Stop, Drop and Roll

02 May 2008 | Alameda Community, Alameda Truthiness | John Knox White

On Wednesday’s Don Roberts Show, the first five minutes were so hilarious that I highly doubt anybody actually watches the show. After reading a “news item” which was essentially just a slight rewording of a letter from Tom Pavletic in which Don then dropped some science on all of us (don’t you sometimes wish we could all use a decades old hipster language?):

“And here are my editorial comments about that:

“The Alameda Journal is no stranger to publishing corrections to the many errors that appear in its print edition. It seems strange that the Alameda Journal editor Connie Rux would not intervene to have a correction made in the Alameda Journal blog. When Connie Rux took over the editorship of the Alameda Journal she was a refreshing change from her predecessor. Now I am disappointed in her. Perhaps she may need a refresher course in the ethics of journalism.”

So first off, after pronouncing Eve Pearlman’s name incorrectly twice and then correctly once, I’m not sure how the Donster can say this stuff with a straight face. I mean if you’re going to get all up in someone’s grill about making mistakes, I’d think you’d want to make sure you weren’t known for constantly and consistently making them yourself. That may just be me, but Don’s site and shows are so rife with editing errors, I’m not sure what to make of his nitpicking of the work of actual journalists.

But what really shook my moneymaker (yes incorrect usage, but it sounded so good) was the whole “ethics of journalism” bit. This isn’t a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Because comparing the journalistic ethics of the Alameda journal and those of the Alameda Daily News isn’t comparing two known ethical backwaters.

Just start at the header and “award winning daily newspaper.” seriously? Someone who wants to pontificate about ethics might want to clarify which “award” his site has won. Past requests for clarification by interested people have been shrugged off with vague responses about the award that vaguely included words like “small” and “years ago.” Wouldn’t journalistic ethics lead one to be forthcoming about the fact that one hadn’t won an award for years. But this is a small and decades old complaint.

Don-dawg has no problem pretending to “report” the news based on a story that was sent to him without doing even an iota of follow-up. What exactly is journalistically ethical about this?

I’ll let you in on a little secret, since I know you don’t watch Don’s show. He has no idea what he’s talking about 80% of the time. He blames individuals and organizations for things they have no say in. I wonder what is journalistically ethical about stating opinion as if it was a fact? How about claiming in interviews and on his own site that he runs all letters except those that are defamatory? He’s well-known for skimming his letters and running defamatory letters about people he disagrees with has never been a problem for D Riddy. Ethical? Is an apparently outright fallacy ethical?

I could go on, but won’t. It’s these wonderful gems of hilarity that induce some of us to actually wade through the DRS occasionally. Today, I had to share.

Popularity: 13% [?]