The website is up, and very nicely done. Go explore it, lots of excellent stuff there on what The Union could be, vs. what it is now.
But here at NCFocus our glasses are habitually half empty (as is the cranium behind them), and we are not a team player, so a couple of critiques:
Not addressed(?): the structural bias produced when the editorial page features only two regular local columnists (publisher and editor), one of whom forcefully pushes a right-wing agenda, the other of whom reflexively avoids politics altogether. The problem has been pointed out; the apolitical editor has defended his stance, but without acknowledging that an imbalance exists which a fair newspaper would take action to rectify.
The NCCRJ website currently shows a single-minded focus on replacing The Union's publisher, and thus has a bit of a "publisher is spawn of satan" tone to it. While it's true that he's extreme, your correspondent believes the pro-development, anti-citizen-empowerment bias of the paper is structural, and thus would continue - more subtly, but still effectively - if he were replaced. Perhaps it's better to keep the devil you know...
Stale blog offering Perspective on ideas, issues and life from Nevada County, California - belaboring the obvious since 2003
Thursday, December 02, 2004
5 comments:
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.
Hello Russ and thanks for stopping by.
ReplyDeleteShort answer: nccrj.org isn't my website; while I do agree with its premise that The Union's publisher has acted egregiously, I am not advocating that he be ousted.
Longer answer: I'm not comfortable with there being no names on that website either, but I understand there was some concern about possible reprisals. I don't know if the nails-in-driveway, tire slashings, threatening phone calls etc still happen up here, or if the reprisals were more likely to be economic, or if it's a reasonable thing to worry about at all these days. But if they don't know either, given the past track record of political activists in this county, I can't say I blame them for wanting to fly under the radar. Hell, look at me... :-)
Hello Amy, and thanks for the heads-up on the Kearns piece ( here ), which I had not seen.
ReplyDelete"Eric Engles has never spoken to Jeff Ackerman..."
I've sent an email to Eric asking if he'd characterize his and Ackerman's non-meeting the way A. did in the article; will report on his response. I'm a little skeptical: Mr. Ackerman doesn't answer my emails (which are civil), and Swift CEO Arne Hoel never did return my phone call...so the "we're willing to talk, but the other guy isn't" talk doesn't match what I've experienced.
P.s. Amy, Blogger says your blog is reportersunited.blogspot.com, but when I went to visit, I couldn't find it. Is that the wrong URL?
ReplyDeleteFrom the article:
ReplyDelete> [EE:]"I think he's going to be so angry at me now, especially when the Web site goes up, that there's no chance of us having a civil discussion."
Not so, said Ackerman. "I sent him a card saying
'I'm not leaving, you're not leaving, let's get a cup
of coffee.'
He hasn't heard back.
Anna to EE: "Is this how you would characterize [the message]? if not, what did it say?"
EE: "That's an accurate characterization. However, I received the card after Jeff Kearns interviewed me. And, I accepted Jeff A's offer--we are going to meet sometime in mid to late January."
Read the Jan. 12 post on the Bee article error - which does change the picture painted.
ReplyDelete