County Counting: Accuracy (if not openness) Counts at PostStar.com

by contributor Mark Wilson

Part of a series on the troubles at The Post-Star and its parent company Lee Enterprises.


Glens Falls Post-Star Editor Ken Tingley is having difficulty with arithmetic again. On PostStar.com last week, his Front Page blog post titled "Showing you is different than telling you" referred to "all 58 counties in the state" (NY). The post appeared Thursday afternoon. A reader comment pointing out the error Friday morning was never posted, and yet by noontime the error disappeared without a trace, replaced by the correct number (click image to enlarge).

As has been mentioned before in this series, the Post-Star and Mr. Tingley have an on-again-off-again relationship with professional journalism standards, particularly where online content is concerned. The About Us page at PostStar.com still promotes the newspaper as a "twenty-nine-thousand circulation, daily newspaper" even though the newspaper’s daily circulation dropped well below that level in 2010 (yet the same page has updated the awards the paper and its employees have received at least through 2011).

Of course this is not the first time Mr. Tingley has made mistakes on his blogs. He most famously twice used the term "proof readers" in a post (and comments) scolding commenters and letter writers for lax grammar. This, though, is the first instance we know of where a factual mistake was corrected after the fact without acknowledgement.

The level of professional journalism to which Mr. Tingley aspires has a low tolerance for ethical corner cutting. In its section devoted to accountability, the Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Code states: Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.*

Treatment of online errors is not a new issue to the profession. The American Society of News Editors addressed the subject in 2001.

In 2008 the Columbia Missourian devoted an entire blog to the topic, complete with historical context and a common sense comprehensive policy statement. It also addresses how severely the credibility of news organizations is damaged by lack of candor and transparency.

Three years ago, a commentary at the Columbia Journalism Review referred to an article at MediaBugs.org that advanced another set of common sense standards for correcting factual errors in online content, many of which had already been widely adopted throughout the industry.

None of the best practices advanced by journalism’s ethical watchdogs condone the sort of surreptitious content scrubbing that happened last week at PostStar.com.

For a newspaper that sells itself as a model of professional integrity and has built a reputation for shining light on less than transparent operations in public offices, the honorable and consistent recourse would be for Mr. Tingley and the Post-Star to adopt a firm set of online correction standards and post them prominently at PostStar.com. And then, of course, adhere to them.

Failing that, here are a few handy poses Mr. Tingley might strike while defending or explaining future lapses, should the question of New York State counties arise again:
The Global/Universal Posture: Its so hard to count them when they keep moving around—the constant rotating on the earth’s axis, and revolving around the sun. . .and don’t get us started on the ever-accelerating expansion of the universe!
The Hyperlocal Posture: Our news coverage is so close-to-home that we don’t give a hoot how many counties lie outside our circulation radius!
The Nativist Posture: We refuse to acknowledge the existence of Oswego, Otsego, Otisco and Otasco Counties until they give themselves English names!
The Where’s Waldo Posture: Dude, for a moment there we thought we were living in California.
The Taught-to-the-Test Posture: 58 out of 62 is 93.5%. We still get an "A."

Of course, when all else fails, there’s always the truth: Hey, I’m human. I made a mistake. I thought I knew a fact and I didn’t and I didn’t bother to have another editor read it before I sent it out over my name and under the Post-Star brand.

(Mark Wilson is an editorial cartoonist and illustrator living in Saranac Lake, NY. Since 1999 his work has appeared in news media across upstate New York, including, from 2000-2003, the Post-Star.)

*Note to readers: Links to charts and graphs from earlier postings in this series were broken in December 2012. They have been restored.

Beating a dead horse at The Post-Star

by contributor Mark Wilson

Part of a series on the troubles at The Post-Star and its parent company Lee Enterprises.

Post-Star Editor Ken Tingley is charging into the Valley of Death once again. In the latest effort to rescue up the battered image of daily newspapers, Mr. Tingley’s Sunday column contrasted newspaper reports on unfolding events in the Boston area last week with information posted to social media outlets. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, he generalized that, “the beauty of print journalism is [that] you get to check and recheck your facts. There is time to evaluate and debate the context of a news story, where it should be played and even which words should be used.”

Even if you discount the obvious embarrassment of the New York Post's two glaring front page falsehoods, Mr. Tingley seems to have already forgotten the mistake made by the Associated Press—the service that the Post-Star relied on heavily for its coverage of the bombing, siege and manhunt—when it erroneously reported the imminent arraignment of both suspects on Wednesday. Had the rumor moved over the wire at press time, it is likely that understaffed newspapers like the Post-Star would have run it. Mr. Tingley also conveniently ignores the fact that his editors, under the Post-Star brand, retweeted the AP’s announcement of the bogus news story, immediately and without independent verification or subsequent retraction.

The real lesson from last week—one evidently lost on Mr. Tingley—is that in news gathering nothing beats an eye-witness account. Sadly, it is a resource that newspapers and their hired wire services are less and less able to afford. Fortunately, if you can tolerate all the derivative nonsense, such accounts may often be found on the internet.

In concluding his Sunday column, Mr. Tingley expressed his hope that “maybe there is a place for a plodding old war horse like the daily newspaper after all.”

It is a fittingly dated metaphor: The last US Army horseback cavalry charge took place seventy one years ago on the Bataan Peninsula, Philippines. Today’s military horses are used for reenactments, parades and funerals.

The Nobel Committee will not be getting back to him

One of the most striking characteristics of Post-Star managing editor Ken Tingley is his pomposity. One of the ways it most often manifests itself is his penchant for breaking his arm patting himself on the back. Take this most recent example.

His column opens:

We try to eliminate excuses with our election coverage.

That's how I see our mission here at The Post-Star. We want to eliminate every possible excuse that a citizen might have for not voting. From not knowing where the polling place is, to not knowing who is on the ballot, to not knowing what a candidate stands for.

Over the past few days, we hope we have provided all that information to our readers.


I can sense a Nobel Peace Prize nomination this year... no doubt Tingley will nominate himself. I just hope when they give him the winner's ribbon, the pin doesn't puncture his ego.

That they try to remedy a citizen's 'not knowing who is on the ballot' a farcical claim, since the paper's reporting virtually ignores the majority of candidates who will be on my ballot.

Tingley self-love fest adds: I often tell people that they cannot be a good citizen if they do not subscribe to the newspaper.

And I often tell people that they cannot be a good citizen if the newspaper is their ONLY news sources. Listen to NPR. Read BBCNews.com. Watch al-Jazeera English. Read regional blogs to get perspectives the corporate daily has no idea exists (or willfully ignores). Broaden your horizons beyond the extremely narrow focus of the local newspaper and the narrower focus of the wire services most of them rely upon.

Someone who relied on the Glens Falls daily as their sole news source would have little idea of all the candidates on the ballot for governor, would have no idea of all the candidates on the ballot for comptroller, attorney general and both US Senate races and even less idea what these candidates stand for. The rent may be too damn high but some candidates have an agenda broader than that.

People who relied solely on The Post-Star would know nothing about the serious candidates but would be greatly informed about Andrew Cuomo's love life and Carl Paladino's penchant for horse porn. Thanks Ken!

Oh wait, amidst the hundreds of articles on the corporate party candidates, the paper did do a real article (singular) on one of the smaller party candidates for governor: Howie Hawkins and his visit to Glens Falls.

Tingley's right. This IS their most in-depth election coverage ever!

Except it's a sad indictment of what Tingley and most of the media view as worthy of flowery self-congratulation.


Note: If you really want to learn about all the options, forget The Post-Star which is obviously uninterested in doing such legwork (gotta have room for horse porn and poll analyses!). Instead, check out this voter guide by the non-partisan and well-respected New York state League of Women Voters. It has information about ALL the candidates running for statewide office.


Update: I was listening to a wrap up on WAMC about the attorney general debate where the questioners were discussing the event. New York public radio’s Karen Dewitt said she was going to ask a question about hydrofracking but didn’t because they were running out of time and they’d promised to ask a question about Carl Paladino.

Here, you have one of the most respected reporters of state politics scrapping a question about a tremendously serious issue of public policy to a large chunk of the state in favor of one about tabloid personality politics. I think most voters would’ve rather had the serious question in the debate and been allowed to go to the New York Post instead for the tabloid stuff.

Amateur hour (and a some professionalism)

Today's Post-Star ran as its front page lead a commentary about the passing of Yankees' owner George Steinbrenner.

Bear in mind that this is referring to...

-The front page of the paper, not of the sports section;

-A commentary, not a news story;

-A sports figure with no particular personal connection to this area.


I'm not sure I've ever seen a commentary, let alone one about sports, as the front page lead. Then again, the paper's managing editor is an avowed Yankee fan.

It doesn't speak well of the paper's editorial judgment.

Though as an antidote to such poor prioritization, I've recently discovered two excellent websites.

The first is Pro Publica. The non-profit organization its mission as [t]o expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing.

The other is Wikileaks. It describes itself as a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public... [based on the principle] that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. Wikileaks has become so influential that Pentagon Papers' leaker Daniel Ellsberg warned that the personal safety of the website's founder might be at risk and Obama administration's relentless pursuit of whistleblowers. More 'change' we can believe in, it seems.

Exclusive: the letter The Post-Star won't* publish! (updated)

(*-At least I think they won't publish it. I'm not entirely sure, for reasons which will become clear after you read this entry)


Last Sunday, Post-Star managing editor Ken Tingley wrote a typically obnoxious column bashing one of his favorite targets: teachers unions.

For context, please first read the column in question here.

I was so infuriated by his column, particularly its tone, that I immediately fired off a letter to the editor.

With the exception of one tangential sentence that was inaccurate and that I subsequently asked be removed, the letter read as follows:

If there were a Pulitzer Prize for hypocrisy, Ken Tingley's column "This us vs. them attitude has to end" would be a sure winner. What's next? Cal Thomas pontificating on religious tolerance? Floyd Landis lecturing on honesty?

Tingley repeatedly insists that he has nothing against teachers per se. Yet his primary qualification for acceptable school board members is their willingness to, as he puts it, "wage war with teachers unions."

How exactly is a school board member supposed "to wage war with teachers unions" while simultaneously "[ending] this us vs. them attitude”?

The winners of Tuesday's polls were the communities. Tingley and his editorial board wanted people to act as taxpayers and nothing else. Perhaps, voters noticed that the Constitution doesn't begin, "We the taxpayers..." They decided to balance their roles as taxpayers, parents and citizens. In most places, they approved the budget. In a few, they defeated it. But in all cases, they rejected Tingley's narrow, consumerist-only definition of what were once called citizenship and parenthood.

Tingley should have a chat with his colleague Will Doolittle. Doolittle has the decency to recognize that when teachers claim they are underpaid for the credentials required of them and that when residents claim they are overtaxed, they are both right.

Doolittle understands what Tingley refuses to see: the problem is not the teachers' union, but the fundamentally broken structure of education funding in New York. Tingley stubbornly insists on taking sides on the sinking ship; Doolittle and other wiser heads want to save the ship.

It's disappointing that someone in such a position of responsibility consistently behaves in such a divisive, irresponsible manner.


The following morning, I received a harsh email from Tingley denouncing me. As a general policy, I do not publish private emails without the consent of the author, but suffice it to say, he denied my claim and angrily accused me of taking his words out of context. I replied that my interpretation was based not only on this particular column but on his broader body of work on the topic and that I stood by my interpretation.

My letter was sharply worded so I have no problem that his email was in the same vein, though it did make a typically patronizing reference.

That day, Tingley even Tweeted what I assume was a comment about my letter: Received a letter to the editor today that made my blood boil. I hate when people twist your words for their own convenience.

(Note: Twitter is public so I have no problem re-posting that comment)

It occurred to me that Tingley's fury might prevent the letter's appearance in the paper so that Monday, I emailed Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney (the usual contact person for letters) asking him whether the letter would be published or not. Seven days later, I've received no response.

A few days later, I emailed Tingley back asking him the same question. I have no response.

A few days after that, I emailed Publisher Rick Emanuel but his away message indicated that he was on temporary leave.

After submitting letters, I typically receive a call from a Post-Star staffer confirming that I did indeed submit a letter. I've received no such call for this letter. And I've yet to see it appear in the paper.

Over the years, I've submitted dozens and dozens of letters to the paper. I've never once had a letter rejected or even questioned. But I know other people who've had letters refused and the paper typically gives a specific reason for the rejection.

I don't care how angry Tingley is that somebody called him out, I find it completely unprofessional that he and Mahoney continue refuse to respond to my simple yes/no question. If they want to reject the letter (which was never my intention), it's their business but they should at least have the guts to tell me directly.


Update: What's interesting is that although Tingley claims my letter took his comments out of context, the paper published yesterday a letter expressing the exact same sentiment as mine. If my interpretation was so unreasonable and deceitful as to be unpublishable, why was the other one printed?

Second update: In his managing editor's blog, Tingley bragged about how easy it is to submit letters to the editor.' I left a comment asking why it wasn't so easy to get an answer of whether a submitted letter will actually be published. Not surprisingly, he didn't publish the comment or even respond to it privately.

Third update: Surprisingly, the paper DID decide to publish the letter, with the editor's note claiming I took Tingley's words out of context. Though I never get a response one way or the other from Tingley or Mahoney. Makes you wonder if they read this blog!

Fourth update: Tingley seems to be showing the pique one might expect of an 8 year old denied candy for dinner. He is now apparently and without explanation (a common theme here) refusing to publish my comments on his managing editor's blog, even non-controversial comments like asking what percentage of website users watch the videos reporters now post.

A rational system of funding education

Unfortunately I can't post these thoughts on The Post-Star's website because technical difficulties with comments appear to linger, contrary to what Managing Editor Ken Tingley's blog states but...

It's little secret that I strongly disagree with Post-Star projects' editor Will Doolittle's opinion of green groups and their alleged relationship with the state of New York. However, he tends to be pretty sensible on most other issues.

Take this column on the dysfunctional system of education funding in New York.

New York is responsible for educating its kids. The state should cover that cost the same way it pays for other state operations, through the state income tax. Education's price tag won't go down, but the tax burden will be distributed more fairly - among districts and among individuals.

He echoes what I've been saying for years.

Anything mandated by the state should be paid for in full by Albany. Anything mandated by the feds should be paid for in full by Washington. The only things that should be funded locally are things that the local school boards voluntarily choose to offer (e.g.: sports, music, extracurriculars).

Right now, there is tension in many communities between property owners and school teachers. Property owners claim that regressive school taxes are too high. Teachers claim that they are required to have strenuous (and expensive) academic qualifications for their job and deserve to be compensated accordingly.

Doolittle, like myself, recognizes that BOTH sides are right. Teachers do deserve to be fairly compensated for their required qualifications. And property owners in New York state DO face a crushing tax burden.

He deserves praise for advocating a fundamental overhaul of this irrational funding structure, for advocating an actual solution, a fair solution, rather than throwing out cheap populism.

The current system creates unnecessary tension between two of the main stakeholders in education.

Doolittle wisely takes enough of a long view to recognize this. His short-sighted colleague Tingley does not.

The Managing Editor wrote a column blasting the Glens Falls teachers' union for, in his view, undermining quality education in the city district.

Now, I'm a bit skeptical the union made the right decision for its members regarding a temporary pay freeze (or deferral, depending on whom you ask). But Tingley's harsh rhetoric demonstrates a complete lack of perspective. The teachers are not the problem.

Unlike Doolittle, Tingley fails to see the forest for the trees. Tingley and the rest of the daily's editorial board should read Doolittle's column, re-read it and keep reading it until they get it. Rather than bashing the professionals who educate the children he piously claims to care about, the managing editor (along with the editorial board) should instead be thumping their chests to demand a sane, rational method of funding education in New York state. Rather than playing to community divisions, leaders should be trying to unite people.

THAT, not cheap populism and union-bashing, is the only way to ensure the quality education Tingley claims to care about.

Fourth Estate acts like the Second

It's no secret that Post-Star managing editor Ken Tingley is the most self-important public figures in the area. And the area includes Queensbury town supervisor Dan Stec!

When you read Tingley's columns, it's clear that he thinks he's so much smarter than his idiot readers. Maybe he's bitter than he's not yet running The New York Times or some other important paper commensurate with his opinion of himself.

It's no coincidence that the paper's precipitous decline started shortly after Tingley became managing editor.

Usually, this arrogance is more implied, more read-between-the-lines. But a recent online exchange laid bare not just Tingley's pomposity, but the contempt and loathing he has for his paper's own customers.

The local weekly Chronicle published exchange between The Post-Star supremo and a reader that occurred in the comments section of Tingley's column on the daily's website.

A reader named "Wendy" called Tingley to task for criticizing the Queensbury school budget. She noted that she'd never seen him a board of education or PTA meeting or any other district meeting as well as expressing her support for the (then proposed, now adopted) school budget.

The comments by "Wendy" were critical but not especially harsh or nasty. I don't even agree with everything she said. But this tepid criticism obviously pricked Tingley's huge ego. He then gave her the proverbial finger.

The Chronicle published his response:

Dear Wendy:
I take great offense to your comments. For the past 20 years I have been an editor working for the daily newspaper. I am constantly dealing with the issues, problems and yes, the good news that is produced in this community.

We have taken on such issues as underage drinking, suicide and domestic abuse to educate and make our community better.

I'm guessing I have contact with more real people on a daily basis than most other people do in a month.

I write two columns a week, am a member of the editorial board and we are constantly shining a light on problems and issues.

I do not need to go to a PTA meeting or budget hearing to know what is going on because I regularly talk to many of the people involved and our reporters.

It amazes me that anytime anyone is pro taxpayer on this issue, they are accused of being anti-education. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In our editorial on Sunday, we took all school districts to task, not just Queensbury. But I agree with Mr. [Doug] Beaty that Queensbury has traditionally been a high spender.

I am involved in my community through my job at the newspaper. That's more than most people can say including yourself.

There's nothing I really need to add. The egomaniacal narcissism expressed in this screed speaks for itself.

But what's even more interesting is that in the last few days, the exchange has magically disappeared from the article in question.

Now it begs the question: did this revisionism occur because in hindsight, Tingley was humiliated by his childish outburst? Or did his corporate superiors get wind of his enormously unprofessional public attack on a reader and rightly reprimand him?

Inquiring minds want to know.

A supposed ex-sports' fan speaks

Last week was not a good one in sports. A NFL football quarterback was indicted on charges related to dog fighting. Cycling's Tour de France was plagued by doping allegations. So was Major League Baseball's Barry Bonds as he sought to break the sport's most hallowed record. A National Basketball Association was under investigation for betting on games he was officiating in.

Let's get our kids back on the couch. Let's get them reading about the war in Iraq, famine in Africa and global warming that will probably kill us all at some point. That's the real world.

Contrary to what Tingley might think, people from Iraq, Africa and worlds far more real than he or I live in DO care about sports. It's something that brings pleasure and joy to lives that otherwise have a lot of misery.

All this led Post-Star managing editor Ken Tingley to conclude that there is no redeeming value to professional sports anymore.

When Tingley was the sports' editor of the daily, I always appreciated the many columns he wrote emphasizing the importance of sportsmanship and integrity in sports.

I understand his disillusionment but isn't this a bit melodramatic?

The front page of the newspaper is lightweight reading compared to the sports pages.

Slaughter in Iraq, genocide in Darfur, refugee crises in Jordan and Chad and chaos in Afghanistan are 'lightweight' compared to athletes allegedly choosing to stick needles in their arms?

He is right when writes: We are a culture that demands our athletes be superhuman. They need to perform at levels that are not better than anything we have ever seen, but at a level that is greater than Superman.

But the solution isn't to give up on sports altogether. It's to put it in the proper perspective. Too many kids already spend enough time in front of their computer or game console. We don't need to discourage kids from having role models that might encourage them to be physically active.

Many Americans are disillusioned with our political leaders. According to Tingley's understandable but misguided logic, the solution would be to stop being civicly involved altogether. Sadly, many Americans have followed this path.

Instead, we should all condemn the cheaters. And, just as importantly, praise those athletes like Cal Ripken Jr and Tony Gwynn who are not only great at what they do but whose class and integrity are beyond reproach.

Instead of falling into an easy but corrosive cynicism, why not highlight the many athletes who selflessly donate their time to various charitable causes?

This would emphasize to kids that you can be good at what you do AND be a good person at the same time. That nice guys don't always finish last.

The fact that Tingley hasn't axed The Post-Star's sports' section tells me that he sees some redeeming value there.

While there are lots of good people in sports, it's the scumbags that get the headlines. But doesn't that say more about us than them?

Pardon me?

A few days ago, Post-Star managing editor Ken Tingley published a screed berating people for not being more upset about President Bush's commutation for his chum Scooter Libby. I don't know what things are like in Tingley's ivory tower, but most people I know were pretty well angered by Bush's amnesty for a convicted felon.

Granted, the outrage might not be as vocal as one might expect. I think it's muted because there is so much corruption in this administration, that Libby's clemency seems par for the course. But it doesn't mean that people don't care.

Tingley is right when he says: We shrug our shoulders -- yet again -- and say that's how the system works. Everyone is cheating and lying and that's the way it always will be. Republicans are no better than Democrats and Democrats are no better than Republicans.

It begs the question: when will the media elite decide to give fair coverage to Greens, Libertarians and other smaller parties who might offer an antidote to this business as usual?

If Republicans are no better than Democrats and vice versa, when will news outlets start giving serious coverage to other parties' candidates? When will Tingley's news outlet do so?

One of the reasons why the outrage is muted is because many people feel hopeless. They don't believe there are any other choices. In fact, there are alternatives. The media is just ignoring them. But I guess it's easier for Tingley to rant about everyone else rather than looking in the mirror.

"No comment... now stop refusing to tell my side!"

Glens Falls' Post-Star managing editor Ken Tingley had a good column blasting NY Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno.

A few days ago, the Albany Times-Union ran a piece detailing how Bruno allegedly used taxpayer-funded aircraft to attend political fundraisers. Additionally, the Albany paper obtained documents where Bruno had asserted the aircraft were used for official state business.

Essentially, Bruno was committing the same offense that forced the resignation of then-state comptroller Alan Hevesi. Bruno had demanded Hevesi quit.

Bruno refused to comment for the Times-Union article but later held a press conference to answer the allegations.

"Since I have been leader I was told by the State Police that there were so many threats on my life that they could not cover them," said Bruno.

I know Albany's a morass but to listen to his rant, you'd think the politico was in more danger than a GI in Baghdad.

Anyway, Tingley rightly lambastes Bruno. During his temper tantrum, the crybaby senator insisted he was going to cancel his subscription to the T-U and encouraged everyone else to do the same.

I'm sure Hearst Newspapers is quaking in its boots!

Tingley also called Bruno on what is a huge pet peeve of mine. Bruno consciously refused to provide a comment for the T-U article only later to snivel that... the paper only provided one side of the story.

I think anyone who does this should be publicly tarred and feathered. How is a media outlet supposed to provide your side of the story if you refuse to give it to them?


[Full disclosure: apparently Bruno is distantly related to me, though I've never received a ride in state aircraft nor have I received any of the other perks that have gotten him into trouble.]