enterprise’s No. 1 rah rah fan, but really. We’re not Fox News.
Thanks for letting me have my say.
Hi all,
I just wanted to make some comments here.
To Doug Paul David: I think counting the minutes would have been entirely appropriate in my article. The number of minutes that council members spoke is a cold, hard fact, and no one could really accuse me of being biased by reporting it. The time it would have taken versus the value it would have lent to the article is what kept me from doing it. As you said, you didn’t need a stopwatch to keep track of who was taking up the most time.
To Davisite Gene: I’m disappointed that you think my writing is all bad since the Covell Village series, especially since I recall you writing on this blog that you’ve canceled your subscription. If you’re making statements about the quality of my writing without even reading it, that’s difficult to swallow.
One final point to DPD: I’m pretty sure Fox News is the only media outlet using the catch phrase “Fair and Balanced.” No one’s getting that fed to them in journalism school. I know you’re not the Enterprise’s No. 1 rah rah fan, but really. We’re not Fox News.
Thanks for letting me have my say.
Hi all,
I just wanted to make some comments here.
To Doug Paul David: I think counting the minutes would have been entirely appropriate in my article. The number of minutes that council members spoke is a cold, hard fact, and no one could really accuse me of being biased by reporting it. The time it would have taken versus the value it would have lent to the article is what kept me from doing it. As you said, you didn’t need a stopwatch to keep track of who was taking up the most time.
To Davisite Gene: I’m disappointed that you think my writing is all bad since the Covell Village series, especially since I recall you writing on this blog that you’ve canceled your subscription. If you’re making statements about the quality of my writing without even reading it, that’s difficult to swallow.
One final point to DPD: I’m pretty sure Fox News is the only media outlet using the catch phrase “Fair and Balanced.” No one’s getting that fed to them in journalism school. I know you’re not the Enterprise’s No. 1 rah rah fan, but really. We’re not Fox News.
Thanks for letting me have my say.
Hi all,
I just wanted to make some comments here.
To Doug Paul David: I think counting the minutes would have been entirely appropriate in my article. The number of minutes that council members spoke is a cold, hard fact, and no one could really accuse me of being biased by reporting it. The time it would have taken versus the value it would have lent to the article is what kept me from doing it. As you said, you didn’t need a stopwatch to keep track of who was taking up the most time.
To Davisite Gene: I’m disappointed that you think my writing is all bad since the Covell Village series, especially since I recall you writing on this blog that you’ve canceled your subscription. If you’re making statements about the quality of my writing without even reading it, that’s difficult to swallow.
One final point to DPD: I’m pretty sure Fox News is the only media outlet using the catch phrase “Fair and Balanced.” No one’s getting that fed to them in journalism school. I know you’re not the Enterprise’s No. 1 rah rah fan, but really. We’re not Fox News.
Thanks for letting me have my say.
Brian: I think DPD would be the first to admit that he is stronger in some areas than others. We can perhaps quibble on the details there.
Claire and really everyone: I think Claire’s response demonstrates why having a blog like this is a good thing. I didn’t read this as a criticism of you so much as a point that could make for some interesting discussion. What is nice that you can respond to anything that you feel is inaccurate or unfair.
Brian: I think DPD would be the first to admit that he is stronger in some areas than others. We can perhaps quibble on the details there.
Claire and really everyone: I think Claire’s response demonstrates why having a blog like this is a good thing. I didn’t read this as a criticism of you so much as a point that could make for some interesting discussion. What is nice that you can respond to anything that you feel is inaccurate or unfair.
Brian: I think DPD would be the first to admit that he is stronger in some areas than others. We can perhaps quibble on the details there.
Claire and really everyone: I think Claire’s response demonstrates why having a blog like this is a good thing. I didn’t read this as a criticism of you so much as a point that could make for some interesting discussion. What is nice that you can respond to anything that you feel is inaccurate or unfair.
Brian: I think DPD would be the first to admit that he is stronger in some areas than others. We can perhaps quibble on the details there.
Claire and really everyone: I think Claire’s response demonstrates why having a blog like this is a good thing. I didn’t read this as a criticism of you so much as a point that could make for some interesting discussion. What is nice that you can respond to anything that you feel is inaccurate or unfair.
Hi Claire. Your participation is welcomed.
I take note of Jeff Hudson’s comment about being restricted by space limitations. I would like Jeff to have more space, please, to report on local school issues. If one artlcle is deemed too boring for the average reader, then have him split the story up into one main story and a smaller companion story. Sometimes I read the Enterprise and get the impression that nothing is going on here – few local stories – , but I know that much is happening that we do not hear about in the Enterprise.
Hi Claire. Your participation is welcomed.
I take note of Jeff Hudson’s comment about being restricted by space limitations. I would like Jeff to have more space, please, to report on local school issues. If one artlcle is deemed too boring for the average reader, then have him split the story up into one main story and a smaller companion story. Sometimes I read the Enterprise and get the impression that nothing is going on here – few local stories – , but I know that much is happening that we do not hear about in the Enterprise.
Hi Claire. Your participation is welcomed.
I take note of Jeff Hudson’s comment about being restricted by space limitations. I would like Jeff to have more space, please, to report on local school issues. If one artlcle is deemed too boring for the average reader, then have him split the story up into one main story and a smaller companion story. Sometimes I read the Enterprise and get the impression that nothing is going on here – few local stories – , but I know that much is happening that we do not hear about in the Enterprise.
Hi Claire. Your participation is welcomed.
I take note of Jeff Hudson’s comment about being restricted by space limitations. I would like Jeff to have more space, please, to report on local school issues. If one artlcle is deemed too boring for the average reader, then have him split the story up into one main story and a smaller companion story. Sometimes I read the Enterprise and get the impression that nothing is going on here – few local stories – , but I know that much is happening that we do not hear about in the Enterprise.
Claire… I did read your article. My apologies in “stretching” the subject under discussion to make a point that was not relevant here.
Claire… I did read your article. My apologies in “stretching” the subject under discussion to make a point that was not relevant here.
Claire… I did read your article. My apologies in “stretching” the subject under discussion to make a point that was not relevant here.
Claire… I did read your article. My apologies in “stretching” the subject under discussion to make a point that was not relevant here.
The Enterprise needs to stop the he said-she said type of reporting, start fact checking statements made by people at events they report on, and do more investigative journalism.
The DE should have dug deeper into Rexroad’s affiliation with the Economic Freedom Fund (aka. Swift Boat money), Gidaro’s other real estate dealings during the Conaway debacle (instead of painting him as an aw-shucks I’m just tryin’ to put my kids through school developer), look deeper into why downtown merchants leave (rents, landlords, etc.), actually report on the Malcolm X poster/suspension event, etc.
Then I’d actually renew my susbscription. As it is, it’s 3 local stories, one usually a feel-good piece, the others a he-said/she-said set, and a bunch of day-old reprints from AP (read previously on the internet.)
And can’t forget the guy who’s life revolves around a dead cartoonist who wrote an unfunny comic series about a beagle who suffers hallucinations about WWII…..
So now I’m saving $100/year and a few trees…
The Enterprise needs to stop the he said-she said type of reporting, start fact checking statements made by people at events they report on, and do more investigative journalism.
The DE should have dug deeper into Rexroad’s affiliation with the Economic Freedom Fund (aka. Swift Boat money), Gidaro’s other real estate dealings during the Conaway debacle (instead of painting him as an aw-shucks I’m just tryin’ to put my kids through school developer), look deeper into why downtown merchants leave (rents, landlords, etc.), actually report on the Malcolm X poster/suspension event, etc.
Then I’d actually renew my susbscription. As it is, it’s 3 local stories, one usually a feel-good piece, the others a he-said/she-said set, and a bunch of day-old reprints from AP (read previously on the internet.)
And can’t forget the guy who’s life revolves around a dead cartoonist who wrote an unfunny comic series about a beagle who suffers hallucinations about WWII…..
So now I’m saving $100/year and a few trees…
The Enterprise needs to stop the he said-she said type of reporting, start fact checking statements made by people at events they report on, and do more investigative journalism.
The DE should have dug deeper into Rexroad’s affiliation with the Economic Freedom Fund (aka. Swift Boat money), Gidaro’s other real estate dealings during the Conaway debacle (instead of painting him as an aw-shucks I’m just tryin’ to put my kids through school developer), look deeper into why downtown merchants leave (rents, landlords, etc.), actually report on the Malcolm X poster/suspension event, etc.
Then I’d actually renew my susbscription. As it is, it’s 3 local stories, one usually a feel-good piece, the others a he-said/she-said set, and a bunch of day-old reprints from AP (read previously on the internet.)
And can’t forget the guy who’s life revolves around a dead cartoonist who wrote an unfunny comic series about a beagle who suffers hallucinations about WWII…..
So now I’m saving $100/year and a few trees…
The Enterprise needs to stop the he said-she said type of reporting, start fact checking statements made by people at events they report on, and do more investigative journalism.
The DE should have dug deeper into Rexroad’s affiliation with the Economic Freedom Fund (aka. Swift Boat money), Gidaro’s other real estate dealings during the Conaway debacle (instead of painting him as an aw-shucks I’m just tryin’ to put my kids through school developer), look deeper into why downtown merchants leave (rents, landlords, etc.), actually report on the Malcolm X poster/suspension event, etc.
Then I’d actually renew my susbscription. As it is, it’s 3 local stories, one usually a feel-good piece, the others a he-said/she-said set, and a bunch of day-old reprints from AP (read previously on the internet.)
And can’t forget the guy who’s life revolves around a dead cartoonist who wrote an unfunny comic series about a beagle who suffers hallucinations about WWII…..
So now I’m saving $100/year and a few trees…
About Ruth’s rude comment to Sue, what happened to Don Saylor’s call for a more civil discourse?
I think Sue should take a different approach. I think she should drag the meetings out. Call more recesses and make everyone stay up even later until they all cry out for an earlier finish.
About Ruth’s rude comment to Sue, what happened to Don Saylor’s call for a more civil discourse?
I think Sue should take a different approach. I think she should drag the meetings out. Call more recesses and make everyone stay up even later until they all cry out for an earlier finish.
About Ruth’s rude comment to Sue, what happened to Don Saylor’s call for a more civil discourse?
I think Sue should take a different approach. I think she should drag the meetings out. Call more recesses and make everyone stay up even later until they all cry out for an earlier finish.
About Ruth’s rude comment to Sue, what happened to Don Saylor’s call for a more civil discourse?
I think Sue should take a different approach. I think she should drag the meetings out. Call more recesses and make everyone stay up even later until they all cry out for an earlier finish.
Re: Anonymous’s comment:
About Ruth’s rude comment to Sue, what happened to Don Saylor’s call for a more civil discourse?
I think Sue should take a different approach. I think she should drag the meetings out. Call more recesses and make everyone stay up even later until they all cry out for an earlier finish.
——————–
Saylor called for civility. Thus Asmundsen out to be civil and not cut Sue off with the acerbic comment: “You’re still talking, Let’s go.”
As for Anonymous’s sarcasm, let’s be civil here. If stuff needs to be dealt with, let the councilmembers deal with it. Keep the focus on the agenda and civility will follow.
Re: Anonymous’s comment:
About Ruth’s rude comment to Sue, what happened to Don Saylor’s call for a more civil discourse?
I think Sue should take a different approach. I think she should drag the meetings out. Call more recesses and make everyone stay up even later until they all cry out for an earlier finish.
——————–
Saylor called for civility. Thus Asmundsen out to be civil and not cut Sue off with the acerbic comment: “You’re still talking, Let’s go.”
As for Anonymous’s sarcasm, let’s be civil here. If stuff needs to be dealt with, let the councilmembers deal with it. Keep the focus on the agenda and civility will follow.
Re: Anonymous’s comment:
About Ruth’s rude comment to Sue, what happened to Don Saylor’s call for a more civil discourse?
I think Sue should take a different approach. I think she should drag the meetings out. Call more recesses and make everyone stay up even later until they all cry out for an earlier finish.
——————–
Saylor called for civility. Thus Asmundsen out to be civil and not cut Sue off with the acerbic comment: “You’re still talking, Let’s go.”
As for Anonymous’s sarcasm, let’s be civil here. If stuff needs to be dealt with, let the councilmembers deal with it. Keep the focus on the agenda and civility will follow.
Re: Anonymous’s comment:
About Ruth’s rude comment to Sue, what happened to Don Saylor’s call for a more civil discourse?
I think Sue should take a different approach. I think she should drag the meetings out. Call more recesses and make everyone stay up even later until they all cry out for an earlier finish.
——————–
Saylor called for civility. Thus Asmundsen out to be civil and not cut Sue off with the acerbic comment: “You’re still talking, Let’s go.”
As for Anonymous’s sarcasm, let’s be civil here. If stuff needs to be dealt with, let the councilmembers deal with it. Keep the focus on the agenda and civility will follow.