Comments on: Birds flyin’ high you know how I feel

By: David Kirwin

David Kirwin — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:25:36 +0000

Jeff - you also failed to ‘follow up’ when told that the City was agreeing to pay almost $60 million dollars plus giving all that waterfront property away free to help Catullus et al with Alameda Landing. In fact, you published a front page story directly before it was on the CC agenda for decision that the City contribution would be capped at $27 million. Your version of investigative reporting was printing whatever city staffers stuffed in the AJ mailbox.

By: Jeff Mitchell

Jeff Mitchell — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:14:57 +0000

Hey Mark - Thanks for jumping in. The pivotal moment in the history of this thing goes back to February 2006 when a joint meeting of the council and the PUB was held. It was at that meeting that Kennedy spied the footnotes on the PowerPoint slide showing the “inter-fund” transfers or loans from the electric side. Until then, the nexus between these transfers and the long-term bonded debt really hadn’t come into focus. I’d be the first to admit that we in the conventional media serving Alameda were slow to connect the dots on this. Our first comprehensive piece didn’t appear until September of 2006 and it was approximately 60 column inches in length. The AJ published a steady stream of pieces after that and well before the municipal election, too. The idea that we “downplayed” this situation is just nutty. Do I wish we connected the dots earlier on this? Of course. I would also point out that writing letters to the editor or posting letters to Don’s right wing blog is not journalism. And rumors are just that, rumors. Journalism, when it’s done right and in an orthodox fashion, means obtaining data, verifying that data, interviewing all parties and then writing and publishing (or broadcasting) a piece to a wide and public audience that accurately reflects all of those elements. It’s a professional craft that takes years to master. That said, rumors, letters and blogger posts can be incredibly valuable sources of tips and ideas for working journalists. The journalist doing it right always keeps his or her ear tuned for these things and then goes about the fact-finding process to separate out the real from the imagined.

By: Lauren Do

Lauren Do — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:36:30 +0000

Jack:

The HD channel for TNT is AP&T 135, for some reason the line up is slightly different than the regular TNT with the notable exception of all of the playoff basketball games.

General:

I thought the first MAJOR noise about AP&T came from Kevin Kennedy and Kevin Kearny, which gave it the most credibility. Action Alameda in its current form, as mentioned by Mark, didn’t exist prior to the election and therefore was not around to make much noise about AP&T. Action Alameda as an organization prior to the election has already disbanded (according to their campaign statement filings) and gave all the remaining funds to Action Alameda in its current form.

By: Mark I

Mark I — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:20:10 +0000

It was nice to finally get some details when the Journal ran the story Jeff refers to, but if the average Joe hadn’t heard what was happening with AP&T, there were plenty of rumors flying for months and there had been public statements by the City about the deficit before then also, even if they didn’t want to admit how bad the trouble was.

I’d like DK to reconstruct an accurate chronology for us of what information was available when and who at Action Alameda said what when. Action Alameda only existed because of sour grapes over the theater. Doug was THEIR candidate and the idea that he was any less responsible than the rest of the council in those days is ridiculous. Marie Gilmore had not been seated for a significant enough time to somehow make her a guilty insider and Doug not be just as responsible.

#4 Jack, was “Whightly” instead of “Wrightly” a Freudian slip?

If noise was coming from Action Alameda first, who could blame the general public for being indifferent to propagandists with an ax to grind?

By: David Kirwin

David Kirwin — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:31:37 +0000

Mr Mitchell, prior to the re-election of mayor Johnson, the AJ, under your direction, played down the AP&T debacle, despite all the information that was known at the time, despite the letters that were sent you that you did not print.

“The record is the record is the record. The AJ under my direction (and often under my own byline) was first to break the details behind the AP&T debacle”
The first what?? I invite you to compare those tear sheets you speak of to the letters you received, or even to the Alameda Daily News archives which are probably available to you thru this blog. You may have printed reports after the election, but it was being investigated by citizens long long before the election as you are well aware.

I am truly sorry to hear that Connie is down to a single staffer, I guess it is safe to assume that the AJ will never be able to investigate anything other than their ability to continue if this is caused by budget limitations imposed by the parent companies. Your comment about “jammies” is as ridiculous as it is off base, but you were always one to expose your prejudicial errors in your own print.

By: Jeff Mitchell

Jeff Mitchell — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:29:09 +0000

Ah, Dave Kirwin … it must be fun to stay in those jammies and slippers all day and throw rocks from behind your little computer. Actual reporting, writing and publishing the news while under deadline is something you’ve obviously never done before. That’s OK. The record is the record is the record. The AJ under my direction (and often under my own byline) was first to break the details behind the AP&T debacle. We actually did a number of “firsts” on this story that I’m proud of — like publishing the entire contents of the first consultant’s report on the cable division despite City Hall’s efforts to block that document’s release. We also were the first to tell you when city management hired E-Agency of Oakland to help the city and AP&T “handle” all the bad PR that was being generated over the reporting. Even if your selective memory won’t allow you to recall what really happened, we have the tearsheets and the state awards to prove all of this. As to our mayoral endorsement - yes, the AJ did endorse Bev over Doug. Doug is a fine and honest man. We see eye to eye on a great many things. But as flawed as Bev may be, she was the best overall choice for the city at the time. Re Connie Rux — on this point, Dave, we do agree. I wish her the best of luck. Connie’s a great lady and newswoman. Before my promotion and transfer, I helped train and orientate her to the island and to the AJ. Believe me, I’ll be the first one rooting for her (and her now lone staffer, Peter Hegarty, my friend) to top what we were able to accomplish in 2006-07.

By: Mike Rich

Mike Rich — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:17:51 +0000

Jack,

I do realize that symbolism is important in politics, but there’s a difference in my mind between knowing the current state of American politics and conforming to it. Also, I make a distinction between what is important to the electorate intuitively and what is important at least in part as a function of media focus; that is the point I was trying to make. Is the media focusing on relative trivialities because that is what is important to the electorate or because the media is trying to put on (what they think is ) a watchable hour of TV?

The end of Lauren’s post focused on a candidate’s electability versus their positions on relevant issues. Or, put another way, how they would win office versus what they would do when elected. It’s another example of how media outlets (purposely or inadvertently) distract people and trivialize important issues.

By: Jack Richard

Jack Richard — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:06:20 +0000

# 1
Frank Matarrese, synonymous with grandstanding sytrofoam and Iraq, yeah straight up guy..

# 2
Sorry Mike, if you knew American politics you’d know lapel pins are the real issue. Whightly they get people dis-elected.

#3
Status quo got us the beautiful theater and parking garage. I like APT cable service just fine and have supported it since day one. Knew it was risky but what isn’t?

Thanks Lauren, for mentioning TNT went HD the HD menu doesn’t list it yet as HD.

By: Dave Kirwin

Dave Kirwin — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:30:27 +0000

Gee, as I recall several outspoken citizens WERE asking about AP&T’s debts and its “borrowing” across the firewall from the electric side of AP&T that was supposed to stay separate. Of course no one HERE wanted to listen to Dave Howard, or those associated with Action Alameda, or the ’slate’ trying to change the power base of CC. The “deep investigative reporting” of the AJ (yes of course that was a joke) gave us nothing other than a line by Bev Jo that she thought AP&T was doing fine, or some such… Didn’t then-editor Jeff Mitchell also play down concerns about AP&T in support of the mayor? Uh-huh.

It is not that question did not come up; it is that our ‘free press’ decided to support the status quo instead of trying to openly explore the truth. Small wonder why so many considered the AJ “City Hall’s Bulletin”. Hopefully Connie Rux can continue to move the AJ into a position whereby it can perform the duty of the press.

By: Mike Rich

Mike Rich — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:00:44 +0000

I don’t buy the argument that everyone knew about the APT mess and voted knowing that information. Most people don’t have the energy to keep up with national issues much less local ones. How many of you realize that the total value of the benefit promise for social security and medicare is about 53 trillion dollars (trillion, it’s not a typo). Of course, the promised benefits are not pre-funded, and with the baby boomers starting to retire the bill is coming due. But instead we talk about flag lapel pins, etc. So, when Lauren shares her advice to potential candidates, it makes me sad because it sounds like she is focusing on the same distracting BS and avoiding the real issues.