What's been going on with local politics

Much that I did not know, about who's driving recent events in local politics, in Sac News and Review:

This year, Doolittle went so far as to lobby Nevada County supervisors to appoint a Republican activist to replace the retiring clerk-recorder. The board initially appointed the candidate, Fran Freedle, but later reversed itself after controversy arose about Freedle’s lack of experience.
...
One GOP political consultant, who did not want to be named, said it’s uncommon how Doolittle “controls people all the way down to school board.”

Added Nov. 17:

Something seems to be going around.

An intriguing piece on David Parker and his entourage:

A band of carousers has rallied behind its beloved bartender following his alleged firing from a Nevada City saloon, forming a rapidly growing drinking group called "Sparky and the Shifters."
...
Just weeks after losing his bar job, Parker also lost his seat ["21-year tenure on the Sierra College board of trustees"] in a bid for re-election Nov. 2.

Parker - founder of the Marching Presidents in the annual Constitution Day Parade - called his dismissal from Cooper's two months ago "a parting of ways" and would not comment on the reason. "It is personal. I don't discuss that," he said.

Neither would his former employer, Rick Mackenzie, who threatened to sue The Union if the paper wrote a story about Parker's exit.

"It is nobody's business," Mackenzie said. "If this is printed, you'd better have good legal counsel."

More on Doolittle - and background on the man who Parker lost to - in this Feb. 2002 Sac News and Review article.

Engles' letter to Swift, and its context

Short on time? Here's the link to Eric Engles' letter advocating publisher regime change at The Union.

Otherwise, keep reading...

------------------------------
Background and context:

The nice thing about blogging - you can judge for yourself. Please follow the links below, and form your own opinion.

The Union's publisher has long gone over the line, in the eyes of many local residents, most recently with an extended and one-sided pre-election attack on one candidate. (Jim Hurley nails it)

In response, Grass Valley resident Eric Engles writes a letter to Swift Newspapers Inc * requesting that the publisher be replaced, and sends it out with an email exhorting others to do likewise.

The Union's editor sees the email and letter, and appends a slanted and demonstrably inaccurate account to the end of one of his weekly columns.

A letter writer who responds to this with a call to replace editor too, receives a [legally] threatening email from said editor.


The Union's publisher makes light of Engles' points in one of his weekly columns.

When Engles requests space in the paper to respond to the publisher's and editor's columns, the editor offers "a word for a word" justice:

Since my reference to your campaign was 300 words tacked on the end of my column, I would be glad to accept 300 words from you in reply.

One of the 300 words is a link to this page. (Opposing views here and here)
----
Jan. 20 update: changed the 'title' tag for the link to publisher's columns.

Local relevance, from elsewhere

Comments sparked by a post last summer by Kevin Drum on government restrictions in rural areas:

Fact is, we are a lazy group we humans, and must be compelled to spend time or money on each other if the result does not attract fame, the opposite sex, or a happy meal.*

I can hardly think of anything upon which a national political party has less influence than local building codes. From my somewhat limited experience, the more conservative a community the more codes there are which apply to the things which are allowed or not allowed in that city. Forget septic tanks and electrical wiring, how about whether or not you can have a fence in front of your house or what type roof you can put on it? I have never heard of any example of the Republican party taking over a town and then immediately going to work on local building codes.*

I really think it understandable that a person growing up in the city, where close proximity makes for more rules that are necessary to keep people from stepping on and harming one another would have a less strident reaction to "invasion" of his privacy by regulation than a person whose family for generations has done what it damned well pleased on its own land.*

Some of the rural types who want the govmint off their achin' backs reside on federal farmland subsidy land and use federal- and state-funded roads to get to their government-funded schools and hospitals, powered by semi-public utilities, to get their farm products promoted by state-run agriculture departments.
They're often just speaking out in their own economic self-interest...*

country folk are *genuinely* social conservatives. Social conservativism may be used as a pawn of the Republicans, but that doesn't change the genuineness of the folk's social conservativism.*

Part of what building codes do is make a commodity market. I can buy fish out of the back of someone's pickup truck, I suppose, if the state didn't make the seller have a license and certain safeguards, and take my chances. I'm not buying much fish, then. But I can't expect a market to work efficiently if every purchase has to be tested by the buyer before it's finalized.*

When it comes to winning support from ordinary people, there is a big difference between reactive and proactive government measures. Government regulations intended to prevent crime, or forest fires, or home fires, or epidemics, or environmental degradation, etc. are very unpopular, and are seen as the government being a meddlesome nanny. On the other hand, when the government fights an existing fire, or crime, or environmental disaster, this is viewed very positively by almost everyone.*

Some good reads

Not short though, and not pointed. (Also not dull)

Inside the mind of a Southern Baptist

Dan Froomkin's Tougher political coverage needed - but does it mean an end to impartiality? (via PressThink)

Clay Shirky's latest: Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software

Rocky mountain high

Nov 11: toned down the prose.

He climbed cathedral mountains, he saw silver clouds below
He saw everything as far as you can see

The web and Google will do that...

Kudos to Chris Cobler and friends at the Greeley Tribune:

Burlington, North Carolina's Times-News and Colorado's Greeley Tribune have similar circulations and hometown demographics. Yet while the staff in Burlington's newsroom is practically all white, Greeley’s is diverse. What does Greeley do that Burlington doesn't?

The persistent reader may be surprised.


A leader in the press community:
See Chris Cobler's post today, A Q&A on the Trib's teacher editorial, in which he responds to a reader, point by point, disagreeing, but with respect for the reader and with respect for the facts, thus engaging in a constructive public dialog with all his readers, and showing by example how it's done. And, as is his wont (and our want) he links to the pages being referenced, and to others on the same topic.

Swift Newspapers contact information, and our position

Yes, we do take reader requests. In response to the most recent request, we've pulled together all the Swift Newspapers contact information:
(copied and pasted from multiple places; 100% accuracy (e.g. of titles) not guaranteed)

Swift Newspapers, Inc.
500 Double Eagle Ct.
Reno, NV 89521

775 850 7676

President: Arne Hoel
President of the Board: Richard Larson
Personnel Manager: Debbie Spieker-Martin

With commitment to integrity
We bring light to truth
Excellence to endeavor
And strength to community

Our position, arrived at after some reflection:

NCFocus will not be joining in the call for publisher regime change. What Swift Newspapers decides to do is up to them. We do believe, strongly, that a community needs to have a news source whose publisher values and encourages civil community relations and problem-solving, but it need not be The Union.

Nonetheless, we would like to point out that the newspaper's current appellation does not epitomize truth in advertising.

Two quotes, one perspective, much irony

Nov.7: sorry, can't count, three quotes now.
Nov. 8: they're breeding like rabbits - four

Nov 8 Clarification: We wish to make it abundantly clear that sections of the paper, articles in the paper, whole issues of the paper are excellent! Do not take personally, please, ye of the infantry who valiantly sally forth and shed blood, sweat, tears to inform the public.


Publisher Stephen Waters:

We may "own" the local media, but we consider we hold it in stewardship for the community.

Most likely found over at Ed Cone's a while back:

"My father told me many times when I was growing up: 'Son, a community is never any better than its local newspaper.'

"I have come to find truth in Dad's statement, and I believe those of us who have the responsibility for managing newspapers must realize the vital role we play in the life, growth, tone and tenor of our communities. It is a sacred trust and we must treat it as such."

Doc Searls, touring the Santa Barbara News-Press:

Our tour guide, the photo editor of the paper, talked about how hard it is to get new subscribers when so many readers were getting their news elsewhere, or just seemed to give too small a sh*t. Yet he remained no less motivated, for the simple reason that daily papers remain highly civilizing forces for the regions they serve, and he felt privileged to be part of one.

Former Nevada editor:

I take my responsibility very seriously and I understand full well the responsibility we have to our community and to you, our valuable readers.

Confidential to Swift Newspapers

Two issues:

First, your archives have serious (new?) problems: at least two articles show the same (wrong) publication date of May 13, 2002: this one from The Union, and another from elsewhere in the Swift Newspapers chain. So presumably it's a much more widespread problem.

Second, we look forward to having our phone call returned.

Stuckey for Publisher

Nov. 5: added link to 1st letter which was published today; minor wording; renamed post to reflect current sentiment; appended Editor's comment on this post.

Here we present an email exchange triggered by The Union Editor RS's Oct. 30 attack* on Engles. If you don't have time for the blow-by-blow, skip to Ms. Stuckey's excellent second letter, which is awesome on all fronts. We need more of her ilk in the press.

(Added links, but restrained self from bolding the more interesting passages.)

Letter to Editor:

I have lived more than twenty-five years in small towns and more than twenty years in urban areas, with both left-leaning local papers and conservative-leaning papers. Yet in no community before this one have I seen so much personal attack pass for journalism.

Your report of Eric Engles's critique of this paper (10-30-04) was incomplete and inaccurate. That you misquoted his e-mail and dismissed his criticism without responding to, or even reporting, its substance defines the very term bully pulpit. You've only proved his point.

I join in the call for the resignation or dismissal of [publisher]--and [editor].

Priscilla Stuckey

Editor's emailed response:

Ms. Stuckey:

Regarding your letter to the editor, sorry if you feel that I hurt Dr. Engles' feelings. Certainly, you are correct that I dismiss his criticism. Nor did I respond to it, because it was not addressed to me. However, you say I misquoted his e-mail, and I am curious as to where.

I wrote that Dr. Engles feels [publisher] is divisive because he has different views. The e-mail says [publisher] "doesn't just opine: he accuses, distorts, misleads, slanders and propagandizes." That is just a harsher way of saying he has different views.

I wrote that Dr. Engles keeps counterviews out of the paper. The e-mail says, I'm assuming in reference to [BC]: ". . . did he get to tell his version of the story and rebut the slanderous charges? Not in [publisher]'s paper!" Dr. Engles knows as well as I do - or should - that [BC] has had multiple opportunities to tell his story in The Union. And, by the way, your counterview will be printed as well, weak as it is.

I wrote that Dr. Engles said [publisher]'s role extends beyond the opinion page to include story selection, wording of headlines, etc. The e-mail says, "[publisher]'s abuse of his position as publisher of the sole local newspaper extends beyond the opinion pages . . . " and then goes on to list the ways. Again, of course, inaccurate.

Why would Dr. Engles distort the truth? Or for that matter, why would you? You tell me. (By the way, you may want to point out to Dr. Engles the difference between slander and libel - which, incidentally, you both are doing by defaming me personally in writing. Do you have a good lawyer?

Regards,

_________________
[EDITOR]

Stuckey replies:

Dear [Editor]:

First of all, let me say how much I enjoyed a couple of your recent editorials [(columns)], especially Wrestling with the Myth of Objectivity (8-7-04) and Deconstructing Jacques Derrida (10-16-04). Thoughtful reflections on the history and theory of journalism are always welcome, and I take a special delight in them.
I also appreciate the conciliatory tone of today's editorial (11-3-04). After twenty years in the business of words (book editor and writing consultant), I put a great stock in the tone of words.

So I was terribly disappointed to see your editorial dismissing Eric Engles's critiques (10-30-04) and equally disappointed in your dismissive letter to me. Your suggestion that I may have thought you "hurt Dr. Engles' feelings" suggests that the worst disservice done was hurt feelings. Feelings are important, but the issue here is not feelings. Reducing the issue to feelings trivializes Eric's critique (and mine) and trivializes also the harm you can do through editorials like that one.

On these points your editorial was inaccurate:
- Eric does not add his credentials "even the most casual of e-mails." I've never known him to do it in an e-mail, and he doesn't even do it consistently in his columns. To say that he "affectedly" does so is to adopt a patronizing and ridiculing tone.

- Eric did not issue a call to "Dump Ack." His said "Dump [publisher]" or "Dump Jeff," and he referred to the publisher in his letter as "Jeff" or "[publisher]." Your misquote adds a belittling tone to Eric's letter that was not there.

- He didn't "demand" that [publisher] be fired. "I request that you consider replacing [publisher]" is the exact quote. A request is rather different from a demand.

- "Mr. Engles' declaration of his values . . . is that since [publisher] has different views than Engles, he is being divisive": This is just the opposite of what Eric said. He said he had no problem with opining but took issue rather with distortions and their like: accusations, slanderings, and propagandizing. That is not "just a harsher way of saying he has different views," as you claim. You are a man of words; you must recognize the difference between presenting an opinion and presenting an accusation.

One more example of inaccuracy. In your letter you say that I am defaming you. I believe one of the requirements for words to be defamatory is that the accusations are false. As you can see, I have evidence of inaccuracies. In a previous letter to the editor I did suggest that the paper was libeling [BC] by accusing him of wrongdoing before investigating the story, and I still believe that to be true. Accusations of wrongdoing that in legal terms amount to criminal misconduct, presented before any investigation and repeated after no evidence of wrongdoing is found: Please tell me what's not libelous about that. The ending of your letter to me-"Do you have a good lawyer?"-does nothing to disprove my claim (and Eric's) that the paper is being used as a bully pulpit. Bullying is hardly appropriate in private correspondence, either, especially from a newspaper editor to a reader who is criticizing editorial policies.

Last night I watched part of Barack Obama's victory speech. With regard to bringing people together, he said, "We found ways of disagreeing without being disagreeable."

In addition to the smearing and character assassinations of recent editorials, it's the disagreeable tone that disturbs me greatly. Words matter, and how we use them matters as well. It matters that [publisher] denounced [BC] as lacking in integrity before reporting the facts-it's unconscionable, in a publisher-and it matters as well that [publisher] riddles many of his editorials with derision-why? to up the entertainment factor?-rather than adopt a respectful tone of disagreement. It matters that your public response to Eric failed to present his criticisms, and it matters as well that it was patronizing and dismissive in tone.

Last night I took a break from election coverage to tune in to a book event on C-SPAN. In it, British author Jan Morris made a plea for kindness as the only thing that in the end matters. Is it possible to have a little more kindness in the official voices of the paper? Kindness needn't mean soft-pedaling or nicey-nice. It does mean, though, a level of civility and fair-mindedness that has been missing from many editorials (like [publisher]'s from yesterday, 11-2-03).

Civility from the powers-that-be at the paper would do two things: it would help defuse tensions (instead of inflaming them); and it would also allow people to absorb more of the real facts of an issue. Because, as we know, emotions running strongly can inhibit thoughtful reflections: readers who agree with [publisher]'s ridiculing, for instance, only end up laughing gleefully, while those who disagree only end up feeling shut out of the public dialogue. Is this deepening of existing divisions really what you want?

Words are serious business, and the misuse of them in the instances I have cited are serious business. I stand by my requests for changes in leadership at the paper. In my Letter to the Editor that you are taking issue with, I call for replacing you and [publisher], and if I see no changes in the paper, I will continue to call for that.

What I really want, though-and what I hear many thoughtful people throughout the community also wanting-are changes in editorial policy, toward greater civility, fair-mindedness, and accuracy as the bases for editorial opinion.

If today's editorial signifies such a change, I welcome it.
Sincerely,

Priscilla Stuckey, PhD

Note: Editor RS responded to this last missive with a quite cordial email, the meat of which was this:

My purpose in tacking a few paragraphs [attacking* Engles] on the end of my column was only to open Eric's campaign to public scrutiny, and to clarify two points - the openness of our opinion page to all views, and the separation of Jeff [publisher] from the news operation.

* Note II, added Nov 5: Editor RS disagreed with the wording above, saying this:(reprinted with permission)

I think you're overreaching to call my few paragraphs at the end of an unrelated column an "attack" on Dr. Engles. It was more in the nature of turning over a rock. If I wanted to actually attack him, I would start a community effort to have him fired from whatever job he has.

Suggestions from the blog culture:
1. You gain status if you provide your readers with access to the content that you're criticising.
2. Keep your words sweet; some day you may have to eat them.
3. Threatening legal action in response to reader criticism is not going to look good.

On letters and credibility

Minor correction and clarification: election letters page is still online, your correspondent is a moron. However, it's still true that once they scroll off that page, they can only be found by keyword search.

Added Nov.15, incorrect statement regarding availability of election letters 'by date':
from editor's Sept 4 column New election letters policy launched:

All election letters - including those that appear in print - will be found online easily online, either by date or through a word search.

Here's what happened to JD's missing "oust publisher" letter to the editor (JD email:"They deny deep sixing it...I checked every day and never saw it."...[RS]:"even though your letter calling on him to be fired had been published on The Union's web site Dec. 2"):

It got published online on Oct 2, and is available here.

But guess what? It wasn't published in the newspaper. It was only published online, since it's an Election Letter.

JD probably thought his letter was about firing the publisher; it mentioned no candidates. But no, since he used the word "elections" ("gross attempts to dictate the winners in supervisorial elections are just the latest in this pseudo-journalist’s demagoguery.") it is an election letter.

So the letter presumably got published on the [no longer extant] "Election letters" page of The Union's website, from whence the letters would scroll off the page and into invisibility after a couple of days (as described here). At this point, no, you cannot find them by browsing, or by using the Archives' "Search for a specific date" (other letters will show up, but not yours) - no, you have to "Search by Keyword". Yes, the same "Search by Keyword" that's silently defective in finding older articles.

Informing the readers is a priority. But which priority is it?

It certainly didn't help The Union get good PR.

O for directly addressing reader concerns

Yes, there was an election. Results were ugly, coworkers were ugly, friends were lost, NCFocus will deal with it some other time.

Minor edits below, plus Swift Newspapers phone number.

For this week, the Union's publisher writes his column about Engles' letter advocating publisher's departure. He didn't address the substance of Engles' complaints; as far as I could see, the column is all humor and digs.

Now there's a guy in town named Eric (he knows his last name) who says he's got a Ph.D. and wants all of us to know because he uses it every time he writes his name.

Et tu, Brutus...Come on, boys, you used to be reporters; unless you know for a fact that something is true, don't say it. It's your own opinions you're entitled to, not your own facts.

[Engles' letter says that] Mr. Ackerman (that's me)...plays fast and loose with the facts...

I've been working with my boss [ Arne Hoel ] for maybe 15 of the 20 years I've been with the company. This isn't the first time someone has asked him to fire me.

From the Swift Newspapers ( 775 850 7676 ) website:

Our newspapers are run with local autonomy by publishers and management teams who are leaders in their communities.

How does "local autonomy" differ from "lack of accountability"? Is it true that as long as advertising revenues are healthy, Swift Newspapers allows the publisher free rein to treat the community as he pleases? What does it mean to be a leader in one's community? Is it merely a statement of fact - that one has power? Or does it imply that the publishers and management teams are to be responsible community leaders?


Arne, enquiring minds need to know.

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

We got traded.

NewsInc, 3/25/2002:

Publishers: In Nevada, Peter Starren has been named publisher of the Nevada Appeal in Carson City. Starren, the former publisher of The Union in Grass Valley, Calif., has also been named general manager of the Tahoe-Carson Area Newspapers cluster of Swift Newspapers Inc. of Reno, Nev.

Jan. 10 2002: Ackerman to replace Starren as The Union publisher

Mission: Succession (1997):

Corporate execs describe Jeffrey E. Ackerman, publisher at Carson City's Nevada Appeal, as a "wild man," "competitive" and quick to act. Swift Newspapers of Reno bought the property in mid-1995, amid a border skirmish with the neighboring Reno Gazette-Journal. It ain't over yet.

"This is a war, war is hell, that's what's going on here," Ackerman mutters...

Confidential to "war publisher": the scorched earth policy does not go over well with the locals.

Behind the curtain

Nov. 4 and 8 updates are at end of post.

"The nice thing about blogging - you can judge for yourself."

The correspondents:
JD: Master of ceremonies, pillar of the local arts community
JA: The Union's publisher
RS: The Union's editor

The supporting cast:
CF: The Union's entertainment reporter; also the witness
DR: The Union's readership editor
BC,FF: Local citizens recently in news

The event:
The Haute Trash fashion show featuring a cornucopia of stunning outfits, including dresses and miniskirts fashioned from wine corks, yogurt tub tops, a biodegrading copy of Be Here Now, a deteriorated hammock, foam from the Ananda garbage dump, discarded eighth place ribbons from the Draft Horse Classic, an entire projector reel of the 2002 blockbuster hit Bruce Almighty, and Nevada County's newspaper, The Union.

As the paper-clad model paraded onstage, Master of Ceremonies J.D. deviated from the original script, describing her dress as follows:
(verbatim, from tape)

Well, what's black and white and read all over...It's The Union newspaper!

Elise makes The Union look good, which is hard to do, in this three-piece collegiate apparel. It's the best use of The Union we've seen in years - next, of course, to feed for the worm pile, fodder for the paper wasp nest, or lining for your kitty litter box.

The pleated skirt, short waist jacket top and necktie turns The Union from a rag into riches.

Now in all fairness, wedoappreciate ouronlylocalnewspaperfocusingonlocalnews withmoremajorhappeningsonthehomefront.

And The Union sure uses its power to create disparity; wouldn't it be wonderful for The Union to remember their name and create community too?

[from Elvira Mental Werks, thank you Elise! oh, yummy...]

When [publisher] resigns I'll buy a newspaper.

With JD's permission, we offer the resulting exchange of emails without comment.

(We are extremely tempted to comment - we find some of the accusations and appellations fascinating - but for your sake we are making every effort to keep our big mouth shut.)

Email from Editor RS to JD:

Mr. D:

It has come to my attention that on Friday evening you used your role as emcee of the Haute Trash event at the CftA to launch a vicious political diatribe against The Union.

With Prospector [entertainment section] editor CF - who had featured the event on the Prospector cover - in the audience, you used your position to further a vendetta against publisher JA, even though your letter calling on him to be fired had been published on The Union's web site Dec.[actually Oct.] 2.

Mr. D, I understand that in your tirade you scolded The Union for its lack of civic responsibility. In fact, The Union shows more civic responsibility in one day than you could accomplish in your lifetime, and has done so for 140 years. This is the same newspaper and publisher that offered repeated support and praise for the very CftA in which you chose to unleash your crowd-pandering harangue.

When our Readership Editor, DR, suggested to you by phone this morning that the occasion of your outburst was inappropriate, you replied that it was your "right" to do so.

True, we're thankful that in this country we have the right to an opinion, and I'm not going to call on you to be fired for having yours. However, we also have the right to choose with whom we wish to associate.

That's why I have asked that from here on, requests to The Union for coverage of any events with which you are involved, beyond [text-only several-line blurb] mention in our community calendar, be screened through the editor first. That screen, you can be assured, will include assurances that your personal jeremiads be reserved for a more appropriate time and place.

JD responds:

Mr. S,

Surely you are aware that your publisher's "editorials" have stirred much controversy and that he is widely seen as someone who is partisan and who is using his position to tip the election.

If stating "I'll buy a paper when JA resigns" constitutes a political diatribe, then so be it. If stating that "The Union should remember its name and foster union in the community rather than be a divisive force" strikes you as vicious, then I suggest you re-read the rhetoric which appears in your own paper.

As I told Ms. R, I take full responsibility for my comments and hope they will in no way reflect on the CftA or Haute Trash. I also told her I found your own editorial standard much more judicious than Mr. A's, and that, as she urged me to do, I would separate the paper and its staff from Mr. A in my future statements. It appears, however, that you too are enamored of your bully pulpit, and that your overt threat to blacklist events in which I am featured provides overwhelming evidence of The Union's heavy handed foul play.

The letter to the editor which Ms. R and I discussed that was deep sixed was sent a couple weeks ago, not a letter that may have been published on the website only Dec. 2.

I'm sure you won't mind if I share this your letter and my response with friends.

Sincerely,

JD

From Publisher JA to Editor RS, presumably cc:ing JD:

Thanks for sharing, Rich.

Mr. D is among those who confuse divisiveness with opinion. I suspect that anything Mr. D disagrees with, such as, "BC violated (at the very least) the spirit of the conflict of interest statutes when he created a job for himself with your public money," is "divisive."

I suppose he doesn't consider Michael Moore "divisive." Nor, I suspect, did he think we were "divisive" when we called on the supervisors to recind their decision to appoint FF to the Elections Office post because of her connection with the GOPs. Nor, did Mr. D screech when I called the GOP Central Committee Chair on his e-mails regarding a planned Quaker meeting at the superintendent of schools office.

Why? Because Mr. D is a hypocrite. The worst kind, really.

His screeching - and that's the best way to describe his rants - is typical of the kind of bully tactics he and his "friends" use. They've been bullying this newspaper for years and they finally met someone who is not going to cower under their howels.

Too bad Mr. D hasn't called to chat about his issues, preferring instead to perform on stage in front of his "friends and associates." Probably because he is unable to articulate a reasonable argument.

Some might even call that kind of behavior....well...chickenshit.

J.

Updates from the principals:

JD, in Nov. 4 email:

...Haute Trash for me is a cabaret act. The character I portray as the MC is over the top. In fact, two years ago, I challenged [publisher] to a duel from that very stage...

Editor, in Nov. 8 email: (by permission)

I only spoke up about the Engles thing to defend freedom of speech, but [publisher] can defend himself. I got in [JD]'s face to see how he liked having some nut threaten his livelihood (he apparently didn't like it at all), but in fact have no interest in worrying about [JD] or Engles or any of those folks. I encourage you and them to fully exercuse your constitutional right to voice your opinion.

"Dump Jeff" letter from Eric Engles PhD

Also available: Engles' "cover email" (which he sent to his email list, introducing the letter)

Here is the letter (advocating a change of publisher) that The Union's editor criticized in his most recent column (emphases and links added):

Debbie Spieker-Martin
Swift Newspapers, Inc.
500 Double Eagle Ct.
Reno, NV 89521

Dear Ms. Spieker-Martin,
According to Swift Newspapers' mission statement, the publishers who run your various newspapers are "leaders in their communities." In complete agreement with this laudable goal, I feel compelled to express my concern that Jeff Ackerman, publisher of The Union, is not running the paper in a way that befits a community leader.

A publisher who is also a community leader would strive to gain the respect of both conservatives and progressives. He would be fair-handed and civil, focus on issues instead of personalities, give those he disagreed with the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity for rebuttal, not react defensively in the face of criticism. Mr. Ackerman does none of these things. His tenure as publisher has been bad for the citizens of Nevada County, and, as I'll argue below, bad for Swift Newspapers.

As the only local newspaper in western Nevada County, The Union has a key role in disseminating information about the issues facing our community and being a forum for public discussion of these issues. Under Mr. Ackerman, the paper is handling this responsibility very badly.

Mr. Ackerman feels free to use the paper as his "bully pulpit" for preaching his politics, helping out his influential friends, and advancing his version of reality. Of course it is Mr. Ackerman's prerogative to express his opinion in his own signed columns and the paper's editorials-and if that's all that he did I would have no quarrel with him, despite that fact I disagree with his political positions most of the time. The problem is that Mr. Ackerman doesn't just opine: he accuses, distorts, misleads, slanders, and propagandizes. And he does so in an intellectually dishonest way, using self-righteous sarcasm and sleazy innuendo, playing fast and loose with the facts, refusing to acknowledge alternative points of view, and selecting only those pieces of evidence that fit his version of any story.

In the last few months, Mr. Ackerman has seen fit to get even deeper than before into the business of character assassination. One case involved a Grass Valley planning commissioner who organized, through his church, a community forum on growth, probably the #1 issue in western Nevada County. The intent was explicitly educational, and people with varying opinions were invited to speak. Mr. Ackerman got hold of a pre-event document designed to elicit feedback, and immediately launched into an attack on the organizer and his cohorts, accusing them of using "fear tactics," calling the event a "political rally," and arguing that discussion of the four proposed large development projects was somehow premature (this latter claim was patently ridiculous; the Union itself had reported, more than a year previously, that the city of Grass Valley was "getting down to details" on the proposed projects). In his writing about this issue, Mr. Ackerman managed not only to denigrate a well-meaning and honorable member of the community, but also to actively discourage what our community needs the most-for citizens to become better informed about community issues and get more involved in making decisions about them.

In another more recent case, Mr. Ackerman has blatantly acted as a media hatchet man for his conservative power-broker friends. For almost a month, he has engaged in a relentless smear campaign against one of the candidates running for a county supervisor seat. I know this candidate as a highly principled man who has made a career of working tirelessly in the public interest. He has very strong support in the community. Knowing that it would be less effective to attack this candidate's policy positions-they enjoy wide support-or to champion one of his two opponents, Mr. Ackerman resorted to attacking the man himself. He dredged up a two-year old issue-one of those stories that can be told in two entirely different ways-and proceeded to tell (and tell again, and again, and again) the slanderous version, the one full of innuendo, half-truths, and unfounded accusations. The alternative interpretation of the events would show the candidate acted in good faith throughout, at worst making a few errors of judgment-but did he get to tell his version of the story and rebut the slanderous charges? Not in Mr. Ackerman's paper! [Actually, he did once, back at the start.]

[Presumably this is the paragraph that gave The Union's editor fits.]
Mr. Ackerman's abuse of his position as publisher of the sole local newspaper extends beyond the opinion pages. In the selection of stories, the choice of whom to quote, the wording of headlines, and all the many journalistic practices that can give a slant to the news, the Union all too often practices politics rather than news delivery. Although there are now some good, balanced and objective pieces in the paper (thanks to the hiring of some competent reporters), there are other pieces that clearly show Mr. Ackerman's influence.

Mr. Ackerman's editorials and the paper's journalistic practices increase the divisiveness in our community. We certainly hold strong and disparate opinions anyway, but we also share many common values, such as a desire to preserve our quality of life and rural, small-town lifestyle. Mr. Ackerman has moved the paper in a direction that makes it increasingly difficult to use these common values as a basis for constructive dialogue.

Constructive dialogue depends on both parties treating each other as real people-acknowledging their concerns, taking seriously their feelings and fears. Under Mr. Ackerman, the Union works directly against this goal by feeding conservative misconceptions about the goals and values of progressives and environmentalists. (In his columns, all advocates of managed growth are "NIMBYs" or "chicken littles," anyone who cares about the environment is a tree-hugging hippie, and so on.) At the same time, the paper takes seriously-and thus works to legitimize-the paranoid fantasies of right-wing extremists [URL?]. As a result, each "side" sees the other as a caricature of its real self, and all we end up doing is yelling at each other.

Under Mr. Ackerman, the paper also works to squelch public involvement in government. Because of an emphasis on "fluff" stories, people don't have access to the information they need to feel properly informed, and Mr. Ackerman's columns and editorials make it clear that if you get involved you risk becoming the object of his sarcastic ridicule.

In all of these ways, Mr. Ackerman has managed to completely alienate a large segment of the community during his few years as publisher.

I know dozens of people who have cancelled their subscriptions or refuse to subscribe to or even read the Union because of the ills I listed above. (I have not cancelled my subscription only because my involvement in local politics requires that I keep abreast of what's going on, and the Union's version of current events, as flawed as it is, is the only one available.) I regularly hear people criticize the Union and Mr. Ackerman in particular, and scoff at any suggestion that they read it or take it seriously. At a recent event attended by many in the local arts-and-literature community, a biting criticism of Mr. Ackerman by the master of ceremonies received a warm reception from virtually the entire crowd (and when notified of this, the thin-skinned Ackerman and his editor initiated an exchange of emails
with the master of ceremonies, a well-respected and popular figure, calling him at one point a "chickenshit" and threatening to essentially censor any event he was involved with).

The Union has made it clear that it is attempting to grow its readership, modernize, and become more like a big-city paper. Mr. Ackerman is clearly handicapping this admirable goal. He has angered and offended literally thousands of people who might otherwise be subscribers-and the majority of these folks are of that demographic most coveted by advertisers: they are well-educated, literate, and culturally sophisticated, and have healthy disposable incomes.

What's more, this demographic group-dominated by left-leaning urban refugees who can't stand Mr. Ackerman-is growing rapidly in Nevada County. A recent study by the Fannie Mae Foundation documented that Nevada County is now one of 24 "cappucino counties" in the West. These are counties that, in contrast with "cowboy counties," are being rapidly transformed by an influx of well-educated professionals, artists, engineers, computer programmers, self-employed people, and other "cultural creatives" involved in the new economy. These people are bringing with them new values, tastes, buying habits, and political views; any business that wants to grow cannot ignore them, and it certainly can't afford to actively alienate them.

With Mr. Ackerman at the helm, The Union can never be more than a small-town, parochial newspaper, and it will become increasingly anachronistic as Nevada County changes. I encourage you to consider replacing Mr. Ackerman with someone who can gain the respect of the entire spectrum of Nevada County residents. Nevada County, The Union, and Swift Newspapers will be the better for it.

Sincerely,

Eric W. Engles, Ph.D.
...
cc: Jeff Ackerman, publisher, The Union
Arne Hoel, president, Swift Newspapers, Inc.

Judge for yourself: Editor on Engles

Nov. 11: Editor has offered Engles 300 words to respond.

Nov 3: added Engles' extensive Nov. 1 letter of response to editor's column (near end of post); also removed commentary that's now extraneous or obviously off the mark.

The publisher joined in on Nov. 2.

"The nice thing about blogging - you can judge for yourself."

Perhaps because he has a print-based column rather than a weblog, The Union's editor* has developed an unfortunate tendency to defend his newspaper against community members' criticisms without exposing the reader to the criticisms directly - they're often presented as strawmen, and handily demolished with a newsroom chuckle and a swipe of the keyboard. Unfortunately also there's been a tendency of late to attack the complainant as much as the complaint; it takes a tough hide to endure criticism without retaliating, and skins have worn thin at The Union.

In yesterday's column, The Union's editor takes on Grass Valley resident Eric Engles' letter petitioning Swift Newspapers for publisher regime change at The Union.

Please compare and contrast Engles' letter with the editor's characterization below:
(emphases mark those sections that would have benefited from a rewrite in a calmer frame of mind)

Readers may be familiar with Eric Engles (who affectedly follows his name with "Ph.D." even in the most casual of e-mails) [disputed]. He has an occasional "Other Voices" [e.g. here, or search the archives for Engles] guest column published in The Union.

He apparently has taken an intense dislike to the weekly opinion column published by our publisher, Jeff Ackerman, and has started what he calls the "Dump Ack" [disputed] campaign. It's goal is to blitz our parent company, Swift Newspapers, with demands[disputed] that Ackerman be fired.

I came across a copy of his e-mail to 80 or so of his friends asking them to join in the campaign. The list includes many people active in the community whom readers would recognize as having their opinions frequently published in The Union. Mr. Engles may see himself as a Mel Gibson-esque savior, although there is an un-American whiff[disputed] to his crusade.

Swift Newspaper is a strong believer in local autonomy, and in practicing journalism without fear or favor. Or, as its statement of values vows, "We apply our values in our actions. We believe there should be no difference between what we say and what we do."

Mr. Engles' declaration of his values, in the letter to his friends as well as his lengthy entreaty to Swift, is that since Ackerman has different views than Engles, he is being divisive[disputed] His arguments are insubstantial, but a couple of points are worth a response:

• He claims[disputed] Ackerman keeps counterviews out of the newspaper. Observation of almost any edition shows that to be phony.
  
• He says[disputed] Ackerman's role extends beyond the opinion page to include story selection, wording of headlines, etc. Nonsense. Ackerman hired me to direct the news staff, and while he's not afraid to let me know what he thinks, he follows the tradition of this business and leaves me free to do it.

So if you don't like a story or a headline, better start a campaign to get me fired, because it's not Ackerman's fault. And if you like Ackerman and the job The Union is doing in covering our county, the president of Swift Newspapers is Arne Hoel, 500 Double Eagle Court, Reno, NV 89521.

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




Engles' letter of response:

Mr. Somerville,

Your column on Saturday contains at least eight examples of a marked decay in your ethical and journalistic standards:

1. You say that I "affectedly" follow my name with Ph.D. "even in the most casual of emails." I don't do this in either casual or formal emails. I have added the degree to my name when I sign letters to the editor and Other Voices columns, which I think is entirely appropriate. It is possible I signed an email to you in the past with the degree included (although I don't recall doing so); if so, it certainly didn't reflect any habit on my part, and it definitely doesn't provide a basis for your snide aside. Is it possible that you're jealous of my degree?

2. You say that I call my efforts the "Dump Ack" campaign. This is not true; I have informally referred to it as a campaign to "dump Jeff." The difference is not substantial, but it shows how little you care for the truth and for checking your facts.

3. You say that the goal of the campaign is to "blitz our parent company...with demands that Ackerman be fired." The word 'demand' puts a very misleading spin on how I broached the idea of Mr. Ackerman's removal, and how I suggested others put it in their letters. In my letter I wrote the following: "I encourage you to consider replacing Mr. Ackerman with someone who can gain the respect of the entire spectrum of Nevada County residents." The words "encourage" and "consider" do not equate with a "demand," or even a demanding tone. In my "cover email" to others, I wrote: "If this argument is presented to the management people at Swift Newspapers, and echoed by a fair number of Nevada County residents, they might actually take the suggestion of replacing Jeff seriously." Again, usingthe word "suggestion" is very far from indicating a demand.

4. You say there is "an un-American whiff" to my "crusade." You don't explain very well why you think this to be true, but I infer that it has something to do with a mistaken belief that I oppose Ackerman's right to express his opinion. In my letter, I went out of my way to emphasize that I support Mr. Ackerman's right to his opinion: "Of course it is Mr. Ackerman's prerogative to express his opinion in his own signed columns and the paper's editorials--and if that's all that he did I would have no quarrel with him, despite that fact I disagree with his political positions most of the time." In addition, since democracy is as fundamental an American ideal as freedom, criticizing Mr. Ackerman's role in squelching participation in government and in creating barriers to civil community dialogue should be considered patriotic.

5. Rather than deal with any of my criticisms directly, you chose the intellectually dishonest route of distorting them beyond recognition. You don't strike me as a person who has difficulty with reading comprehension, so I have to assume that your distortions and misrepresentations are deliberate and intended to deceive your readers.

5a. You paraphrase my critique of Ackerman's tendency to increase divisiveness in the community with the following: "since Ackerman has different views than Engles, he is being divisive." This statement has absolutely no relationship to anything I wrote in my letter. First, as mentioned above, I acknowledged Ackerman's right to have and express views different from mine. Second, I devoted two paragraphs of my letter to explaining how Jeff's columns increase divisiveness by helping to create an environment in which constructive dialogue becomes increasingly difficult because "each side sees the other as a caricature of its real self." This argument is completely independent from any differences of opinion on the issues.

5b. You say that my letter to Swift claimed that Ackerman "keeps counterviews out of the paper." As you note, it would be ridiculous for anyone to make this claim, and I did not do so. Perhaps you were (inappropriately) extrapolating from the paragraph in which I wrote that Ackerman did not give Mr. Conklin the chance to defend himself. I have recently become aware that I was in error on this point--on the day Conklin's defense was published, I was away on vacation and did not read the paper. If I had known that Conklin had this opportunity, I would have written something like this: "The candidate got to rebut the charges, but this was like training a howitzer on him and then handing him a slingshot. After that, Ackerman continued his assault." The basic point--that Ackerman pursued a relentless campaign of character assassination--is still the same, and doesn't depend on opportunities for defense. Further, nothing in this paragraph was intended to even suggest the idea that keeping counterviews out of the paper generally was part of my criticism. (In connection with this point, you should know that I am grateful that the Union has published most of the columns and letters I have submitted. In the past, in recognition that the Union's opinion page policies allow many opinions to be voiced, I actually defended the Union when friends gave their very low opinions of it.)

5c. You say that I claim "Ackerman's role extends beyond the opinion page to include story selection, wording of headlines, etc." Another fraudulent distortion. I said that some stories show Jeff's influence. That's different. And if you'll examine the paragraph in question, you will note that the sentence that mentions selection of stories and wording of headlines does not contain Mr. Ackerman's name; instead, the grammatical subject in the main clause is "the Union." In the last sentence, I used the word "influence" with regard to Jeff very deliberately because of the breadth of possibility it allows in explaining the link between Jeff and the paper's political slant. The paper does have slant (are you going to claim that Arne Hoel doesn't tell his rich and powerful conservative friends that he is proud to own papers that put forth a conservative view?) and as publisher of the paper, Jeff must have influence over that slant. And he doesn't have to attend news meetings to exert it. He exerted it by hiring you, and he exerts it by creating unwritten expectations among the staff about how to present the news. (I see now that you probably took this paragraph of mine very personally, and I'm sorry if that's the case; but having an emotional reaction to it doesn't excuse you from responsibility for presenting an accurate rendition of what I wrote.)

6. You failed to acknowledge or engage with my major points. By mentioning only secondary points such as the critique of Jeff's influence over the news, you misrepresented the essence of my message to Swift--which was that Mr. Ackerman is a failure as a community leader, renders his opinions in ways that should be embarrasing to an ethical journalist, and alienates a large number of people who might otherwise be Union readers.

So, are you going to allow me to present a condensation of this rebuttal in print, or are you going to prove that you too are a worthy target for a replacement campaign?

-Eric Engles

Nov. 11: Editor has offered Engles 300 words to respond.As of Nov. 3, the editor has not responded to this request for space in the paper to rebut the editor's claims.

On the Editor, credit where credit is usually due: while publisher does not deign to respond to emails, editor has - usually - responded with minimal delay and answered my questions in some fashion. Sometimes he's cranky as hell, but he answers.

Disclosure: I believe I corresponded with E.E. about a year ago, and we spoke on the phone about the current incident, but to my recollection we've never met.

Excluding your readers from the reality-based community

Nov. 9: thought better of it, removed note at bottom

What do you do when you're out to bring someone down, but the facts don't turn out in your favor? Bury them, knowing that casual readers won't notice?

Last Tuesday's Union column under the publisher's byline is extra-long, a condemnation of [C]:

[since starting this] I(publisher)’ve been threatened, picketed and have been asked to resign...
...
I believe there is sufficient information to warrant an investigation by the grand jury, district attorney or attorney general to determine if [C] violated Government Code Section 1090, the state’s conflict of interest law.

If it was "foreseeable" that [C] could have gone to work for the Land Trust when he voted three months earlier to give the Trust more than a half-million dollars (and it certainly seems possible that it was, in fact, "foreseeable"), the county contract could be voided and the Trust asked to return the $508,000. If [C] knew when he voted that he would eventually work for the Trust, he could be guilty of a felony and possibly jailed. That’s how serious this issue is.

Who asked for [publisher]'s resignation? Were the threats personal threats, or just threats to withhold advertising? Why does the column omit material facts (e.g., intent of incoming supervisors, or who allowed the North Star House to deteriorate so badly, and why) and slant others (minor examples: comparing self-employed earnings against former salary to imply they should be equal, disregarding influence of benefits and overhead on the latter; referring to roofing contractor as 'friend', when it's been established that bid was accepted without knowing contractor's identity) ?
Unfortunately, [publisher] does not even acknowledge your correspondent's email, so NCFocus is not likely to find out.

Also on Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors met to go over the Land Trust's accounting of the North Star project (of which [C] was manager). Note the differing perspectives from The Union's and Yubanet's headline writers as to what's "news":

Front (moving to back) page article from The Union, Crowd defends Land Trust:
Three paragraphs about the crowd;
Then two paragraphs on the background of the situation;
Then, once we've moved to the back page:

County Counsel Robert Shulman authored a memo this week that found, based on current evidence, [C's] hiring by the Land Trust did not violate any laws governing conflict of interest for public officials.

From Yubanet, Glitch Hunt at Nevada County BOS Comes Up Empty is a more extensive report, with a more informative headline.

(Don't blame reporter; keep in mind that headlines are written by copy editors, not by reporters.)

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

For reference, although not very helpful: California Code (Section 1090):

Members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members...