The Observation Deck

So far i have to say that Matthew Lee's response brought a smile to my face.

It is hard for a volunteer citizen run effort to keep up with a multi-national, multi-billion
dollar company willing to lose $647 million dollars to date to put home grown local
community groups out of business so they can monetize the news.

When we put this project together, there were 5 papers serving Lakewood. There was no
issue of covering news. News was covered, there was no place where you could then discuss
the news with vetted real names and real people willing to put their credibility into the
discussion a city like Lakewood so desperately needed and still needs. What we never
realized was that so many politicians would have such a hard time either signing up,
or remembering their password. (Elected officials #1 answer, explains a lot about
management potential, eh?)

More later, please continue the discussion. I am reading, so are board members and other
Observer operations. Well, anyone who wants to, as there is no sign-in needed. We do not
even need to monetize your personal information for a profit.

Matt, thank you for starting this.


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:So far i have to say that Matthew Lee's response brought a smile to my face.

It is hard for a volunteer citizen run effort to keep up with a multi-national, multi-billion
dollar company willing to lose $647 million dollars to date to put home grown local
community groups out of business so they can monetize the news.

Jim,

There is something unique about the 'Wood that makes The Lakewood Observer (and project) work.

I'll be shocked if a "multi-national, multi-billion dollar company willing to lose $647 million dollars to date to put home grown local community groups out of business" is around the 'Wood in 2014 ... and not just because City Hall couldn't find a way to give it a tax abatement.

Matt

Jim O'Bryan wrote:What we never realized was that so many politicians would have such a hard time either signing up, or remembering their password. (Elected officials #1 answer, explains a lot about management potential, eh?)

Jim,

To paraphrase President Barack Hussein Obama II, "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, City Hall won."

Matt

Jim O'Bryan wrote:[P]lease continue the discussion. I am reading, so are board members and other Observer operations. Well, anyone who wants to, as there is no sign-in needed. We do not even need to monetize your personal information for a profit.

Matt, thank you for starting this.

Thank you, Jim, for taking this thread for the spirit in which it was intended ... and not hijacking it further ... so we can actually talk about this issue as good neighbors over the digital fence.

Matt

Disclaimer: I enjoy thread drift from time to time, too.

Matthew John Markling wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:[P]lease continue the discussion. I am reading, so are board members and other Observer operations. Well, anyone who wants to, as there is no sign-in needed. We do not even need to monetize your personal information for a profit.

Matt, thank you for starting this.

Thank you, Jim, for taking this thread for the spirit in which it was intended ... and not hijacking it further ... so we can actually talk about this issue as good neighbors over the digital fence.

Matt

Disclaimer: I enjoy thread drift from time to time, too.

Matt

I will say another couple words over your posts here about my comments.

AS you know from your day on the Lakewood Board of Education. Well since we started
and before it has all been about the spin, and controlling the message. This is not new to
media projects or the world, what I would say is new, and troubling is the "desperate need"
to control the message. That is to the point that when you have been outed, you do
everything in your arsenal to destroy and try to kill off the messenger. Write a bad story
about the Browns, and you lose your credentials. This is where the public outcry should
be focused on the media. Many are no longer the "Fourth estate" but have become "shills"
for the very people and entities they are covering.

Let me assure you, ask a powerful non-profit what happened to the money, and they go
after you as a mother hen would a fox in the hen yard. Ask City Hall why they didn't do
something different, and the wagons are circled, and the arrow soon follow. It has become
a game of hide and seek, and control and look for control points.

Through all of that we understood from day one that "news" is merely a starting point to
what it means to you, and to me, and others. It also means completely different things
to you and your family, and me and my family, and that is not a bad thing. So it is what
and how residents talk, compare notes, and vet things that are important to them in their
community which is the real meat of the matter.

We learned in the infamous "WestEnd Project" "West End Debacle" according to Jay Foran,
that the news coming form City Hall was completely spun out of control. We leaned that
the small coffee clatches were also spreading miss-truth and outright lies. We learned that
the media covering the entire project were heavily controlled and owned through a variety
of ways from access to business involved threatening to pull ads from them.

It was there and then we decided it was far better to worry about the community on the
whole then fixate on news that is often hype, spin, or just sensational bullshit. Sites that
fixate on news, and bad news are not doing the city a service, far from it. In their rush to
get anything on a page and send out a blast, hey take the most mundane story and blow
it out. I often wonder if a 24 hour news cycle is even healthy to our mental health.

Anyway, I hope this answers some of the questions about this project, and why we do it.

I know Peter Grossetti is lining up a LOKOL meeting for management of the Observer and
I have promise to leave it all open and talk about everything and anything to do with this
project as we close in to our tenth year of publishing, and are growing into other areas.

Thanks again for taking the time to ask the questions.

peace

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Well since we started and before it has all been about the spin, and controlling the message. This is not new to media projects or the world, what I would say is new, and troubling is the "desperate need" to control the message. That is to the point that when you have been outed, you do everything in your arsenal to destroy and try to kill off the messenger. Write a bad story about the Browns, and you lose your credentials. This is where the public outcry should be focused on the media. Many are no longer the "Fourth estate" but have become "shills" for the very people and entities they are covering.

Let me assure you, ask a powerful non-profit what happened to the money, and they go after you as a mother hen would a fox in the hen yard. Ask City Hall why they didn't do something different, and the wagons are circled, and the arrow soon follow. It has become a game of hide and seek, and control and look for control points.

***

We learned in the infamous "WestEnd Project" "West End Debacle" according to Jay Foran, that the news coming form City Hall was completely spun out of control. We lea[r]ned that the small coffee clatches were also spreading miss-truth and outright lies. We learned that the media covering the entire project were heavily controlled and owned through a variety of ways from access to business involved threatening to pull ads from them.

Jim,

Perhaps that's why some would vote for, "I’m afraid of being alienated by friends, family, and folks I don’t even know."

Sorry, Betsy, I know ...



Matt

I have been busy with the dogs. Lately it seems everyone is dumping their pets and I am the one picking up the pieces so to say. A little poodle mix in the dog park, a tiny 4 pound puppy in the metroparks, an english bulldog on 90, oh and another boxer mix puppy on Lakewood Hts Blvd. Busy busy busy..

I have been informed that some folks can't cast a vote on this poll.

I don't run the Deck so I can't help you figure that out. Sorry.

But, it may be a reason to cast a vote for, "It’s too complicated to post on the Deck." ... if you could cast a vote.

Matthew John Markling wrote:I have been informed that some folks can't cast a vote on this poll.

I don't run the Deck so I can't help you figure that out. Sorry.

But, it may be a reason to cast a vote for, "It’s too complicated to post on the Deck." ... if you could cast a vote.

Well, to cast a vote, you actually have to log in, or sign up for the Observation Deck. The place to sign up is at the top of this page.

Since the LO actually makes sure that the people posting here are real, you can't instantly post, or vote in the poll, you should be able to post in a couple hours or a day at the most, depending on how busy the LO vetters are, or whether you actually are a real person.

Betsy Voinovich

Betsy Voinovich wrote:

Matthew John Markling wrote:I have been informed that some folks can't cast a vote on this poll.

I don't run the Deck so I can't help you figure that out. Sorry.

But, it may be a reason to cast a vote for, "It’s too complicated to post on the Deck." ... if you could cast a vote.

Well, to cast a vote, you actually have to log in, or sign up for the Observation Deck. The place to sign up is at the top of this page.

Since the LO actually makes sure that the people posting here are real, you can't instantly post, or vote in the poll, you should be able to post in a couple hours or a day at the most, depending on how busy the LO vetters are, or whether you actually are a real person.

Betsy Voinovich

I suppose I need to be clearer ... so ... EDIT:

I have been informed that some folks - who have actually signed up for the Observation Deck and logged into the same - can't cast a vote on this poll.

I don't run the Deck so I can't help you figure that out. Sorry.

But, it may be a reason to cast a vote for, "It’s too complicated to post on the Deck." ... if you could cast a vote.

Matt

... thanks, Betsy ...

Matthew John Markling wrote:

Betsy Voinovich wrote:

Matthew John Markling wrote:I have been informed that some folks can't cast a vote on this poll.

I don't run the Deck so I can't help you figure that out. Sorry.

But, it may be a reason to cast a vote for, "It’s too complicated to post on the Deck." ... if you could cast a vote.

Matt/Betsy

Really?

Matt the problem with votes are browser related. We looked into it, and depending on
browsers and if they have been upgraded seems to have an effect. When I tried an old
version of outlook, it was not working, with and old version of Safari the same, when
new versions were used, it worked fine.

"When everyone posted on the Deck"

There was never a day when everyone posted on the Deck. NEVER, when we set the Deck
up we knew a certain number of people that hie in bushes and throw rocks would not be
able to stand in the light, make a comment and read the replies. Certainly you understand
that many people just stir the pot, rarely adding more than stirring. Other people throw in
a slice of potato, a carrot, and some bring the beef.

Some are one hit wonders, and some carve out a a platform and work it for all it is worth.

Some run their course and come back as "stars from the past" and others never come out
of the shadows and lurk forever.

If you look at any given time there are about 15-30 "active" people on the Deck. That is
stick around long enough to finish a discussion. I was talking with one elected official the
other day who does post here and he said, "I hate that I feel the need to sit there and
wait for answer so the thread doesn't get hijacked." I can understand the feeling, but from
day one we never wanted "The Deck" to be a way of life. Sometimes I sign onto Facebook
and watch people sign it at 9 am, and as I check back later they are still there. When I ask
they will say, I leave it on all day, I don't want to miss anything. We NEVER wanted the
Deck to be like that. Why trade real life for "virtual life"? We wanted the Deck to be a place
where people could share ideas, breaking news, and talk about the City we Love. We did
not want you to forget your friends and family and real life exchanges.

I compare this with a Giada DeLaurentis experience. With millions of guys turning on
Giada every day, taping her shows, and watching them again. And they will never even
try to cook one of the meals. They live vicariously through her.

It was always our dream that we would talk about food security, and start LEAF, and do it.
We would talk about art and start Lakewood Is Art, and then do it. That we would talk about
bikes and Lakewood start Bike Lakewood and do it.

We want people enjoying life in Lakewood, and want to add to the experience, not replace it.

So enjoy it.

.

I'm not a psychologist, but as a trained special needs educator, I've looked at computer chat rooms generally with academic interest over the years, so I'll try and contribute an opinion here for what it may be worth.

(These thoughts are not intended to specifically deal with our Observation Deck, but instead, to address the question as to why people might not post more on internet forums generally)

Education professionals often study dysfunctional families so as to be familiar with the mechanisms and dynamics involved in their interactions, with the goal of assisting children who may be caught up in counterproductive negative family situations. Granted, at one time or another, all families probably go through times where things do not go well. It's the longer-term patterns that may indicate whether or not a significant concern exists.

It is my opinion that many people who post on the 'net can be much more outspoken and bold than they might otherwise be in the real world, particularly if the chat room is anonymous. Even with using real names however, I've noticed that people can still be very outspoken online, particularly when their point of view has been challenged.

Again, NOT speaking here directly concerning the 'Deck, I have observed that a random chat room can devolve very quickly into the pattern of a dysfunctional family, having identifiable roles assumed (bully, hero, rescuer etc...) according to the situations involved. The goals of power and victory can replace wisdom and understanding in such situations.

I've also observed (no pun intended) that many people post on the computer having agendas, and then take serious and even arguably abusive umbrage when those agendas are challenged and refuted. Written conversation then can rapidly deteriorate from adult-adult discussions into counterproductive models, and that could well be a factor in the reluctance of some people to post online.

I would suggest that anyone interested in the psychology of human interactions become familiar with Eric Berne's theory of Transactional Analysis (TA) I believe that even a brief overview of TA can provide great insight into a discussion such as this one.

A brief study of dysfunctional family roles could also be quite helpful for anyone wishing to see how role behaviors can affect interactions.

No one wants to be belittled or bullied for posting their thoughts on a forum, and I would theorize that might well be a significant reason for people being reluctant to post in a given chat room. I believe that a chat room can devolve quickly into a dysfunctional atmosphere, if left unchecked by supervisors.

Towards that end, I feel that the 'Deck has done better than many chat rooms, perhaps due to the use of real names here. Even so, we can always learn, improve, and become even more aware of the importance of positive human interactions.


Back to the banjo.

Scott Meeson wrote:"The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails." - William Arthur Ward

That is a great quote, Scott!

I love it!

But, what happens when a whale constantly jumps on deck?





Matt