The Observation Deck

I have gotten a couple email from people outraged over the article Ivor wrote about Congressman Kucinich.

Most are about how could we be so political.

Yet this was an interview Ivor wanted to do, and I cannot find any pitch for voting for him.

Yet 6 pages later is an article by Rosemary Palmer, begging people to vote for her, and no one seems to care.

No one even mentions it.

What is the difference?



.

Probably because some people perceive it as a 'love-fest' for Kucinich. Personally I thought it was an excellent article.

I think it all goes to the at-times poisonous political climate in this country.

I seem to remember that, in the 1980's, there was a "fairness in media" doctrine, and a much more distinct draw-down between an "opinion-editorial" (op-ed) piece and an "article", where opinions were supposed to be left at the gate.

With the ending of the "Fairness in Media" doctrine, the line between columns and articles began to blur. For anyone who has taken the time to follow the media these days, some entire news organizations seem to follow a certain slant, whether that be left, right, up, or down.

Ivor's column, and indeed, virtually everything in our paper, would therefore seem to be opinion pieces, since they are volunteer submissions by the public.

They are also a reflection of pure 1st amendment free speech.

Although many wish for a return to the days of "pure" articles, the fact is, even in those days, a supposedly unbiased report could have a subtle slant to it, going back to the historic "Yellow Journalism" of the last century.

Unless the "Fairness in Media" doctrine again becomes the law of the land, there is no guideline out there to assure an unbiased, take-no-sides article.

Gary/David

It does not explain why, Rosemary Palmer gets a free pass, and a 100% political vote for me article written by her.

As opposed to the article written by Ivor.


FWIW



.

Jim,

It's simple really. Ivor's column had more ink.

Perhaps a case of jealosy?

Everyone:

It's free speech. Get over it. If Dennis can't be bought, neither can Ivor, me, Jim or whomever.

That's public opinion ink that Jimmy's letting us use. For free, too.

And, the Good Lord willing and the creek don't rise, we'll use it any way we please, within the bounds of common decency.

Probably because there's a certain subset of people that don't like Kucinich.

If I may be so bold, I tell them: put up or shut up. Anyone can write for the paper, and so can you.

Gary Rice wrote: That's public opinion ink that Jimmy's letting us use. For free, too.

Gary/David

While you obviously understand the concept of putting up.

I must make something clear.

Lakewood businesses, Lakewood residents, one of the fairest and most open "advisory boards" I have ever had the pleasure to work with, make it possible. My part is small, I am just lucky to be able to round up the support for this project.

What so many seem to miss, is that the LO Project can be anything they want it to be, all they need to do is step up. Want some information out, send it in. Need help with a website idea, just ask. Want to start a civic group to make a positive change, just ask. You will get support, the tools, even funding.

FWIW


.

It is all about putting up.

Mr. Rice: To set the record straight.

There was never a "Fairness in Media" doctrine for print media. The "Fairness Doctrine" was a federal rule that covered radio and television stations which are licensed by the federal govt. It was ended during the Reagan years. Ironically it is our congressman who has been among the loudest voices in bringing it back.

I am not at all surprised by the response. If Lakewood is suppose to "Know itself like no other city" you have to know that we are extremely passionate and extremely conflicted about Mr, K He is a lightning rod for people. Love him or hate him there is not a lot of middle ground.

Lastly to Mr. O'Bryan. I have made a similar comment before. If you look like a duck, walk like a duck, etc. people are going to assume your a duck. If you publish what you call a "newspaper" people will assume you adhere to some generally accepted standards. Most reputable newspapers wont publish a fawning article about a politician because its something someone "wanted to do". You might thnk its OK to make up the rules as you go along but the public, especially geezers and geezettes like myself, probably will have issues with that.. I know this wont sit well with you, but the Observer does need to clarify whether it is a newspaper or You Tube on paper.

Dee Martinez wrote: Lastly to Mr. O'Bryan. I have made a similar comment before. If you look like a duck, walk like a duck, etc. people are going to assume your a duck. If you publish what you call a "newspaper" people will assume you adhere to some generally accepted standards. Most reputable newspapers wont publish a fawning article about a politician because its something someone "wanted to do". You might thnk its OK to make up the rules as you go along but the public, especially geezers and geezettes like myself, probably will have issues with that.. I know this wont sit well with you, but the Observer does need to clarify whether it is a newspaper or You Tube on paper.

Dee

It is written into the Mission Statement, and right under the masthead of every paper we have ever published.

Any suggestions to make it more clear are welcomed.


FWIW


.

It comes down to this....

Agree or not, some people are going to have a perception about the the LO does. Whether that perception is that the LO is a true "news" source or an "opinion" source or whether Ivor's article as a political statement made by the LO or whether someone perceives something no one even knows about.

To those people the perception is their reality.

The LO can either choose to make changes, etc to help change their perception or accomodate their concerns or it can choose not to do so. But that's the way most things work in life.

However, I would say that the issue of the content of the LO as to whether it's editorial or journalism or news continues to rear its head. So however the LO is trying to explain that to people is obviously not working. Until something is found that does work or the LO changes to meet their perceptions, the questions will continue to happen.

So the options really are figure out how to better communicate what the LO is, change the LO print standards to meet people's expectations, or continue as is knowing there will be those who question it.

It could just be my opinion based on working in the marketing world, but given the confusion that continues to pop up about this, I would classify the LO as a "muddy" brand. However the LO brand is trying define itself is not coming through clearly to the community at large.

People aren't sure what it is or what it's for. Most people aren't going to read mission statements or mastheads just as much as they don't read fine print on contracts. They see something that looks like a newspaper, and for better or worse, they assume it's the same thing.

Bryan, thank you for the comments. They clarify some things I have been trying to say and you expressed them better than I could have hoped to.

This isnt the winner of a bake-off, it is a US representative involved in a competitive re-election campaign. Unlike the Palmer piece (which no other paper would have published, either) it wasnt written and submitted by the candidate or his or her campaign. The Kucinich story was submitted by a regular staff member/contributor (what really is the title?) of the paper, which implies endorsement. Most people dont parse mastheads and mision statements. They just pick up the paper and read.
Any other newspaper or magazine that published the Kucinich story in question would have gotten the same reaction, positive from his supporters and protests from his detractors. It sort of borders on arrogance for the Observer to believe it would be immune from those realities.

This is ridiculous.

Jim,

I would hope that your conversation with these "outraged" e-mailers went in a similar fashion as did the phone conversation you had with a certain "outraged" caller a little more than a year ago.

I believe your words were... "Sir, if you don't agree with his opinion, why don't you write your own? If you write it, I'll print it."

Dee Martinez wrote: It sort of borders on arrogance for the Observer to believe it would be immune from those realities.

Dee

I do not feel immuned, instead I welcome those realities, as well as the discussion about them.

However, at what point does a "volunteer contributor" become so empowered as to speak for the entire paper?

Does a printed letter to the editor?

Again this is nothing more than misconception.

I hope to speak of them in the open, and move this project forward.

Each edition of the paper starts with 20 blank pages. To say it is anything more than that is a drastic overstatement.

.