Newstradamus

Bob Englehart/The Hartford Courant

Before I head off on vacation, a few thoughts about the recent fuss regarding the New York Times story about John McCain:

— For those who are McCain supporters, or former Republican McCain haters now rallying around their guy, I can see how this might be considered a calculated smear campaign. It’s not, of course. This is what good news organizations do: Dig deep and write about what they find. It’s like the story of the frog carrying the scorpion across the river. As both are drowning after the scorpion stings the frog, the frog asks why, and the scorpion answers, “Because it’s in my nature.” Any public official who thinks the press will go easy because they’ve gone easy before is whistling past the graveyard.

— The Times isn’t just picking on McCain. They’ve been tough on the Clintons in the past, and have been trying to pry the lid off the source of their recent wealth, and who is giving money to the Clinton Presidential Library. Obama has had to explain his dealings with a shady Chicago supporter, and as his candidacy grows more successful, so will the scrutiny.

— Why release the story now, rather than, say, last December when rumors were flying that a story was in the works? For the reason the Times says: It hadn’t been nailed down to the Times’ satisfaction. It could be argued that a story in December, at the nadir of McCain’s campaign, could have knocked him out for good. At this point, he may be strong enough to overcome the blow.

— Is it all a pack of lies? I doubt it. There are more anonymous sources than many journalists would like, but I don’t think the Times is making these sources up. It is understandable that former McCain campaign aides would prefer not to have their names known, although at least one has come forward to admit he was one of the sources.

— It’s notable that despite the denials by the candidate that there were sexual relations with that woman, the substance of the story (as well as the Washington Post’s, which followed on its heels) has not been refuted, which is that his aides feared the senator was tighter with telecommunications lobbyists than was seemly for the chair of the Commerce Committee. I was surprised to learn that telecom lobbyists are running his campaign — for free — but that one is also running his Senate office while he’s on the campaign trail.

— Some say evidence of a setup is that the Times endorsed McCain late last year at the same time reporters were working on the story. However, it is typical of large newspapers, as well as small ones, to keep the writers of opinion — the Editorial Board — away from the writers of news. Most editorial writers want to base their opinion what is known to the public, not what might be in various stages of verification. And reporters prefer not to have their news stories tainted by personal opinion. (That’s newspaper reporters — those rules go out the door when it comes to cable news.)

Even at a small newspaper such as the Times-Standard, we make every effort to separate our editorial position from the news staff. Whoever writes the editorials on behalf of the Editorial Board (usually but not always me) may ask reporters about facts regarding an issue, but reporters don’t write editorials.

— My main complaint about the Times story was that it framed the “lead” of story around the question of whether the senator had a romantic relationship with an attractive lobbyist. It was a distraction to the main issue about McCain’s ethics regarding lobbyists. That will be the angle that will be have legs as the campaign moves forward — unless, of course, there is a blue dress in a closet somewhere.

Posted by Rich Somerville at 07:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Eric Allie/Caglecartoons.com

Once again, the Times-Standard runs a conservative oriented editorial cartoon, and I hear from a few liberals who say we are shameful, and should apologize. (A couple of letters came in today, and we'll publish them this week.) Last year it was a cartoon poking at the abortion issue that raised hackles. On Saturday, it was one taking a shot at the worshipful adoration of the followers of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (above).

No doubt the cartoonist was a bit rough, likening the Illinois senator's followers to Jim Jones cult zombies, but that's what editorial cartoons do — challenge how one views the world. We're certainly not going to give up our efforts to ensure our opinion page is a forum for all ideas. How boring would that be if we did?

Besides, "drinking the Kool-aid" has become a common pundit euphemism for buying into somebody's ideas or message. And Obama — a veteran of Chicago politics — is no shrinking violet. He can take it, even if some of his supporters can't.

Editorial cartoons aren't like those on the funny pages, although it may be tempting to avoid angering sensitive readers by picking cartoons that are more like a Jay Leno joke than serious commentary. It's like a newspaper's attitude overall: If you're not as aggressive as you can be in covering the news and exploring the widest range of community opinion, then why exist?

So we're going to keep selecting cartoons that tick people off, and not apologize for it. But it raises some interesting questions for which I have no definitive answers. Maybe readers of this blog have an opinion:

• Why is it that I always get flak from liberals when we run an edgy cartoon from a conservative artist, but rarely the other way around? The liberals, of course, don't cry "shame!" when a cartoonist implies President Bush is a criminal or an idiot, but conservatives don't either. Is it because the Times-Standard is perceived by many (but far from everyone) as being a "liberal" newspaper, and thus an anti-conservative cartoon affirms that perception and an anti-liberal one shocks those on the left?

• Is the belief in the First Amendment really so shallow in those who object to cartoons? When they demand an apology from the newspaper, is this code for advocating censorship? Some editorial page editors DO self-censor, choosing only cartoons unlikely to offend. I tend to go the other way, looking to test the boundaries of our tolerance for freedom. Although I wasn't an editor at the time, I would have considered publishing or linking to the controversial "Muhammad" cartoons a few years ago. Readers deserved to know what the fuss was about. (The cartoons actually were benign.)

• Do people have a lower tolerance level for cartoonists' takes on local issues? As noted in an earlier blog, City Councilman Larry Glass called the Times-Standard "despicable" because it published a reader's cartoon depicting Glass (as well as businessman Rob Arkley) as babies. Too bad. We welcome cartoons from readers about local issues, and I invite more of them. (Unfortunately, I've had to pass on a couple of anti-police cartoons from a local man because they were too graphically violent.)

• When people are upset by a cartoon, why do they also reject our disclaimer that ideas on the opinion page aren't necessarily ours? If we publish it, we endorse it, is their belief. What nonsense. With that flawed logic, we'd be compelled to toss into the trash a large percentage of the letters to the editor and My Word guest columns. If that's what you want, best move to a totalitarian country where the politics of the power elite match yours.

Posted by Rich Somerville at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

"You're dethsssssspicable!"

I was listening to an interview with Eureka City Councilman Larry Glass on KSLG last week regarding the state attorney general’s office’s decision not to act on Glass’ charge that businessman Rob Arkley threatened and shoved him.

In the middle of the interview, Glass launched into a tantrum about media coverage of the incident, saying, “The papers treated it as comic relief. The Times-Standard took great glee in trying to ridicule me by portraying me as a baby who was whining, complaining and crying. They’re despicable in their portrayal of this whole thing.”

“The Times-Standard?” asked the interviewer, John Matthews, expressing surprise.

“Rich Somerville in particular,” Glass replied. “Editorial cartoons, editorials and spinning the coverage.” The councilman said it was a “horrible mistake” for Somerville to have been hired as editor of the Times-Standard.

If politicians or other public officials think I’m terrific, I usually wonder what we’ve been missing. Thus, I take Glass’ crack as a compliment, sort of like being on Nixon’s “Enemies List.”

But the unsubstantiated characterization of the Times-Standard’s coverage of the Arkley-Glass incident — the equivalent of tossing a hand grenade and running — is surprising from a person who is described by his friends as straightforward.

If Glass thinks the Times-Standard slanted its coverage to make the councilman look ridiculous, he should provide specific examples, since I am not aware of any. I will reserve space on our opinion page for him to do so.

Certainly there were some letters to the editor from the public calling Glass a whiner, and one cartoon by a Eureka resident — labeled as such — depicting both Glass and Arkley as brawling babies. The councilman, according to surrogates who complained to us, mistakenly thought the Times-Standard had commissioned the cartoon, or endorsed it.

Of course, our opinion page is a forum for all viewpoints, and reader-submitted cartoons are treated with the same impartiality as reader-submitted letters and My Word guest columns. It would be surprising if Glass would have it any other way. The statement that “the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard” appears regularly on the editorial page, even though the concept would seem obvious.

Our clearly labeled editorials, which ARE the opinion of the Times-Standard’s Editorial Board, have never treated the Arkley-Glass confrontation as “comic relief.” In fact, one of them said accusations of threats to an elected official are “as serious as a heart attack.” The only effort at comedy I’m aware of was Glass’ on-air snicker about a new name he’d coined for Arkley: “The Bully-onaire.”

Regarding “spinning,” it’s an amusing accusation to come from a politician and special-interest activist. Moreover, if Glass’ goal is to demonstrate he is not a whiner, his strategy is an odd one. Apparently there is more than one prominent figure in town who is prone to intemperate outbursts in public.

Posted by Rich Somerville at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Rogelio Naranjo/El Universal

Blogs serve many purposes. Some of the loftier ones are sharing links to interesting stuff, showing off your analytical brilliance, generating Drudge-like “scoops” from tipsters. There are lower motives to blog, too, like dissing your enemies — especially if you do it anonymously. And don’t forget the opportunity to let off steam about pet peeves before — like a ticking bomb — they blow up in your face.

I’ve started a list of pet peeves that will be updated here on occasion — not that I expect anyone else to care, but just to get them off my chest.

“Get this in yesterday” — People who send in a letter to the editor or a public service announcement when it’s way too late for it to be published, even though they’ve had weeks to get it done. Then they call the next day, angry that they didn’t see it, and have no interest in hearing explanations about production schedules.

“Put me at the front of the line” — This is the person who sends a letter to the editor and demands it go in the next day, when there are 20 other letter-writers ahead of them. We try to publish all the letters we get, as long as they meet the word limit, don’t contain foul language, don’t say anything libelous, and actually make sense to a rational reader. If it deals with some impending event, I probably will let them jump the line — but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

“But this is deathless prose!” — People who write a 300-word letter and insist it can’t be trimmed to 250. Or a My Word guest opinion column that arrives at more than 1,000 words, even when we print the 750-word requirement virtually every day on the editorial page. When I tell them I won’t have any trouble cutting it down (that’s why they call me “The Editor”), through the deadly silence I can hear them thinking, “Surely he doesn’t mean it?”

“I sent a letter last year, but I haven’t seen it in print” — Hmmm. Maybe we didn’t receive it. Please send it again, and I’ll look for it. Usually a letter will be published within a week to 10 days or less of being sent in, even during busy times. If we reject a letter, we tell the writer why. So if you don’t see your letter, call us. I’ve occasionally found e-mailed letters caught in the spam filter, so now I check that regularly, too.

Thanks… I feel much better.

Posted by Rich Somerville at 12:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Ares/Caglecartoons.com

Readers of our Web site, Times-Standard.com, undoubtedly have been noticing a string of improvements over recent months: frequent breaking news updates throughout the day, regular video and audio enhancement of news stories, a better software to handle reader feedback, more weblogs by staff members and others, and flash photo galleries such as last week, when we displayed readers' snowstorm snapshots.

All that effort reaches a crescendo at 2 o'clock Tuesday afternoon when Times-Standard.com launches its new look. A culmination of months of work, the revitalized site is designed to be more streamlined and be organized more efficiently.

Already the North Coast's top news Web site, Times-Standard.com is getting better by the day. Check out the site this afternoon and let us know what you think.

In the print edition (and in our E-edition), another improvement for our younger readers began Monday. The Kidscoop page — a weekly page of learning and fun — replaces the outdated Mini Page. Kidscoop will tackle a weekly topic in depth (on Monday it was how tadpoles grow up to be frogs), and offer word games and other brain teasers.

In coming weeks, local teachers who work with our Newspapers In Education program will be helping to make Kidscoop interactive — asking students to send us responses to published on the page.

Back online, a fantastic feature is coming for readers who follow the stock market. Next week we will officially add Market Review to Times-Standard.com. Replacing our daily market data page in the print edition — which in the digital age is quickly outdated and for space reasons can only cover a small fraction of stocks — the new Web feature offers an A-to-Z, up-to-the-minute, searchable report from all the major stock exchanges, including currencies and precious metals.

With a simple signup, readers can set up the site to provide instant access to their own portfolios, or a custom “watch list.”

We are juggling ideas for many more features in the future. What would you like to see at Times-Standard.com that would help make your life better or easier? Drop me a note and we'll see what we can do.

Posted by Rich Somerville at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Adam Zyglif/The Buffalo News

Just when I think people might be getting over their racial, religious and gender bigotry, I get a call or letter bringing me back to reality.

This past week, the Times-Standard made its choices in the Democratic and GOP primaries for Super Tuesday's primary: Barack Obama and John McCain. I quickly got a letter that sounded so much like a Rush Limbaugh Dittohead that I had to double-check to see that she had, indeed, said she was a supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

First she notes that although our editorial said Obama's mother is from Kansas, she actually lives in Honolulu — you know, where all those brown-skinned people live.

But she was just warming up. She makes sure to mention that Obama's middle name is Hussein, notes that his Kenyan father was raised as a Muslim, and that his stepfather is Indonesian. I guess this is supposed to be a smear, since she is quick to point out that she, herself, is a "white, Christian woman." But she quickly adds, "This is not the issue here." I guess she just wanted to get the unimportant racial and religious stuff out of the way early.

But then later in the letter she expresses amazement that blacks will vote for Obama because of the color of his skin, considering that "he isn't actually black." Maybe he's what the plantation owners down in the Ol' South once called an octaroon. (She'd better watch out — with recent DNA breakthroughs, people are finding they're not quite as "pure" as they thought.)

Of course, she has to finish off by saying, "I'm not a racist, but I can see and hear." Those "buts" will get you every time. I guess this woman is the audience Bill and Hillary were playing to in the week before the South Carolina primary.

Posted by Rich Somerville at 01:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (238)