So, we all know that our beloved “award-winning daily newspaper” is more like a blog than any thing else. In fact, I think Don Roberts has begun to catch on to that fact and he has steppped up his “editorial comments” more than ever. Case in point, Jon Spangler writes a very compelling argument about why it is that perhaps Don Roberts editorial on Jeff Mitchell (Editor of the Alameda Journal) was not necessarily valid. This is what Don Roberts wrote:
It is hypocritical of Jeff Mitchell to smear two candidates, for what he alleges are racist comments, but to not include in his editorial, an actual vote by Councilmember Frank Matarrese against the appointment of Marie Gilmore, an African-American woman, to fill the seat on the Council vacated by African-American Al DeWitt. While we do not believe that Matarrese is a racist, as we do not believe that the other two candidates alluded to in Mitchell’s editorial are racists, it does seem to show a bias by Mitchell against those two candidates by not including Matarrese in his sleazy editorial boat ride through the scummy waters of alleged racism. His other offensive remark that, “. . . Alameda is home to an old-school class of ignorant hillbillies.”, is prejudicial, not only for Alamedans but also for hillbillies. To paraphrase Mitchell, his choice of words reveals his prejudice.
And Jon Spangler responded thusly:
There is just no evidence for “including Matarrese in…(discussions of) alleged racism,” as alleged in the Daily News (10/15/06, text below). The public record shows that Frank’s decision was just not racially motivated, as has been claimed.
Frank’s strong friendship with Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft (in addition to her being well-qualified for the job) is the sole reason he supported her. This was obvious to anyone who knew the parties involved or participated in the process of replacing Al DeWitt, as I did. (As a friend of all three final candidates, as well as a supporter of Marie Gilmore for the DeWitt vacancy, I spoke with all of them at the time, and have verified details with them today.)
Frank’s close working relationship with Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft began with the two library bond measures (C, O). His consistent support for appointing her had nothing whatsoever to do with racism. Ask vice mayor Marie Gilmore, who endorses Frank’s re-election, and who served with Frank on the Planning Board.
I supported Marie Gilmore over the other two well-qualified top candidates, Ezzy Ashcraft and now-Council member Doug deHaan. I lobbied Frank hard to support Gilmore instead, but he felt a deep obligation to his close friend, Marilyn. I could not sway him, despite his deep and abiding respect for Marie Gilmore, with whom he has worked effectively on the Council and whom he endorsed in 2004.
We will all still be living here AFTER the election, regardless of its outcome. May I ask that all of us refrain from using inflammatory language and misinformation when discussing public issues and the campaigns? It does not help our community when exaggeration and “sleazy” language are used to attack one’s opponents: inflammatory words are neither necessary nor useful to describe what is actually going on in Alameda. Errors in an opponent’s arguments or “facts” can be accurately identified or described without resorting to slander, propaganda, or half-truths.
It will help if we remain on speaking terms with as many of our neighbors as possible during the campaign, so we can solve the real problems we face together after November 7. Being civil–especially to those whom we oppose or believe to be in error–is a good start, and I am trying my best to do just that.
But did you notice what headline Don Roberts gave to Jon Spangler’s letter?
John Spangler Makes False and Misleading Statements
Now, if I were Don Roberts, perhaps I would point out the misspelling of Jon (no “h”) Spangler’s name, as he gleefuly pointed out through another letter from Ani Dimusheva. Unfortunately this is not archived, so you will have to plumb the depths of your memory for that letter. I’m not quite sure what the “false and misleading statements” made by Jon Spangler are, maybe Don Roberts could do us all the favor of highlighting them in bold? Maybe in yellow? Bold and yellow?
But Don Roberts had to have the last word and stated:
Despite what Mr. Spangler wrote in his letter, our editorial comments stated clearly that “. . . We do not believe Matarrese to be a racist, as we do not believe that the other two candidates alluded to in Mitchell’s editorial are racists. . .” The point was that Jeff Mitchell showed a bias by smearing two candidates in his “Choice of words reveals racism” editorial , when he could also have smeared Matarrese with a similar false inference from Matarrese’s vote against the appointment of Marie Gilmore to the Council. Despite Mr. Spangler’s charge, we did not claim that Matarrese’s vote against Marie Gilmore was racially motivated.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Spangler does not appear to be upset about Jeff Mitchell’s editorial attacks on the other two candidates.
Don Roberts saying “We do not believe Matarrese to be a racist…” after he Robertorialized:
…but to not include in his editorial, an actual vote by Councilmember Frank Matarrese against the appointment of Marie Gilmore, an African-American woman, to fill the seat on the Council vacated by African-American Al DeWitt.
It’s like saying “I’m just kidding!” after insulting someone. It doesn’t take away from what was actually said (or rather implied). To imply that a vote against a person of color is the same as using racially inappropriate language is ridiculous. Does that mean that every person who voted against Jesse Jackson when he ran for President should be suspected as a racist? Does that mean that every person who voted against Sandre Swanson in the primary is a racist? The argument would be laughable in any other circumstance, but it saddens me to see the lack of awareness on the part of people who try to use this argument to diffuse the Alameda Journal editorial.
Jon Spangler gives a very credible reason why Frank Matarrese voted the way he did, which had nothing to do with a person’s ethnic background. However, that elusive “eating buying live turtles” statement made by Don Roberts’s Golden Girl shows a lack of cultural sensitivity that no amount of opening up recreation facilites to ball players on the West End is going to explain away.
Perhaps it is time for another scoop!
Comment by alameda — October 18, 2006 @ 7:37 am
In my eyes Don Roberts’s site has no credibility. First, he changed one of my letters which changed the whole meaning of it…be that in mind, he still attached my name to it. Second, I wrote a couple of other letters which were different than his point of view and he didn’t publish them.
It is not a news site it is an opinionated blog…and not even balanced. (if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck). It is hardly worth the time of reading because I realize everything you read if filtered. At least on this site and Alameda Musings you post everyone’s point of view even if it is different than your own
Comment by Joe — October 18, 2006 @ 8:08 am
Language is such a fascinating thing. Some people buy live fish for freshness but they don’t eat it live. “I bought a live fish to eat” doesn’t necessarily mean I eat the fish live. Just thought I’d point this out because quotes and meanings tend to drift and people should be careful what they put their quotation marks around. The best way to avoid confusion and liability is to quote the full sentence, as well as the context or situation in which it occurred.
This is purely a linguistic and not a racial or ethnic comment.
Comment by NIMBY — October 18, 2006 @ 8:38 am
If your comments are supposed to ameliorate the turtle comments Nimby, you are grasping at straws.
Comment by Mark — October 18, 2006 @ 9:44 am
Feel free to post your unpublished letter at Faux News.
Comment by alameda — October 18, 2006 @ 10:28 am
There goes NIMBY again trying to justify Pat!
Of course, Don is always quick to print email trifles from his supporters including one from the Jr Don Roberts today!
Comment by Chris — October 18, 2006 @ 11:41 am
First, a couple of factual corrections. Mr. Roberts has certainly pulled a lot of shenanigans, but intentionally misspelling Mr. Spangler’s name is not one of them: He spells it “Jon,” without the h. Also, for what it’s worth, Ms. Bail never referred to anyone eating live turtles. Her comment was about buying live turtles.
Ah, yes, those pesky live turtles. I agree with NIMBY that context is crucial, so as one who watched Ms. Bail make the comment in question, I’d like to provide some of that all-important context.
I agree that it’s possible to talk in neutral or positive terms about purchasing live or extremely fresh seafood, poultry, or even turtles. However, Ms. Bail was not appearing on a gourmet cooking show. She was billed as a “community activist” on a program that claims to present “newscasts,” and the topic was neighborhood concerns about traffic in Oakland Chinatown.
Ms. Bail made her remarks in a mocking tone, obviously intended to elicit a laugh at what she implied were the bizarre buying and eating habits of Oakland Chinatown shoppers. I wish I had the tape in order to transcribe her exact words, but they were something very close to, “Maybe they wouldn’t have such a traffic problem [in Oakland Chinatown] if people would stop double-parking to buy their live turtles or whatever it is that they eat.” She and Mr. Roberts then had a chuckle at her little joke, which — if I remember correctly — was accompanied by laughter from the crew offstage.
Before someone puts words in my mouth, I would like to point out that this incident does not constitute proof that Pat Bail, Don Roberts, or anyone else is a racist. Endless debates about whether so-and-so is a racist are not productive. I am saying that the “live turtles” remark is just one incident in a pattern of Ms. Bail’s insensitivity to issues of race and class.
Insensitivity can be a big problem for a public official, even if it stops far short of out-and-out racism. For example, after watching Ms. Bail’s performance on TV, do you think Alamedans of Asian descent would feel more or less comfortable about approaching a hypothetical Councilmember Bail with a concern? Would they feel their concern would be heard, or might they worry that it would just be laughed off?
Even if Ms. Bail harbors no prejudices in her heart, her poor choice of words and inappropriate attempts at humor demonstrate astoundingly bad judgement that will not serve her well in public office, especially in a city as diverse as Alameda.
Comment by Michael Krueger — October 18, 2006 @ 11:44 am
Thanks to the archives, we can now see that Roberts has since fixed the typos in the names!
I think it is a great idea to post all the letters that have not been published or modified! Helps eliminate whatever shred of impartiality Roberts might claim.
To echo Joe’s comments, you folks are doing all of Alameda a great service via the two blogs! Good job.
Comment by Peter U — October 18, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
Oops, here’s a correction to my correction: I misread Ms. Do’s post at first, and I thought she was falsely accusing Mr. Roberts of misspelling Mr. Spangler’s — without an h — because she thought it it was spelled with an h. It turns out it was the other way around: Ms. Do’s accusation stands, and I retract my correction. OK, folks, here are the updated scores on the Great Name-Spelling Debate: Lauren Do 1, Don Roberts 0, Michael Krueger 0. Alert the media!
Comment by Michael Krueger — October 18, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Thank you, Michael Krueger for providing context to the comment. I agree, it sounds like it was a joke in bad taste. However, following your and John KW’s?) logic of voting for Beverly Johnson DESPITE her position on Measure A—an issue of almost crucial importance to you and others, judging by the buckets of ink spilled here arguing against it, I will place my bets with Pat Bail REGARDLESS of her loose tongue, because I think she has qualities such as directness, initiative and ability to get over personal issues in order to get things done. Being a smooth politician is much less important to me than being open so people can see what really motivates someone’s actions. Pat Bail does not have aspirations up the political ladder, whatever she will advocate I know will be coming out of her vision for Alameda. We can only discuss what Alameda should be like and how it should integrate with the rest of the bay area when no ulterior motives exist. As Lena Tam correctly observed some time ago, who you elect is a matter of trust.
Comment by NIMBY — October 18, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
NIMBY, as was commented on earlier: you are clutching at straws! Directness, initiative yada yada yada all pale into comparison when you are talking about being insensitive to people. Bail has demonstrated her insensitiveness on more than one occasion to pass it off as a one-off occurrence.
Comment by Chris — October 18, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
I only know what I feel about Pat Bail, comes from the many times I have listened to her speak on the Don Roberts Show. Also from seeing her at Planning Board, and Council meetings. This is just my own personnal opinion and is the best I can offer,it has no basis of fact. If I were a minority I would know in my heart that this woman did not like me or who I am. Of course I’m white but it is just a very strong feeling that I get from knowing of her for a very long time. You can yell and holler all you want to, but it will not change what any of us feel when we are sitting in a room by ourselves looking at the wall and having a conversation with ourselves. To me she is what she is and I can’t change the way I feel about it. John Piziali
Comment by John Piziali — October 18, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
Ani,
My interest in Measure A is much smaller than you and Mr. Howard like to make it out to be.
I have spent some time talking about amending Measure A at the Point, but never about amending or changing Measure A outside of that. The fact of the matter is there are no viable candidates who are talking about amending measure A at the point (sorry Kenny), so if I was to follow your logic, I shouldn’t vote for any candidate.
Ms. Bail’s comments about ethnic minorities, low-income people and others who do not look or shop like her speak to a major character flaw and I find myself surprised that you find it acceptable. In this case, there are candidates who seem to agree with your positions that do not disparage people based on their race or economic status.
I can think of plenty of vile people who are direct, have initiative and are “able to get over personal issues” (I’m not sure what that really means). We can all think of examples, but I won’t provide any specifics for fear of being accused of comparing her to any specific person. It would be my hope that Alamedans would not vote for them.
Pat has a disturbing pattern of disparaging people based on the ethnicity or income. Her “directness” only further complicates things, as using your description, she should be commended for thinking this way and saying it out loud. There is no way that I find this acceptable in a candidate, no matter what platform they are running on.
You show me that Mayor Johnson disrespects asian- or african-americans by diminishing them through racial characiture or diminishing their standing in the city as occupying a “black seat.” And I’ll drop my support right now.
I believe that one of the most important things in a community and society is respect for a diverse population. I’m surprised that you would equate this with housing density. They are not even in the same league.
Comment by John Knox White — October 18, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
“I’m surprised that you would equate this with housing density. They are not even in the same league.”
Because, John, the entire argument around measure A revolves around providing “affordable” housing: Measure A=ultra-expensive homes only a few white rich people can afford, Measure A gone=plentiful affordable housing for all our brothers, sisters, children and grandchildren. Check out previous discussions especially by Willy. If you are voting for Johnson, then you are voting for keeping the alleged status quo of Alameda as a white, unaffordable enclave, according to the theory by the most vocal anti-measure A-ers. If so, you would vote for an alleged “classist” and I for an alleged “racist.” I’m hoping that you find both equally disturbing.
Regarding how heard certain populations will feel with this or that candidate, too many people right now do not feel heard by the mayor. She is unaccessible, does not reply to emails, has not responded to any of the questionaires she’s received, and appears to be utterly bored when spoken to unless she knows you or is of the same opinion. Maybe she doesn’t discriminate against minorities, only against people who didn’t go to high school with her? That’s a whole lot of people, I’m sure. I have observed and experienced her disdain for anyone who, regardless of race, who isn’t part of her little network. Is this enough to make you drop your support? Or maybe you are part of the network? Even so, you must remember how disturbed many people were last year for being not just stonewalled but scolded after six hours of public testimony on the theater, to the point they even called for a recall in the days after. Do you think any of these people or those who watched on TV feel comfortable talking to her about other issues, believing they will be heard? Even if you call these people a “minority,” as is popular, you wouldn’t want to discriminate against it, would you? I do not defend Pat Bail’s insensitive remark and I haven’t known her that long to have knowledge of any others, but I think that her talk, as I’ve heard it, pales in comparison to the mayor’s insensitivity to simple matters of democracy.
Comment by NIMBY — October 18, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
Here we go again: NIMBY and her ubiquitous theater reference. Move on, will ya?
Comment by Chris — October 18, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
Pardon the contstant double posts, but I have a habit of indenting paragraphs which seems to instantly trigger transmission of comments, Anyway….
Nimby,
I realize that you feel you are operating in hostile territory and are the torch barer on the theater issue, but your constant wise ass shtick is beginning to bug even me.
I frankly don’t care what you feel you have experienced of Pat, because like John P. I know what I see and that’s all I need.
I can’t disagree about Beverly being less than accessible, but you continue to demonize her as ruthless and rude when it comes to people speaking before her whom she does not agree with. Perhaps if you spoke before her on anything besides the theater and didn’t alienate the council by attacking them, you’d get a better response.
I’ll say that the times I witnessed you speak to the council you were never over the top like Debra Overfield, but you have to know that any government body are human beings who at some point, after being attacked and insulted, are going to get their backs up. The last meeting I witnessed where a long line of theater opponents spoke over a couple hours I did see that council was very tense and did not look happy with the speakers, but again how much can you expect of people?
On that note, it would be the up side if Bail gets elected to see how graceful she is under fire.
Comment by Mark — October 18, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
I must take exception with NIMBY’s claim that “the entire argument around measure A revolves around providing ‘affordable’ housing.” This argument may have held the most sway for Willy and Mr. Howard, but it is only one reason one might wish to take a second look at Measure A.
I would like invite anyone who’s interested to take another look at this post, where I finally got around to posting an answer to NIMBY’s question of October 7.
Comment by Michael Krueger — October 18, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
Ani, I’m sorry you feel that your voice cannot be heard at the council.
I am hoping you’re being sarcastic with the first paragraph and am accepting it as such. I don’t condone the name calling that took place on the last discussion of Measure A, you’ll notice that I stayed out of the whole thing because it devolved into pokemon-laden ridiculous (brilliant Lauren).
Comment by John Knox White — October 18, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
I have always found Beverly Johnson to be accessible, although email is not the best way to reach her. Try picking up the phone. I did not go to high school with her by the way, nor did I grow up in Alameda.
Comment by Kevis — October 19, 2006 @ 11:19 pm