Question About Kucinich Article

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

The Kucinich story was submitted by a regular staff member/contributor (what really is the title?) of the paper, which implies endorsement

Dee,

Read the two above articles and tell me that they're not more or less for Kucinich than my article.

Then, read the endorsement that the PD gave to Joe Cimperman.

Do you still stick with what you said above or do you see that your belief is incorrect in terms of journalism- whether it be print, internet, op/ed?

Take it from someone who's going to school for this. I even had my journalism teacher read it and she approved it.

The difference between those two published PD articles and mine is that the first article that the PD published ended up on a mail out flier that the Kucinich camp sent out.


Gary,
while yes, it's a matter of who gets more ink, I'm 10000000% positive that if a Kucinich challenger were to submit something to the paper that was two pages long it would get printed as well. In all fairness.

[c. dawson]

Ivor,

There IS a difference ... the PD articles you cite above are not newspaper articles, but columns. Columnists, by their nature, are allowed to be opinionated ... in fact, that's the very reason WHY papers employ columnists, so they can express opinions very openly. Newspaper reporters, on the other hand, should strive to be objective. An article about a politician should be well-balanced, noting the good and the bad, the strengths and the weaknesses, especially if it's a huge article. And even though the PD has endorsed Cimperman, it also notes his flaws. That's what a journalist should do.

The Rosemary Palmer article was written BY Ms. Palmer, and as such, it's expected that she'd put herself in the best light possible. It'd be surprising if she didn't. Though perhaps if the paper wanted to be even-handed, it would have her article begin on the same page, along with your article about Congressman Kucinich, as opposed to several pages later, which would imply what she has to say isn't as important as what he has to say. And if Congressman Kucinich wrote an article about himself, it would also not be unusual for him to write about himself in the best light possible as well. But if a reporter representing the Observer is doing an article about Congressman Kucinich, and it's going to take two whole pages, then it's best for it to be as objective as possible.

That's probably what people are saying ... I don't think anyone's attacking you or your writing, and you're to be commended for doing the article. To be a young student journalist and getting an article like this is a huge deal. But always keep a sense of detachment, if it's a newspaper article . Show balance, show both sides, note the good and the bad, so that the reader can weigh everything in their mind and draw their own conclusions (we hope). That's key for journalism. At least it was when I was a journalism student, and spending four years on a college paper. Our job wasn't to promote any particular point of view, but report on the facts ... unless of course, we'd be writing a column, in which we could espouse any viewpoint we wanted, because that was what a column was for. And that's what Dick Feagler does ... he has his opinions and he writes them. He doesn't have to be impartial in the slightest. And if you compare his columns to Kevin O'Brien, you'll see they're often on two very opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Dee Martinez]

The Kucinich story was submitted by a regular staff member/contributor (what really is the title?) of the paper, which implies endorsement

Dee,

Read the two above articles and tell me that they're not more or less for Kucinich than my article.

Then, read the endorsement that the PD gave to Joe Cimperman.

Do you still stick with what you said above or do you see that your belief is incorrect in terms of journalism- whether it be print, internet, op/ed?

Take it from someone who's going to school for this. I even had my journalism teacher read it and she approved it.

The difference between those two published PD articles and mine is that the first article that the PD published ended up on a mail out flier that the Kucinich camp sent out.
.

I think the previous poster stated it correctly, The Plain Dlrs Cimperman endorsement appeared on the editorial page, which is where opinion pieces are placed.

The piece you wrote was fine as a "People" magazine-type feature. I dont believe the question was whether it should have been published, certainly there was no reason not to. I didn't comment at all when it first appeared. The issue (at least to me) was whether Mr. O'Bryan should have been surprised by the reaction he got.

The Obsever sometimes blurs the line between news coverage and opinion. A friend of the mayor shouldnt be the person covering city councill. The head of the library shouldnt be writing gushing stories about a school board member who is technically his employer. If the Observer wants to publish a one-sided positive feature on a congressman in the heat of a spirited re-election campaign, it should be prepared for some complaints.

As Bryan noted, the Observer can do whatever it wants and the general public will decide what its value is.
As a bulletin board and general community resource, the Observer does a wonderful job. As a source of "news" or journalism I agree with Bryan that the brand is "muddy".
(Side note-There are others here who have taken journalism classes.)

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

Who's to say that my article isn't a column?

It's being referred to as a column by everyone I've talked to, and I thought it was one myself.

And I still don't understand why people can post all they want on the deck, but when it comes to putting up and submitting a column in the article they hide under a rock. Why are you (the general you) so afraid?

You can bash other people's work all you want, but when it comes to walking the walk you duck and cover.

I'm not taking any criticism in at all. It's amusing. Let people think what they think. The thing that makes me laugh is I make a living with having my opinion and photographs published and you all sit there and say "you don't do this the way I think it's supposed to be done" but then you don't back that claim up.

Bret put it in the best way.

If you want to see something in the paper, write it yourself. I, a 18 year old, took the initiative to do so with this piece, and with every piece that I submitted over the past two years. Why can't you, the older figure who's been around for Lakewood for so long, take the same initiative to help Lakewood find it's own voice?

Dawson,
I really don't care what they're attacking- me personally or my work. The truth is that I take pride in my work, I put effort into my work, and I lose sleep over my work. I put my neck out there and like Dee said, people either like me or hate me. Good. I don't want to be a vague, shady figure. I don't want to be someone fake who will tell you what you want to hear so you like me but then do something else. That's for phony people who don't take pride in who they are and what rights they're blessed with. That's for reporters who do have an agenda, who are tied to advertisers, who are tied to commitments.

I'm not aiming to be someone whose personality is in a gray area. I found it's A LOT easier to know who your friend is when you make your personality clear, your opinion clear and your voice loud. That's when you see who supports you and who is your friend and who is just feeding you crap. I realized that quite quickly after my art show and book publishing.

Look, Stephen Eisel and I shook hands and hugged the first time we met in person. I actually look forward to seeing him again at the next party. Bret and I battle it out over political issues on the Deck and then bowl together on the weekends. That's because we make an effort to talk to other people, meet new people at the Observer parties, and put our differences aside. If you show up to a Observer party, hide in the corner and avoid everyone, then leave, you're wasting your own time that you could be spending alone at home bickering over articles that are published in local newspapers.

I just find all of this extremely humorous. It's always the same people that complain and complain, then duck away from the board for a few weeks, then come back when they have more to complain about.

[Dee Martinez]

Your comments are insulting and inflammatory. You have reacted to some fairly level-headed critcism with personal attacks. If you want all hearts and flowers, my young friend, youll probably want to stay out of journalism. Did your teacher tell you that?

I will only say one more time that I find no fault with your column or feature or whatever you believe it to be. If you can see the distinction, you will realize that my comments and others wre directed largely at Mr. O'Bryan's shock that Kucinich detractors would have a problem of a puff piece by a regular contributor so close to an election. (Truth be told, I will probably vote for Mr. K myself, but I understand the reaction)

Frankly I really dont care who you hug or what you do with your social life. I am not an Observer insider nor do I choose to be. I am a consumer of the product. Whether I like what's published or not, I am sure Mr. O'Bryan doesnt mind, as long as I tell the adverisers where I saw their ad. And as a consumer, I reserve my right to comment. If you and Mr. O'Bryan have changed those rules, and only full-fledged "Observers" have the right to comment, that needs to be posted/.

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

Dee,

I apologize if my comments were insulting to you because they weren't targeted at you or anyone, I was speaking in general terms. What would make you feel that this was directed at you? Again, I apologize if that sounded like it was directed at you, but I didn't mention your name at all and your post was posted right before mine so I didn't get to read it until I posted mine. (if you feel that it was a response to your post above).

And yes I do see that you didn't find anything wrong with the article. I'm glad you took the time to read it.

You have every right to comment, but I would like to stress to you and everyone else that you also have every right to contribute.

I encourage anyone and everyone to write an article about the other four people running. It would be extremely beneficial to all the readers.

[David Anderson]

Should readers simply assume that any article in the "Politics" section is opinion?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Should readers simply assume that any article in the "Politics" section is opinion?

David


I would hope you do that we every article, in any paper or magazine. I have spent a life in marketing and media. I have had to count on the media to get many various stories out. I have yet run into a reporter that does not have some bias, or cherry picks facts to fit their preconceived notions.

Will I appreciate the feedback, the truth is, they are all slanted.

Jeff Endress was doing a media watch story over the Brother Petty piece we broke. In 2 hours of TV, and twenty news stories, on the FreeTimes and Michael Gill came close to telling the truth and sticking to the facts. Many did not even have the spelling of his name right.

The Observer came out of a series of pieces done by the Plain Dealer and their little sister the Sun Papers that could not get facts right when reporting on Lakewood. One of the first things mentioned was Lakewood needed a better way to get facts out.

So this concept that labeling or others are fair and balanced is just not true. Oh they might say they are, but...

We make no pretense about it.


FWIW

[Gary Rice]

Now, THIS is a really great discussion!

What Jimmy likes to call "word jazz", I believe!

Ivor, I believe you wrote:

"That's for phony people who don't take pride in who they are and what rights they're blessed with. That's for reporters who do have an agenda, who are tied to advertisers, who are tied to commitments."

(I still haven't figured out how to do that cool box-quote stuff)

Wow, what wisdom from an 18 year old!

Ivor, you are SO right. Think about this everyone: Is that XYZ Super rattletrap that some hypothetical car magazine "article" might gush about, really an "article"? Or is it merely just a paid infomercial, sponsored by one of that magazine's advertisers?

Critical thinking, please?

One thing that I think you get from the Observer that is SO rare, is blunt honesty! No BULLFEATHERS, just blunt honesty. Ivor wrote a piece. He likes Dennis? It shows a bit? IF SO, SO WHAT?

Free speech, people? If the Observer is anything at all, it shows the real thoughts of a real, free, people.

Oh yes, as far as I understand, the now defunct "fairness doctrine" was an FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ruling. It may or may not have been meant for print media, but don't think for a moment that print media felt they could ignore it.

Now, for better or worse, we can write our own views and let the other side write theirs.

So what's keeping you?

[Bryan Schwegler]

At some point, if the LO is going to be concered about people's misperception of the project, the LO board needs to stop asking "why don't those people get it" and instead begin asking "where are we going wrong with communicating the purpose of the project?"

If the LO is not concerned about the misperception, then there's no need to go through this exercise every few months.

But I think the history has shown that this issue comes up, there's a bunch of people who claim that others "should just know" the purpose of the LO and then we go on our merry way. I would posit that considering the fact it continues to come up, that the failure is on the side of the LO to find a way to explain itself that connects with people not with those who are misunderstanding.

[David Anderson]

I couldn't agree more, Jim. Any form of media that has a specific "Op-Ed" section is aiming for differentiation from the rest of the paper, as if articles in the "Business" section are scrubbed of a writer's intended or unintended bias.

However, I initially read Ivor's article as a news piece because it was not in the "Perspective" section. I like the article but concluded that it was an opinion piece. I read Stan Austin's piece as more of a report recollecting council's meeting. This doesn't mean that Stan's piece didn't have any personal bias. However, if it had any, it was less detectible and likely didn't get in the way of the article's factual base.

I think Ivor’s article got the reaction you described because it wasn’t identified as an opinion piece. Rather, it was separated from the “Perspectiveâ€￾ section and presented along with other news articles. Some are more sensitive to the suggestion that the media attempts to blur an agenda into news items.

You well realize, Jim, that you are not immune from these accusations. Heck, a former councilman and mayoral candidate accused you through this OD of being a shill for Mayor George and not presenting a fair and balanced assessment of all candidates.

All articles have opinion but some are intended as opinion columns while others are articles with some bias mixed in.

I love the LO. Keep up the good work.

[Richard Cole]

First the caveat - I don't read every issue, and in the issues I do read, I don't read every story.

I have always assumed that the writers who get published in the LO are only bound by their own ethics and moral obligations. Everything is clouded/slanted in a particular direction, one way or another.

I have never assumed that the LO and it's Board of Advisors endorses everything that gets published.

[Dee Martinez]

Free speech, people? If the Observer is anything at all, it shows the real thoughts of a real, free, people.

Oh yes, as far as I understand, the now defunct "fairness doctrine" was an FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ruling. It may or may not have been meant for print media, but don't think for a moment that print media felt they could ignore it.

No, The print media absolutely DID feel like they could ignore it AND THEY COULD. That was the whole point. Print media have always been free of government interference and influence. Thats because anyone with a printing press (now a laser printer) can "publish". If you try to start your own radio station, some nice people from the government will visit you soon, perhaps with a set of handcuffs.

Radio & TV stations (where I worked in my youth, partly during the Fairness Doctrine days and partly outside the era) were licensed by the FCC. The idea that the government could "yank your ticket" was where the rubber met the road.
The owners of broadcast stations felt they were being unfairly stifled because they had to meet standards print media didnt. So the Fairness Doctrine died and now you have conservative talk shows 24/7 up and down the dial.

This not a discussion about free speech in my book.
The Obsever can devote 12 pages to arguing the earth is flat every week and thats fine by me. Its a discussion about effectively reaching an audience. The Observer should be free to do whatever the heck it wants. Joey the pizza guy should be able to make pizzas using nothing but anchovies. Again, agreeing with Bryan, the Observer can complain that people just dont "understand" anchovies, it can sell the benefits of anchovies a little harder, or it can make pizzas without them. Im OK either way.

[dl meckes]

At some point, if the LO is going to be concered about people's misperception of the project, the LO board needs to stop asking "why don't those people get it" and instead begin asking "where are we going wrong with communicating the purpose of the project?"

If the LO is not concerned about the misperception, then there's no need to go through this exercise every few months.

But I think the history has shown that this issue comes up, there's a bunch of people who claim that others "should just know" the purpose of the LO and then we go on our merry way. I would posit that considering the fact it continues to come up, that the failure is on the side of the LO to find a way to explain itself that connects with people not with those who are misunderstanding.

Interesting.

I assume that every article written for any publication is written and/or edited by someone with a point of view. This means that I don't believe that anything I read is not filtered through a point of view.

As an "advisor", I advise that the Observer should print what it receives. The Observer should encourage people to write. People who write should be encouraged that their words are printed and write more!

But perhaps the LO masthead should say, "The Lakewood Observer - All the Articles We Get".

I don't wonder why people don't get it, I understand that it's difficult to grasp the fact that issue after issue, this paper can only print what people choose to write.

The day the paper can assign stories may be the day that I think differently.

[Jim O'Bryan]

At some point, if the LO is going to be concered about people's misperception of the project, the LO board needs to stop asking "why don't those people get it" and instead begin asking "where are we going wrong with communicating the purpose of the project?"

If the LO is not concerned about the misperception, then there's no need to go through this exercise every few months.

But I think the history has shown that this issue comes up, there's a bunch of people who claim that others "should just know" the purpose of the LO and then we go on our merry way. I would posit that considering the fact it continues to come up, that the failure is on the side of the LO to find a way to explain itself that connects with people not with those who are misunderstanding.

Bryan

I agree that we need to address the "misconceptions" and that to continue to move this project forward they need to be addresses.

Many people do not know all of the things we offer, nor do they understand that we depend on residents feeding the fires of local knowledge and lore.

To be honest we need to do better. I am open to suggestions, and there are digital suggestion boxes everywhere, real mail, the office and even parties.

Heidi, DL and I have spoken of a series of articles in the paper explaining the project and the process. I recently found out that most churches and non-profits do not realize they can get free websites, and discussion boards through the Lakewood Observer. That the LO is actively looking for things to sponsor and be a part of and/or underwrite. That any business, home based to corporation can get online services valued at thousands a month for $20 or free through the Observer. Many people only think the Observer is a paper or discussion board. They do not understand the economic development packages available through the Observer.

Maybe it is time to devote some pages to the Observer, who we are, where we came from, where we are headed, even how many other Observer Projects we have going around the country.

If anyone would like to help us get this information out, drop me a line.

Until then, we all agree, all media is biased, we are the only ones that say it openly.


.