In this morning’s email stack was an unsolicited message from City Councilmember Tom Berg, actually a copy of a message addressed to Honolulu Weekly. Subject: BERG AT APEC EVENT.
This email consisted of a rambling series of accusations against the Honolulu Police Department and federal agents based on what Berg says is the “truth” of his experience at APEC. It also includes accusations against the Star-Advertiser and two of its columnists for “patently false” (Berg’s term) reporting.
Reached by phone this afternoon, Berg confirmed he had sent the email.
Berg, in the mail, said: “I am concerned for my safety….”
And then it adds this sentence:
THIS EMAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVATE AND ITS CONTENTS CANNOT BE SHARED OR PUBLISHED OR DISSEMINATED.
I would say this. If you really want something to be “confidential and private,” then I don’t think you should be sending it out unsolicited to others who have no such agreement with you.
Let me ask readers: Do you think I have any obligation whatsoever to Berg’s demand to keep his unsolicited email confidential?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tom Berg is a trip. . .
Cayetano & Berg = anti-rail
Berg is way-in over his head. Ben isn’t.
I just love the silly season.
Ian, please consider this: Tom Berg might very well have a mental illness. I’ve dealt with him many times in the past (when I was in the editorial dept. at the S-B). It sounds like his tendency to ramble and talk much too fast has gotten more so.
He was usually courteous and never seemed “crazy” to me, but his actions in recent months make me wonder. (Disclaimer: I’m not a psychiatrist.)
So my question is, do you really want to give your readers an opportunity to make fun of someone who might be ill?
Good question.
For the sake of argument, hypothetically speaking (rather than speaking about Councilmember Berg), what would be the responsible approach for media to take towards a public official who increasingly appears to be exhibiting mental problems?
Oregon just recently went through this with Congressman David Wu, who was finally forced to resign.
What’s fair? What’s the media’s responsibility? Is there a difference between responsibility to the public and to the individual involved?
Difficult issues.
Ian,
I can’t speak to “the responsible approach for media” other than observe that in the past if there IS a responsibility it seems to be sorely lacking in practice!
Many pols, past and present, have medical and mental and other personal issues not disclosed by our media whether by way of design, incompetence, “editing” or lack of or due to collaboration as some of the causes, I guess.
Seems to me your average politician should get exposed at least as much as “the -dashians” or whoever!
You also could make the same argument in defense of Sarah Palin, Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh, James Traficant and Richard Nixon. Should the media NEVER make fun of a politician because they MIGHT be mentally ill??? Bye bye newspapers and internet and any form of normal discussion! sorry, this just does not make any sense. please explain.
My post had nothing to do with “the media” making fun of anyone, Tim.
Some of your examples made/make fools of themselves in public just fine, but that doesn’t mean they’re schizophrenic. You’re minimizing a terrible disease. Rush Limbaugh isn’t mentally ill, unless being disingenuous and a great showman (and terrible human being) are illnesses. Same for Sarah Palin. Narcissism isn’t a mental illness.
Mental illness is not about whether you agree or disagree with someone.
Regarding “protecting” personal information about, or criticism of, public figures. This whole concept is an open invitation to censorship and potential insulation of our governing class. Take for example Calvin Say’s proposal to make “disrespecting” a legislator an actionable offense. It’s unconstitutional.
Elected officials must submit to public scrutiny, and that includes the slings and arrows of satirical ridicule. If an unpleasant truth is revealed (i.e. a medical impairment), especially one that affects the office holders basic competency…so be it.
AM, where’d you get the Calvin Say proposal? The only thing I could find even remotely resembling such a proposal was Sam Slom’s proposal to create a unicameral legislature. This requires numerous constitutional amendments, one of them being to the provision authorizing each house to punish non-members “who shall be guilty of disrespect of such house by any disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence or that of any committee thereof”, etc. It’s already in the constitution so mebbe you should blame the voters who ratified it?
HB2751
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2751
There was a time when such an e-mail reviewed by three physicians could create a vacancy on the city council….
No. (etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. — all made necessary because your program says a two-letter word is too short to post. Two is enough.)
I don’t think it matters if it was sent from a private email account- if it touches on the council’s business it is a public record.
LOL!
I’m amazed at some of the stuff that I come across labeled as confidential… yet I was never even the intended recipient.
In this age of Social Media… you really need to be careful who you disseminate information to.
As a blogger… how much respect do you personally have for Berg?
It’s your personal decision. You burn him… he clams up to you! (Like that would be any loss… lol)