A letter to the editor [subscription required] in yesterday’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

I had to chuckle when I saw the article carried by The Daily Star-Journal about the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

[….]

Vicky Hartzler, must have winced if she read this article because it seamlessly transitioned to the next paragraph in which she praised the act and took credit for helping it pass. You made it sound like Rep. Hartzler helped codify the law to protect gays and lesbians from domestic abuse.

[….]

When it looked like the version of the bill that she supported would fail and the version that protected gays and lesbians would pass, Ms. Hartzler made her choice. She would rather that no victim of domestic violence receive help from the federal government if lesbians were going to be included in that group. She voted no.

Rep. Hartzler set her priorities and voted according to her beliefs. And you made it sound like she thought protecting women from violence was more important than her hatred of gays. You owe her an apology.

[….]

[with permission of the author]

Public political sarcasm is definitely a high art form.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): through the looking glass (March 2, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Доверяй, но проверяй? (March 4, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): not too many people are buying it (March 5, 2013)

Piling on Vicky Hartzler (March 7, 2013)

Hartzler’s Deception (March 7, 2013)

Not necessarily. Either one.

….Honest…I ran out of gas. I…I had a flat tire. I didn’t have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! It wasn’t my fault, I swear….

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): through the looking glass (March 2, 2013)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [file photo]

An editorial in today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal (subscription required):

3/3/2013 6:51:00 PM

Actually, Rep. Hartzler voted against act

EDITORIAL

Jack Miles

The Daily Star-Journal newsroom operates with a degree of trust in the sources with whom the newspaper works, but not blind trust, and the degree of trust the newspaper offers relates directly to the credibility of sources, often based on their positions.

[….]

Based on trust, The Star-Journal accepted as fact, under the headline “Hartzler votes to protect women from acts of violence,” the following three paragraphs in a press release last week from U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s office:

[….]

In the release, she makes no mention that she did not vote for what would become law and, coupled with the deadline timing, what conclusion could be drawn other than that she voted for what would become law?

[….]

I received a call from Hartzler’s office and I thanked the person for the release, saying something to the extent that the release appeared to cover all of the bases. The newspaper heard nothing to suggest the release meant anything other than what the release said: Hartlzer voted for the act.

[….]

I hope this information answers the question of how the mistake occurred.

I trusted…

I regret that error.

It’s generally not a good idea for people holding public office to upset people who buy ink by the barrel.

In the Columbia Daily Tribune:

Senate version of anti-violence measure passes

Hartzler voted for House bill.

By Rudi Keller

Friday, March 1, 2013 at 2:00 pm

Fourth District Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler on Thursday put out a news release touting her vote in favor of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, but the release failed to mention that the bill she supported did not pass.

The House did pass a version of the law, which had already received bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate and is now awaiting President Barack Obama’s signature. Hartzler’s news release did not mention that bill or that she voted against it….

We await more spin from Representative Hartzler (r).

Evidently the national mouthpiece for the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturing industry isn’t the final arbiter.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

….It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is….

[emphasis added]

Nope, nothing there either about a county sheriff in out state Missouri.

There was a recent splash in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal about a sternly worded letter from Johnson County (Missouri) Sheriff Chuck Heiss (r) addressed to President Barack Obama. Supposedly there were other sternly worded letters from a smattering of county sheriffs across the country, though definitely not a majority of them.

There was a lead editorial [subscription required] in the January 23, 2013 Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal criticizing the Johnson County Sheriff for using his publicly funded sheriff’s website to express his political opinion.

In addition, there were two extensive letters to the editor in the same January 23, 2013 print edition of the paper taking issue with Sheriff Heiss’ (r) assertions:

Your paper recently published (Jan. 18) the full text of the Johnson County Sheriff’s public letter to the U.S. president. This letter seems very concerned about efforts of the administration to address some of the underlying issues that have led to several recent shootings throughout the U.S. The letter proclaims in a concluding sentence for sheriffs in this state to “rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation or executive order that … diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

Unfortunately a reader of that letter would learn nothing about the scope of this right, nothing about the administration’s proposals that concerns its author, and nothing on alternative policies to the problems of “gun violence in our nation.”

Certainly the letter cannot seriously be suggesting that the rights under the Second Amendment are absolute. It is impossibly difficult to find any constitutional right to be absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court suggested that certain limitations could be imposed on gun use and ownership when it only recently found government restrictions on an individual right to bear arms to violate the Second Amendment. Since these decisions are very recent (2008, 2010) we do not know the actual scope of these rights and thus we cannot know with any great certainty that the administration’s proposals would actually “diminish” Second Amendment rights. These proposals will need to be enacted and tested in the courts to see if they are ultimately unconstitutional. Thus, the letter’s concluding sentence may be little more than hyperbole, unless the author sees himself as having a power to provide an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution.

The letter objects to the “tone of (the) administration.” The reader of your newspaper will look in vain in an attempt to get a clear sense of this “tone”; there is no supporting specificity to this objection to the administration’s proposals. This newspaper’s readers would be better informed on these issues if there had been a mention of this website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issu… Here there is a link to the full text of the president’s plan. Your readers can judge for themselves whether the administration’s proposals would unreasonably restrict a right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and whether they would help to prevent another of these recent horrific acts of violence.

As for policy suggestions, the purpose of the letter may have been merely to defend the notion of a restriction-free Second Amendment. However, it clearly implies that a restriction-free right to bear arms is a significant means to prevent a society from being “overrun with criminal element.” Citing the impact of Mexico’s drug cartels upon that country may not support this argument. Mexico’s constitution guarantees the right to have arms. Though this guarantee explicitly permits restrictions on ownership, yet a significant amount of these cartels’ firearms come from the far less-restricted gun market in the U.S. A further counterbalance to the letter’s cited experiences of other nations are those of the many democratic countries, not so impacted by gun smuggling from the U.S., that do not guarantee an individual unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, and have far smaller homicide rates than the U.S., and are not apparently “ripe for government oppression.”

It would be good for this newspaper to encourage open discussion on this important issue. However, to reproduce only the full text of a public letter to the president that provides no information for the reader with which to assess its many unsupported assertions is disappointing and does little to further public debate.

Don Wallace

Warrensburg

[letter reproduced with the permission of the author]

The second letter:

I’d like to express my strong disagreement with a letter sent to President Obama by Johnson County Sheriff Chuck Heiss, which appeared in Friday’s Daily Star-Journal. In his letter to the president, Sheriff Heiss assumes that the Second Amendment is an absolute right. For example, he says: “Any attempt to restrict these Second Amendment rights through executive order is unconstitutional and tantamount to an all out assault on the United States Constitution.” He also says that, pursuant to his responsibilities as sheriff of Johnson County, he will “with great vigor and conviction … urge (his) fellow sheriffs in the state of Missouri and across this great nation to rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes (citizens’) constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

In 2008, in a case called District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court for the first time in this nation’s history ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to carry and bear arms – a fact that flatly contradicts Sheriff Heiss’s contention that “(t)he Second Amendment to the United States has long guaranteed our citizens the right to keep and bear arms and is central to our ability to live in a free society.” Nonetheless, the majority opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, recognized that there were limits to the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. “Like most rights,” Justice Scalia wrote, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” At the end of this paragraph, Scalia attached a footnote, which reads: “We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.” Moreover, Scalia mentioned the possibility of banning particular types of guns – a subject that is particularly relevant in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Conn., and current discussions about bans on assault weapons and high capacity cartridges. “It may be objected,” Scalia continues, “that if weapons that are most useful in military service, M-16 rifles and the like, may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.”) But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Thus, nothing in the majority opinion in Heller would prohibit the president and Congress from placing what many people would consider to be reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment right.

Jim Staab

Warrensburg

[letter reproduced with the permission of the author]

That would indeed be a novel approach – letting, you know, actually facts find their way into a national discussion about guns and gun violence.

Previously:

On threading the needle and being in favor of both the Second Amendment and gun control (January 23, 2013)

Previously:

There’s no room for sluts in the gallery. There is for prostitutes. (March 5, 2012)

Destined to be one of the top political quotes in the history of Missouri (March 5, 2012)

Steve Tilley owes Dred Scott and Buck O’Neil an apology (March 6, 2012)

Rush’s Bust (March 6, 2012)

What has your representative said about honoring Rush? (March 7, 2012)

A Letter to the Editor in today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

Limbaugh’s foot in mouth

Listening to Rush Limbaugh spew his characteristic vitriol over national television news and, this time, college coed, Susan Fluke, was appalling…..

….Filthy descriptors from the mouth of an overpaid windbag attacking someone he had never met raises the question of his own character (or lack thereof). Sadly, for those who see Limbaugh as a viable spokesperson for conservative viewpoints, his latest rant only underscores the unbalanced and incongruent thinking that he has come to represent to many Americans….

[emphasis in original]

There was also an unsigned lead editorial in the same issue of the paper:

Limbaugh does not belong in state hall

The Hall of Famous Missourians should not include Rush Limbaugh.

Many Missourians would not recognize Limbaugh as famous; infamous, perhaps. But the hall is meant for famous Missourians and his nomination has more to do with being a windbag known for spewing hate – calling a college kid a whore, suggesting Michael J. Fox faked a disease = than for selfless accomplishments….

…[Speaker] Tilley’s suggestion about Limbaugh deserving to be in the hall just for being a well-known radio personality sounds more like an excuse than a rational reason.

Tilley added in his AP interview that the hall is about famous as opposed to “universally loved Missourians.” That, too, sounds like bunk….

….The fact, though, about Limbaugh being picked for the hall appears as simple as this: Tilley is a Republican and Limbaugh is a spokesman for the Republican Party, so Limbaugh gets into the hall and more deserving Missourians do not.

[emphasis in original]

Did you catch that? “…Limbaugh is a spokesman for the Republican Party…” When you read that in a small town Missouri newspaper it’s the beginning of the end.

But, wait, there’s more. Editor Jack Miles also wrote an op-ed piece in today’s paper:

James more deserving than Rush

I would sooner see Old Drum entered into the Hall of Famous Missourians in Jefferson City than Rush Limbaugh or anyone else whose main claim to fame is being a mouthpiece for a particular political party….

….Hearing House Speaker Steve Tilley, therefore, argue for putting Limbaugh into the Hall of Missourians makes no sense. Limbaugh serves a particular party, not the American people. As such, Limbaugh serves a group, an agenda, but not the nation….

….If simply being well known is a new criteria for being in the Hall of famous Missourians, then Jesse James has my vote over Limbaugh….

[emphasis in original]

“…Limbaugh serves a particular party, not the American people…” Ah, here’s the rub: for republicans that’s a feature, not a bug.

A letter to the editor in today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

Wall St. should be occupied

I’ve been hearing a lot about the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that’s going on across the country. As someone who runs stock and bond portfolios, I have my own stories to tell.

One is about IDT, the long distance phone card company which has two classes of shares, one the founders hold that gets one vote on company matters and one the public holds that gets 1/10th of a vote.

Then there is Health Management Associates which offered a $10 special dividend and loaded up the company with debt, all so the top five in management could retain their jobs by making the stock unattractive to potential acquiring companies.

And one of my favorites, 4Kids Entertainment, which instituted a “poison pill” which would add additional shares to thwart the shareholders from outing the CEO for his horrible performance.

Yes, I can assure you that there are problems on Wall Street. The top five people in management will do anything to retain their power, all to the detriment of stock shareholders, mutual fund share holders, college endowments, pensions, and rank and file employees.

Holmes Osborne, CFA,

Osborne Global Investors Inc., Odessa

Holmes Osborne (D) is an announced candidate for the Missouri House. He ran against Mike McGhee (r) in the 122nd Legislative District in 2010.

“…all to the detriment of stock shareholders, mutual fund share holders, college endowments, pensions, and rank and file employees…” And even an investment professional tells us that the Occupy Wall Street folks have it right.

The typical republican expects everyone else to have a short memory:

Journal; The Mother Next Door

By FRANK RICH

Published: November 13, 1994

….But once Ms. Smith confessed, a new villain had to be found to keep our own internal demons at bay. Enter Newt Gingrich, who rushed into action on election eve with another reliable generic culprit: society. He said the double murder “vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things,” expediently adding that “the only way you get change is to vote Republican.”

Hmmm, that sounds suspiciously like someone was exploiting a tragedy for political purposes, right before an election, even. And the real story got even worse when the facts came out long after that election:

Defending Smith, Stepfather Says He Also Bears Blame

By RICK BRAGG

Published: July 28, 1995

…Susan Smith’s stepfather, who admitted that he had molested her when she was a teen-ager and had consensual sex with her as an adult, told her and his town that he shared her guilt in the drowning deaths of her young sons….

….Mr. Russell, a former member of the executive committee of the South Carolina Republican Party and a member of the Christian Coalition, read aloud from a letter he had written to Mrs. Smith in jail in which he said that his “heart breaks for what I have done to you….”

[emphasis added]

Can you believe that the inside the beltway cocktail weenie circuit continues to have Newt Gingrich appear on our televisions?

Now, we have a political environment where one group consistently uses violent imagery and eliminationist rhetoric, all while continuing to say, “what, who me?”

Previously:

It does happen here : “…can you out run a nine millimeter…” (January 10, 2011)

It does happen here : “…can you out run a nine millimeter…”, part 2 (January 12, 2011)

So, as near as we can tell Courtney Cole’s op-ed about threats of violence directed at individuals running for office has appeared here, at Fired Up!, PoliticMo, in the Kansas City Star, and now, in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal. Interestingly, the versions in the Star and the Star-Journal don’t mention the name of the individual in the police report.

But, of course, we do get the typical right wing republican knee jerk reaction when anyone points out the obvious. This, from a long comment in the Star-Journal from someone with the same name as an unsuccessful republican candidate [pdf] in the 2010 primary for Presiding Commissioner of Johnson County:

As always, someone has to make a tragedy into a political argument, when, as the evidence comes to light, this incident in Tucson was clearly non-political.

I can’t grant much credence to Courtney Cole’s claims of threats made during the last election. I’m not saying they’re untrue, just a bit over blown as were many of her statements in her campaign literature. I doubt that she was every in any real physical danger as the election results indicate that only a few thought she was a viable candidate. She seems to still taste the sour grapes of her recent defeat.

Since Ms. Cole threw herself wholeheartedly into the politics of personal destruction during the campaign (referencing the seemingly unending deluge of vitriolic literature that was sent to me daily by her campaign), for her to be chastising the rest of us for any lack of civility seems a little out of place….

….If we’re all to practice more civility, perhaps Courtney Cole should take her own advice and in her next campaign lead us all….

“…I’m not saying they’re untrue, just a bit over blown as were many of her statements in her campaign literature…”

Untrue? Uh, Courtney Cole quotes the offender from the police report in his conversation with the investigating officer as reported by that officer. And, of course, pointing out that the republican incumbent failed to pay his taxes (a fact) is definitely “over blown”. Ah, the “they all do it” defense. Yes, because a threat of violence is a “bit over blown” and equivalent to campaign literature which points out the actual record of the incumbent.

“…referencing the seemingly unending deluge of vitriolic literature that was sent to me daily by her campaign…”

Project much? Unending deluge? Who outspent who? You mean like this, this, or this? Yeah, stating that someone is “guilty by association”, a preeminent American value, in a mailing is so much better than an actual discussion of important issues or the public record.

The commenter evidently thinks everyone else is an idiot.

Are threats of violence like “can you outrun a nine millimeter” acceptable political discourse? Is pointing out the verifiable public record of a candidate the same? Just asking.

I wonder if the commenter spoke up when Newt Gingrich exploited those murders in South Carolina for political purposes. Nah. *IOKIYAR. Being self righteous goes with the territory.

* it’s okay if you’re a republican

Can you spell “paradigm shift”?

An editorial in yesterday’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

12/7/2009 12:47:00 PM

Newspapers remain vital to readers

EDITORIAL

Jack Miles

Editor

….Hardly a week goes by when I fail to read something by some schmuck with a blog who believes his own stories about newspapers coming to an end. But get real. If that ever came to pass, what would replace newspapers? Bloggers? Some of them are nothing more than political wonk wannabees who would be happy to rail – either being always conservative or always liberal – about one idea or another, but would they be willing to stand for hours on a country road to tell the story of a suicidal man and his standoff with law enforcers? Would they print photos of proud young men and women who have joined the military? Would they stay awake while sitting at long school board or council meetings?….

“…some schmuck with a blog…” Heh. Evidently he was not referring to us. We do that standing for long hours thing, go through public records, cover events and type transcripts, research, you name it.

Yesterday we posted a story on another subject, and while doing a bit of research we came across the content shown in the following excerpt:

The transcript:

….Uh, the four things, really, that, that my staff and I try to do. Um, number one, we try to develop partnerships with our media that are win win. Um, and I’ll give you an example when, when dealing with the different mediums. Um, what we’ve done, and, and it’s gonna be more work if you take this back to your campus and some of you may already do it, but, but our media relations staff actually writes the stories, uh, on our teams. And not just our basketball teams, our football teams, uh, our bowling program, when our track and field team is out at a meet. Uh, they write the stories, our media relations staff, which consists of one full time person and one graduate assistant. Uh, we take the photos. And we get the quotes from our coaches. And then we send that story in, uh, to the paper.

And obviously there’s a tremendous benefit, uh, from the standpoint that our message is delivered the way we want it delivered. But, the benefit from their standpoint is they get a story. And, and if, if they don’t run a story on us, uh, obviously they’re, they’re subscribers are gonna be concerned that they’re not getting information on the university. So, in essence, we’ve become a de facto member of, of the newspaper staff, uh, because of the fact that they’re just not staffed. And so we, we try to do that, uh, not just once a week, twice a week, we do that with every single event, uh, that our athletic programs are involved in.

The other thing we’ve done with the local newspaper is we’ve actually established, uh, a trade out with them, uh, from a marketing standpoint. Um, our newspaper, uh, obviously the biggest thing they want to do right now is get more subscribers. They want to increase their circulation. So they advertise through us, uh, through our game programs and, and banners and announcements at the games, things of that nature. What the give us is advertising on Fridays, Every Friday on our local paper we receive a nice ad that has all of our athletic events for the upcoming weekend and week. Uh, for example, if we don’t have an event, it’s a summer time, well then we’re gonna promote our big athletic auction that’s coming up in August. Buy your tickets now. Uh, you want to be a part of this gala event. So we’re always able to use that advertising. So in essence we trade advertising with the newspaper, uh, on a weekly basis….

And to what “local paper” is he referring? Just asking.

We all know what we are, now we’re just haggling over the price.

Cited in the Columbia Journalism Review as Irony du jour:

Let’s Abolish ‘Citizen Journalists’

….We advocate abolishing the term “citizen journalist.” These people can call themselves “citizen news gatherers,” but it is no more appropriate to call them citizen journalists than it would be to sit before a citizen judge or be operated on by a citizen brain surgeon….

Or have a professional stenographer run press releases verbatim without attribution. How about standing before a judge who has had ex parte dealings with one of the parties in a case? Or maybe dealing with a doctor who isn’t very good at the doctor bit, but gets on because peers don’t want to rock the accountability boat. Welcome to our world.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Look, we love newspapers and what they used to do and stand for. We just wish they’d do their job better.

Quick, someone convene a panel on blogger ethics.

Yesterday the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal prominently featured an item on its editorial page previously published in the Springfield News-Leader:

10/29/2009 1:01:00 PM

Sun not shining

Editorial

Some public bodies across Missouri … are wrongly handling the way they retreat into closed meetings…

Ah, a paean to accountability when it comes to public business.

Then, today, the Daily Star-Journal ran a rare signed editorial by the publisher, William James:

10/30/2009 7:23:00 AM

The bottom line

Editorial

In today’s issue there is an AP story regarding the University of Central Missouri president and comments of treatment of his family by our community; his outstanding accomplishments and how well liked he is by a majority of tenured professors; and the unfairness of not having his contract renewed…

…They have voted not to renew President Podolefsky’s contract. They have no obligation to explain their votes to this newspaper, university staff or the general public. While I don’t necessarily agree with this policy in its entirety, it is simply the bottom line.

– Wm. James

Well Mr. James, maybe you’d think differently if you actually filed a few more Missouri Sunshine Law requests instead of listening to someone else’s whispered conventional wisdom about what masquerades as acceptable public policy.

Irony impairment indeed.

Also in today’s edition, front page above the fold, was an Associated Press article on the Aaron Podolefsky story – quoting me, apparently from the interview I did with KSHB-TV.

Another irony. It’s a difficult and convoluted process to get permission from the Associated Press to quote myself from their article quoting something I wrote here. You’ll just have to settle for the original:

….Michael Bersin: I think that’s really the issue, is that people are mystified by this….

….Michael Bersin: And, the,  the point is that it shouldn’t be a mystery. Because we’re the university community, the entire university community is owed an explanation by this board….

Our previous coverage of the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky:  

Three steps behind, and to the right (January 25, 2008)

Three steps behind, and to the right, part 2 – a microcosm of our universe (September 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? (October 15, 2009) (transcript of a portion of the live radio broadcast)

It wasn’t just about a tree (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: let’s not get cut out of the will (October 22, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: $87.75 will get you one sheet of paper (October 23, 2009)



“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: They’re not playing hardball, they’re playing cat and mouse  (October 23, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a cola and some scoreboards (October 24, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a few more pieces of the puzzle? (October 28, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your silence means consent (October 29, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

I hate meta.

Yesterday the Warrensburg Daily Star Journal published an editorial which happens to mention “bloggers”:

3/18/2009 12:42:00 PM

Bloggers offer news, but scope too narrow

Jack Miles

Editor

…But bloggers, in general, are not journalists. Bloggers often offer one-sided opinions, not news…

…The best bloggers may be accurate, but what if they are not?

Do editors force them to double-check facts? Must they seek opposing opinions?…

…Unlike most bloggers, mainstream reporters must deal with editors who question articles before the information is presented to the public. Editors also know that – not just in physics, but in life – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning reporters need to know that if there is more than one side of a story, those other sides must be presented. If a reporter is wrong, he must write a contrite correction saying so and if a reporter is wrong intentionally, he is unlikely to remain a reporter for long…

…Bloggers have value, but people who value democracy need to understand the narrow agenda and resources of bloggers are no substitute for the broad agenda and resources of reporters.

Where to start?

Okay, so it’s “National Sunshine Week”. And criticizing blogtopia (yes, skippy coined the phrase!) as inadequate has exactly what to do with the price of beer in Germany?

“…Bloggers often offer one-sided opinions, not news…”

Exaggerate much?

The Johnson County recount case is finally over – for sure, sort of

The Johnson County recount case is finally over – for sure, sort of – part 2

Did you miss this one? Or just ignore it?

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 1

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 2

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 3

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 4

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 1

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 2

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 3

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 4

I could go on and on.

By the way, was the Daily Star Journal there? If so, what was the coverage like?

“…The best bloggers may be accurate, but what if they are not? …”

If we’re not accurate then we’ll get hired as on screen talent for a cable news network. Or, we can change our name to Judith Miller and flaunt our Pulitzer Prize.

If one of us “frontpagers” were to do anything to damage the reputation of Show Me Progress I guarantee that there would be dire consequences for that kind of failure.

As for editorial control, we do not have prior review or prior restraint here. To posit the lack of an editor’s filter as a weakness indicates a woeful ignorance of the dynamic of the blog. If we fail we have peers and readers who will quickly take us to task on our own turf.

This is a collaborative effort among all of the “frontpagers”. If one of us were to do anything on the blog contrary to the purpose of this blog their tenure here would end swiftly.

“…Must they seek opposing opinions?…”

“…Editors also know that – not just in physics, but in life – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning reporters need to know that if there is more than one side of a story, those other sides must be presented…”

All opposing views are equal? Please. Sometimes blatantly stupid just doesn’t deserve the light of day. Sometimes. Sometimes it does.

The stenographer: all things being equal…

…Political stenography in old media must dictate false equivalence as a matter of course. It’s definitely time to convene another panel on blogger ethics.

…If a reporter is wrong, he must write a contrite correction saying so and if a reporter is wrong intentionally, he is unlikely to remain a reporter for long…

Uh, if we’re wrong we’ll run a correction. On top of that, if someone wants to comment on our posts all they have to do is register and post a comment. As long as they conform to our Posting Guidelines.

Question: Has the Daily Star Journal ever spiked or avoided a story because of worries about what it would do to advertising revenue? Just asking.

Question: Has the Daily Star Journal ever spiked or avoided a story because of worries about getting cut off by sources? Just asking.

“…resources of reporters…”

Tell that to the folks at McClatchy who’ve cut reporting and content in search of higher profit margins. Then get back to me with their response.

In the not so distant past the old media would never bother to mention blogs and bloggers. Heh. Now they do, usually along with muttered curses. I wonder why?

We’re here because the old media has failed so miserably. Not because all journalists are incompetent or don’t do great reporting, but because the media business model, the corporate news industrial complex, and bad choices have diminished the journalistic values that were once there in sufficient amounts to help preserve Democracy. So spare us the “preserving values” lectures.

As for blogs and bloggers? We’re not the enemy. We have the same ideals that the old media once possessed. We look for facts and we seek the truth. If the old media actually did its job we wouldn’t be here. We’re not the enemy, but we may be the future.

I wonder if we’re seeing the next step in a civil rights movement.

This weekend:

Proposition 8 rally in Kansas City

Join the Impact in Saint Louis

Proposition 8 rally in Kansas City – more photos

A year ago:

Much ado – an announcement in the Warrensburg newspaper, part 11

Yesterday:

One of the individuals who was the subject of all those letter to the editor wrote a letter which was published in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal (in print and online) on November 19th:

…I am just writing you all to say if you thought you all could scare us off it did not work. We still live in Warrensburg, Mo., area so if you have a problem with gay people in your town get over it because there are a lot more gay people living in Warrensburg than have the guts to come out and let everyone know…

I don’t think as many people are going to be silent anymore.