Yeah, I said that I had something initially planned for yesterday and my intention was to post it today, but I find that there are some things have have cropped up in the comments section that I want to briefly touch upon because I feel that some of my mental detrirus that has accumulated needs to be cleared away before I can get back to a much more boring and thought intensive subject.
Board Members should be seen and not heard
According to this comment, evidently not only does Eve Pearlman speak for the Alameda Journal, but she also speaks for the entire entity of the Alameda Education Foundation whenever she opens her mouth (or picks up her pen). I find that contention to be extremely troublesome. I imagine that a large majority of people who read and comment on this blog participate in many different ways in their community, including volunteering for Board and neighborhood activities. An individual should not be forbidden from being able to share their opinions and commentaries on a topic simply because they have chosen to sit on the Board of Directors for any organization. Nor should it be assumed that simply because they speak that they are speaking for each and every institution that they may be affiliated with, unless of course they announce that they are speaking for that particular organization. It would be a shame if we were to tie the hands of folks who have shown themselves to be dedicated to their community by getting involved by saying, “whoa, hey, you better watch what you say because I’m going to assume you speak for each and every organization you participate in.”
Picking an organization entirely at random, I don’t consider that Beverly Johnson speaks for the Girls and Boys Club of Alameda every time she opens her mouth simply because she sits on its advisory board.
The Potterybarn.com rule: you link it, you bought it
This commenter declares that if one links to a site, then they must immediately buy in to every thing that is posted on that website. The website in question is the Alameda Daily Noose which a commenter with the same initials had asked Eve P.to take down off her blog to promote unitedness and not dividedness. This thread that evidently all the the aggregated bloggers on Alamedans share proved that there is something fishy going on with a relatively benign blog aggregator. Then the commenter cryptically closes that on Eve P. site the only person to come to the defense of retaining ADNoose was yours truly told readers to take note of that fact.
I suppose the implication is that I must write ADNoose, else why would I rush to its defense? Well, I think the majority of times it pretty gosh darn funny in, as Alameda NayTiff pointed out, an Onion-ish sort of way. Some of the humor when it misses the mark, it misses big time, but when it’s funny it is hilarious. And to definitely put the kibosh on, I do not write ADNoose, I don’t have the time for it. Even though two years ago when the Alameda Sun reported that I was a stay-at-home mom, I have had a full time job for quite some time now. With my own blog, my job, my family, and my myriad of hobbies, I don’t have time to put more time to writing another pretty detailed daily blog. Sorry to burst anyone’s conspiracy theory bubble there.
And also as stated by Alameda NayTiff, I link to lots of sites that I don’t necessarily agree with, notwithstanding the Alameda Daily News, links are just that, links. It doesn’t consitute an endorsement of the subject matter on the site just because you can click on it and a new windows pops up to take you there.
Methane Neutral
This comment which heralds the “enlightenment” of the comment I addressed above is an interesting one. It would seem that in general we often let our biases dictate what we think is neutral or reasonable. We also let our biases dictate who we believe has complete ownership of the “truth”.
Simply because you agree with someone does not mean that someone is “aware” or “enlightened” or “neutral” it just means that you agree with the position that they take and are therefore more open to what they are saying. No one is completely neutral on a topic and definitely the critiques of the bloggers aggregated on Alamedans and ADNoose did not come from a place of neutrality. It came from a place of bias, already not agreeing with what the majority of the bloggers have said previously and publically and thereby attributing negative motivations for everything done moving forward despite the fact that putting aside a few major issues there might be more that folks have in common than they realize.
Regarding the ownership of the truth, no one can even claim to have that. As with any issue there are many sides and nuances and yes, many “truths.” Your truth may resonate with you and others who share your opinions, but just because there are people who don’t does not make them liars or, the much less hostile, “storytellers.”
Anyway, I was going to touch on the blurring of the line between bloggers and journalists, but find that this has already exceeded my allotted morning time for blogging. Maybe some other time because it is an interesting subject.
Regarding the accusation made by Dave Kirwin that Eve speaks for the AEF everytime she posts, Kirwin himself is an employee of the Berkeley Unified School District. By his own standard then, he is representing BUSD in every one of his posts. I know that Kirwin would want to hold himself to the standards he expects of others, so Dave, who authorized you to speak on behalf of BUSD?
Comment by notadave — May 1, 2008 @ 7:39 am
Lauren: Eve is a friend of mine. I got her started at the AJ in 2006. I think she has the potential to be a great journalist. However, the issue of her association with the AEF is indeed a problem on several levels. Those of us in the orthodox (hopefully still alive) journalism community go out of our way to avoid even the appearance of potential bias. We don’t put bumper stickers on our cars and we don’t wear campaign buttons on our lapels. And, most importantly, we don’t join politically active organizations. We intentionally limit ourselves from all of this because of the very real potential that one day we may be called upon to report and write about the given organization’s activities – for good or bad. I have chatted with Eve about this and I have reminded her about the choice I think that the practice of orthodox journalism requires her to make. And make no mistake, Eve is now a part of the active reporting staff at the AJ (both in print and on her blog.) No one is saying, by the way, that there is remotely anything wrong with the AEF and, normally, a person’s service on such a board would be honored. In this case, however, because Eve writes and blogs for a real news organization, her participation is the ethically troubling. As I told her several weeks ago, if I was back in the chair at the AJ, I would require her to make a choice between working for the paper and serving on the AEF board. This might seem like esoteric finery to those outside of journalism, but it is a tried and true practice that has served the craft well now for generations.
Comment by Jeff Mitchell — May 1, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Orthodox… like the NYTimes in 2003?
Who cares. She’s as fluffy as they get.
Comment by Jack B. — May 1, 2008 @ 11:02 am
A discussion of the difference between bloggers and journalists would be useful, altho I think I could summarize it as follows: bloggers comment, journalists write. Bloggers often critique items in the news, and they tend to present the critique as an astute and clever analysis of a mundane article, but of course, you have to wonder where the article itself is coming from. Not from the blogger.
Comment by DL Morrison — May 1, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Jeff, I’d like to respectfully disagree with the points you are making. As you know, I am someone who spent most of her adult life in the journalism biz, who never put a bumper sticker on her car or even registered with a political party. That said, I think what you’re saying about journalists being objective is just crap. We all have biases, and while they might not come through in the point-per-point of a news article, they are there in other ways – story selection, for example. In a blog, at least, those biases are much more out in the open and clear. I think what’s happened is that journalism has become kind of an ivory tower profession where people don’t really associate with anyone who isn’t a fellow journalist or source and aren’t involved in their communities in any way. How is this good? Does divorcing yourself from your community help you to give it a true picture of what’s happening? Or is there some middle way? I think it’s unrealistic to expect that someone writing about local events is not going to be involved in their community in any material way. And if you want examples of people who are in the “orthodox” media being involved in the things they write about, I could give you plenty. Blogs are not perfect, but they do provide information that is sorely lacking in today’s media marketplace – namely, the local news that the papers left behind for the sexier stuff. I think blogs can be an important resource for people, and one the “orthodox” media ignores at its peril.
Comment by Michele Ellson — May 1, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Excellent post, Michele, excellent post.
Comment by Jack B. — May 1, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
As Jeff knows, when he was editor of the AJ he wrote a few editorials which I agreed with in basic substance but which bothered me to the extent to which I thought they appeared to take sides. While an editorial by definition is an opinion I accused him of crossing a line, somewhere.
With some regularity I would complain to Jeff, who in turn never failed to defend his position as correct and justified.
So, I read comment #2 and sort of bought into it as I read it because I’m not a journalist and haven’t given this extensive thought. While still digesting Jeff’s comments I then read Michele’s #5.
All I can say at the moment is that objectivity seems rather relative. Reality itself is subjective. Ironically, the guys in the biz who are the most blatantly biased claimed not just the spirit, but literal ownership of the slogan “fair and balanced”, and they lost in court.
On this the anniversary of the flight deck photo op, we are reminded that one man’s “mission accomplished” is another man’s quagmire.
Comment by Mark I — May 1, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Michelle: I think you need to go back and re-read my posts. My point is that Eve is in a leadership position within AEF and yet is also in the position of writing about AEF’s activities for the print edition of the AJ and for her blog, which is owned by the company that owns the AJ. If you can’t see the red flags all over that then I am surprised. Moreover, you paraphrase me as using the word “objectivity.” I never once used that word and the reason I didn’t is that it describes an unachievable state. Fairness and balance, however, are achievable. Likewise, intentionally avoiding the public perception of bias is also achievable. Those are two pillars of what is orthodox, by-the-book American journalism. And even though I now write a blog, I carry no illusions that the blogosphere can provide people with the kind of well researched and properly sourced news that real print or broadcast platforms (when they’re doing their damned jobs right) can provide. And that, I’m pretty sure, isn’t crap.
Comment by Jeff Mitchell — May 1, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
Uh … right. Never mind!
Comment by Michele Ellson — May 1, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
“Stories should be fair, balanced, thorough, and accurate. In reporting and writing your assignments, strive to consult diverse sources that represent a range of opinions on your subject. Your story should honestly represent what you find through your reporting and the points of view expressed should be those that emerge from the sources you read, listen to, and analyze. Always check your facts.”
http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/departments/journalism/rules.html
“Political and charitable donations: If a reporter donates to a politician running for office (say, the mayor) he shouldn’t also cover the election — that includes not only the mayor but also her opponents. Be forewarned: If you donate money to a politically active organization (Planned Parenthood or the National Rifle Association) your objectivity may be called into question if you write about issues of interest to these organizations.
11
Blogs: Nowadays it’s common for journalists — and journalism students — to blog and to comment on the blogs of others. What you choose to blog about and what you write for publication could potentially raise ethical concerns. For example, if you blog about a hard news story you published on stem cell research and bash governmental policy, readers could conceivably question your objectivity. Be aware that whatever you write may remain in cyberspace in perpetuity, revealed with a simple Web search. If you post malicious, immature or prurient material, or engage in online “flame wars,” you could inadvertently undermine your credibility and ethical standing. A rule of thumb: since everything you write online is, in effect, published, the NYU Journalism faculty urges you not to write anything that violates the rules of honest and decent journalism.”
http://journalism.nyu.edu/ethics/handbook/potential-conflicts-of-interest/
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 1, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Ahh Lauren,
Perhaps I should start by thanking you for cleaning up my ‘problem post’ last night in the ‘Point Alt’ thread, WordPress does not like links as part of a post, I must have tries 20 times to put the information up. In this way, as blog hostess I appreciate your “hands-on” help. The link shows pictures of what happened to the land at the NAS and on Bay Farm after the ’89 quake. It also shows some minor damage on the main island. Worth checking out when considering development of these areas.
As to today’s thread – You still have a way of taking things out of proportion, but as blogger that is your right. I would not expect the same from a journalist in our local paper however. There is a difference between stating opinion and fact. Perhaps Connie Rux wants to take the AJ further down the path toward being opinion-based since she can not afford real journalists or investigative reporting.
A few other points I want to clarify:
1. I never said Eve Perlman is speaking for AEF every time “she opens her mouth (or picks up her pen).” These are your words, and I don’t agree with them.
2. Eve Perlman is speaking with the authority of the Alameda Journal when she is being published under their masthead, either in print or electronically, and it is sad that Connie Rux is willing to blur the lines so devastatingly between reporting and advertising, and between factual reporting and opinion.
3. In her front page article this week, Eve should have mentioned that she is a director of AEF, or better still she should avoid authoring articles on organizations she belongs to and disguising such pieces “news” articles. Personally I would not go as far as Jeff and insist that reporters not belong to any groups, just that they should refrain from using their press position as a bully pulpit, especially when not disclosing their personal affiliation to groups the article is about. (Usually such affiliations are even included with the authors on the ‘letters page’)
4. There is nothing wrong about Eve being a part of AEF, volunteering is commendable.
5. While I whole-hearted agree with you that there are many ‘versions’ of truth, and that personal understanding, experiences, and biases, influence how we interpret the world we know about, I also think there are rather clear definitions of “neutral” vs. what is “1-sided” and overtly “biased.”
6. You Lauren stated “Simply because you agree with someone does not mean that someone is “aware” or “enlightened” or “neutral” it just means that you agree with the position that they take and are therefore more open to what they are saying.”
I am sad for you if you have to agree with someone to be able to credit them when they are stating a neutral or enlightened position.
7. There IS a big difference between ‘The Onion News” and Alameda Daily Noose ; that difference is in the intent and the ‘Noose” targets a very selective group. You may still think that thinly veiled attacks on others within our community is funny. I know I once did now I know it is better to be up front, open and honest, in debate, and when I have an issue with someone’s position.
Comment by David Kirwin — May 1, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
Point taken, ANT. I’ll keep the opinions to the occasional editorial.
Comment by Michele Ellson — May 1, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Is too much blogging bad for you, be careful out there Lauren!
A growing work force of home-office laborers and entrepreneurs, armed with computers and smartphones and wired to the hilt, are toiling under great physical and emotional stress created by the around-the-clock Internet economy that demands a constant stream of news and comment.
Of course, the bloggers can work elsewhere, and they profess a love of the nonstop action and perhaps the chance to create a global media outlet without a major up-front investment. At the same time, some are starting to wonder if something has gone very wrong. In the last few months, two among their ranks have died suddenly.
Two weeks ago in North Lauderdale, Fla., funeral services were held for Russell Shaw, a prolific blogger on technology subjects who died at 60 of a heart attack. In December, another tech blogger, Marc Orchant, died at 50 of a massive coronary. A third, Om Malik, 41, survived a heart attack in December.
Other bloggers complain of weight loss or gain, sleep disorders, exhaustion and other maladies born of the nonstop strain of producing for a news and information cycle that is as always-on as the Internet.
To be sure, there is no official diagnosis of death by blogging, and the premature demise of two people obviously does not qualify as an epidemic. There is also no certainty that the stress of the work contributed to their deaths. But friends and family of the deceased, and fellow information workers, say those deaths have them thinking about the dangers of their work style.
Comment by Jack Richard — May 1, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
I think it is standard practice to disclose any affiliations upfront. Especially, when reporting on organizations that you are intimately connected with.
Perhaps it was an oversight by Eve P in not disclosing the affiliation. In which case, the fix is rather simple and shouldn’t take long to rectify.
Comment by alameda — May 1, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
#1 NAD
Yes, I am an employee of BUSD. I also know more about BUSD and BA public schools in general because of that association. But let me be clear – I am an employee. I am not a director, nor a spokesman for that entity. In fact, the past superintendant of BUSD made clear that as employees, we are not representative of nor spokespersons for BUSD. That role belongs primarily to PIO Mark Copland, the executive board and the BOE. There is a huge HUGE difference between my role as a BUSD employee and that I mention that fact on this blog, and Eve Pearlman’s directorship of AEF and how she uses her position with the Alameda Journal to further the goals of AEF.
I really hope you have the ability to see that there is a huge difference.
At the march 4th BOE meeting, Julia Park Tracey, publisher / chief editor of the Alameda Sun said she would do everything she could to help pass the parcel tax, because she believes in the value of AUSD. Still her paper, The Sun, had the journalistic integrity to publish the letter by Tom Pavlic, which both questions the tax and questions why the press seems to not be providing all the information known to be relevant to the tax proposal. While I still support the tax myself, I also congratulate the Sun for their journalistic integrity. I also expect to be better informed by the press if I am going to bother reading it.
I was at the DARE program last night at Kofman. I want to thank everyone who makes that program possible, and all the members of APD, the BOE and CC who took the time to be on the dais. Of course Earhart had the largest presence; because they have close to 600 students they also have the largest 5th grade class in the district. Admittedly I had wondered the affect of my son learning so much about tobacco, pot and alcohol – it seemed weird that a program at his elementary school was so drug and alcohol oriented. He was being taught far more than I had yet wanted him to know. After being present at the program finale at Kofman I can see the intent to give the kids a better platform for resistance before they get to middle school.
An interesting aside, when the mayor spoke to the crowd, she asked each of the schools to cheer for their school. Again because of the large 5th grade class, I think Earhart was the loudest. By the way, did you know Earhart was originally designed for 300 students? It is because of the added rooms and portables that it is now the largest, arguably the most cost efficient elementary school in the district. And they just earned another CA Distinguished School Award – that makes 3 awards in 4 years for Earhart, – one was a National Blue Ribbon School Award. Only 5 schools in the last 10 years in Alameda have even archived 1 of these awards. I think this is because for schools – size matters. It is easier to raise funds & find volunteers, each dollar spent goes farther. Most extra curricular costs are per assembly or per event, not per head.
Another interesting note – when the mayor signaled Ruby Bridges to show their spirit – they truly did show a lot of spirit – unified spirit, Mayor Johnson pointed out that all of the RB 5th graders started elementary school at another school, and it was the merging of the 3 schools that formed that spirited group. That moment gave me a great pause – I expect the members of the BOE felt it too. It took little time to heal the hurt of the merges, but look at the savings to the District’s operating costs that came with forming that new network of community which can provide better for those students at a lower cost.
Comment by David Kirwin — May 2, 2008 @ 2:02 am
Re: mergers
Nice idea, efficiency should always be striven for. But beyond some border tweaking in the West End, where there is a bit of surplus capacity, consolidation cannot happen without significant construction expense. Funds simply do not exist for that.
Comment by dave — May 2, 2008 @ 6:02 am
How low will the AJ go?
This is lynch mob journalism.
“Last month, however, another parent reported that the custodian had made a homemade doll for her daughter as a gift, which the woman thought was inappropriate.”
http://www.contracostatimes.com/alameda/ci_9124261
The janitor has been accused of no crime, yet this is the headline story in today’s AJ
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 2, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
What newspaper headlines can do:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8681613407403339456&q=leo+frank&ei=rNAbSLOiPJb0qgOX9JXCAQ&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8681613407403339456&q=leo+frank&ei=rNAbSLOiPJb0qgOX9JXCAQ&hl=en
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 2, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7202306451817092485&q=duluth+lynching&ei=PNMbSPzZMIvSrgP_m_HGAQ&hl=en
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 2, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
Oh yes, solid point — a legitimate investigation through proper legal channels REALLY IS just like a lynching.
Comment by dave — May 2, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
#20
Why is this the headline story in the AJ?
This is pure sensationalism. It deserves maybe two column inches on page eight, if that.
This scenario has too often played out in tragedy with the local newspaper inflaming the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_lynchings
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 3, 2008 @ 7:17 am
# 17
If the man wasn’t accused of a crime, why did Sgt. McNiff provide all the details of the investigation to the AJ? AJ has legitimate reason to report PD info. Seems to me your beef should be with the PD, if anyone.
Comment by Jack Richard — May 3, 2008 @ 8:42 am
22. Isn’t APD obligated to answer questions whether newsworthy or not?
Comment by David Kirwin — May 3, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Why was this the headline story?
It is irresponsible journalism to have this be the lead story of the week. Too often in the past this type of sensationalism has been the prelude to a lynching.
It does raise a question as to why the APD is putting so much investigative effort into this matter. It sounds like a few parents became upset, but was their concern justified? What harm was alleged?
Also, it isn’t as if Otis has a crew of janitors. The person being investigated is uniquely identified.
The whole matter could add up to zero. Blasting this all over town as a headline story was completely irresponsible.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 3, 2008 @ 9:59 am
I doubt the PD has an obligation to speculate and I don’t know what kind of a question would solicit a PD answer like this, “Last month, however, another parent reported that the custodian had made a homemade doll for her daughter as a gift, which the woman thought was inappropriate.” Doesn’t say, though, that APD supplied this information to AJ. Who did?
Also, this statement, to me, somehow has a guilty until proven innocent tinge to it. “Any time we receive a complaint regarding one of our employees we investigate fully and we take actions to the fullest extent of the law,” said Laurie McLachlan-Fry, chief of human resources for the school district.
Any way you cut it, the whole situation has a strong smell. PD shouldn’t speculate, AJ shouldn’t sensationalize, custodian shouldn’t play games with or make dolls for the kids.
Comment by Jack Richard — May 3, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Re:16
Re: mergers
Nice idea, efficiency should always be striven for. But beyond some border tweaking in the West End, where there is a bit of surplus capacity, consolidation cannot happen without significant construction expense. Funds simply do not exist for that.
Comment by dave — May 2, 2008 @ 6:02 am
Dave I’m told Washington has many rooms not being used as classrooms. Also 40% of the students there are not Alameda residents. Not only do those families not pay our parcel taxes and bond measures to help our schools but there is not much hope of getting out of town parents to participate in the school community or take volunteer positions etc.Pehaps it is good to try to keep our classrooms at capapcity for the ADA, but there are certainly ways to impove that efficiency…
Comment by David Kirwin — May 5, 2008 @ 12:46 am
“Dave I’m told Washington has many rooms not being used as classrooms. Also 40% of the students there are not Alameda residents. ”
Actual percentage of Washington students not from Alameda: 12.5%
Comment by Mike McMahon — May 5, 2008 @ 4:12 am
Kirwin is full of misinformation, as always! What a guy!!!
Comment by Roberto — May 5, 2008 @ 7:15 am
# 27
I assume the 12.5% are those students who admit not living in Alameda. Does the 12.5% include students who don’t live here but use Alameda residential addresses merely for school admission purposes? Or is that 27.5% of DK’s 40 merely an urban legend?
Comment by Jack Richard — May 5, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
The Education Code also allows out of town students to attend AUSD schools if their parents work in Alameda {Parental employment in lieu of residency in district of attendance (”Allen Bill Transfers”).}
If Cliff Bars had located at Alameda Landing, students of those working parents could attend school here.
Comment by S M — May 5, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
renters can vote for the tax but if they are in a ten unit building the expense passed through would be $10. Non resident students bring state ADA funding and when enrollment has dropped I thought they have been sought to HELP us. The idea that those people from over the bridge are ripping us off and taking advantage of us is not very compelling , unless you just don’t want people from off island to come here.
Comment by Mark I — May 5, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
#31
People from over the bridge pay none of the parcel taxes that Alamedans pay to support Alameda public schools.
So, while an Alameda property owner with no children in the public schools pays all of the parcel taxes, those who have children in Alameda public schools who live over the bridge or who rent in Alameda pay none of the parcel tax. This is what is wrong with the current method of taxation. I think that taxing commercial property at a higher rate helps to rectify the inequity (because access to Alameda public schools is one of the benefits in working in Alameda) but the overall tax problem is not solved. We cannot continue to patch an old and broken system of supporting primary and secondary public education. If anything comes out of this crisis, it should be public school tax reform. I am more than willing to pay my fair share, but the current system in unfair and unequal. We cannot parcel tax ourselves out of it. This is simply not a problem that cannot be solved locally and the more we seek a local solution, the more we prolong the problem.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 5, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
Oops, double negative
Should read:
This is simply a problem that cannot be solved locally and the more we seek a local solution, the more we prolong the problem.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 5, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
ANT-
I don’t wish to argue with your points about the taxation and won’t. I generally agree, but in the bigger picture of community which I can extend over the bridge, I don’t feel that those off island kids are some kind of straw breaking our back.
Comment by Mark I — May 6, 2008 @ 8:19 am