(for those who've tuned in late: Jeff Pelline is
Has The Union been engaging in the same practice (of printing stories from other papers without permission) as its sister paper the Greeley Tribune?
As of 4pm Tue., he's given me no on-the-record answer*, and hasn't been willing to answer another question*. But for those wanting to learn about how and what he thinks, you can do it:
- Informally, on NCFocus, he's engaged in dialogue in the comments* to this post, and has also left comments on other recent posts (in here, here and here)
- Formally, in the paper, he has a Saturday column, and yesterday, authored a less than laudatory(he disagrees with this description) Commentary on An Inconvenient Truth's having won an Academy Award* for Best Documentary.
(related - earlier this month, The Union ran this column against global warming, written(?) by an associate editor from Pittsburgh, who handed the floor to Timothy Ball, who said things like "the widely propagated 'fact' that humans are contributing to global warming is the 'greatest deception in the history of science.'" and "There never were holes in the ozone, by the way", which floored many of us, including our own Dr. Jim Hurley.
Feb 28 updates:
- to their credit, The Union
-40- *
(Confidential to Russ and others: please don't
15 comments:
It is quite a coincidence that two editors in a row have kill filed you.
Of course, how long until you are 'silently deleting my comments on your website'?
Darn - I was hoping for an answer to the question.
Anon, please adopt a pseudonym, if you're uncomfortable putting your words under your real name. But keep in mind that using your real name would give your words more credibility.
To other readers -
Anon's comment brings up a valid question - how can readers who don't know the principals judge our credibility and reasonableness?
I think I have an answer...which involves another question for Jeff P.
:-)
OK, here's the second question:
(Jeff, I'll send a heads-up to Dixie R on this to let you know about it; the Q is optional, since it has a default "yes" answer.)
Like the first one, this is a yes-or-no Q, so shouldn't take more than a minute.
----------
The commenter above raised an issue whose resolution entails another question:
Back in 2005, The Union started a very nice WordPress weblog, that ran from that spring into the summer. There were some good posts, with interesting discussions in the comments.
(IMO, they got especially interesting when the paper unilaterally decided to bring an end to my "pseudonymous blogger" status, after I'd specifically requested that they not print my full name.)
But after a few months, without advance notification, that blog and its comments were deleted from the web.
(And I couldn't get anyone to tell me why, or whether it would/could be resurrected.)
(It was replaced with a suite of reader-unfriendly "pseudoblogs" that slowly died.)
Question:
(If I don't get a "no" by Tuesday, I'll take that as a "yes")
If I can dig up the pages from The Union's original blog, is it ok if I put them back online?
(better yet would be if The Union posted them, but I realize that's asking a lot; I'm willing to do the work and find a site for them.)
I'm asking this because I think that first blog and its comments provide the best overall picture of how the paper and community (including me) interact.
(and I'd like to let my readers see it, so they can see what you mean :-)
thanks -
Anna
One thing I continue to misunderstand: Why, of all the places in the world, am I beholden to Anna Haynes' Web log to discuss this newspaper's practices. Especially when I don't believe this is a forum that can objectively analyze the issues, and especially when I have no idea what the ethics are of this site (publishing a personal conversation for example, then deleting it).
The last example is this Tuesday "or else" threat of dredging up a two year old axe to grind.
The whole approach seems so entitled. It's why people don't like the "mainstream" press.
Can't you just take "no" for an answer? I'm sorry if you disagree, but I think I took the time to respond and state my rationale.
JeffP
BTW, I'm the editor of the paper, not the managing editor. You can find our titles on the masthead in the print edition. Tks.
Darn it - I was (still) hoping for answers.
:-}
But thanks for stopping by anyway, Jeff.
(and thanks for clarifying job titles, which are confusing to outsiders*)
But I have to disagree pretty strongly with your points:
-----------
* "I have no idea what the ethics are of this site ..."
The site's ethics are laid out in the Profile and Policies page, under the "Ethics" sub-head of "The Weblog" section.
(There's a link to this page on the blog's left sidebar, just under the Archives links.)
* "... (publishing a personal conversation for example, then deleting it)"
From the aforementioned Ethics section: "I would probably bend the rules on changing/deleting a post if it involved someone else and in some way the original wasn't appropriate."
(The reason I'd posted that account* was that I thought it could shed light on the situation, in a way that was sympathetic to you. I deleted it upon realizing that, if I was off base in my assessment*, posting it was not appropriate. And your criticism* reinforced this. But if you want that section restored, let me know.)
* "[another example of a questionable action is] this Tuesday "or else" threat of dredging up a two year old axe to grind."
I don't believe that's an objective summary of my second question (from the comment right above yours). Here's how I'd summarize it:
"Would you mind if I republished material from your newspaper's heavily-promoted first public weblog, that contains community discussions I was part of, that was active online for months before being removed (with no prior notice and no explanation*), in violation of standard "community website" practices?"
That isn't a threat at all; it's a request, in line with questions* I've been asking ever since the blog disappeared.
Doesn't "objectivity" mean "reporting that accurately reflects the original situation?"
* "Why... am I beholden to Anna Haynes' Web log to discuss this newspaper's practices[?]... The whole approach seems so entitled..."
Yes, it does. And - if you don't feel you're accountable to readers, or if you think "accountability" means something besides "having to answer the tough questions" - it probably does seem high-handed and arrogant.
Recently The Union's readership editor said "We're accountable"; does that include you? Who are you accountable to*, and what does "accountability" mean to you?
* "...Especially when I don't believe this is a forum that can objectively analyze the issues"
Empirically, we do seem to disagree on what constitutes objectivity; witness the "axe to grind" statement above.
...but - as I've mentioned previously - the great advantage of being interviewed on a weblog (if the proprietor hews to standard blog practices) is that you can correct any misimpressions in the comments, and let the readers judge for themselves.
(or you can respond in The Union or in a blog of your own, and just have reciprocal links between your response and the original interview.)
-----------
Recent advice from blogging editor John Robinson: "Bloggers demand accountability... and newsmakers are well-advised [to refrain from blowing them off.]"*
Anna,
You're still not listening. I am accountable to readers everyday - answering their "tough" questions by phone, in email and in columns. (Why we use anonymous sources, our newsgathering practices, etc.) In fact, I answered the one you raised just this morning.
I also have had lunch with Russ and will soon meet with Martin. We exchange emails regularly and in some cases agree and in other cases disagree.
I choose not to participate in your forum because I don't think it's objective. I do not think you are seeking the truth. I think you have an axe to grind.
As for your ethics policy, sure I saw that, but you seem to bend the rules when it suits you. That's OK; at least you admit it.
I hope you correct mistakes, too. The other day Dixie told me you thought our paper was owned by Swift, the trucking giant, and she had to bring this error to your attention. That's a big mistake.
In journalism, sourcing is based on trust. As a journalist or blogger, you have to build trust with your sources. One day I hope we'll have that relationship.
Oh I get it. You have enabled comment moderation. I wondered why the post didn't go through. Is this a new policy?
Darn it - I was (still) hoping for (on-the-record) answers.
:-}
Jeff (I'm assuming the above 2 comments are from Jeff Pelline), thanks for stopping by again.
Addressing your points -
> I am accountable to readers everyday - answering their "tough" questions by phone, in email and in columns.
As long as you get to pick which questions to answer, and to decide which of the answers will be on the record, is that really accountability?
If I may serve some Scott Rosenberg (a favorite around here):
"...The value journalists continue to provide in a 'disintermediated,' Net-enabled world -- when they are doing their jobs right, of course -- is to continue to ask public figures the uncomfortable questions that they won't choose to answer on their own."
Same goes for citizen journalists.
> I choose not to participate in your forum because I don't think it's objective.
Of the Nevada County weblogs you read that address coverage in The Union, which ones do you believe are objective?
(or at least, more objective than this one)
> As for your ethics policy, sure I saw that...
guess I misunderstood - I'd assumed that "I have no idea what the ethics are [on] this site" meant you hadn't yet seen that section.
> but you seem to bend the rules when it suits you.
I beg your pardon?
Please be specific; which rules have been bent? (If a person realizes they've used questionable judgment, right after posting something regarding a third party, what would be the ethical action to take? )
(and to reiterate - if you'd like me to put the info back up, let me know.)
> I hope you correct mistakes, too.
Again from the Ethics section of the Profile and Policies page, that I'd pointed to in my previous comment:
"Publicly correct any misinformation - Yes"
I believe you're correct that there's not enough listening going on.
and, to keep up my end of our ongoing "less erroneous than thou" contest -
> Dixie* told me you thought our paper was owned by Swift, the trucking giant, and she had to bring this error to your attention. That's a big mistake.
Yes, it certainly would have been a big one. However, I didn't make it. (We might both benefit from doing more fact-checking before asserting.)
It sounds like there was a glitch along the the me-Dixie-you communication chain; my Swift-vs.-Swift doubletake lasted for several seconds, and was the main point of the post, which had started off with "Why it is good to read carefully, but more entertaining not to."
(AIRC I'd thought Dixie's comment was just pointing out that the "different Swifts" punch line wasn't clear enough)
> I do not think you are seeking the truth. I think you have an axe to grind.
Again:
We might both benefit from doing more fact-checking before asserting.
----
Finally, a couple of reader-friendly blog-practice requests:
1) on the Comment form, if you click the "Other" radiobox, it'll let you type in your name (so you won't accidentally show up as just Anonymous, leaving us guessing; comment trolls will sometimes try to take advantage of this sort of ambiguity)
2) when you refer to bloggers, or to statements from elsewhere on the web, it helps to link to what you're talking about (e.g. Russ, Martin ) or provide some other references.
(In other words, if you say "I answered your question in the paper", it's best if you provide a title or, better yet, the URL; that way, readers don't have to go to a lot of work to find out which question you answered or what the answer was.)
(which question did you answer, and what was the answer? )
thanks.
----
p.s., regarding comment moderation - I turn it on or off, depending on tone, activity etc. It's not about you or your comments.
(I'd say "trust me"... :-)
A few thoughts:
•You broke ethics rule #4 by posting, then unposting, information about a personal conversation. it never should have been posted in the first place, as you agreed.
•You broke rule #3 in a post on Dec. 7 (supporting media censorship) by not mentioning/updating that we also disclosed the "public official" as barbara coffman in a followup column by dixie on that very day. we were trying to protect her identity until she said it was OK.
•Some people wonder about your "conflict of interest," (rule #5) being a relationship with former Union staffers who are disgruntled. I wasn't around but I hear that.
•I find yours the least objective blog about the Union, not just compared to ones in Nevada County but anywhere. Again, you seem to be pursuing an "agenda," not the truth. Have you ever praised The Union? How many times?
•I do not get to pick what answers to choose from the public. I answer all of them related to policy. Just not on your blog for the previously stated reasons.
•It sounds like you did confuse the Swift ownership issue as Dixie suggested if only for a "Anno second."
Again I look forward to building a relationship based on trust and being a source down the road.
-JeffP
Sorry Jeff, I guess i didn't make the 'profiles and policies' page clear enough. The listed rules (in bold) are Rebecca Blood's rules ("Rebecca Blood's The Weblog Handbook suggests some weblog ethics:"); for each one, I state whether I accept it and, if not, why not, or under what circumstances not.
(you'll see I've extensively remodeled Rebecca's #4*; sorry if that wasn't clear.)
"The nice thing about blogging, [if you're truly curious] you can judge for yourself" - Here is the post Jeff characterizes as 'supporting media censorship' and breaking Rule 3("Publicly correct any misinformation"), and here's the Swift post; please also check out the more objective local blogs by Russ and Martin.
> "a relationship with former Union staffers who are disgruntled"
- I am really looking forward to actually meeting one, someday.
> "Have you ever praised The Union?"
If you go back to the first year or so of posts, yes, it happened fairly frequently. Relationships develop over time...
Jeff, regarding your unwillingness to be interviewed by me because of concerns about objectivity, here's a thought -
How about if I agree to publish your answers verbatim*? That way, you wouldn't have to worry about their getting slanted, and you could use them to report any slant in the questions.
*a clarification, to cover the bases - "verbatim" but still subject to basic standards of decency, of course. (Not that I think it'd become an issue; just want to make the rules unambiguous, since we seem to have misunderstandings.)
what's your circ?
-JP
Somewhat lower than yours.
:-)
If you want more details, I could provide them in exchange for some details* about The Union's circulation; but since my previous experiences trying to get circ info from the paper were like pulling teeth, you should probably consult with the publisher before agreeing to this.
A.
p.s. for-the-record pedantic correction to prior comment: the "other Swift co." was the meat-packing Swift, not the trucking Swift.
A response from Jeff P (to the "writing about global warming" part of this post's Tuesday update) got posted to the wrong ("arguing about global warming") thread. I'm deleting it from there, and reposting a copy of it here:
Once again Anna proves that her bias is so thick "you can cut it with a knife." Dare to question the hypocrisy of Hollywood in "going green" or the politics of the Oscars (as the New York Times and others have since) and you are labeled "less than laudatory.") If you read the column AGAIN I took a neutral stance on the film and global warming ("whether you agree with the premise or not"). My friends know who I voted for in the Gore-Bush race. But that's not the point: It's about seeking the truth and - in this case -- calling people on the "red carpet." Guess what Anna? Mr. Ball and Russ Steele are entitled to their opinion and so is Mr. Hurley. Trouble is around here, if people disagree with you it becomes personal. One footnote: when Mr. Hurley began getting flammed on our Web site, people jumped to his defense, blaming the paper for its "comments policy." Folks, including "progressives" -- if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen!
First - I gotta say, Jeff, I think this is good for both of us. I'm learning just how ambiguous and unclear my writing is, to someone else; you're learning (or at least hearing, or at least about to hear) how readers interpret what you write.
> "Trouble is around here, if people disagree with you it becomes personal. "
no comment
> "when Mr. Hurley began getting flammed on our Web site, people jumped to his defense, blaming the paper for its "comments policy." ...if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen!"
I haven't read through all the comments for his column (the format's too awkward) but I suspect his defenders weren't blaming the paper for its comments policy (which states "no personal attacks"), they were blaming the paper for not enforcing the policy. (The first comment, "As one of the far left extremist I would expect nothing more from this writer", does sound like a "personal attack", don't you think?)
If the policy used to be "no personal attacks", and it is now "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen", then you should update the written Guidelines to reflect this.
And I wasn't the only one who interpreted your Inconvenient Truth commentary as "less than laudatory"; I heard someone (who's even tempered, is not an environmental activist, and is a longtime subscriber) say that people in the community should cancel their subscriptions to the paper and send the money to Al Gore.
Post a Comment