You are visitor since November 2, 1999

October 30, 2004 - Saturday

"My God. How appropriate for the Republicans to send us Dick Cheney for Halloween," writes one astute reader. "Come, children, let's go see the second scariest man in America."

Several insightful comments on the latest Malia Zimmerman controversy and the role of the news media came in from readers yesterday.

Seek truth and report it as fully as possible;
Act independently, and
Minimize harm.

Which leads to - Print When:
The rumor is of important public interest (vital to our understanding a public person or a public issue),
The rumor is sufficiently "out there," and
A goodly collection of readers or viewers would be better off to know the truth.

This link points to a case regarding Seattle newspapers and their choice to print or not print a story about a rumor regarding someone running for office. The bottom line is there aren't any easy answers.

Here's another long and thoughtful assessment from someone with lots of experience in reporting the news:

I first heard about the smear, ironically, at an organizational luncheon meeting where the “Killer B’s” -- Jerry Burris, Richard Borreca and Dan Boylan were -- ruminating on politics. A lot of atmosphere was exhaled talking about why people don’t vote but the general smarminess of political discourse and the poor level of media coverage where not much mentioned as reasons.

Asked about the impact of the Internet generally, Burris alluded to the report making the rounds and opined that the general media would not touch it or comment on it until one of the candidates mentioned it, thereby making it safe to report the truth. Fearless journalism strikes again. Broken Trust, anyone?

The decision to cover or not may be especially problematic for a newspaper like The Advertiser which endorsed the candidate who is the beneficiary of the smear. Some of the same people who decided the endorsement will decide what to publish.

I resolved not to go online to read whatever was going around. Not just high minded, but I thought I had heard all the rumors and gossip about Bainum’s wife and profoundly do not care. But by the time I was back from to the office after lunch a print out was making the rounds, so it got more difficult to avoid.

It strikes me there are two significant differences between the smear today and the Heftel case.

First is that the Heftel smear (so 20th century) did not have the Internet to move it around. I don’t know how many people, outside of politicos and downtown insiders, actually saw the smear document or even heard about it. I know many people attribute Heftel’s loss to the smear, including the man himself, but I’ve never been convinced. Also, unless I missed it, I don’t think we know with certainty who did the work – or at whose behest or with whose connivance. It is common to blame the beneficiaries, but as far as I know that case is unproved.

In the instant case, as lawyers like to say, we have the Internet moving the smear around with the speed of light. The good thing is that who did the deed is no mystery. The Hawaii Reporter is hardly a mainstream opinion vehicle but it has a name and its writer has a face (a rather attractive one, considering the venom that spews forth from it). The writer has well established political and philosophical connections to Sam Slom who just endorsed Mufi. Their personal or perhaps intimate relations really don’t matter in this case. The Hawaii Reporter is not an anonymous rag; but one with a name, an editor and sponsors or advertisers who might reasonably be asked whether it is their choice or intention to support this kind of political skullduggery.

And, while the Heftel smear as I recall it was largely based on unverifiable rumor and innuendo, the attack on Bainum’s wife is based on court documents and innuendo. The documents, at least, can be checked and another side to the story can be verified, as you ably did with very little apparent effort or discomfort.

In all these circumstances the attacked candidate might decide not to respond to the allegations as a matter of principal or strategy, but the mainstream media really has no excuse not to look into what was said, attempt to set the record straight and attempt to trace the insidious behavior back to its source (and I don’t just mean the writer of the piece.)

Seems to me that’s the obligation of an independent press. If you can report on and analyze political commercials, handouts and speeches for their veracity I don’t see why the same can not be done for something “published” albeit in electric form on the Internet by someone with clear ties to a candidate, who could be asked to denounce the activity and renounce the support.

We've already been offered tickets to the Cheney scare-a-thon on Sunday by someone who signed the loyalty oath, grabbed the tickets, and wants to see them put to good use. But I doubt we can stomach it, if the truth be told.

October 29, 2004 - Friday

Well, it took several years for the rest of them to catch up, but some of the country's most popular blogs are now incorporating cat pictures on their sites, even if only one day a week, according to yesterday's New York Times. And here I've been years ahead of the curve and blissfully unaware that my idiosyncratic decision to indulge our exhibitionist cats was a trendsetting move. By the way, that's Ms. Wally to the right, laying her claim to a pile of fresh trash during a recent morning of cleaning.

Just click for a larger photo

We've been tuning in to the K5 news at 9 p.m. this week. It's a good time for news since I only occasionally manage to remain awake through the 10 p.m. broadcasts. There are some obvious growing pains among the K5 crew, but what really gets me is the regularly repeated hype, "Now, live from the newsroom!"

Perhaps this is just a way to make talking heads in the newsroom sound as exciting as the more expensive option of live on the scene reporting.

What's the alternative to "live from the newsroom"? Dead in the newsroom? Hmmmm, I suppose that could apply to some local broadcasters.....

I'm struck by the terrible bind mainstream journalists are in when faced with reporting a campaign smear like the one that's hit Honolulu mayoral candidate Duke Bainum during this critical period of the election.

Reporters and editors, like the Bainum campaign itself, appear to have taken the position that reporting on the situation, even critical or negative reporting, simply increases the visibility to the smear campaign. As a matter of ethics, they don't want to inadvertently contribute to the smear. Generally, I agree. You can't report on an under-the-radar campaign tactic like this without sending more people scurrying to see what all the fuss is about, and some of them will, in turn, get mired in the muck.

But there's an obvious down side as well. On the one hand, there's a group of folks demanding coverage and assuming that media silence is due to a vast corporate conspiracy to block the Truth. On the other hand, the silence creates a huge void in reporting and leaves a major part of the campaign outside of public view as Hannemann's troops seek to spread the story and Bainum's side seeks a quiet way to respond, often one voter at a time. It will probably only be reported retrospectively as the great smear of '04, no matter which candidate wins. It's certainly a serious journalistic dilemma and I don't see any easy way out.

Any suggestions of links to discussions of this problem in journalism circles would be much appreciated.

October 28, 2004 - Thursday

With less than a week before the election, the smear of Bainum is in high gear and getting more outrageous daily. Amazingly, many of the same people who still can still muster up outrage over the smear campaign that hit Cec Heftel in 1986 are uncritically biting on this one hook, line and sinker.

Emails pointing to Malia Zimmerman's pseudo-reporting on HawaiiReporter.com have been sent out to thousands of state and county employees, apparently via HGEA's network,

Yesterday afternoon, several people reported a man distributing an anonymous flier on the UH campus also directing people to Hawaii Reporter to read about Bainum and others.

"TIRED OF SUGAR COATED NEWS? GET THE REAL FACTS!"

How ironic, promising "real facts" and serving up something completely different.

Documents show the court case in the dispute over guardianship of Musami Murasaki, an 84-year old man in failing health, pitted his estranged son against a longtime friend of Murasaki's and her daughter, who came to the elderly man's assistance. Unlike Zimmerman's reporting and the resulting smear campaign, the case itself is a poignant reminder of the problems of the elderly.

Zimmerman paints the scene as the exploitation of a vulnerable man by his care giver. Murasaki's attorney called it "…a greedy attempt by Mr Murasaki’s estranged son to take what he has not been given.”

Unfortunately, Zimmerman doesn't give readers a chance to weigh these rival interpretations of events and fails to acknowledge contrary evidence.

According to documents submitted to the court, Murasaki lived alone in a Waialae townhouse until he was hospitalized in February 1995. After months of hospital treatment and rehab care, Murasaki faced the necessity of entering a nursing home unless he could arrange 24-hour care at home. Murasaki, who was already paralyzed from the waist down, would need extensive assistance with everything from eating, bathing, and caring for himself, to paying bills and managing other financial matters.

During this extended period of hospitalization, there is no record of visits from his son or daughter, who live in Florida, nor is there evidence that they attempted to arrange for his home care. Instead, arrangements were ultimately made by his longtime friend, Arlene Yoshizumi, to have round-the-clock care provided by her daughter, Jennifer Alonso-Toma, now the wife of mayoral candidate Duke Bainum. The records indicate Murasaki had known Jennifer for three decades, since she was a child.

When Murasaki's son did visit Hawaii in the month following his father's discharge from the hospital, the two reportedly fought, records show. The elder Murasaki was angry at being abandoned by his family and blamed them for failing to visit or care for him.

Just a month later, Musami Murasaki amended his revocable living trust to name Hawaiian Trust as successor trustee in place of his son. This meant that in the event of Murasaki's death, control of the trust would pass to Hawaiian Trust.

When additional changes to the trust were contemplated a year later, Murasaki's attorney arranged for a review of his mental condition to determine whether he was competent to make these decisions.

Court files contain the evaluations of three physicians, including the doctor who began treating Murasaki when he had been hospitalized, and the chief of geriatric medicine at Straub Clinic. All three determined that he could explain his financial condition and state clearly what he wanted done.

In addition, a psychologist was retained to do a separate evaluation. A copy of this evaluation was submitted to the court and is available here.

This psychological evaluation reports on Murasaki's condition, reports the results of various tests, and does not whitewash his failing faculties. However, it also concludes: "Mr. Murasaki appears to be in possession of the basic cognitive abilities and knowledge sufficient for testamentary capacity." In other words, he knew what he was doing and was capable of making basic decisions about what he wanted to happen with his estate. And, the report notes, he was clear that he was upset with his son and wanted to leave the proceeds of his trust to a charity instead of his family.

Unfortunately, this is not an unfamilar situation. A parent estranged from immediate family and planning to leave their inheritance elsewhere, but being challenged by a son or daughter who believes they are entitled to those same trust assets.

No one can claim to know the "truth" based on this public record, but it is strikingly clear that Zimmerman's version omits many of the basic facts needed to even appreciate that there are two sides to the tale.

October 27, 2004 - Wednesday

I've heard from several people who have described an aggressive campaign using the Internet to spread Malia Zimmerman's recent hit on mayoral candidate Duke Bainum's wife. This underground effort, including phone calls and emails, appears to be targeting Republican voters, those perhaps otherwise most likely to be attracted to Bainum's "not one of the old boys" profile. Zimmerman has produced an effective hit piece and it appears to be doing at least a degree of damage.

I don't know of any evidence that Mufi Hannemann's campaign was behind the story, but they appear to be involved in the underground efforts to spread it around town.

Is Zimmerman being used to fuel a smear campaign? Here's one simple description of a "smear":

Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A Smear is a simple attempt to 'rubbish' a group or an individual and to seek to undermine their credibility.

Smears are very often distortions, half-truths or even outright lies, and are commonly unverifiable rumours; that is to smear by gossip spreading. Even when the facts behind a smear are shown to be without proper foundation the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation is tarnished before this is known.

In these terms, Zimmerman's piece can be seen as a smear. Her reporting is blatantly unfair. She repeatedly points to Bainum's refusal to reply directly to her reporting as if this absolves her of any responsiblity to find and report contrary evidence. And, because this matter was taken to court, that contrary evidence is not hard to find. It's in the same court records that Zimmerman mined for her story. Yet it doesn't find its way into her account because she's carefully feeding the reader a one-sided tale that obscures the full story. That is a serious failure, and one that moves Zimmerman's writing from the category of investigative reporting to that of political hit piece and anti-Bainum smear.

Why haven't the mainstream news media reported Zimmerman's startling conclusions? She and others imply a conspiracy of silence, but it's most likely because the story doesn't hold up under routine scrutiny.

I hope to examine at least some of the relevant documents later today, and will hopefully have more to say tomorrow morning.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports on the evidence of voter fraud in key states. And I now know what I've got. The Washington Post calls it "Pre-Election Anxiety Disorder". It's potent. And there's an epidemic going around.

October 26, 2004 - Tuesday

Yesterday's email brought several cat-related missives. The most fun was from Terry in Honolulu, who commented on Toby's typing (the original mention is down at the bottom of Sunday's entry). Here's Terry's comment:

He (Toby) is apparently hanging around Filipino cats in your neighborhood. The crypic message [Toby typed 'pogggggt7y'] appears to be "pogy," with some errant keys pressed in the middle of the message. "Pogy" is common Filipino slang for "handsome." He is telling you to notice how handsome he is. What a vain cat! 

I'll buy that.

I also received a couple of very useful responses to our coffee maker woes. This important bit of intelligence came courtesy of Martha in Seattle:

Part of the reason Nature's Miracle didn't work on the coffee pot is that the company was bought out by another firm who kept the bottle design and got rid of the formula, replacing it with another which doesn't work well. We work w/ cat rescue/adoptions and discovered this nasty little surprise ourselves.

The company which kept the old formula is now selling the old, useful formula under a new name: "Petastic". Try reading the bottle of this product.

Get rid of the interloper and you may have better luck.

Hot cat pee is it's own WMD!!!!!

Later in the day, Eric from Honolulu added:

You might try this recipe:

Skunk deodorizing pets: (Chemical and Engineering News October 18, 1993, page 90)

1 quart of 3% hydrogen peroxide
1/4 cup of baking soda (NaHCO3)
1 teaspoon of liquid detergent.
Follow bath with a tap water rinse.

It's supposed to remove skunk spray, so I imagine it'd work on cat pee. Good luck!

I made my way down the hall to our bedroom a couple of nights ago and this was the scene. Several cats claimed spots on the bed before the people arrived. As we head towards winter, it only gets worse. Or better, depending on your view of sleeping with cats.

"Naps with cats" just doesn't have the same pizzazz as "Dances with wolves". I'll have to work on a proper description.

October 25, 2004 - Monday

It was another wet night in Kaaawa. But I noticed last week just how ambivalent we are about the weather. On the one hand, we're seeing news reports on the fears possible water shortages if it's a dry winter, along with requests from the Board of Water Supply to cut back water use. Despite that background, television news continues to report dry weather as good and rain as undesirable. Shouldn't the weather reports say something like, "We're hoping for a good wet week, folks. Let's hope for a break in the sunny weather."

We were reminded once again about the danger of weaponized cat pee when our coffee maker took another hit on Friday morning. When that burner started heating, ouch! Run away! The prime suspect is Mr. Leo, a.k.a. Mr. Neurotic. He hasn't confessed, but he did return a couple of times to the scene of the crime. And the evidence has been hard to get rid of. Even after washing with soap and water, along with liberal doses of Nature's Miracle, the morning coffee is still accompanied by a bit of that acrid aroma and lung-burning aerosol. We're hoping that it will be gone this morning.

I enjoyed the story in the Star-Bulletin over the weekend about San Francisco photographer Kendra Luck, who calls herself a "dogumentarian". Something to aspire to, I suppose. In the meantime, although I don't collect a hefty fee, I do enjoy the challenge of creating good images of our morning dogs. Sonny is part of the latest batch--just click on his picture for more.

click me, please

By the way, I've turned a few of my old photos (and even a couple of new ones) into posters and post cards via Cafe Press. I'll be adding several more images this week, and then I'll assess whether anyone is interested. Check it out at www.cafepress.com/ilind.

October 24, 2004 - Sunday

Today's published poll results give Duke Bainum the advantage in the Honolulu mayor's race, but whether he's up by 8 percent or double that margin depends on which newspaper you read.

The Star-Bulletin's poll conducted by SMS Research, a local firm, gives Bainum a solid and growing 17 percent lead (52% to 35%).

The Advertiser's poll was done by Ward Research and puts Bainum up by 8%.

Bainum has maintained or increased his lead despite the threats against some of his supporters, vandalism of his campaign signs, the surprising endorsement of Mufi 'Hannemann by conservative legislator Sam Slom, and the harsh attack on Bainum's wife by Hawaii Reporter writer Malia Zimmerman.

Zimmerman, who has been linked with Slom personally and politically since their friendship was cited as a factor in Slom's divorce several years ago, too often lets her right-leaning political posture color her reporting.

Take, for example, her "From the campaign trail" column of October 22, which is still featured on the Hawaii Reporter web site. She continues to bash Bainum, criticizing the candidate for failing to respond to her reporting while implicitly dismissing Bainum's plea to stay focused on campaign issues. In a statement published on Bainum's web site, the candidate said (in part):

As with other attacks against my family, I will not dignify this attack on my wife with a response. She is not the person running for Mayor. People are welcome to ask about my stance on issues and my track record of experience, but attacking my wife and my family is the lowest form of campaigning and should not be tolerated.

In the case of Bainum, Ms. Zimmerman clearly finds this "stick to issues" argument less than persuasive.

But just a few paragraphs later in her column, Zimmerman rises to the defense of Republican Mike Gabbard against questions raised by his opponent, Congressman Ed Case. Zimmerman characterizes Case's latest questions as "over the top" and suddenly emerges as a proponent of "stick to the issues" campaigning.

Zimmerman, apparently sidestepping her own criticism of Bainum, now writes: "Hey Congressional candidates, how about sticking to the issues and voting records rather than entertaining Hawaii voters with personal attacks and silly questions?"

The sound of that flip-flop is still reverberating in the morning calm here in Kaaawa.

I did, however, reread Zimmerman's reporting about Bainum's wife, Jennifer. All I know about the case is what Zimmerman has written, as is the case with most readers. And a closer reading left me with several main impressions. First, anyone who has been involved directly or indirectly in a family meltdown over a disputed inheritance should be wary of any tale told from a single perspective, as Zimmerman's story is. Siblings can easily appear to be monsters in the telling of other family members when money and difficult end-of-life decisions, along with existential guilt and second-guessing, are involved.

Second, Zimmerman's writing doesn't lend itself to a critical stance. As the old reporter's addage goes, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." But Zimmerman doesn't clearly identify the sources of information she reports as simple "facts", a reporting style usually reserved for universally accepted understandings. Without clear sourcing, what "he said" can appear as uncontested "fact".

And, third, Zimmerman quotes extensively from documents filed in court records, but loses track of the fact that the court reviewed those same documents and apparently came to different conclusions than she would. But if the underlying dispute played out under court court supervision, it's very difficult to sustain the kinds of allegations Zimmerman continues to raise.

Enough said for now. I didn't really mean to go on like this, especially on a quite Sunday. Apologies if required.

Lest things get too serious here, Toby just walked across the keyboard and left this cryptic message: "pogggggt7y". Maybe that's his password.

Previous week • Other

Search this site,
courtesy of the folks at Atomz.com