Congratulations Alameda Sun, you’re now the print version of the Alameda Daily News!
The Alameda Sun has officially jumped the rails. I used to be a big fan of the Sun. Back when Marc Albert wrote for the paper, I didn’t always agree with their take on issues, but at least I knew they had journalists who understand how to get the news and put together a story. And besides, Albert often made me laugh.
Anyone who has picked up this weeks issue of the Alameda Sun can see why the editorializing that passes for journalism at the paper has finally reached such heights that the “esteemed” Don Roberts praised them on Friday for their “journalistic integrity.” Seriously, can you get any lower than that? What is this “journalistic integrity?” Must be they wrote something Don agrees with, because there was absolutely zero journalism happening.
I’m not sure what’s worse, the front page “news article” which is nothing more than an editorial screed about it the admittedly poor behavior of a signature gatherer working for a consultant hired by the political consultant who was hired by SunCal. Or is it the front page editorial (appropriately highlighted in yellow) on the exact same subject with the exact same points?
The news story does nothing but recount one side of a story, without asking any questions, providing any background or doing any investigation. I don’t condone behavior (yelling/”pushing away a hand” (which is now apparently “criminal assault”)) of the signature gatherer, but once you read the editorial, you learn she’s lost her job. This issue was quickly dealt with.
But of course, that doesn’t matter because:
To their credit, upon notification of the assault, SunCal quickly fired the woman and apologized for her behavior. But one wonders who, at what level, may have made the employee think such behavior was acceptable in the collecting of signatures.
See, in the Sun’s world, it’s in the best interest of someone trying to put an issue on the ballot to hire people who push people and yell at them. You can see where Don R’s “integrity” praise comes in here. The paper didn’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant about how evil people are. The company fired the person, but that doesn’t fit into our angry biased world, so we’ll just smear them with what we hope is the truth.
Michele Ellson, an actual reporter, a journalist, actually did some investigation and reporting. She reports that contrary the Sun’s absolute BS, other signature gatherers are not being told to be rude and physical:
She said people have physically blocked her from getting signatures and that folks have been shoving flyers in the faces of people as they try to sign the petition to put the measure on the ballot. But this signature gatherer said she does her best to play it cool.
“People don’t have to do right by me, but I need to be right by them,” she said.
Yep, sounds like someone who’s been told that blowing smoke in people’s face and pushing their camera away is appropriate.
Alameda has long had a news-themed internet site that liked to write opinion pieces as news and then tag on blustery “editorial comments” to them as if they were distinct. Now we officially have a news-themed weekly newspaper to do the same.
It’s a sad week in Alameda news coverage. But at least Don Roberts thinks you’re doing a bang up job!
Popularity: 11% [?]
Edmundo Delmundo
April 20th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Yep, and old Dandy Don, David Howard and Pat Bail have certainly never made a provocative comment.
You didn’t hear what happened 15 minutes before Evanovsky arrived at the table. My evil conspiratorial mind imagines the following scenario..
PHONE RINGS at Alameda Sun. Evanovsky picks up
“Hello”
Raspy voice on the other end of the phone “Ev, this is Deep Throat. You should get down to the signature station at Peet’s on Park. Damn…this is really close to that theater I hate. Street is so clean it’s making me angry…”
Evanovsky, “Can you tell me what is going on”
Raspy Voice: “Not exactly, but we’re going to poke a little fun at these clones of the evil empire. By the time you get here, they’ll be really pissed off.”
Evanovsky, “Sounds like I have a story…”
Raspy Voice: “Make sure when you bring your really big lens and when you get here be really pushy with your press pass be super super insistent. You might want to wear a helmet. Oooh…gotta co”
CLICK
Edmundo Delmundo
April 20th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
BTW – that was totally mean spirited, but I couldn’t help myself.
All characters portrayed in this blogplay are fictitious and not meant to represent real persons.
DL Morrison
April 20th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
John: I know nothing about the formal CEQA process, so perhaps you can tell me what this means:
“Subsequent discretionary project approvals required by [the] Specific Plan will require appropriate environmental review under CEQA. … After the completion and certification of such environmental impact report, exemptions from CEQA may be applicable to future development in the Plan Area > and it is the intent of the voters that such exemptions be utilized to the fullest extent permitted by law <.”
I caught someone else’s reference to this language, and so I went looking for it in the Initiative with no luck. Oddly enough, it turned up in the Specific Plan (on pg. 9-1) — odd because the voters’ intent ought to be located in the Initiative under “Purpose and Intent”.
Maybe the drafters didn’t want the voters to get all confused, so they stuck this language in an out of the way location. I suppose this “exemption” could be a routine part of the CEQA process in any event, but if so, what is the need to spell it out?
This matters because, of course, any future amendments to the Initiative and its reams of attachments are supposed to comply w/ the voters’ intent, which the voters need to see before they vote.
So you’re all upset with the Sun, but you’re perfectly happy with this Initiative process? If you are, then I see no reason to have any respect for your point of view.
Mark Irons
April 20th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
For me the first real sign of how bad the paper was getting was Evansosky’s three part series on the school parcel task “The Long Twisted Road to Measure H” where he ended the series with the completely inaccurate statement that the tax would not be collected until the law suits were settled. That would have required an injunction, something which neither of the plaintiffs filed. I sent an email about the error but never saw any retraction or correction. They weren’t even curious enough to poke around and see why an injunction wasn’t filed. Meanwhile one of the owners was going around complaining loudly about the commercial portion of the tax but denied any influence over their coverage.
There is nothing wrong with people who own and run a paper having a strong point of view and to write editorials also, but in a case like this I expect somebody who has a clue to let the details of the story, if there is one, speak for themselves without all the piling on and extremely partial finger pointing.
The facts are supposed to do the work of incriminating bad guys and some journalistic balance, as in supplying multiple points of view. That and a little distance are what would give the paper journalistic integrity. They are fair and balanced, a la Fox News. But it’s all o.k. because they are on the right side of the issues just like Fox.
dave
April 21st, 2009 at 6:33 am
But it’s all o.k. because they are on the right side of the issues just like Fox.
====================
Just as JKW thinks Sun Cal’s lies are ok because they’re on his side of an issue?
Jeff Mitchell
April 21st, 2009 at 11:18 am
Well said, John. Well said.
If anything, this case proves once again that there is a reason folks go to journalism school and do lengthy internships before being turned loose on the world to begin reporting professionally. Doing journalism — real journalism — as many bloggers come to learn, is hard work. True objectivity in newspapering is a myth. Fairness, balance and accuracy, however, are achievable goals. Unfortunately, the further you go down the editorial food chain, the more apt you are to run into cases where the news reporting is marred by injections of personal opinion and factual error. In larger scale news operations these mistakes are quickly weeded out by editors long before the story ever hits print and the offending reporter is reprimanded, retrained or both. Sadly, there doesn’t appear to be anyone at the Sun with the professional training or experience to understand let alone apply these basic standards and practices that are employed everyday at quality newspapers all across our country.
DL Morrison
April 21st, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Jeff, here’s the bottom line. Most people around here seem to think that the Journal is in favor of the Alameda Point development — so it’s hard for me to see how the Sun is out of bounds when the Journal is known to be pushing its own agenda, and evidently has been for years.
If you’re concerned about objective journalism, then please, by all means, give us a detailed analysis of the initiative (and its many attachments), its pros and cons, best case and worst case scenarios. Get some expert advice, legal or otherwise, and help the public get a real understanding of what we’re voting on.
It would be nice to think that the Journal would do this, but I suspect that it won’t.
Jeff Mitchell
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:55 am
First, DL, you should know that I am no longer the Journal’s editor — I haven’t been since Sept. of 2007. Second, I too would like to see some paper — any paper — do the analysis on the Point that you mention. It’s well past due. Third, you should be careful to not confuse what I was talking about in my first comment. I was referring to basic journalistic standards and practices which is commonly found in the Journal but not in the Sun. Fourth, to your charge of the Journal “pushing its own agenda” — well, all I can say is that you are flat out wrong. You were wrong when I was editor and you’re still wrong today, But, hey, it’s a free country. Fifth, I would remind you that while we were (back then) limited in staff and resources, it was the Alameda Journal that first exposed the whole AP&T cable mess and that it was Journal that exposed the expensive leasing debacle at the Point and finally, it was Journal who exposed that the city quietly paid out $25 million in a wrongful death suit to the family of a AP&T contractor. We did all these stories and others because we had the professional training and the drive to help our community better understand itself and its government.
Sixth, unlike the Sun, the Journal then and today continues to carefully separate its “editorial” opinions to the op-ed/letters page, where they properly belong.
Did the Journal make mistakes when I was its editor? Sure. But everytime we screwed up, we owned up and wrote a prompt correction.
Now that the Journal is down to one reporter and one editor (both fine pros and people I might add) I suggest that you call them up and volunteer your time to help them produce the article on Alameda Point that you’d like to see. Maybe then you’d get a taste of what doing real, orthodox reporting is like.
DL Morrison
April 24th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Well, for starters, I’ve been reading the papers every day now for decades, and this is the first time I’ve heard someone say, “If you don’t like the news, go get your own”, but whatever — more on that below.
Anyway, a few points:
JKW’s comment equates the news article with the editorial, when obviously, opinion in the context of the editorial or the letters is perfectly legitimate. JKW writes an opinion blog, so he can say whatever he wants — but when someone who is a journalist concurs with the blog’s statements, it seems to legitimize those opinions. I think people objecting to the Sun’s coverage are probably unhappy with the article AND the editorial AND the letters, but they can’t say that flat out, so they’re jumping on the article instead.
I also think it’s obnoxious to claim that signature gatherers are free to say whatever they wish in promoting a petition — and that it tends to discredit SunCal and anyone who supports this process.
SunCal could have better controlled the signature process (thru its manager) while still carrying on a political campaign by any of these steps:
* Provide the signature gatherers with pre-printed signs and forbid them to use personal signs.
* Provide them with a list of approved statements and tell them to stick to it.
* Make clear to them on no uncertain terms that they must not harass or follow anyone.
Being followed is not that “amusing”, incidentally — I was followed and harassed at length by a signature gatherer who was absolutely desperate to make money — so he told me. Having to literally run away from someone like this is not good, and should not happen under any circumstances, period.
The reality is, people do this work to make money and it’s very predictable that some rules have to be made clear up front — and SunCal can’t even get this right?
DL Morrison
April 24th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Jeff has kindly suggested that I go and do some reporting myself, and I’m willing to take him up on it. I’ve already determined that the density bonus is most definitely applicable to SunCal’s plans — meaning that the supposed limit of 4800 units of housing could easily balloon by another 20% more units, which puts it closer to 5800 units.
So how should I proceed here? The reference to the density bonus is on pg. 16 of the Community Plan, and there’s no question that the bonus will apply (by state law, with or without the city’s own ordinance), so here’s what I’d like to do:
* Ask Pat Keliher whether SunCal is planning to use the density bonus, and how many more units of housing they might be hoping to build;
* Ask city staff what they think SunCal is likely to do;
* Ask the Mayor whether she thinks SunCal should build more than 4800 units, and whether the process is really so “transparent” as she claims.
What else should I ask Jeff? Any suggestions? Thanks!!
Eric Turowski
April 30th, 2009 at 10:21 am
I find Jeff’s comments interesting, somewhat self-aggrandizing, and, despite claims of responsible journalism, libelous and actionable.
“Sadly, there doesn’t appear to be anyone at the Sun with the professional training or experience to understand let alone apply these basic standards and practices that are employed everyday at quality newspapers all across our country.” How many journalism degrees did you come across in that bit of opinionated research? Up for a lawsuit, Jeffy? And speaking of which, just how long did you edit the Journal, anyway? Um, and do you have a journalism degree? Does JKW, for that matter? Prove it. Try a little digging. It’s good for your soul.
The reason people believe the Journal is biased toward redevelopment of the Point is because it was founded by folks with close ties to real estate. Of course, that was, what, three or four owners ago?
And speaking of which, your whining about the poor understaffed Journal is questionable. Even if the Journal is just the nail on the pinky toe of Media News, it is still a part of one of the largest newspaper chains in the nation (ads and pseudo-news story ads on the front page? Come on, Jeff. Get over your bad self.)
And if anyone thinks that the assault (yes, John, criminal assault–you might want to catch some reruns of Law & Order to get at least a little bit familiar with arrestable offenses) of one of my staff members during the course of his work would go without loud and strong comment, think again. (And maybe you should squint a little harder through your Harry Potter glasses, John–our “editorial screed” was clearly marked “Editorial.” (That means “an opinion,” not “objective reporting,” for those of you without journalistic training.)
Can you imagine the moaning, shrieking and gnashing of teeth that would go on and on for weeks should a so-called “journalist” from a blog get assaulted in the course of covering a story? I can’t. And I doubt it’ll ever happen.
As far as I’m concerned, ya’ll can stick your unaccountable opinions where the Sun don’t shine–on “news-themed internet sites” just like this one.
Keep up the lame work.
Eric Turowski
CEO, GM
Alameda Sun
notadave
April 30th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Glad to see you are modeling such civil behavior, Eric. It’s the one thing that separates you from the likes of the paparazzi that yell insults to get a photo worthy response.. And of course you didn’t, couldn’t have engaged in any of the same name calling in provoking the signature gatherer either, could you? Would you?
Eric Turowski
May 1st, 2009 at 10:40 am
Another prime example of how valuable blogs are, notadave. Hiding behind a cute name and making libleous charges without any accountablility. How did we ever get along without this priceless format before? Make a real contribution to the community–shut up.
Eric Turowski
GM, CEO
Alameda Sun
Mark Irons
May 1st, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Mr. CEO GM (MBA too? and would that be “masters in bad ass”?),
Either take the high road or admit you are down and dirty with the rest of us. Or you can continue to act all high and mighty and threaten a lawsuit every time somebody says your paper sucks while at the same time telling other critics to “shut up”.
The same for the paper’s coverage. If your reporter was really seriously assaulted, by all means it warrants legal action, but how about at least attempting to show some journalistic restraint to balance that out by not leading with editorials and little aids on the front page about getting one’s signature removed from the petition? If you have the moral high ground why compromise it with all the chest beating? If you press changes on anything less than a serious incident then you will look even more lame.
I’ve not met anybody at the Sun other than Julia nor have I met Lucinda Ryan, but it was under Lucinda’s editorial reign when the Journal really seemed a most outrageous tool of City Hall. I hope Lucinda doesn’t sue me for saying that. Remember when she tried to do away with hyperbole by editing “megaplex” from letters? I think the Sun has taken a similar turn in the other direction with it’s heavy handed writing.
I think most folks in town respected the launch of the Sun as an earnest effort at being a viable home grown alternative. It began to slip slowly, but lately the paper has really gone on the skids.
Eric Turowski
May 4th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Mr. Irons
I’m not particularly interested in taking the moral high ground. But apparently, you’ve missed the irony that while touting some sort of editorial superiority, the former editor manages to lible himself. And as far as accountablilty goes, even if I felt that significant damage was incurred, I can’t imagine trying to take a person calling themselves “notadave” to court. It isn’t about peple announcing the paper sucks–if that were at issue, I would have eight years worth of legal actions. And everyone is entitled to an opinion. It is the publication of actionable lies, the utter lack of accountability for this that makes ‘news themed blogs’ a questionable source of information at best.
And as far as being down and dirty, considering we have been railed at by pundits on both sides of this SunCal issue, I’m going to call our heavy-handed writing balanced.
Eric Turowski
GM, CEO Alameda Sun
Lauren Do
May 4th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Eric T.: I would be interested in your opinion of what both Jeff Mitchell and notadave wrote that you would consider to be legally actionable.
Truth, Justice, and the American Way
May 25th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Hmmm Eric…telling folks who disagree with you to “shut up” does not exactly cast the Alameda Sun in the best light.