This blog's standards

I've never tried to explain what standards I try to use on this blog but my piece yesterday provided a good prompt.

Although this blog (and my Africa blog Black Star Journal) consists primarily of commentary, I do have training as a journalist so I try as much as possible to follow the basic standards of mainstream journalism. At some point in the future, I'd like to try to syndicate my work, although obviously my pieces would have to become shorter.

As critical as I sometimes am, I am very conscious of trying to avoid libel, slander and defamation, which explains my sometimes prodigious use of words like 'allegedly' and 'apparently'.

I believe in disclosure and the full-as-possible airing of issues. For example, I've tried to get Will Doolittle's side of the story regarding my critiques of his recent series on the Adirondack Park Agency. I've pro-actively contacted him twice to try to get some portion of his defense of his pieces published here (the last time, it said he was out of the office but hopefully he'll respond affirmatively when he gets back). It's not something I an obligated to do but I'm trying to do so for the sake of fairness. I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to do a hit job on him or trying to suppress his explanation. This blog may be almost entirely commentary, not straight journalism, but I still want his side published here so readers can have the full picture and make up their own minds.

It's because of this belief in providing as much access to as much information as possible that I publish links as much as possible. If I'm criticizing a piece, for example, I always link to that piece if it's available. I explain why I think it's wrong but post the link so that people can make their own decisions based on full information, not simply my subjective paraphrasing of it. I do this for every piece where a link is available, whether I'm criticizing the piece, praising it or simply referring to it. I believe sourcing is important both for the integrity of my piece and to give readers the ability to make up their own mind.

As much as possible, I also try to quote from a piece or person, rather than paraphrasing.

I strongly encourage dialogue. My essays are ideally intended to be conversation starters, not the be all and end all. I like the back and forth of discussion. It doesn't have to be sycophantic, but please, let it be intelligent. This is why, despite my misgivings about completely unsigned remarks, I've removed all barriers to commenting (except one).

The only exception is that I approve comments before their publication. My current standard is that I will publish all comments except are those that I consider potentially libelous or defamatory toward other people or ones that are spam. I've been criticized for the latter but I refuse to let my blog be the vehicle for potentially illegal (and almost always anonymous) smear campaigns. There is no question of me reversing this policy.

As an editorial policy, I will not refer to as 'president' any leader whose rule I consider to be illegitimate. I will refer to them as a leader, a head of state, a ruler, a dictator or a strong man, but not president.

If any readers have additional questions about the standards I try to use on this, they are welcome to leave a comment here or to email me (mofycbsj@yahoo.com) and I will respond in kind.

89% of journalists use blogs in their research: report

The seemingly typical view of the independent blogosphere by mainstream media journalists is one of a fantasyland where leeches in their bathrobes take potshots from the peanut gallery at those who do the hard work of journalism.

On one hand, I think there's an element of truth to this stereotype. I think this is what the blogosphere used to be almost exclusively, and still is to some extent. But this bugs me because it doesn't recognize how the blogosphere has changed in the last few years, how much more nuanced it's become.

For example, Adirondack Almanack* used to be just the political and history writings of a single person; a lot like mine but with an Adirondacks' focus. Now, the journal offers pieces on a stunning variety of topics by 15 different individuals... from ski videos to activity ideas to photography to nature reporting and, yes, history and politics. The Almanack always interested me as a political and history junkie, but its increasing breadth makes it a lot better. It's now a news and information source, not just a blog.

(*-disclosure: I recently became a regular contributor to the Almanack)

There's a lot of good stuff out there in the blogosphere. A fair bit of good commentary. Not a ton of, but some decent original journalism. And yes, there's still a lot of crap.

The blogosphere represents the democratization of the media. Because democracy is a lot messier than plutocracy, this is not a complete panacea. There are certainly issues, especially pertaining to anonymity, ethics and standards. There are complications in the evolution of any medium; the idea of objective journalism is relatively recent in the overall history of newspapers.

It's not a panacea but it is an improvement. This democratization also means that points of view, especially non-elite ones, previously excluded or given short shrift in the mainstream media now have voice.

The overgeneralization is tantamount treating The Washington Post, The New York Post and The Saratogian the same just because they are all fall within the realm of the daily newspaper. At the end of the day, the credibility of blogs should be determined in an identical manner to the credibility of newspapers and other media outlet: on a case-by-case analysis of a blog's entire body of work. Lazy generalizations is a lot easier, but no one said being serious wasn't hard work.

Because of this generalized scorn, I was intrigued to read the findings of researchers at George Washington University.

Among the journalists surveyed, 89% said they turn to blogs for story research, 65% to social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn, and 52% to microblogging services such as Twitter. The survey also found that 61% use Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia.

The figure of 89% of journalists turning to blogs for story research turns on its head the stereotype that the relationship the blogosphere and mainstream media journalism is one-sided, with the former leeching off the later.

Note: Tomorrow, I will have a piece explaining the standards I try to use in this blog.

We speak English hear: if you don't like it, to bad!

I was interested to read a story in the Post-Star whereby a board member in Jackson proposed making English the Washington County town's official language.

At first, I was skeptical of the proposal. Phrases like "shameless grandstanding," "culture warrior in search of a crusade," "cheap populism" and "solution in search of a problem" immediately sprung to mind. I doubted that the tiny town had much demand for public documents to be translated into Swahili or Mongolian. In fact, the town board member did not even mention any problem at the municipal level, only his dissatisfaction that English-only has not been made the official federal policy.

My skepticism was further entrenched after reading the following rant on a poststar.com forum. I'll publish it below verbatim in its entirety. See how many grammar and spelling errors you can spot.

This is AMERICA and we do speak English. More power to those that choose to speak a second language just in case they travel abroad and are forced to speak another language other then English. If I go to a local store and they don’t speak English…I’m out of there. If you want to live here…you have to learn the English language…period.

There are those that “butcher” the English language…and I’m sure they were born and raised here…and I’m sure they understand better then they speak. Are there other more pressing problems…yes but if we don’t pay attention to these “little things”, before long they become BIG THINGS and then it’s too late. God Bless America …if you can’t say it…you certainly don’t understand what it stands for…learn English and you will appreciate more the “host country” your living in.

My personal opinion is that if you are going to demand others be required to speak and write English, you should take the time to learn how to do so properly yourself.

In fact, at last check, there were four comments on that forum from four different people demanding English-only... ALL of which had grammar/spelling errors.

I also denounced former GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo for telling the Tea Party convention that he supported the return of Jim Crow-era literacy tests.

But upon further reflection, maybe these things have some merit.

Maybe the Jackson town board member's proposal is just PR. When I read the article, my instant reaction is that if this is one of the most prominent issues to require the time and resources of town government, then Jackson must be a pretty awesome place to live.

It also occurred to me that English-only laws would prevent people like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin from ever becoming president.

Finally, the English literacy test proposal is an idea worth considering. It wouldn't have much impact on immigrants, most of whom place a high value on education. But it would no doubt purge at least 75 percent of bigots from the voter rolls.

Que la police linguistique me pourchasse!

20 years after a hero's liberation

This essay is part of an occasional feature on this blog that presents compelling stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, IsraelStine and the Trumped Up Enemy of the Month. A list of all pieces in this series can be found found here..


"Anyone can handle adversity. If you really want to test a man's character, give him power." -Abraham Lincoln

I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge yesterday as being the 20th anniversary of Nelson Mandela's liberation from prison. Mandela remains arguably (though not arguably in my opinion) the greatest living political figure and certainly one the greatest of the 20th century. Not simply for his role in liberating South Africa from apartheid but for his sage guidance of the country during the early years of the country's real democracy. I maintain that the greatest thing he ever did for South Africa, even greater than leading the apartheid struggle, was to serve only a single term as the country's president. In doing so, he prevented the country from trading one oppressor for another. The decision prevented the development of a cult of personality and sent a loud and clear message that the well-being of the state must never be dependent on the beneficence of a single individual. He thus fulfilled his promise upon being released from prison that he stood "not as a prophet but as [the people's] humble servant." This mentality, the mark of true statesmanship, is likely the biggest single reason South Africa has so far avoided going down the road of other countries with similar liberation struggles like Zimbabwe and Angola.



Note: The South African Broadcasting Corporation has coverage here, here The Johannesburg Daily Mail and Guardian has reports here and here. The BBC has a report here as well as memories here and here as well as pictures.

Politics and hypocrisy

In NCPR's blog, Brian Mann has a great commentary on Jenny Sanford and the hypocrisy of the religious right. He calls them out for intertwining religion, family life, politics and policy... until a scandal erupts and then they demand privacy, which is the complete separation of the personal and the public.

Going on a media tour is a strange way to guard your "privacy."

People did not turn on Bill Clinton for his sex scandal but did turn on Eliot Spitzer for his. The difference? Spitzer was prosecuting prostitution rings as attorney general at the same time he was frequenting them.

People like serial cheater Mark Sanford, bathroom blowjob king Larry Craig and convicted criminal domestic abuser Hiram Monstserrate have the gall to think they have the right to say that gays don't deserve to get married.

What most riles Americans is not the imperfect personal lives of politicians but their hypocrisy.

Periodic Twitter update

Note: This is a series highlighting selected stories from the Twitter feeds for my blogs Musings of a (Fairly) Young Contrarian and Black Star Journal. The Twitter feed contains not only links to original pieces from my blogs but also links ("re-tweets") to diverse stories from other media outlets. Those interested are encouraged to subscribe the Twitter feed to get all stories by going to Twitter.com/mofycbsj and clicking 'follow'.

-Pretty amazing Rachel Maddow segment on Republicans who take credit for stimulus projects (Washington Monthly via Slate.com)

- Family Research Council Calls for Criminalization of Gay Sex (Alternet)

-NYS Gov. David Paterson vetoes Legislature’s ethics bill, goo-goos unhappy (Capitol Confidential)

-The U.S. Hunger Epidemic is a Fact, And We Must Act Now (Alternet)

- U.S. Missionaries See Judge In Haiti Child Case (New York Times via Black Looks)

- National Grid wants 20 percent increase in electric rates (Syracuse Post-Standard)

The smear campaign against Paterson

Bob over at Planet Albany offers his thoughts on the character assassination campaign (my words, not his) against Gov. Paterson, a campaign extraordinary even by the venal standards of New York.

The Legislative Gazette reports via its Twitter feed that Gerald McEntee, head of the state's powerful AFSCME public workers union, recently said of Paterson, "He's our biggest foe in the state of New York ... He's going down."

Public sector unions don't like Paterson because he's targeting them during this budget crisis, which is inevitable since spending on things like health care and education make up the majority of the state's spending. You can't address a serious budget crisis if most of the budget is off the table. It makes you wonder who (possibly singular, most likely plural) might be behind the character assassination campaign against the one of the rare politicians in Albany with both a clue and a spine.

We wouldn't have to wonder if someone had the guts to attach their name to the accusations.

Print this!

In a previous entry, an anonymous commenter noted that The Post-Star is now limiting certain parts of its content to print only. According to managing editor Ken Tingley's blog, the following sections will no longer be available online: comics, puzzles, TV grids, the horoscope, Dear Abby or letters to the editor.

The wisdom of such a decision is debatable. All the new print-only stuff (save letters) is syndicated content that the paper itself has to buy, so on one hand, it makes sense that readers should have to pay the paper for it. But on the other hand, all the stuff is now available for free at other websites so is it really going to be much of an incentive for web-only readers (who are, by definition, at least somewhat web savvy) to buy the print edition?

This experiment is no doubt the first of many. Newspapers are in desperate straits and are going to try anything to increase revenue... anything short of improving quality and local focus.

The front page print edition headline was an AP story about the slimy character assassination of Gov. Paterson based on a Page Six (celebrity gossip column) piece in the tabloid New York Post. The story was about unspecific rumors made by anonymous people so serious that the governor was supposed to resign over them. The reliable sources [sic] indicated that that the (perhaps mythical?) New York Times expose was supposed to run last Sunday, then two days ago, then yesterday... nothing's appeared yet. Why the AP and other supposedly respected news outlets have been complicit in anonymous, unspecific character assassination propagated by NYC's version of The National Enquirer and presumably Paterson's political enemies is beyond me. But as disgraceful as the AP and others are in hyping this as yet non-story, The Post-Star did choose to run it as its lead, ahead of other decent local stories... which will no doubt be behind a firewall soon enough anyway.

Understandable or not, the paper's action feels like little more than re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, closing the barn door after the horses have already left or whatever cliché you wish to invoke.

Letters to the editor are another ball of wax. The paper has already done this selectively in the past, with their refusal to publish online a stinging ethical criticism of Will Doolittle's anti-APA series (at a time when they published online all other letters to the editor). But now, they're going whole hog in limiting the spread of public opinion.

As anonymous put it, you'll have to pay to read corrections to factual errors, or rebuttals to the oftentimes summary editorial judgments.

So you have to pay half a dollar to read the voice of the people but the snarky Don Cheap Shot remains free?!

Then again, I suppose that's an accurate reflection of the relative value of the two.