Question About Kucinich Article

[Bret Callentine]

While I certainly won't speak for anyone else, I, for one, would definitely take offense at anyone challenging my ethics, journalistic or otherwise.

I have a degree in communications which includes quite a few courses in journalism. And while I would never suggest that I'm a journalist (I'm meering a writer), I take great pride in my work, I spend quite a bit of time and effort researching my opinions and scrutinizing word choice and sentence structure. I start every article with a simple question: "what's the point I'm trying to make." and then I spend every bit of the two weeks between deadlines trying to make it in a succinct yet entertaing way.

I don't have any illusions of ever winning a Pulitzer prize, but I hold myself to the highest possible standards.

If anyone has a problem with what Ivor wrote, I suggest that it's their own ethics that are suspect. It's a good article, worthy of print, and it completely adhears to all of the guidelines set by the paper.

I don't recall hearing anyone cry "foul" when I wrote articles criticizing Kucinich. So why would it be a proplem when someone writes an article that is favorable?

[Dee Martinez]

If anyone has a problem with what Ivor wrote, I suggest that it's their own ethics that are suspect. It's a good article, worthy of print, and it completely adhears to all of the guidelines set by the paper.

I don't recall hearing anyone cry "foul" when I wrote articles criticizing Kucinich. So why would it be a proplem when someone writes an article that is favorable?

For the umpteenth time, no one that I read criticized the article or the Observers right to publish it. Ivor could have written that Mr. Kucinich invented chocolate and sex, and the Observer had the right to publish that unquestioned. Please get off that. The question is, did anti-Kucinich people have a legitimate gripe in the publishing of an uncritical piece during the run up to an election?

One of the first things you learn when you actually start cashing checks in a media job, as opposed to a taking a couple of journalism courses, is that the public doesnt really doesnt care what happens in your office.

If I sit there with a PD, a Sun Post, a Free Times, and an Observer, and its two weeks before an election, its going to rub me the wrong way when I see a love letter to a candidate. Whether the PD reporter has an MA and 20 years of experience and the Observer person has three hours of Journalism 101 doesnt matter to me. Im sending a nasty letter. The reporter's credentials are less important than what the PAPER OVERALL is trying to accomplish. From what Ive seen Mr O'Bryan has never missed an opportunity to lambast the PD, Sun, or TV stations. Why should the Observer be granted special status from criticism?

Im not reading mission statements or attending advisory board meetings. Thats YOUR job, not mine. Im not cashing the checks for the ads from Lakewood Hospital. Im just sitting eating my cereal and looking at papers. Is that so difficult to understand?

The bottom line is this, the more any media outlet is perceived to be showing favor to one perspective or another, the damage is to the outlet itself. You can accept that, reject it, or argue it. As Hillary said last night, "well be fine."

[Bret Callentine]

The bottom line is this, the more any media outlet is perceived to be showing favor to one perspective or another, the damage is to the outlet itself. You can accept that, reject it, or argue it. As Hillary said last night, "well be fine."

difference being, the content of the Lakewood Observer is completely dependent on volunteer submissions, unlike that of any major newspaper.

If Ivor prints his piece on a sheet of paper and staples it to a telephone pole, I don't think anyone would walk up and say "man, AT&T really must love Dennis Kucinich."

Im not reading mission statements or attending advisory board meetings. Thats YOUR job, not mine.

If you have no interest in the "why" then can you really be offended at the "how"?

[Richard Cole]

For the umpteenth time, no one that I read criticized the article or the Observers right to publish it. .............. its going to rub me the wrong way when I see a love letter to a candidate.

The way I see it, describing the peice written by Ivor as a "love letter to a candidate" is derogatory and demeaning.

As a casual reader, I assume that the LO will endeavor to print what it recieves, in as fair and neutral manner that they can. I see no evidence that they have witheld any article supporting any candidate in the issue that contains the Kucinich piece.

If submitted articles are being witheld from publication on a preferential basis, then I would be worried and concerned.

[Dee Martinez]

difference being, the content of the Lakewood Observer is completely dependent on volunteer submissions, unlike that of any major newspaper.

Im not reading mission statements or attending advisory board meetings. Thats YOUR job, not mine.

If you have no interest in the "why" then can you really be offended at the "how"?

To the first count, you cant compare yourself favorably to other media outlets when it suits your purpose then hide behind dodges like "completely dependent on volunteer submissions" when your called out.
Is the Observer legitimate media, or is it putting on shows in the barn? Cant have it both ways/

As for the "why" and "how', do I have to tour the Bob Evans plant and stuff a few casings to eat the sausage? Why do I have to be involved in the production to be a consumer? Put the darn paper out there and let me read it. If its good Ill tell you, if its not, I reserve the right to complain, even if I dont go to meetings. Once again, any business that cant deal with honest criticism and input will eventually implode under their own hubris.

Ive said enough on this. As I said, I am actually going to vote for Mr Kucinich in all likelihood. Whatever the Observer does or doesnt do is only a topic of interest to me, my life changes not at all.

[Bret Callentine]

To the first count, you cant compare yourself favorably to other media outlets when it suits your purpose then hide behind dodges like "completely dependent on volunteer submissions" when your called out.

It's apples to oranges.

To the best of my knowledge, the LO doesn't tell any people what to write and when. The PD, ABJ, and others do. When they control the direction of the articles, they should be held accountable for the overall "slant" that's represented. The LO has no control over what's submitted or when, therefor about the only thing they can do is refuse to print what is submitted.

do I have to tour the Bob Evans plant and stuff a few casings to eat the sausage?

No, but you can't pass by the stack of nutritional information on the counter at a McDonalds for years and then all the sudden start complaining that the food is unhealthy.

[Stephen Calhoun]

Once again, observing the observers compels me to point out that it is possible this kind of dialog is happening very rarely anywhere else. It's subject is, in effect, "meta-communications,' communicating about communicating. terrific. necessary for the self-aware city. imo

***

Dee wrote,

The question is, did anti-Kucinich people have a legitimate gripe in the publishing of an uncritical piece during the run up to an election?

It seems to me that the ethics of post-journalism in the barely filtered, intuitively mediated civic experiment posit all gripes to be legitimate.

My idea here is possibly hard to grasp because it's not only not conventional, it's kinda "post-conventional." But, the civic literary form is poetic and gay (in the fuddy duddy sense,) and the crucial tube from writer's instincts to the printed piece is supposed to lead to shattering.

Hybrid then: neither article, opinion, journalism, editorial. Well, as I see it.

***

However, the audience for the local artistry is essential. As it turns out, Lakewood has proven to be very congenial for evoking whatever are the multitude of characteristics pinned or projected on the paper by its readership. Praxis over content.

One thing that may be different is that the volunteer writers may not choose to spend much time inhabiting the shoes of the ur-reader before writing their civic poems.

That's a very radical position in the scheme of how self-authorship flows to audiences.

For sure, most published 'serials' have to consider what happens when the product is read.

Such media are, obviously, not doing the experiment the LO is doing.

[Stan Austin]

Stephen---

I think that you are saying what we have been experiencing, namely that we are constantly trying to figure out what category we fit in to. There has been no precise answer to that and with technology and communications tools that are readily available to anybody now, there will be no fixed answer (Where's the line? they keep moving it).

But it is a very vigorous enterprise with no particular end point in sight. Kinda cool I think !!!!!

Stan

[Gary Rice]

Happy Birthday Ivor,

As far as I'm concerned, any writing that generates 50+ discussion comments and over 1000 viewings in a 24 hour period, is a good column.

Would I have done it differently? Of course. So would everyone else.

That's not the point, Ivor, you did it, and you stand by your words.

And that's good.

Whether or not a column, article, TV show, or movie is supposed to show bias, in one way or another, just by being humans, I think our bias often breaks through. Sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly.

And probably should, I think. May it ever be so.

As the old German folk song rang out, so long ago:

Die Gedanken sind frei...

Your thoughts are free. May they ever be so.

Sorry Jim, uke's not my instrument. My great friend Todd plays the uke like a master though. (By the way, we pronounce that "ooook")

I guess we're back to the banjo, then.

[Jim O'Bryan]

From what Ive seen Mr O'Bryan has never missed an opportunity to lambast the PD, Sun, or TV stations. Why should the Observer be granted special status from criticism?

Who has ever asked for special treatment?

As for never missing an opportunity. Nothing less that a grand over statement, for effect nothing more.




.

[Paul Schrimpf]

First of all, Ivor, take it from a 20 year vet of the j-wars. You need to relax your defense of your writing. It was a fine piece for what it was and where it appeared. Let these folks spin off in any direction they like. Respond simply and elequently and let the mob hang each other.

Oh, and happy birthday ...

LO is not a haven for rule-based journalism, never was, and never will be. Take it for what it is. At its best it is a good record for the fact based stories it tackles, which as Jim said is a key part of the reason it came into being in the first place.

My biggest beef with LO is the Dickensian length of many of the articles, and I know no one is getting paid by the word. 500 well crafted words beats the hell out of 1000 rambling ones.

I'll await the "if you think you're so good at it where's you byline?" responses. My problem is I write all day!

[Bret Callentine]

500 well crafted words beats the hell out of 1000 rambling ones.

Are you suggesting that size matters?

[Joe McClain]

I recommend that all of you read Mark Twain’s excellent sketch “Journalism in Tennessee.â€￾
You’ll find it if you scroll down: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189.txt
That should lighten the mood somewhat, as well as illustrate the difference between objective journalism and opinion/advocacy. I’ve read it scores of times and I laugh out loud every time I read the editor’s revision of Twain’s submission.

One of the strongest—and weakest—points of journalism in America is that there are no rules. There are standard practices (which shift) and standards (subject to even more variation) and sacred cows (which evolve, but slowly.) Even the few legal restraints, such as those involving plagiarism and libel, don’t have as firm a foundation as many would like.

Twain’s Tennessee editor and his colleagues/competitors have a set of standards. Fox News has one—don’t ask me to explain it. And even the big guns fall from grace, or rather, get caught in a fall from grace. Remember Jayson Blair?

The LO can adopt any standards it wishes…or none at all. The difference between normal ethics and journalism ethics is the difference between cheese and cheese whiz. I didn’t make that up.

I’ve been making my living writing since the day Elvis died. (Just coincidence.) I put in eight years in daily newspapers before moving to writing within higher education. I edit (and do most of the writing for) a research magazine here at William and Mary. I have a set of standards, but they are different from those at Discover magazine or Scientific American.

Ivor, you are young and Steve Davis speaks highly of you. You will gain years and you will acquire experience and if you work hard, you can probably overcome the impediment of the Steve Davis endorsement. I will tell you what I tell my interns—every time you have something published under your byline, it’s just like putting on a too-small pink tutu and riding a wobbly bike over a tightrope over a crowd of critics. In other words, you expose your person to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in the form of comments from people who may or not be wiser than you or who think they are anointed with a crown making them Arbiter of Grammar and Usage. You never get used to it, but you get to where it doesn’t bug you so much. But don't let it get you down.

[Paul Schrimpf]

Joe --

That's pretty much what I meant by making a simple and elequent defense, but you said it better than I could have. Ivor, listen to this guy. He has it right.

Paul

[stephen davis]

Ivor,

Don't listen to Joe McClain. Yes, he makes a living writing stories, but he's most famous for telling stories, if you know what I mean.

He got his B.S. in B.S. from Bethany College, where he graduated with dis-honors.

Steve