Question About Kucinich Article

[Bryan Schwegler]

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.

I think that would be a great idea. I'm willing to bet a majority of the people who read the paper really don't understand both the purpose and reach of the LO project.

[Todd Shapiro]

Here we go again arguing about what should or should not be written in the Lakewood Observer. Some of the earlier posters on this thread are probably correct Ivor piece on Dennis Kucinich is more of a "People Magazine" style feature than a hard news story. But to that I say SO WHAT? Every one of us who write for the Observer are community journalists. We can write what we want about who we want and the powers that be will print it as long as it not doesn’t stoop to the level of libel or slander. Ivor should be commended by all of us for getting an interview with a man who up until a few weeks ago was actively running for President of the United States. Rep. Kucinich should also be commended for taking the time out of his schedule to sit down with an 18-year-old writer from a small "Community Newspaper." Seeing Ivor's name was on the story I don't think he was speaking for myself or anyone else involved with the Observer Project. My feeling about Rep. Kucinich hasn’t changed because Ivor wrote an extremely positive piece about Kucinich. It was Ivor's interpretation of Dennis Kucinich plain and simple.
Ivor accomplished one of the main objectives of all journalists and writers he aroused emotion and response out of the reader. All those emails Jim received mean people are reading and they care enough to respond. Most stories on the front page of the Plain Dealer don't elicit that same response. I have never had any article that I have written for the Observer rejected by Jim or anyone else so I presume that if any of those who criticize Ivor or the Lakewood Observer Project in general want to write something opposing Dennis Kucinich I bet it will get printed as well.
We should probably all just be jealous of Ivor. LOL Most of us will never get a face-to-face interview with a member of Congress and I pretty sure Ivor got more reaction in the past three days with this story then I ever got for all the stories I have written for the Observer
Keep up the good work Ivor and remember the more comments you elicit about your writing the better it is.

[Will Brown]

I must admit I am ignorant about how the LO started. When I saw the first issues, I thought it was a collection of press releases, and it still has that feel about it to me, but on occasion there is some neutral information, and I appreciate that. I think it has a small, largely volunteer staff, and I suspect none of them is trained in journalism, so we shouldn't expect journalistic standards to be applied here, especially as they are so rarely applied in actual media.

I had seen the Palmer piece, word for word as I recall, in some campaign literature she mailed us, and I think the LO should have realized this and refused to republish it. I'm certainly sympathetic to her loss, but I think she is limited to one issue, and doesn't really have a solution to that problem. I suspect she is accurate when she reports being encouraged in her involvement by some Kucinich people; she will certainly not draw any votes away from Kucinich, and he benefits by having multiple opponents dividing the voters who think he is unqualified to serve.

I am not at all sure that the Fairness doctrine is dead. Recall that there was some concern among the people who aired shows in which that republican actor played, that they would have to provide equal air time to the other candidates (I was rather looking forward to Hillary Clinton in Days of our Lives). And I recall reading that some marginal presidential campaigner (certainly not marginal in terms of how much of our money he siphoned off for his campaign) filed at least one complaint when he was not invited to some debates.

I think it would have been a good idea, just in terms of general fairness, that Ivor's rather fawning piece had been held until after the election, or perhaps he could have been dispatched to write articles on the other candidates. I don't doubt that Kucinich was the coolest congressman that Ivor has ever met; nor do I doubt he was the only congressman that Ivor has ever met. One of Kucinich's talents is to talk to individuals, share their biases and concerns, and, at least when he was a councilman, follow up and deal with the bureaucracy with respect to the particular problem of the constituent. In other words, he would be good as a neighborhood ombudsman. But that talent is wasted in congress, where he has hundreds of thousands of constituents, and should be dealing with legislation and budgeting on a much larger scale. Because he has been such a failure as a legislator, he is reported to be held in low esteem by the other legislators, not to mention the executive branch, and his district has suffered because of this, both in terms of finances, and in terms of meaningful legislation.

So Ivor is studying journalism. That's nice, but I suspect he hasn't studied much of it yet. I doubt more than one or two courses, so far, and at a school that has turned out how many known journalists? So if his teacher reviewed and praised his article, it was almost certainly not in the context of journalistic ethics, and whether it should have been published, or used as a campaign flyer. And praise by a teacher can often be of limited value. There is a saying that those who can, do; those who can't do, teach; and those who can't teach, teach teaching. There is a reason why so many academics remain academics, and so few of them venture out of the ivied halls to practice their profession. There are exceptions, of course, but I think it is most common that a teacher is unlikely to have much practical experience.

But as to the question of what the LO should publish during election season, I would suggest something similar to what you did for the municipal candidates; offer each candidate an opportunity to respond to salient questions, and publish their responses, and let your readers evaluate that, and even respond if they choose. But make clear that your publishing their responses (or noting that they don't respond) is not an endorsement.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Will

Thanks for the note.

The Lakewood Observer was created for many reasons but some of the basics.

1) The SunPapers and WestLife had all but stopped covering Lakewood. The Plain Dealer had completely ignored the city. there was no way for non-profits, charities, and other groups get information out.

2) Advance some cutting edge ideas to make the city better.

3) Provide a multi-dimensional tool for everyone in the city to take part at no charge. The LO is far more than a paper and discussion board.

In an effort to capture the stories of the city, provide a staff of volunteers to help other residents get their stories out.

I think you might be a tad harsh on Ivor.

Our youngest contributor was age 3, a photo she took of her father. Our oldest? over 80 maybe 90? Numbering over 1,300 contributors.

I appreciate all that have taken part.

Ivor is gold.

Thanks again for taking part.

[Kenneth Warren]

Thanks to all for another great discussion that may help the LO overcome the negatives and realize the positives that arise from experiential, experimental, open invitational and relational stories that defy reader expectations and professional journalistic standards.

First, Mr. Shapiro nails it when he says, “It was Ivor's interpretation of Dennis Kucinich plain and simple.â€￾

In The Gay Science, Nietzsche calls us to be “interpreters of experience.â€￾ So I will supply my interpretation of the LO experience, knowing that Mr. Call is reader of Nietzsche and that Mr. Karabatkovic may well claim, in a nihilistic attempt to negate my power, not to understand a word I’ve written.

As Mr. O’Bryan’s initial post reminds us, we continue to witness the emotionally disruptive effects of an innovation in the civic sphere, an experiential, experimental and relational citizen publication that by the seat of voluntary pants empowers and embeds grassroots peculiarities, personalities, persuasions and politics in newspaper print.

In a style and manner that diverges radically from the expectations and standards of professional journalism and old style newspapers, the empowerment of grassroots peculiarities, personalities, persuasions and politics creates both backlash and constructive critique (as Mr. Dawson and Mr. Schwegler and Ms. Martinez have done).

To write is to exercise power. To exercise power and to affirm, moreover, the life of Dennis Kucinich or any politician will evoke envy, fear and resentment, as Nietzsche reminds us.

A simple demand for balance and objectivity may contain the desire to overpower the peculiarities, personalities, persuasions and politics presented on the page.

By choice writers participate in the symphonic extension of a big idea – “the city that would know itself better than any other city and thereby enter into the Guinness World Book of Recordsâ€￾ – jammed no less through the emotionally turbulent conductor of Lakewood “word jazz,â€￾ Mr. O’Bryan, who by virtue of his own expense and risk invites everyone “to put-up or shut up.â€￾

Yet sometimes readers who desire to negate the power of the peculiarities, personalities, persuasions and politics presented on the page cannot find the means to affirm their interests through writing.

It’s a given the peculiarities, personalities, persuasions, politics, powers, programs, promotions and propaganda that constellate from voluntary agents will inform and irritate. For it takes vitality to seize the power of the DIY citizen press and courage to endure publicly the angst of misunderstanding for the sake of understanding differences and actualizing the fullness of one’s personality, politics and propaganda. That’s why the writers rise, predictably enough, to the defense of their artful and self-actualizing platform.

And so, to make a long story short, simply change the tagline for the LO to make a “P-popping sound.â€￾

“Lakewood’s Civic Source for peculiarities, personalities, persuasions, politics, programs, promotions and propaganda – A Google News Source.â€￾

Kenneth Warren

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

The next time I need motivation to throw myself under a train I know I can count on you all for a boost of confidence.

A wise man once told me "Don't pay attention to the applause, they'll clap just as much if you were being hanged". (by the way that's the only time you can use hanged in a correct way; execution)

Anyway, this is a great birthday present. This public hanging.

Thanks guys, you're the best.

[Jim O'Bryan]

A wise man once told me "Don't pay attention to the applause, they'll clap just as much if you were being hanged". (by the way that's the only time you can use hanged in a correct way; execution)

Actually at the hanging they applaud louder, drink more at your funeral, and stop by and grab some of your stuff from the widows yard sale.

In the end was the experience a plus or a minus?

I think a plus. You met some good people that want to help you, the Kucinichs, you got another story under your belt, you showed how easy it is to put up. You worked with some good people that loved your work, Nadhal, Slife Bullock, Warren and myself, and the project grows and learns(on your blood).

Seriously, everyone loved your article, they just didn't want it printed, or as much printed, or printed now, or...

Last night I got a call from the Cimperman camp, demanding an article. I told them no problem. They asked when the next paper came out and mentioned that the schedule is online, and printed in information sent out. That the next paper comes out 4pm Election Day. The answer was "oh, never mind." Speaks volumes doesn't it?

Ivor, I loved the effort, and love the discussion that follows.

Gary, how about a little ukulele music to lead us back into word jazz.

.

[David Lay]

Last night I got a call from the Cimperman camp, demanding an article. I told them no problem. They asked when the next paper came out and mentioned that the schedule is online, and printed in information sent out. That the next paper comes out 4pm Election Day. The answer was "oh, never mind." Speaks volumes doesn't it?

[Bryan Schwegler]

Last night I got a call from the Cimperman camp, demanding an article. I told them no problem. They asked when the next paper came out and mentioned that the schedule is online, and printed in information sent out. That the next paper comes out 4pm Election Day. The answer was "oh, never mind." Speaks volumes doesn't it?

Not really sure what it speaks unless I'm missing some point. Do you expect them to turn in a political piece for a paper that's not being published again until it's too late? Given the timing, Ivor's piece is just as much a political piece as it is biographical (and to be clear I'm not saying Ivor meant it to be that way, it's just an unfortunate timing). I agree with others that if it were published any time other than 2 weeks before the primaries, the reaction would have been muted.

Would another alternative for the Cimperman campaign, in fairness, be to post an article online, just as big in the spot that the Kucinich article is now right at the top of the LO homepage? Was that offered to them?

Again, just trying to clear up the idea that the LO is somehow biased and demonstrate that everyone has a voice if they want it.

And Ivor, for the record, I think your piece was outstanding. I think you're simply the victim of bad timing and a highly charged political time period. One thing to understand is that when you take on the task of writing about a very polarizing political figure, there will always be some kind of backlash It doesn't however negate the fact the article was very well written and informative....they just maybe didn't want that information.

As I noted, I'm not a Kucinich supporter in the least, but even I enjoyed your article and learned a few things about the man I didn't know before and that I appreciate.

[Dee Martinez]

Mr. Brown, two reponses, one factual one philosophical.

The factual one. The "Fairness Doctrine" and the "equal time provision" are two different things. The FD required broadcasters to allow "opposing views" time on their stations. It did not require "equal time" and covered issues as well as candidates. Under the FD, you could run Rush Limbaugh as long as somewhere on your schedule you had some opposing views.

The FD was an administraive pain and vaguely written but it DID prevent what we have now, which is a virtual lockout of liberal points of view from 24/7 conservative stations. The FD has been gone for about 20 years

"Equal time" covers onlypolitical candidates and only in a restricted period before elections. If you give Candidate Smith 10 minutes of unrestricted air time to expound on his views, Candidate Jones can also demand 10 minutes. Bona fide "news" programs are exempt, which is why a Ron Paul doesn't get as much time on Meet the Press as Barack Obama. "Equal time" was never repealed.

Neither the FD nor equal time ever, ever applied to print media. The question now is whether equal time applies to cable networks which are (for now) technically outside the FCCs jurisdiction.

This isnt hair-splitting. The FD was and the equal time provision still is a huge consideration in the broadcast world. As has been proven here, many very intelligent people still dont have an accurate grasp of what drives their media.

Philosophy.

I wrote a long post last night but deleted it before posting. In it, I suggested the very thing you said, running the uncritical (I also used "fawning" but I didnt want to hurt Ivors feelings again) Kucinich piece AFTER the election. That would have been the journalistically ethical thing to do. Or assign an Observer staff member to do similar pieces on the other four.

When I read Mr. Warren however, I get the impression that he believes journalistic ethics and standards are for old fuddy-duddies who arent hip enough to get the brave new world of YOU! Media.

That seems sometimes to be what drives the Observer (granted I have never been in a star chanber advisory board meeting). My medical degree saying smoking is bad has no more weight than you saying The Sacred Chicken came to you in a dream and said you can smoke all you want if you eat three pomegranates a day. Write an article, get a photo of the Chicken if you can. Well run it all.

Fair enough, it's a free country and the Obsever is a private enteprise. There is a fine line between adhering to accepted standards and developing a "priesthood" where only a select few have the keys to the temple. But if there are NO standards of fairness, accuracy, fact-checking, etc, if the media marketplace becomes Dodge (Drudge?) City, I cant believe well be better served.

(I guess I should divulge my interest here. Before my life as a Lakewood mom I was a newspaper and radio reporter, radio host and producer, and overall media contributor for about 15 years, most of it in the upper Midwest. Nothing fancy. The newtorks never called. Aside from a bit of "consulting" and the occasional freelance piece in my area of interest, I am no longer active. If I did have another talk show, Bil Call would be my first guest. )

[Jim O'Bryan]

Not really sure what it speaks unless I'm missing some point. Do you expect them to turn in a political piece for a paper that's not being published again until it's too late? Given the timing, Ivor's piece is just as much a political piece as it is biographical (and to be clear I'm not saying Ivor meant it to be that way, it's just an unfortunate timing). I agree with others that if it were published any time other than 2 weeks before the primaries, the reaction would have been muted.

Would another alternative for the Cimperman campaign, in fairness, be to post an article online, just as big in the spot that the Kucinich article is now right at the top of the LO homepage? Was that offered to them?

Brian

I think it speaks volumes of planning.

I can use another example.

Obama office will be up and running fully after the Ohio primary.

???????


FWIW



.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Or assign an Observer staff member to do similar pieces on the other four.

When I read Mr. Warren however, I get the impression that he believes journalistic ethics and standards are for old fuddy-duddies who arent hip enough to get the brave new world of YOU! Media.

That seems sometimes to be what drives the Observer (granted I have never been in a star chanber advisory board meeting). My medical degree saying smoking is bad has no more weight than you saying The Sacred Chicken came to you in a dream and said you can smoke all you want if you eat three pomegranates a day. Write an article, get a photo of the Chicken if you can. Well run it all.

Fair enough, it's a free country and the Obsever is a private enteprise. There is a fine line between adhering to accepted standards and developing a "priesthood" where only a select few have the keys to the temple. But if there are NO standards of fairness, accuracy, fact-checking, etc, if the media marketplace becomes Dodge (Drudge?) City, I cant believe well be better served.

Dee

So many wrong assumptions.

First the "staff" of the Observer is production(part time), sales (part time), book keeping (volunteer part time), lawyer (part time volunteer) and publisher (part time volunteer).

Every meeting leading up to the formation of the board, was open to whoever wanted to come, most meetings are open, the office is open, and all board members are free to talk about any aspect of this project.

The new board is being assembled from people who have shown and interest in the project but think it could be better or go in another direction. I believe the only old board member to be left is Jeff Endress, who is also one of two lawyers representing the Observer.

The is no "Star Chamber" no matter how many times I call for one to be formed.

I think you would have to agree, that the world is changing and one of the things changing is "civic journalism." Possibly your earlier analogy to "you tube" is correct, though the Observer can do much more than "you tube."

As mentioned many times, throw your hat into the circle and talk with AB members about being on the new board. Stop by meetings (we will start our monthly meetings again next month for editors, writers, and others.) and help shape and form the project.

.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Fair enough, it's a free country and the Obsever is a private enterprise. There is a fine line between adhering to accepted standards and developing a "priesthood" where only a select few have the keys to the temple.

Dee

I pulled this out to answer separately. Besides the fact we are filing 501-C3 staus for the LO Foundation, to distribute "profits to Lakewood groups and charities." The paperwork is waiting signing at the next meeting.

I would ask, who has ever been turned away from "the temple"?

I would also ask, who if anyone owns the keys to "the temple"?

Or if they are any doors with locks, or other boundaries to "the temple"?

I am always curious about how these "ideas" are formed, as they are so far from the actual truth, they seem troubling to me.



.

[Kenneth Warren]

Ms. Martinez:

I always enjoy your insights and articulations. You are correct. I do believe we have entered “the brave new world of YOU! Media.â€￾ However, when it comes to the LO, it’s not a question of an in-your-face avant-garde trashing old-school journalistic ethics and standards journalistic ethics and standards. I would say thus far the project simply lacks “old fuddy-duddiesâ€￾ committed to journalistic ethics and standards. To my mind there few “old fuddy-duddies" with “world enough and timeâ€￾ to impose their order of functioning upon “the muddy brand,â€￾ as Mr. Schwegler aptly terms it, which may feel good for the writer and not feel fair to the reader.

(I really like Mr. Schwegler's observation about the "muddy brand." It seems to fit the character of a DIY folk/neighborhood operation that tends to process information and ripple effects of stories primarily through the relational evaluation of feeling rather than the logical process of thinking.)

I am not in any way dissing or dismissing your concerns about whether or not the community is well served by the LO’s folksy betrayal of old-school journalistic ethics and standards.

These are the perplexities and pragmatics of an experiential, experimental and relational community project that through the innate and patterned functioning of volunteer contributors in conjunction with the disruptive pressures of innovation and political interests upon a deep feeling publisher will always veer wildly, I must presume, from the professional experience and standards you have indicated in your post.

Thank you again for all the insight and attention.

Kenneth Warren

[Kenneth Warren]

Jim:

We are seeing again the third rail of politics.

Make certain you obtain good legal advice on the implications of the political/put-up/propaganda interface on the 501 C-3 status you are seeking.

There could be an accident waiting to happen, when an aggrieved politician calls the IRS to challenge the status due to the perception of politics and evident aid to a politician's campaign.

Kenneth Warren