Newstradamus

Mark Buerhle/MLB

Let me note that I root for the Giants any time they are not playing the White Sox. That's easy to do because the White Sox NEVER play the Giants - except in interleague play this weekend. So forgive me if I am feeling pretty good having watched the Pale House eke out wins at AT&T Park on Friday and Saturday.

It's a pretty good combination - the Sox and the park by the bay. (I always try to catch the Sox when they play at Oakland, too, but the A's really need a better ballpark. )

On Friday, it was an 0-0 pitcher's duel until a rookie second-baseman getting a rare start slugged his first major league homer into the bleachers near where I was sitting with friends. Those two runs held up for the win.

Then on Saturday, in a game pitting two slumping aces, Barry Zito for the Giants and Mark Buerhle for the Chicagos, it was Buerhle who prevailed 3-1. The team got him runs early with two sac flies, then added one later when a single by Paul Konerko pushed home Jermaine Dye. Dye was on second due to a pickoff error by reliever Keiichi Yabu.

It's wasn't that Zito (who was getting a lot of heat from Giants fans) was bad. Although he let a lot of Sox get on base, he usually came up with a pitch at the right time to leave them there (I think the Sox stranded 14, so it could have been a much bigger blowout).

But the Chicagos also helped Buerhle with a lot of fantastic defensive plays, notably a layout catch of a line drive by Dye that saved a couple of runs, and an incredible leaping spear on the third base line by Pablo Ozuna who then doubled Randy Winn off first.

I must say the Giants fans were much less hostile to us Sox fans than I would have expected. They reserved their boos for Zito, Sox catcher A. J. Pierzynski (whom them hate his SF stint in 2004), and anyone wearing Dodger regalia.

All-in-all, a great weekend, including a $10 bet won off my friend Ted Weicker. I wish I could stick for the Sunday afternoon game as the Sox go for a sweep, but I must get home. I'll be listening on the radio, though!

Posted by Rich Somerville at 09:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Alen Lauzan Falcon

Publisher Greg Stevens and I regularly select a spot to have coffee and ask readers to join us for conversation. This morning we were at Old Town Coffee and Chocolates in Eureka, where about 10 people turned out.

The discussion North Coast earthquakes and floods, the old days of volunteer firefighting in Eureka, the days when the railroad ran, the Humboldt Amateur Radio Club's upcoming Field Day in June, and the crisis facing our schools.

We started at 7 a.m., and I’ll confess that early in the morning is not my best time. Over a lifetime in the news business, when the paper “goes to bed” at 11:40 p.m. and the press starts at midnight, I have developed a night-owl body clock.

I get into work about 11 a.m., and work to 8 or 9 p.m., or until the Times-Standard’s night editors have things well in hand. In addition, when I am at home about 10:30 or 11 p.m., I’m e-mailed a final look at page one before I hit the sack sometime after midnight.

Nevertheless, I can rouse myself early when it’s called for, and the first cup of coffee usually perks me up. Besides, Greg Stevens is one of those chipper, up-at-the-crack-of-dawn people who carries the conversation until I can mentally jump in.

We have these coffees every month or so, and try to move the venue around. So please join in the conversation at the next coffee with the editor and publisher.

Posted by Rich Somerville at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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)

Paresh Nath/National Herald, India

Two questions about the opinion page popped up recently from several different readers that deserve some discussion.

The first, which I usually hear following an editorial related to a governmental meeting of some type, goes something like, “Your editorial misrepresented what occurred. I didn’t see you there. How can you write an editorial if you weren’t there?”

While I have been known to tiptoe into a meeting now and then (often when fireworks are expected), it’s true that most of the time I am not in attendance. Sometimes I watch on public access television, but most of the time a surrogate (a Times-Standard reporter) will have been there. The basis for the editorial could be their news story, a discussion with the reporter, a call to a key player at the meeting, or the editorial writer’s knowledge of the issue. (Most of the local editorials are written by me, but occasionally it could be another member of the Editorial Board.)

No doubt that’s how people form opinions about issues a majority of the time — sifting various source inputs through the filter of one’s experience and reasoning, rather than direct observation. For instance, everyone has an opinion about the war in Iraq, yet how many actually have been “on the ground” there? Relatively few of us.

I have to keep reminding myself of the “Rashomon Effect”: The same event may be seen differently depending upon one’s perspective. That why readers often get upset if they don’t agree with an editorial, calling it “biased.” Editorials are inherently biased in that they are subjective opinions. If you agree with them, of course, they are the epitome of reasoned logic.

The other question heard a number of times lately is why “My Word” guest columns are — as our guidelines state — “reserved for regional issues and related items of high local interest.” Isn’t a My Word column about the Iraq war, one reader asked, of high local interest?

It certainly is, and that’s why we cover Iraq-related issues both in the news columns and in syndicated columns on the opinion page. But since the Times-Standard is first and foremost focused on North Coast issues, we feel the guest column feature should do the same.

That’s not to say that a local writer couldn’t have a unique or in-depth perspective about a national, world or state subject that would interest our readers and enhance their understanding. To continue to use Iraq as an example, we might consider a My Word from an area soldier who served a tour there, or an Iraqi living in Humboldt County, or a retired government official here who had been involved in mapping war strategy.

However, a 750-word My Word column (our length limit) by an average citizen lacking special expertise is not significantly more valuable than a 250-word letter to the editor. Letters are a great outlet for those who want their voice heard, and we make every effort to publish all that we receive.

Posted by Rich Somerville at 05:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Posted by Blog Admin at 04:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Former Times-Standard editor Charles Winkler started the "Coffee With the Editor" series of community chats, and I have continued them, accompanied by publisher Greg Stevens since his arrival last spring. We move around the times and locations, hoping to find the right formula for attracting as many interested people as possible. Sometimes just a few show up; sometimes more than 20.

Yesterday's was at the Hot Brew in Fortuna, and although the coffee was scheduled before a Times-Standard editorial about conflict of interests and Fortuna's mayor, it was timely because many (or most) of the dozen or so attendees had that on their minds.

We had heard the debate could be heated, and I felt guilty arriving late (I'd never been to the Hot Brew before and drove past it twice, looking on the wrong side of the street), not wanting to appear to be ducking the issue. When I joined the conversation, Greg was engaging the group in a discussion about what makes the Eel River Valley communities distinctive from others in Humboldt County. But soon one of the readers brought up "the elephant in the room," kicking off a wide-ranging discussion about that editorial specifically, as well as how editorial stances are determined and written.

I can't speak for everyone there, but I felt it was a respectful dialogue in which I acknowledged why they had problems with the editorial — its tone and background research as well as its conclusions, They listened as I assured them that a prime goal of the T-S opinion page is to give ample opportunities for all perspectives to be heard, and encouraged the writing of letters to the editor.

One of the questions was why the editorial appeared to be missing from our web site, www.times-standard.com. I didn't know the answer at the time, but sometimes the file-coding that must take place for a story or editorial to be posted online is not done correctly. A check with the webmaster when I returned to the office indicated that's what happened, and the editorial was posted.

All in all, Greg and I spent an enjoyable couple of hours in Fortuna, and look forward to our next visit.

Posted by Rich Somerville at 09:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (28)