The Union - where rhetoric and reality meet, in mortal combat

Updates at end of post.

While the recent rhetoric was noble (The Union Readership Editor Dixie Redfearn saying "we're accountable"(link), and The Union Managing Editor Jeff Pelline saying "feel free to provide feedback and suggestions"(link)), the reality was not:

A civil, on-topic column comment providing feedback&suggestions - pointing out that the workings of The Union have not been transparent, and suggesting that the editor state publicly whether he'd be willing to grant an interview to this citizen journalist - was silently deleted from the editor's column comments, and it's been made clear that
a) I am not to request an explanation for why it was deleted
and
b) I am not to explain how this was made clear.

What a strange, secretive world.

------

(apologies to those of you who feel that the paper gets too much attention from this blog. you're right, of course, but when that red cape comes out...)

------

The story, with emphases added:

Readership editor Dixie Redfearn's otherwise worthy Friday paean to journalism strayed from honoring the profession to trash-talkin' those upstart bloggers:

Do you really want to get information on political candidates from a blogger? How can you trust them?... Newspapers, whether in print or online, will always give you in-depth information, and if we make a mistake, we correct it. We're accountable.

(I responded with what became four comments, in here, which ended up making the points that corrections aren't always made, that when they are made, it's not always done in a reader-friendly fashion, and, implicitly, that some bloggers do it better.)

Managing editor Jeff Pelline's next-day "Let's 'kick it up a notch' around here" column stated:

We sometimes come under caustic, cursing soliloquies, such as the one I received Friday from the woman at my favorite hair cutter in Nevada City, after a polite introduction. But the outbursts rarely include enough constructive comments to do anything. So be specific. If you're bringing up something that happened years ago, it's hard to help you.
...
We hope you like the changes we are making. As always, feel free to provide feedback and suggestions.

In the column's comments, I asked:

Hey Jeff, could I interview you on-the-record about the paper, sometime in the (likely near) future?
(also, just asked Dixie in a comment, what the paper's policy is, on online corrections - perhaps I should ask you instead...
Thanks
Anna
p.s. great news on the new govt reporter!

Jeff P.'s reply comment:

Anna,
Hello. As you know, we're trying to keep these message boards focused on the subject matter at hand -- in this case, a column that is not about any of the subjects you've raised. (albeit the P.S.) Reply to Dixie's column, where warranted on corrections, and as I've suggested before, why don't you just contact me directly about other requests? [555-1234]. Thanks!

Phoning leaves no paper trail, so instead I emailed:

>Hello again Jeff, sorry to terrorize you (though I *do* do it with my real name :-))

Would you be willing to let a citizen journalist (me) interview you about The Union?

(not an off the record chat, an interview)
thanks
Anna
p.s. it wouldn't be immediately - I want to finish and write up several of my uncompleted projects before taking up your time.

and I also posted the following online comment (which initially did get published):

Jeff P., this (current) comment addresses your request (in the column) "feel free to provide feedback and suggestions"; it also addresses your request (from your comment above) "why don't you just contact me directly...?" (when I asked if I could interview you in future)

My (free) feedback and suggestions:

Feedback: The Union is insufficiently transparent about how the paper operates. This is a longstanding problem; it started long before you joined the paper, but it is continuing.

Suggestion: Given that sunlight is the best of disinfectants, increased transparency (on the workings of the paper) could help to effect great improvements in the paper, particularly with regard to the "informing the readers" metric.

So, in short - please consider consenting to an on-the-record interview. Wouldn't it be only fair to give citizen journalists on-the-record interviews, since you expect us community members to do this for your journalists?

or at the very least, if your answer is "no on-the-record interviews", say it out in the open.

thanks (hope i've pointed out how this comment is apropos to your column, hope you'll consider it, sorry to put you on the spot) -
Anna

This comment, with its request that Jeff Pelline (as editor) give a public answer to my interview request, was subsequently deleted from the his column Comments page.
In a reply to my email, it was made clear that no interview will be forthcoming. (I'd like to share the reason given, but since I'm told email communication is private, I expect this would be considered impermissible.)

What a strange, secretive world.
"If you can't blurt out the truth, what business are you in?"

----------------
Updates:

~2pm: had second thoughts, removed a section of this post.

4:45 pm: Jeff Pelline dropped by in the comments (thanks Jeff) explaining why he felt justified in declining to be interviewed. No explanation about the deleted and censored comments though.
(beyond the original deleted comment, twice today I attempted to make a 'trackback' comment at The Union (on the column comments page) alerting Jeff P.'s readers to this post; neither one appeared.)

Confidential to the "Heinz 57 questions" commenter, should s/he run across this post: what are the 57 questions?

or - gawd I'm slow, it really did only just now occur to me - was the "57 questions" comment ("Hey Jeff, could I interview you with 57 questions where I expect explicit answers? As a truth teller, I hope that you would reply in kind and not just stick me in the recyle bin like your predecessor.") just meant as a parody of my (deleted) "Jeff, may I interview you" comment?

Oops. like i said - i'm SLOW.

(fyi, no more email interview attempts upon reluctant interviewees - it takes too long, and it makes stonewalling too easy.)