Our complaints about the fairness of the coverage of Measure I and the surface water project must have caught the attention of Davis Enterprise columnist and leading opponent of the surface water project, Bob Dunning.
In his Wednesday column, Mr. Dunning argues, “Fair and balanced? No, The Enterprise isn’t Fox News.”
He goes on to write, “I do get tired of the handful of folks who continue to bellyache that the only opinions allowed into this hallowed gazette are those of the Above-Pictured Columnist … nothing could be further from the truth …”
He goes on to cite two op-eds in favor of Measure I, plus the half-hearted, heavily-nuanced endorsement by his paper as evidence to the contrary.
However, all of those efforts pale in comparison to the non-stop drumbeat of negative columns attacking the project and the knowledge and integrity of Davis’ elected officials.
It’s been two and a half months of all water, almost all of the time for Bob Dunning, and in almost every article he is attacking some part of the proposal.
No one else is given that sort of coverage, five days a week, in every print edition of the paper. Other voices may get included, the rest of the paper is indeed largely balanced, but that only serves to highlight the onslaught of negative articles.
Our count since just the first of the year was 28 articles either in whole or in part on the water issue. That does not include the slew of columns on water in November and December leading up to the council decision on the CBFR rate structure.
It is to the point where one reader wrote into the Enterprise, “I’m ready for new topics.”
“I am certainly looking forward to the conclusion of the Measure I election. At least then Bob Dunning – otherwise my favorite columnist – will be forced to take up other topics. Can hardly wait, Bob!”
We do not have a problem with Mr. Dunning speaking his mind, though we might question the accuracy of some of his reports – the issue here is balance of coverage and we would argue, despite contestations to the contrary, the coverage was completely imbalanced.
In just the month of February, Dunning has written the following:
- Bob Dunning: Plenty of space for all views in this paper
- Bob Dunning: Tell ‘em to take their money and run
- Bob Dunning: What’s fair? It all comes out in the wash
- Bob Dunning: Change of heart? Vinny will help
- Bob Dunning: Rancho Yolo homeowners cry foul
- Bob Dunning: Perhaps Parish has learned his lesson (Last two thirds)
- Bob Dunning: We all pay, but only some get the water
- Bob Dunning: City tries to shoot the messenger
- Bob Dunning: We have the solution, now where’s the problem? (Last third)
- Bob Dunning: Donations could help ease water burden
- Bob Dunning: Mathematics thicker than water
- Bob Dunning: My exercise regimen soon will change (Middle Third)
- Bob Dunning: Water works? This makes it all make sense
- Bob Dunning: And now you know the rest of the story
- Bob Dunning: The law is the law; don’t break it
- Bob Dunning: Need a lawn sign? Copy the design
- Bob Dunning: Want to protest? It’s no easy thing
- Bob Dunning: One thing we won’t have to worry about anymore
- Bob Dunning: We’re subsidizing city’s water use
With a barrage of completely negative articles such as that, I do not care how balanced the rest of your paper has been, the coverage is imbalanced. Even a column that does not to appear to be about water, like “Parish,” ends up being two-thirds about water. Only his Superbowl piece on February 3 was completely devoid of water.
Sadly for this community, it did not have to be that way. Back in November and then December, the suggestion was made that perhaps there should be a more regularized debate or point/counterpoint on the issue of fairness and not allowing one person or one position dominate the bullypit.
When Matt Williams proposed a point/counterpoint discussion between himself and Bob Dunning, Debbie Davis was agreeable to the idea but checked in with Bob Dunning.
She wrote, on November 21, 2012, “He wasn’t a big fan of the idea, basically saying that he doesn’t like to be pigeon-holed into taking a ‘counter’ position, just to be counter.
“I am really open-minded about this as we work through the process. The council may yet come up with something on rates that I think is workable,” he wrote Ms. Davis.
He added, “Plus, the ballot language is already set. Not much to debate there. I may well write a column or two about the wisdom of the project, but I don’t see it as being anywhere near as regular as Matt does, unless something strange happens.”
Mr. Dunning continued: “The same for the rate structure. Within the next couple of weeks, the city will have a firm rate structure in place with real numbers that will be sent out as part of Prop. 218 noticing. At that point, there’s not much to debate. Some commentary, for sure, but again, probably not a lot.”
That was prior to Mr. Dunning going on a streak in late November and early December where he wrote over 15 columns on the water issue, followed by another 28 columns in January and February.
The Davis Enterprise might not exactly be Fox News, but Bob Dunning is becoming more like Karl Rove than the whimsical columnist that has made him a Davis icon.
In the same column, Mr. Dunning took on Alan Pryor.
Alan Pryor wrote a column a couple of days earlier to correct misinformation reported by Bob Dunning, where he reported that the city’s water plan would not provide all water users with river water.
As Alan Pryor notes in one of the few direct responses to Bob Dunning, “The letter was intended only for internal use by city staff but was somehow leaked to David Greenwald of the Vanguard blog who ran a full story on it in the Vanguard on March 23, 2011 – nearly six months before the Sept. 6, 2011, water vote.”
However, as Mr. Pryor notes, the city has had two years to address the problem and, as Alan writes, “The city engineers actually were already on the problem, though, and have since finalized their citywide surface water distribution system plans and well water mixing strategy and my concerns have been completely alleviated.”
Instead of addressing this point, and the fact that his report was outdated and that he apparently did not check his facts with the city prior to publication, he took Mr. Pryor on, on a side point, when he concluded, “Bob Dunning” should stick to berating “the Natural Resources Commission for daring to restrict his beloved plastic bags and his god-given right to use his smelly wood-burning fireplace any time he chooses.”
Nowhere in Mr. Dunning’s column does he acknowledge or correct the outdated information he reported on.
It is good to know that the Davis Enterprise does allow for all viewpoints, even if one particular viewpoint gets five day a week, page two coverage.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Edgar
I feel it is appropriate to respond to your comment from an earlier thread here.
[quote]As far as I understand, Bob does not gain anything by intentional making false attacks against Measure I or the City. I think he genuinely believe that something is wrong. Errors are more obvious to those who encounter them. When an error is “obviously wrong”, the error appears intentional.
On the column, Bob separates the Yes on I campaign from the City Council Members. He talked about the campaign getting a lot of money, but did not associate that to the City Council Members. He only said that the City Council Members did not think enough, and gave an example of someone (Sue) who would.
[/quote]
I think that the problem is that you chose to limit the analysis via your rubric to a single quote from
Mr. Dunning. I cannot help but wonder if you would feel the same if you had diligently read all of Dunning’s columns and understood a little about his view of his personal stake in this issue. Mr. Dunning has chosen to have a large family. He has stated that he feels that these rates are unfair to large families. Therefore, whether his assessment is accurate or not, Mr. Dunning has stated that he feels he has something to gain from the defeat of Measure I. I am curious about whether this additional information changes your assessment about
the nature of Mr. Dunning’s statements.
I want to be clear. Mr. Dunning has every right to express his opinion fully. However, having told Ms. Davis that his intent was not to inundate the public with negative articles thereby influencing her to not allow counterpoint articles, and then doing the opposite ( assuming of course that this is indeed what happened) would in my assessment fall considerably further down your stated rubric of intent, or in my terms be an
extremely underhanded and duplicitous move.
As is often the case with Bob there is a “‘rest of the story” that he purposely chooses to ignore. Specifically, he doesn’t bother to count all the OpEds published. Both/And applies here, but in Bob’s sandbox those aren’t the House Rules. 8>)
The more negative the attacks are against our local paper and Bob, the more it looks like Yes on I is worried
MH
One does not have to be worried in order to desire that issues be dealt with openly and fairly.
As I have stated, I have no personal or monetary outcome in this election. I simply feel that our need for a surface water project has been demonstrated and that this measure specifically has been thoroughly vetted in open forums of a number of types. For me, the stated evidence and pros of the project far outweigh the falsehoods and innuendo that have been promulgated by the opposition.
I, and many others, have asked repeatedly for evidence and alternatives, and none have been forthcoming despite many opportunities. My comment follows literally months of requesting open communication, and provision of alternatives. Nancy Price, you, and anyone else reading this blog, know this to be true. I speak not for the purpose of denigrating, but to attempt to point out dishonest conduct when it is occurring and a as a continual plea for both sides to present their best rational openly, and fully without smearing the other side.
It would appear that this has been a futile effort, but I am not giving up.
For example, I would still appreciate a response, if only the decision not to answer from Nancy. And Nancy,
my apologies if you have already responded on the other thread.
“However, all of those efforts pale in comparison to non-stop drumbeat of negative columns attacking the project and the knowledge and integrity of Davis’ elected officials.”
And this blog has been doing what over the same period of time.
[quote]And this blog has been doing what over the same period of time.[/quote]
Allowing presentation of both sides ? I have not done a tally ( perhaps David would want to) but I have seen a number of articles representing both sides of the issue. So I am a little confused by your comment.
Could you clarify ?
Toads love good water but all this hand wringing about Bob Dunning is absurd.
I gave up reading the Emptyprize newspaper years ago. I found it to be an apologist for the City of Davis and the Chamber of Commerce mentality. I have yet to read a Bob Dunning piece on the Surface Water Import Scheme.
I still consider a “partnership” between Davis and Woodland where Woodland pays 30 % less per gallon than Davis to be a non-starter.
Mr. Toad: “[i]And this blog has been doing what over the same period of time.[/i]”
Medwoman: “[i]Allowing presentation of both sides ? I have not done a tally ( perhaps David would want to) but I have seen a number of articles representing both sides of the issue. So I am a little confused by your comment.
Could you clarify ?[/i]”
It all depends on your time frame Medwoman. If we only look at the last month or two, David has indeed done a good job of printing articles on both sides of the issue. Prior to that however he spent the better part of two years on an unrelenting attack on every aspect of the project, and in the process doing his best to attack and demean the integrity and professional behavior of City Council members both past and present, the City Staff, members of the WAC, and any number of outside consultants and experts.
There is an old adage that comes into play here having to do with a pot and a kettle…
“Toads love good water but all this hand wringing about Bob Dunning is absurd.”
perhaps i can put this is terms you can understand: toad no get good water because of dunning. capeesh?
[quote]Toads love good water but all this hand wringing about Bob Dunning is absurd.[/quote]
It is way beyond absurd. Bob Dunning’s articles are written primarily for ENTERTAINMENT purposes. He has also raised several legitimate concerns with this project. I think if you look hard enough you might be able to find someone in Yolo county that considers Bob to be the preeminent subject matter expert on municipal water systems, but that person is probably also going to believe that aliens from another planet are about to invade earth.
wesley: how is falsely maligning the integrity of public officials entertaining?
Bob Dunning is our local Jon Stewart. I like that many on this blog tending to dismiss the corrupting political influence of Media Entertainment News (MEN), are now whining about it.
It seems that we are all willing to dismiss it when it supports our own agenda, and bellyache about it when we perceive it is unfairly influencing other voters away from our preferences.
The balance here is that Bob, like Jon, although demonstrating an ideological bias at times, will attack issues and people on both sides. In doing so, they create enemies out of the narcissistic whining types and lose the ability to influence them. However, for people owning a bit more humility, self-confidence and a more objective brain, both Bob and Jon provide us wonderful, snarky, sarcastic, humorous food for thought.
The ONLY problem that I have had with Bob’s writing on this water project is that it has been lacking in the typical creative humor we have come to expect from him. He has not been as entertaining.
Mark: I tried to write this earlier but the server died. I think what you are seeing is that David leading up to the election/ ballot measure was pressing council to improve the project. Whereas in the last two months, with the ballot set, the focus has been on having fair coverage and good discussion.
Mark: I tried to write this earlier but the server died. I think what you are seeing is that David leading up to the election/ ballot measure was pressing council to improve the project. Whereas in the last two months, with the ballot set, the focus has been on having fair coverage and good discussion.
[quote]The balance here is that Bob, like Jon, although demonstrating an ideological bias at times, will attack issues and people on both sides. In doing so, they create enemies out of the narcissistic whining types and lose the ability to influence them. However, for people owning a bit more humility, self-confidence and a more objective brain, both Bob and Jon provide us wonderful, snarky, sarcastic, humorous food for thought.
[/quote]
Very well put Frankly. This is exactly what this obsession with Bob is all about.
Mr.Toad wrote:
> Toads love good water but all this hand wringing
> about Bob Dunning is absurd.
I just did a Google search and the Davis Wiki said that the Enterprise has a circulation of over 8,000 (my guess was under 6,000) so I wonder how many people (outside of the small “inside baseball” world of people that work on campaigns and post to local political blogs) even read Dunning? Many people get the Enterprise for local sports, local ads and just to check out the local headlines and don’t even read the columns (or editorials)…
[quote]I tried to write this earlier but the server died.[/quote]
Perhaps they found too much manganese in the Vanguard and had to take it offline?
Will, that is freaking hilarious!
[quote]Bob Dunning is our local Jon Stewart[/quote]
More like our local Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. I can’t recall that he has ever supported our City Council in anything that even remotely smacks of liberalism or has a progressive theme. He rants about our City government the way Beck and Limbaugh rant about the Democrats in Washington
to paraphrase Don McLean, “the day the server died…”… I’m pretty sure Mr H will attribute that to city staff hacking into the system to silence his lying spew.
Before the server malfunction (thanks to City staff or the Yes on I folks, right, Mr H?), I wrote…
The more innuendo (undocumented) and unproved allegations are against our City staff and the City Council, the more it looks like No on I is worried.
Ironic (? or Machiavellian” ?), that Mr H and others throw fecal matter into the game, “confusing” the public (and let’s not forget the ‘I have a secret but I won’t tell until it’s due time’), and then recommends that “if you’re confused, vote NO”, is both reprehensible and brilliant.
Having 30 + years of experience (as opposed to advanced degrees in theory) with the City’s water system, I believe I have at least 1000% (yes, thousand %) more knowledge than Mr H has about well 30.
Anyone who believes Mr H and acts on what he says is a boderline utter fool.
Vote how you will (if you haven’t already), but base it on facts, not misinformation and/or political rhetoric…. if you are truly confused, may I suggest you [b]abstain[/b] from voting on this issue. I do not say that lightly, as I believe that voting is not just a right, but a responsibility!
[quote]
alanpryor
03/01/13 – 11:47 AM
…
Bob Dunning is our local Jon Stewart
More like our local Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. I can’t recall that he has ever supported our City Council in anything that even remotely smacks of liberalism or has a progressive theme. He rants about our City government the way Beck and Limbaugh rant about the Democrats in Washington [/quote]
So if I’m not mistaken, the moderator should delete this post. If I’m not allowed to make comparisons to Obama and the Democrats then it should be the same for rants and comparisons about conservatives. All I want to know is what are the ground rules and the same should apply to everyone.
Rusty49 – I thought alanpryor was complementing Bob…?
rusty49
03/01/13 – 12:15 PM
You ought to know…
“THAT’s” different!!!!!
“Bob Dunning is our local Jon Stewart.”
Mr Stewart’s program is shown on [b]The Comedy Central Network[/b], not CNN or MSNBC or Fox! As the network’s name implies, it is a comedy show, a parody,not news, though one might understand the confusion among some Davisites . While on the lighter end of the scale, the Enterprise is supposed to be in the [b]News[/b] business . On a personal note, I think comparing Dunning to Rash Limpbod or Glen Beck is tarring those latter two unfairly .
biddlin ;>)/
“Rash Limpbod”
Another post that should be removed, we’re supposedly not allowed to belittle names and I’ve had many posts removed for just that. Like I said, I just want to know the rules.
All of you complaining about Dunning’s columns being unfair and that the Enterprise should carry opposing articles sound a lot like Obama and the White House trying to dictate to the national press what kind of coverage they allow.
hpierce: yep, the water virus did in that server! It’s all the water department’s fault!! They just spread those WTDs, or “Water Transmitted Diseases”! Wear rubber gloves when handling the water or those viruses will jump into your computers …
Actually, had a great letter today from Will Arnold, Manager, Yes on I Campaign. Here’s the ending letter quote: “Among the no side you have Sue Greenwald, Mike Harrington ….”
I got emails from friends asking if the Yes side is so worried about the No on I side that the Manager would have to attack two hard-working volunteers, does that mean that the Yes on I Campaign believes it’s about to lose? I don’t know if I would go that far, but I must say that Will mentioning my name must mean I am doing something right?
Now, back to getting some votes!
hpierce: 30 year employee of the water department, huh? So you were part of the run up to the Saylor Souza Era, and the JPA, and this whole mess?
When did you retire? You own part of this water plant rip off, don’t you? That would explain your comments.
Yes, Mike, we know that you measure your success by how upset you can make people. You’ve stated this in previous posts. That is the behavior of a troll.
Allright David and/or moderator, your choices of deleting posts are totally one-sided and unfair. I can’t believe you deleted my last post which was the same as other posts on here but the only difference was it was coming from a conservative slant. David, you post almost daily about how unfair you feel the Enterprise is with which you feel is Dunning’s one-sided Measure I view but then allow one-sided bias editing to occur on your blog. I’m done with the Vanguard and will be deleting my account. I guess that will proably make you and Don happy, but that’s no way to build a business. I’ve noticed many conservative posters have left with the latest looking like Jeff Boone. If you want a site of just liberal posters who all agree with each other then you are well on your way. Adios.
rusty, it is your constant attempts to use blog articles on local issues as a springboard to make critical comments about national issues that I have been acting on. It has been ongoing and you are very persistent about it. In these days leading up to the election, we really don’t want threads derailed into debates about national politics. I’m sorry you perceive a ‘bias’ in this regard. What it really is: you are, by far, the most likely to take threads off topic.
Jeff is still here. I’m surprised, frankly, that you haven’t figured that out.
If you want to discuss the moderation practices, you are always welcome to contact me at donshor@gmail.com.
“The balance here is that Bob, like Jon, although demonstrating an ideological bias at times, will attack issues and people on both sides.”
This comment is absurd. The No On Measure I side has provided a tremendous amount of satirical material, yet Dunning has refrained from touching it. Harrington makes a fool out of himself every time he posts a comment. Filing a lawsuite, but not serving the defendant? Really? That’s not a topic for a column? Has Bob touched any of this material? I don’t think so. On any given evening, I can pour myself a glass of wine and amuse myself all evening long by poking fun at the goofy comments made by No On I.
So what’s that mean? Satire rich material, no comments. Why do you think that is?
-Michael Bisch
Re: medwoman
I agree that I had not read all the columns by Bob. I think so far I had only read two:
Bob Dunning: Tell ‘em to take their money and run
Bob Dunning: Mathematics thicker than water
My evaluation rubric can be found here ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6159:dunning-continues-to-press-disingenuous-attack-against-city-council&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83&cpage=30#comment-177765[/url]).
[quote]Mr. Dunning has chosen to have a large family. He has stated that he feels that these rates are unfair to large families. Therefore, whether his assessment is accurate or not, Mr. Dunning has stated that he feels he has something to gain from the defeat of Measure I[/quote]
This argument is a Rank 2 argument because it is mathematically correct that Tier System is unfair to large families. Since his argument is correct, he is not doing so just for his own self-interest, but the welfare of everyone who has a large family. Every family that is large is unfairly billed under a tier system.
o Proportional Billing does not overcharge large families.
o CBFR does not overcharge large families.
o Equal Discount does not overcharge large families.
[b]o Tier System overcharges large families.[/b]
In the design of the tiers in a Tiered system, assumptions are made. When there exists families that are not “typical”, those families could be undercharged or overcharged. I think it is discriminatory to say that those families could have chosen to be smaller, because the size of the family should be a matter of life-style. A Tiered system could make a bigger family pay more for water per capita.
“And this blog has been doing what over the same period of time.”
Toad, you have put your finger on the heart of the matter. The underlying facts have not changed these past 2 years or so. These same facts have undergone more scrutiny and still they have not changed. Yet until a couple of months ago, the Vanguard has enabled those that have worked very hard at undermining reasoned debate. What has now changed?
An after action report is most definitely in order to determine how a community debate could become so unhinged.
-Michael Bisch
Rusty49: don’t abandon me to these people!
Dt: .but it has been a good.debate!
[quote]Dt: .but it has been a good.debate![/quote]
But has it been a good debate ? Granted that my last debate class was many years ago, I don’t recall this being how debates are supposed to be conducted.
One side brings forward information, evidence, testimony, arrives at and presents reasoned conclusions.
The other side calls their opponents names, states they are corrupt and incompetent, declines putting forward any information, evidence, minimal or dated testimony stating “all in due time” and that they are “too busy” to answer legitimately posed questions, but that the other side should be forced to present a “better plan”.
I don’t recall this being considered the basis of a good debate. Have debate standards changed ?
” Satire rich material, no comments. Why do you think that is? “
A complete absence of creative talent ? I’ve never understood the appeal of Dunning, but then some people like plain yogurt . Personally, Davis has gifted me with a great three act melodrama, I’m just waiting to finish the third act, as many of you are, no doubt . The characters provided are almost too stereotypical . My greatest regret is that Harvey Korman is not with us to play the ego-maniacal lawyer .
Biddlin ;>)/
No, medwoman, it has not been a good debate. I’m not even sure there’s a pretext of reasoned debate. The lack of reasoned debate is not restricted to the surface water project; it’s common to many of the contentious issues covered here. The Vanguard might consider whether it is part of the problem or part of the solution. My comment here is not to bash, rather a nudge for some reflection.
You can’t have a community become so unhinged over a basic/critical need (water), so unwilling to rationally explore practical solutions, without some reflection on how we devolved to this level. [Side note: It can’t all be Saylor’s fault!]
-Michael Bisch
MB
With a little self reflection, I see from your response that I was too vague in my query.
There is the question of the quality of the debate on the Vanguard and the rest of the Davis media.
There is the quality of the debate that took place at the WAC.
There is the quality of the debate that took place at the various forums.
There is the quality of the debate as it plays out at the Farmer’s Market and perhaps at other public venues
of which I am not aware.
I do not consider the quality of the debate to have been uniform across all of these venues. However, with recognition of biddlin’s point that “some people like plain yogurt” ( the only kind I like ), perhaps all of these formats have their place in the discussion. I just continue to have high hopes for this particular venue and will continue to try to engage at a higher level here.
I suggest we give some consideration to rust49’s point about deleted posts. In the political arena, I think there is an interesting discussion related to the growing lack of cooperation between groups at all levels of politics. As we search for answers for how and why something as critical as our waterworks system can lead to such a divisive and somewhat person debate, I think we should be open to some expanded dialog. Personally, I think the explanation and potential remedies ARE incorporated into a handful of causes at a national and even global level.
I think one cause is leadership… or more exactly, a failure of leadership.
The leadership that our current President demonstrates is a populist-driven divide-and-conquer style. In practice, Obama’s work to head off sequestration is similar to how Mike Harrington attempts to defeat or succeed on city measures that match his worldview. Leadership is always top-down… with the top levels of power and authority benefiting from an amplification of persuasion. But, that amplification syndrome also captures nuance. Similar to how a Kate Middleton can affect global tastes for clothing styles, Barak Obama can set the global tone for how leaders should behave in an advanced democracy like ours. No matter how much we agree or disagree with our President’s ideas; there is no debating the fact that Obama’s leadership style is divisive. And since a President sits on top of our national leadership hierarchy, his style is amplified and emulated across the political spectrum.
The media is the machine that drives this amplification.
The Vanguard and the Davis Enterprise are part of that machine at a local level.
So, in some respects, deleting Rust49’s posts on this topic is evidence of the very thing wrong. The media is failing to explore the root reasons and causes of divisiveness while it criticizes the very thing and inconsistently attempts to police it.
Personally, I would like to see the VG stop deleting posts all together except for clearly offensive, derogatory or highly vitriolic content. First, it is next to impossible to prevent the perception of bias… if not the actual, although probably subconscious, apportionment of bias. Second, there are plenty of readers and contributors of the VG site that would appreciate some of that deep-thinking content. Thirdly, I would like to have a dialog that allows us a broader pallet for problem-solving… especially the problem of political divisiveness.
Lastly, there is a saying “If we can’t talk to each other, we can’t learn to trust each other. And, if we don’t trust each other, we won’t likely talk to each other.” The problem here is that trust is not an action, it is a result. You cannot just demand that people with different views demonstrate greater trust. The only way to develop trust is to talk. Deleting posts stops the talking and hence destroys any hope that we can grow trust. I think we should be careful and minimize the posts we delete.
Ok, Jeff, I’m happy to discuss this up to a point.
What you have done here is put the national issue in context with the local issue, and explained it. Now. I completely — and I mean completely — disagree with your assessment of President Obama. So I could begin discussing that, and we could go on and on about that. As we’ve done before. But this thread is about the local issue: Bob Dunning and the water project. So we would take it far off topic.
What rusty has done, very often, is simply make a comment tying the local issue to the national politics. He takes the opportunity to criticize the President, or liberals, or whatever. It actually is a troll-like behavior, because clearly it isn’t intended to further the discussion (unlike what you have done here). Lack of context, coupled with his obvious intent of simply taking jabs at liberals, has caused me to remove them. He sees a bias. That is quite possible; by its nature, moderating a blog is subjective.
So I look at a couple of things when I’m making a quick judgment about removing a post: intent, context, and the likelihood of causing off-topic discussion. I also consider whether the individual posts under his/her own name, or a pseudonym, and give more latitude to those who post under their own names. rusty failed this time on all counts, and unfortunately that resulted in posts being removed. Nobody likes it when I do that. But the goal was to keep the thread on topic. So I’m sorry if he took offense to the point of leaving the Vanguard, and I hope he at least reads this explanation and understands my intent.
Don, wasn’t it you or maybe David, that admonished commenters for outing people that choose to use a pseudonym?
Shoot! Yes! Sorry, I’ve corrected that. Thanks, Skip.
I would like to make another point about the editing.
It is not possible for Rusty, or anyone else to objectively assess whether or not they are being singled out for editing. If others are being edited it is possible that you simply do not know it because you have not seen their post. I say this because a comment that I made was edited along with Rusty’s. I recognized that I had been drawn off topic and did not comment on it. Now, since I am about as liberal as you will find here, I can hardly support the claim that only those on the right are edited.
However, I would make a suggestion for Don which might be to notify of removal of comment and site cause, or perhaps move to the bulletin board. Then the poster would be heard, even if not in their first choice of venue.
Medwoman: ” I would make a suggestion for Don which might be to notify of removal of comment and site cause, or perhaps move to the bulletin board. Then the poster would be heard, even if not in their first choice of venue.”
In general I think removing posts should be a rare occurrence, but if it is necessary to do so for some reason, I think it should be done in a way that is obvious. Instead of removing the comment entirely, leave behind the poster’s name and time stamp, with the text replaced with ‘this comment has been removed because it was off topic…’ That way it would be obvious to all what has occurred.
A better solution would be to move the post to the bulletin board as Medwoman suggests, however I think that likely would just kill the discussion as most readers (including me) rarely go there. I think the best solution would be to start a new blog post entitled “Saturday’s off-topic rants” and move the offending comment to that location. The new post (and discussion) would then remain on the front page and anyone wanting to chime in would be free to do so. This could be especially valuable if the off-topic comment was something that would be a valuable conversation as Frankly suggests. The original comment stream can then remain ‘pure’ to the intended topic. This would be more work for Don, but I think is a more open and transparent approach to a difficult task.
This comment has been moved to our Bulletin Board: Is Obama the most polarizing president ever? ([url]/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=1062&Itemid=192#1062[/url])
Note: The general demonstrated public perception of this Davis City Council is very positive. I think Mike Harrington stands out quite a bit continuing to criticize them while the vast majority of Davisites seem to have a very positive view of this council from the work of this council.
What I see is more people getting along and working together because of the leadership of this council – say compared to a Ruth and Sue-era council. So, I’m not really in agreement that Davis politics are truely more divisive. I think it feels that way at times because of the blogging, but it distorts reality.
The water issue is contentius mostly because it will hit the pocketbooks of many people very hard… and the rate structure creates winners and loosers based on some forced social engineering and environmental correctness goals.
Frankly: “[i]The water issue is contentius mostly because it will hit the pocketbooks of many people very hard[/i]”
The new rates will hit a small percentage very hard. The vast majority won’t notice the difference once they realize that their total bill is less then what they pay for their mobile phone service. It is contentious primarily because the impact of the new rates has been exaggerated beyond belief with false statements, unsupported allegations and an emphasis on emotions. When we use facts and data as the focus of our discussions the conversations are much less contentious. The current Council is very good at focusing on the facts and not on the emotion of the issue and we could all benefit from following suit.
Semi-side topic… perhaps we need a new blog site: the ‘davisrantguard’.
Interesting thought hpierce. I wonder how the discussions of Measure X would have played out on the Vanguard?
David is not a one man media Tsunami?