Thanks for Commenting
Mario -
The disclaimer: I don't speak for my employer.
Thanks for your useful contributions to this discussion (and I mean that sincerely).
I'd like to clarify my comment, because your post suggests I left room for misunderstanding.
I have not come to the conclusion that Richardson is a whack job, and I wasn't trying to argue that was the reason for Dan's decision about how to play the story. Based on the evidence at hand, I don't know which it is. In fact, past experience with Greg Payne suggests to me which conclusion I might come to.
My concern was those who had come to their own conclusions about which it is, based on the limited evidence, and then used that conclusion to question Dan's integrity. There is simply not enough evidence to support such a conclusion. (Plus, working side-by-side with Dan, I know him to be a journalist of great integrity.)
There is a reasonable discussion to be had about the appropriate journalistic approach here. It is reasonable to argue that Dan made the wrong call. It is reasonable to argue that a full-on investigative push is in order. It is also reasonable to argue that this is something of a trivial side show. That is a useful discussion.
What is important, though, is that such a discussion be reasoned. All chance for such a reasonable discussion is lost when people assume, as they did in the DCF thread, that Dan's decision was evidence of a lack of integrity. It is easy in such Internet arguments, as happened in the Duke City Fix thread, to assume that one's opponent is either venal or stupid. But it is not useful. At that point, it's pretty much game over, discussion useless, let the flaming begin.
I was trying to provide an explanation, from my side of the great MSM-blogosphere divide, of what seemed reasonable about Dan's decision. Again, that doesn't mean it was the right call. But, given the standards to which we adhere, it was not unreasonable.
As often happens when I try to reach across this divide, it was not well received. I just ended up lumped into the "venal and/or stupid" club.
Everyone knows the Journal is in bed with King Chavez(At least the editorial members are, not so many of the actual reporters.) They always give him a free ride, and if you are a member of this DINO's administration, you get a free ride as well....
My comment is in no way talking about Mr. Fleck or his comment.
John, thanks for the clarification and for your involvement in the dialogue at DCF and here. For the record, I wouldn't lump you in the "venal and/or stupid" club.
Heck, I wouldn't lump anyone who spent their week asking about dinosaurs into the venal and/or stupid club.
Can't see the forest for the trees.
There seems to be a lot of discussion about the trees; all of the coulda, woulda, shoulda's.
None about the fact that a significant proportion of this community no longer trusts its government or its newspapers.
Rightly, or wrongly; perception is reality to the perceiver.
I have had enough experience with the Journal and its refusal to cover the shenanigans in the leadership of the APS to know that the Journal cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
The "evidence" in the red light scamera situation; would lead a reasonable observers to believe that trust in city government is misplaced as well.
Perhaps the lack of trust needs to be resolved first; most easily and immediately by establishing transparent accountability.
Mario: Quoted from your post:
"The problem is that Mr. Fleck's excuse for the Journal not covering the story (i.e. Mrs. Richardson is a "whack job") does not hold water. In fact, a quick Google search indicates that Mrs. Richardson is a very involved community member..."
I hardly need to point out (but I will anyway) that the fly in your logical ointment here is the supposition that "whack job" and "very involved community member" (VICM) are mutually exclusive designations. There are some VICMs that are the very definition of "whack job". I can think of one or two that should be eligible to have their photos used in the Merriam-Webster definition of "whack job". I'm guessing you can think of one or two examples, as well.
Meanwhile, thanks for putting this whole brouhaha out there. The conversation generated has been informative, invigorating and thought-provoking. Blogs at their best, if you ask me.
I also appreciate the input from John & Dan from the Journal. Some may disagree with their rationale, but their willingness to interact on the subject is both brave and extremely helpful to those wanting to know more.
As to the insta-flaming incendiary comments...one of these days people have to using the Internet to hide.
John: I appreciate the clarification and I admire the work you do.
As for my comments on DCF, let me clarify. I don’t believe Dan’s actions reflect either venality or stupidity. Those are your words, not mine.
My opinion of Jim Ludwick’s reporting is another matter. Time and again, in my opinion, the stories under his byline reflected an egregiously biased slant in favor of the Chavez administration over the last three years. There is a troubling perception on the part of people who work at City Hall that he became much too closely involved with representatives of the 11th floor. Perhaps that perception is erroneous, but the same injunction directed at public officials applies, “the perception of impropriety, etc, etc.” Greater care should be taken to avoid the perception.
As for whether Dan “made the right call” or not. Based on the evidence at hand, I can understand the decision to hold off on publishing a major story on the Richardson e-mail affair, that it could be viewed as premature without more supporting evidence. What so alarmed me about your and Dan’s comments (“GP and PDP both denied it”) was the quite unmistakable impression left that, once the “Brief” was written, no more investigation is warranted and the case is closed. If this impression is correct, I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the call. The dismissive nature of your unfortunate “whack job” characterization really did reinforce that impression and, I believe, en-“flamed” many of the subsequent comments. If that overall impression was wrongly taken, however, then Journal readers like myself await the possible next installment. Reporters have a hard job and limited time and resources with which to do it. But the public depends on you. I know how seriously you take this responsibility.
Thank you for your efforts to bridge the MSM-blogosphere divides. Please don’t give up.
Commenting by HaloScan
