Propaganda defined

Marge Kaiser opens some eyes with Propaganda defined:I wonder which journalism class teaches these techniques.
(and I wonder if any course leader could make use of some modern-day examples )

posted by Anna at 3/31/2006 01:06:00 PM | Comment

 

On using anonymous weblogs as a source of information

There's nothing deep here; don't bother reading this post unless you're allergic to (or overly accepting of) anonymity.

The (chronologically) previous post links to two anti-Doolittle weblogs, both of which are anonymous.
The public health blog Effect Measure is also anonymous, as is The Oil Drum.

Some people are inherently opposed to taking information from anonymous sources; and it's true, you can be more easily misled if you don't know who's doing the talking or what their hidden motives might be.

But you can also be misled if everybody knows who's doing the talking; the speaker will then be less likely to share unwanted truths.

So if you want to get those unwanted truths, you need to allow anonymous input; and, at this stage of the ecosystem at least, and with the ubiquity of linkage (so you can go back to the original source and calibrate the speaker's judgement), blogs, when their contents are inhaled and weighed with care, can be of great value.

Your mileage may differ. But if it does, you might want to think about where you're getting your information from, and how well it's kept you informed.


That being said - I haven't read the two anti-Doolittle blogs enough to vouch for them. So you weigh the info, calibrate it, take it with salt - but you also check out the links, which typically are sourced.

posted by Anna at 3/31/2006 12:37:00 PM | Comment

 

Republican-county-politics info (with a digression)

TPM Muckraker is a good source of info on Doolittle - overview, posts.
Individuals' sites that post about the latest Doolittle-related information are Nite Swimming and Dump Doolittle.
(I do wish the tone was a little less snarky for some of these, but info's what's of value)

Thank God for blogs.

For balance: Others beg to differ - "A URL is not a mark of quality...millions of terabytes of unreliable information, badly designed and clumsily written...We have failed our own creation and given birth [to] something truly awful. We're just too busy cooing over the pram to notice."
(Depends on where you choose to hang out, I guess - the salons are there, but so are the outhouses; and sometimes someone will make a mess in the salon... Just goes to show how crucial media literacy has become.
And if anyone thinks that they're better informed by their local newspaper's Opinion section... )


Via Nite Swimming, this recent Rex Bloomfield column in the Auburn Journal puts the pieces together to paint a coherent picture. "follow the money..."

Relevant background info on Placer County (and Doolittle?) politics lurks in this Feb. 2002 Sac News and Review article on a struggle for control of the Republican party in Placer County. Starting a few paragraphs down:

posted by Anna at 3/31/2006 11:37:00 AM | Comment

 

Grand Juries, Ramirez, Klein, Ackerman

I have not met Ramirez or Klein; my information comes from papers and the web only.
(I have met Mr. Ackerman)

From the Sac Bee's Grand jury: Sierra trustee sowed chaos:
The Bee article came out last Friday; the Union covered the news Saturday - but, as of a week later*, they have had no Opinion on it*.
Which would seem curious, given the splash the report made...
but less curious given the tone and substance of Jeff Ackerman's column* (here or here) from last year, written after he met with trustee Aaron Klein:

Some highlights from the Placer County Grand Jury report:


Placer County's Grand Jury seems unlike ours; compare the level of detail and clarity in their report* to last year's Nevada County Grand Jury report on mismanagement and intimidation by the Board of Supervisors.

I wonder if we could hire them to investigate a case that's like that of Ramirez.

posted by Anna at 3/31/2006 12:18:00 AM | Comment

 

Of grayhounds, fluffy bunnies, and single-minded dedication

I barged in on a discussion between some friends of a different political orientation the other day, and I just nailed them. Here* is what I said:

You guys are like grayhounds - all Rush Limbaugh has to do is wiggle a fluffy little Hillary bunny (or a fluffy little Ted Kennedy bunny) in your field of vision and you're off, straining with every sinew of your bodies, pursuing it in leaps and bounds with single minded dedication...

Paying absolutely no attention to what's happening in your surroundings or the disasters we're in or the ones that are coming.

They were dumbstruck*; I had hit a nerve.

I felt very wise.

Until this afternoon, when a comment made me see that I have fluffy Hillary bunnies of my own.


it's embarassing, to be so easily manipulated.

posted by Anna at 3/30/2006 06:46:00 PM | Comment

 

Correction(s) to publisher's column from yesterday

updated Fri 3/31 - related link, observation, quote mangling.

Swift Newspapers certainly picks their publishers with an eye for quality.

It was on The Union's Opinion page, so maybe "the whole truth" is optional, but publisher Jeff Ackerman's "white flight" sequel column from yesterday appears to contain an inaccuracy.
He quotes and responds to a comment:This is not the explanation given in the American Journalism Review; go to the 5th paragraph from the bottom (or search for "small paper in California") to read it.

Obviously, motivations are complex, and it's likely there were several factors at play; but presumably Jeff is aware that ascribing her departure to "getting tired of being stared at" is misleading.

And he's also molested the quotations - turning one person into 3, fusing others, grafting onto them his own exclamation-mark-laden emotional state.

The tone of this column however is somewhat improved over its predecessor, and Jeff does respond to some of his critics, both in the current column and in a comment in the previous column's comments. But I'm hard to impress; I want to see if he can match Bloggin' John Robinson for courage.
Not that it'd be easy; to my knowledge, no other editor or publisher has done so.

One last thing: in Jeff's aforementioned comment he said:And he's right. Unfortunately, you don't get constructive conversation when the original column consists of scornful us-vs-them finger-pointing. The way to get constructive comments is to write a thoughtful, respectful article about the problem, ask your readers to share their insights, and, in general, work with other factions, not take pot shots at them. Warfare begets warfare, not teamwork.

(and if you want to tell me that we preach what we most need to learn...you've got a point.)

posted by Anna at 3/29/2006 07:10:00 PM | Comment

 

Criteria for comments

Last updated July 11.
(still evolving; if you have suggestions, please share them in comments.)
(And when you start getting irritated reading this, skip to the bottom.)

Comments were straying - ok, stampeding - from the Platonic ideal of thoughtful and open-minded civility, so as of early July 2006 I've turned on comment moderation - which means I look at your comment before it gets published, and I only publish comments that follow these guidelines.

1. Use your real name or adopt a* pseudonym; we need to be able to tell people apart.
   (On the comment submission form, if you click the "Other" radiobutton under "Choose an identity", you'll be able to enter it there.)
   
   
2. Informative civil dialogue is the goal here - not a "paintball fight at close range"* or free-floating hostility or other ritual warfare-related program activities or payola punditry OR derogatory info about people's personal lives OR - aw what the heck - "attacks".
   
   Comments that aren't civil will be criticized, ignored or deleted.
   As for what civility is - to quote Yubanet, you know it when you see it.
   
   As a community, we in Nevada County haven't had much experience with informative civil dialogue. Here's why it's worthwhile. Here's how it works:
   
   
   • The "dialogue" part -
     "Dialogue" is a back-and-forth where the participants address each other's points and answer each other's questions. It's not taking turns with monologues, and it's not ignoring or just plain refusing to answer on-topic questions.
     (mine, at least.)
     
     And in the ideal, it's also not "debating" - debating is about scoring points, dialogue is about teaching and learning.
     In the ideal.
     
     
   • The "informative" part - say what you know, say what your level of certainty is, say how you know. Give readers the info (and links) so they can calibrate you.
     
     
   • The "civil" part -
     
     A civil comment is one that doesn't stoop to name-calling, that scores low on the scorning-and-shaming index, that doesn't sound like it came from Rush Limbaugh or his enantiomer*. It deals with issues, not with personalities, tries not to label people, tries to work toward solutions and not to foment conflict.
     
     Keep in mind that intuition and "common sense" aren't always the best guides to acceptable behavior; we're social primates* and we didn't evolve to be fair to other "tribes":
     
     
     • For illustration, Ed Cone's Don't Talk While I'm Interrupting
       
       
     • For a tool, Joshua Marshall's Clinton test -

       When I come across something fishy from the [opposition], I try to use what I call the Clinton Test to keep myself honest and steer me right.... the Clinton Test is quite simply, how would I react to situation X if [the one doing it] was [of my tribe (or vice versa)]...
   
   
3. Act your age. If your moral development got stuck at the second-grade level,* please go check out the many websites where you'll feel right at home, and will be welcomed by your spiritual kin.
   
4. Rule of thumb: when the hackles are up, step away from the keyboard.
   
5. The blogger does not always set a good example; feel free to point it out (gently) when I slip up.
   

---

to put these strictures in context:

Sorry for the holier-than-thou tone here; trust me, I've been a lot less holy than thou in the past - but now I make up in enthusiasm for what I lacked in aptitude.

posted by Anna at 3/28/2006 08:11:00 PM | Comment

 

Update, on The Union's online comments

Follow-up to Saturday's Speechless post, on The Union editor Pat Butler's column (and its comments)

I called Pat this evening and spoke with him. Should have done this earlier; he sounded like a reasonable human being, didn't hang up on me or bite or snarl or even foam at the mouth, at least not audibly.*

And a Tuesday update - every test comment* that I've submitted in the last few days has been posted on their site. Kudos to those who can still learn new tricks.
(if it lasts)

================================================
Tangent -
Ethics question, feedback from journalist(s) requested:

I had called Pat up to try to arrange a meeting - thus the Q&A that emerged instead was spontaneous, not planned - and it wasn't until after the conversation that I realized that the information that came from it ought to be online - but I'm still grappling with journalistic ethics so could use your feedback: should I have waited to post about it until I got his explicit permission?
- if there are no bombshells, if it's a straight exchange of information, if the individual who became the interviewee is offered free use of the "comment" link to correct any misinformation? (am I really supposed to call him back - waiting until tomorrow, if he's already left for the day - and say "may I post the information you gave me?", or is that overkill?)

=====================================================
If I do need to call back and get explicit permission, please stop reading here.
=====================================================

This weekend I'd commented*:
There was no online reply.* But when I asked via phone, he said that, first, comments that were basically one-to-one communications would not be published, such as "Kady, what happened to my comment?" (?? or "[publisher] hasn't answered my questions; if you have questions for him too, submit them at my blog*"????? - which is not a one-to-one communication, so it seems there's a consistency issue here) - and second, that false statements wouldn't be published: for example, allegations that a particular comment was edited before being put up on the site (he reiterated to me that they do not do this, that it's purely a yea-or-nay decision).

He was sounding reasonable/backtracking on the anti-bloggers sentiment too, said it was not their intent to keep us bloggers from participating(??) (and an "I've posted about this over on my blog _here_" comment from Russ did get published), although I still got the feeling that he finds it painful, to allow outbound links to sites that criticize the paper.

Time to haul Lex Alexander's Working in the Glass House: Newspapers in the Age of Blogs, Grassroots Journalism and Transparency back out again-
==========
Postscript:

When you're mistrusted in the community, silence combined with a bad user interface and/or buggy software will have synergistic effects, and not in a good way. I had submitted a test comment last night*, which, despite Pat's swearing up and down that he had given it the thumbs-up, wasn't present ...
...or so I thought - but, looking more carefully, found that once again I'd been hoist by my own logical-fallacy petard - the comments' default display is "show oldest first", and it does; but, it didn't show newest comment (mine) last, but instead buried it in the middle of the pack.

and - were this any paper but The Union, with its past several years of historical baggage - I'd just assume that the burial was due to a bug in their software.

posted by Anna at 3/27/2006 06:45:00 PM | Comment

 

From the Blue Plate Special, observations on newspaper blogs/comments

(These bear on yesterday's "speechless" post.)

Some relevant quotes from PressThink's Blue Plate Special -

posted by Anna at 3/26/2006 01:23:00 PM | Comment

 

Speechless - The Union's comments policy and practice

(FYI, there's a sequel)

Monday update# and Sunday update# appended.
(and, as usual, minor edits; added/removed quoted sections)
--------------

Read the whole thing. Please, if you're from the blog world or care about journalism, read the whole thing.


The Union's editor, Pat Butler, wrote his weekly column today on The Union's comments system (which involves pre-moderation, which is keeping them very busy*).

It starts out reasonably:

then it continues

Here are the comments of mine, that were apparently too tasteless to appear on The Union's site:*:

Kady's most recent blog post is on their comments too, but it seems her understanding of the policy was different, and reasonable:Poor Kady. I don't think she's the one driving this policy.

-------
Sunday update:

I should follow my own advice*, and not blog when the emotions are fresh.

Pat's column does show integrity ("say what you do and do what you say") - so they're not "silently deep-sixing comments" anymore, it's out in the open. Yes, you still have to read between the lines a bit to get the true policy, but it's a step forward in transparency to state that 'editing' of comments (via selective deletion, of whichever ones the editor wants) is occurring.

To put it into "George Washington and the cherry tree" terms - George isn't stonewalling on the cherry tree, he's saying "yes, I do cut the warped ones down, and which [other] ones I choose to cut down is none of your business."#
So do you criticise George for the act, do you express gratitude for the increased transparency, or do you criticise him for his conviction that using his own arbitrary standards is acceptable behavior? (and if the latter, do you use "high road" reasons ("public trust", "town square") or "low road" reasons ("you'll be left behind")?)

(as usual, we at NCFocus are prolific with questions, less so with answers)


For reference,
The Union's written comments policy*:So how does this bear on the deleting of civil comments -
- does asking someone a question that they don't want to answer constitute an attack?
- or did I make an error of logic, in having assumed that "if sins, then delete" also meant "if not sins, then don't delete"?

The former question brings to mind an old Scott Rosenberg quote:
Monday update, re George Washington metaphor: Keep in mind that George's much older brother is standing on a nearby grassy knoll, thumbs hooked in his belt, within range of the proceedings.*

posted by Anna at 3/25/2006 05:48:00 PM | Comment

 

Qs for the local paper's publisher

(Sat. eve update: not unrelated, see Doug McGill (aka Localman) on The Coffee Shop Warriors of Minnesota-Somalia)

Friday afternoon updates -
that's funny... a comment I'd posted to Jeff's column Wed.* eve, suggesting that people with questions come here and add them, doesn't seem to be up over there. I've just now asked Kady, over in her comments (it'll likely be #4, if it gets approved); am hoping she will find out and reply.
It'd seem to me that if your paper is already widely viewed with distrust, silently deep-sixing comments would be unwise.

And no answers from Jeff, when I emailed these questions to him.

Any guesses as to who wrote this?:

Speaking of empathy ... we need more of it from our leaders today. One of my Christmas gifts was a book titled "The Power of Servant Leadership." Inside are some characteristics of a servant leader (whether it's a CEO, or politician) that include the ability to listen, empathize, heal, be aware, persuade, conceptualize, have foresight, practice good stewardship, and be committed to the growth of the people and building of community.*

[edit]
--------------


The Union Publisher Jeff Ackerman's latest column (akin to Feb 28's) drew plenty of comments (including someone's analysis of that column's logic); this comment's from me:
Response from Jeff: none so far.

So I figured it's time to collect some questions for him, and post them here, and drop him a line requesting answers. Feel free to submit yours in the comments, if any come to mind.

So, Jeff Ackerman, publisher of western Nevada County's newspaper -

• should community leaders involve themselves in community discourse?
  
• is it ok if they limit their involvement to one-way broadcasts, or should they engage in dialogue?
  
• should their commentary be respectful of others, or should it caricature and belittle them?
  
• is the publisher of a regional newspaper, by definition, a community leader?
  
• does a community leader have a responsibility to reply to questions posed respectfully?

Thank you for your time.

Anna Haynes

posted by Anna at 3/22/2006 09:38:00 PM | Comment

 

Error correction in Nevada City: tourist trap repair

Fortunately, Nevada City staff is a lot more on the ball than the blogger, who's been intending to post this for days now.

Date: last Monday
Time: 9am
Action: Called City Hall to report a broken meter cover in the sidewalk on South Pine St., leaving a hole for the unwary pedestrian to insert foot and break bones.
"Whose meter is it?"
"I don't know*. Could you ask Vern* to take a look at it sometime today, and see if he can find out, and get the responsible party to fix it?"

At next sighting, the spot was covered with a board and had traffic cones on it;
at next sighting, a utilities truck was on the scene;
at next sighting, the repairs were complete.

Thanks to all. And thanks too, on behalf of someone who isn't thanking you, who's blissfully unaware of their accident averted.


And a drinking water quality update: it continues to be excellent.

posted by Anna at 3/20/2006 07:44:00 PM | Comment

 

Winter endurance tips

Update: Pioneer Park as seen on the first day of 'spring'



The speck in middle of the photo above

is a border collie racing after a killdeer, with seemingly inexhaustible energy

--------------------

"They" may say this upcoming Monday is the first day of spring, but we know better.

To help you make it to spring:

• Winter driving tips from Kady Guyton
  
• Footwear tip: a pair of YakTrax or Get-A-Grip Ice Cleats will help you remain upright when walking on snow and ice, if you can find them; neither product seems to be available in western Nevada County.
  
• Frozen door lock tip: carry a small lighter with you; heat key before inserting in lock. Thanks again Sally!
  
• If you're parking where there's nighttime frost, park under a tree or cover the windshield.
  
• For keeping warm indoors, without having to deliver your firstborn to PG&E by winter's end:
  
  
  
  • Live in a subset of your house; let the rest stay cool.
    
  • electric heaters: my experience has been that the cheap heating-element-and-fan ones don't last; the oil one does.
    
  • Kmart sells microwavable flannel-covered gel packs for $10; buy two, so you can nuke one while sucking heat from the other.
    
  • they also sell those Mylar(?) "emergency blankets", which reflect heat and so can be put over your aged single-pane windows, if you don't mind taking the tinfoil motif to distress-the-neighbors extremes.
    
  • radiant heat barrier (the aforementioned 'emergency blanket'?) under the mattress pad
    
  • fingerless gloves; the alpaca ones from Asylum Down are wonderful.
    
  • long underwear.
    
  • a piece of Reflectix can be made into (short-lived) insoles for your slippers.
    
  • next year, have the sense to insulate and weatherstrip before the advent of cold weather.
    

And consider taking 1000IU of Vitamin D daily - many to most of us are deficient, by this time of year, and it matters:
vitamin D deficiency is behind musculoskeletal pain:Studies have shown that higher Vitamin D levels also cut the risk of developing multiple sclerosis by 40% and many cancers by as much as 50% (here's the meta-study)

posted by Anna at 3/17/2006 06:23:00 PM | Comment

 

Katrina (and other) cottage links

Mar 20 update: "What's wrong with flash" clarified below.


I am besotted.

SP Times' The house that Katrina built ("14 by 22 feet plus an 8-foot-deep porch with bench seating...same size and price as a temporary FEMA trailer...")
(a few more photos)

SF Chron's The little house that roared:
What if small were fashionable?


The Katrina Cottage designer's website, Cusato Cottages - sadly, it's pure Flash.*

Garage conversions into accessory dwelling units actively encouraged in Santa Cruz (also covered here; Santa Cruz docs on it here):
On teardowns, obese houses, and diversityof house sizes in a community:
katrina housing pdf - designs from a charette - are available via ftp at
ftp://129.171.38.228/msforum/Rep_Architecture.pdf

Housing other refugees - Nevada City homebuilder Greg Zaller's tin and strawbale houses are constructed in earthquake-ravaged Pakistan.

-------------

posted by Anna at 3/16/2006 09:11:00 PM | Comment

 

Nevada City Council candidates (NCFocus scoop)

Mortgage broker (and current Nevada City Planning Commissioner) Sheila Stein and attorney Barbara Coffman are challenging incumbents Kerry Arnett and Conley Weaver for their seats on the Nevada City Council.

Mark my words, it will be an interesting race.


Disclosure: I know Barbara.

---------
Edited Apr 21: Added links, fixed occupation.

posted by Anna at 3/13/2006 09:36:00 AM | Comment

 

Welcome new residents

Updated.

Let's extend a warm welcome to the new residents of Nevada City.
(and hope they won't be staying long)

East of the freeway:
*

West of the freeway:
Monday:

Tuesday, showing ravages of age:

posted by Anna at 3/13/2006 09:27:00 AM | Comment

 

interesting reading...

...on editor Bruce Anderson of the Anderson Valley Advertiser. If you're local to Nevada County, you should read it.

(The Anderson Valley's on the other side of the state, but there are similarities)

posted by Anna at 3/08/2006 08:50:00 PM | Comment

 

Classic column, and comments

Friday update: in response to my 'trackback' email requesting corrections*, Jeff demurred ("That would only provide credibility to your efforts.") Local bloggers Sadie and Russ have contributed comments.
.
----------

This morning a coffeehouse friend alerted me to the most recent column by Jeff Ackerman, who is publisher of Nevada County's local paper The Union, one of the Swift Newspapers chain. If you're not familiar with Nevada County or The Union or its publisher, please read this very informative column.

Jeff also recently wrote this characterization:

Not wishing to engage in screeching, caterwauling etc, I'd like to extract what I believe to be the logic of Jeff's column. (And Jeff, or anyone else with greater skills in perception or logic than me, if I got anything wrong, please add a comment to this post, to set me straight.)
(I tried to strip out the hyperbole/strawmen/caricatures and emphasize the logical assumptions; while this does make the arguments less entertaining, it also makes their substance more visible.)

The logical statements/arguments/assumptions from Jeff's column:

• Longtime local developers who are known to be nice, good people can be trusted not to 'despoil'* a community.
  
• If one can traverse an intersection with ease at 7:15 a.m., that intersection is not a "traffic problem".
  
• For people to despoil a community, they must set out with 'despoiling' as their goal.
  
• Any project which only increases an existing problem by a small degree should be handled as though it does not increase the problem at all.
  
• People who oppose these projects should run for office, instead of trying to oppose the projects as citizens.
  
• People who oppose these projects tend not to go to community fundraisers (at least not the ones that Jeff sees his "builder and leader" friends at).
  (BTW, to anyone who missed the one for Hetty Williams' daughters...you missed something special. Thanks to the members of the Key Club and their supporters for putting this together.)

Remember, corrections in the comments to this post...I'll incorporate them if any come in.

Some comic relief in the column's comments:
This one's good too, on a more substantive level:*

posted by Anna at 3/02/2006 08:52:00 PM | Comment