|
February 21, 2004 - Saturday
I didn't see a report in either the S-B or Advertiser in a very quick scan this morning, but apparently a bit of last-minute arm twisting resulted in the UH Board of Regents approving the appointment of Neal Smatresk as vice-chancellor for academic affairs at the Manoa campus. There was reportedly a bit of flip-flopping in the last 24 hours, but I'm told the appointment was finally approved.
Most observers were apparently surprised by Thursday's announcement at a press conference in the San Francisco's Ritz Carlton Hotel that the San Francisco Examiner has been purchased along with several other holdings of the Fang family for a reported $20 million. The deal includes the printing plant that produces the newspaper. The buyer is Denver investor Phil Anschutz and The Anschutz Co.
I just noticed the online archive of interviews on varied media-related topics by media analyst Bob McChesney. You can listen to McChesney's recent interview with Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, and others. Spend some time browsing.
It's quite interesting to see the Bush administration's foreign policy critiqued from the right, as in Pat Buchanan's review in The American Conservative of a new book by neocons Richard Perle and David Frum. It is quite a good review with a detailed breakdown of the key elements of the world view that is driving Bush's policies.
For a minute I thought that a bowling ball or something of similar size had dropped onto our front deck with a ringing thud, echoing through the otherwise silent darkness. Then I realized it was Ms. Wally in a less than elegant dismount after an inspection of the roof. She and Toby go up the mango tree, then out along a branch that gets near the roof, and then jump the last few feet. Getting down isn't as simple. Toby mews and whines until I go outside, hold by hands up, and he sort of steps off the roof, first getting his front paws onto my hands and then letting the rest follow naturally. It took me a while to learn the receiving technique. Wally isn't patient enough for that. When she wants down, it's a simple but loud THUD, and she's down, her snapping tail about the only thing that lets you know she's a bit wired.
February 20, 2004 - Friday
There's scuttlebutt going around this a.m. that the appointment of Neal Smatresk as vice-chancellor for academic affairs will be pulled off todays Board of Regents' agenda. Whether he's taken another job or hit another round of opposition at the last minute isn't clear. I'm guessing it's the former, but we'll see.
And it goes on. A longtime 'sunshine' advocate had this contribution to the debate of the week:
Tacitus makes an interesting point about the origin of the "right to know." Interestingly, one of the express litany of complaints made about the King in the Declaration of Independence was as follows:
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
And could this next missive be, indeed, the last word?
Thanks for allowing your space to be used for an interesting exchange. I wish there were more of them. I needed an outlet for my LONG screed.
My point of course was that the press sees itself as the representative of the public, pure of motive and benign of intention, but the public sees the press as a major player, not an impartial observer, and one that is out of touch with much public "common sense". How else to explain that the public, for whom the media is such a self-less self-annointed representative, holds the media in such low esteem?
I am a little perplexed by the logic which says a willful evasion designed to deceive is OK, simply ignoring the question and the questioner with intent to deceive is OK, but a "lie" is not OK. I don't think I will sleep safer in my bed tonight knowing that is the reasoning with which the media goes out in the world to represent me.
For those who are interested in the community divide over the Army's expansion plans, a divide which is apparently quite bitter on the Big Island, here is a long exchange between activist Jim Albertini and Paula Helfrich of the Hawaii Island Economic Development Board.
February 19, 2004 - Thursday
Readers haven't been shy about expressing themselves on the issues raised by Borreca's recent column and yesterday's broadside.
From a reader using the name of "Tacitus", the Roman historian:
"A. I agree that one doesn't need to lie to protect the security of the Governor. I would go further and say if Mr. Pang could not figure that out, he shouldn't be in the position (i.e., Chief of Media Relations) he is.
B. The larger view of this situation is how this Governor tries to "manage" information. Whether her whereabouts, what her t-shirt is emblazoned with, or how our schools should be reformed. Not even Mayor Harris does as thorough a job of managing the press as Governor Lingle.
C. Small point: You talked about the "public's right to know...". Whichever rights that remain, after Patriot Acts I and II, are listed in the Constitution. Neither the document itself nor the Amendments speak to a right to know. A right to publish ("freedom of the press"), that is, a right to be free of censorship, yes. A right to know? I don't think so.
And from Star-Bulletin writer Burl Burlingame:
Your reader's response to Borreca's column is interesting and understandable-- but off base. What bothers me is that the reader believes "the media" is some stand-alone organization. The problem is, the media represents the interests of the public. When a government official lies to the media, he's actually lying to the public. He's not lying to Borreca, he's lying to Borreca's readers. The journalist is simply the conduit.
Personally, I think it was an understandable goof on Pang's part, caused by equal parts inexperience and hubris. Goofs like that can cost you your job, however.
Let's be clear, however. Pang wasn't just responding verbally and off-the-cuff to a reporter's questions. His office orchestrated an elaborate deception that included issuing false press releases and misleading schedules for the gov, which resulted in false information being printed in the newspaper. Because of that, other citizens were expecting the governor to be at their event.
Thing is, it was all unnecessary. Pang could have simply not returned calls or shrugged and said I dunno or even said none of your business. Experienced press wranglers have been doing that since presses were invented. But when you practice to deceive, it says more about you and your client's everyday ethics than about the facts of the matter, whether it's an understandable little white lie or a whopper.
And another reader added:
Regarding your reader’s looooong comments on Borreca’s column this morning—what a tirade! Is it just me, or do I detect a hint of snobbery in his/her dissertation?
I went to one of the best journalism schools in the country (U. of Missouri) and have earned my living writing for the past 40 years for different employers (military, city government, telecommunications, higher education, etc.), and I’ve always believed too many journalists underestimate the intelligence of their readers. I think the average reader here in Hawaii knew exactly what Borreca meant when they read his column. He was correct. If the governor’s staff needed to lie about where she was, then she shouldn’t have gone. And, no, she can’t run the State as well from Iraq as she can from her Honolulu office.
She also suggested I point to Dave Shapiro's "Volcanic Ash" column in yesterday's Advertiser, which responded to statements Gov. Lingle made about Iraq after her return. Lingle's comment, that the administration's Iraq policy should be off limits for political debate and criticism while American troops are fighting there is actually a broader Bush campaign theme that has been echoed by other Bush backers.
| Enough of such weighty matters. How about another round of my chicken curry as served up a couple of nights ago? Just click on the photo for a better view. |
 |
February 18, 2004 - Wednesday
I was taken a bit by surprise this morning by a reader's quite vehement response to Richard Borreca's Sunday "On Politics" column, which I had cited as recommended reading. The reply is interesting because its author is well versed in all sides of this issue, having been a journalist before going into public relations, including a stint on the staff of a former governor. So here goes:
Finally got around to reading Richard Borecca's Sunday screed, as you recommended. Not, I think, his finest hour. And I think in part it typifies why the media, in all its self-righteousness, is held in such low regard.
Most everyday folks would agree that tampering with a photograph for purposes of deception is wrong. Any of them (or us) could be the victim of such tampering in this age of digital photos. So even when the tampering amounts to nothing more than removing a logo from a photo, I believe Joe Six Pack or Minnie Fukuda or the fictional Kansas City Milk Man (are there still milk men?) would say that is a bad practice, subject to abuse. The fact that the governor's office did it removes the culpability from the news media, but no one wants to be a party to that kind of deception and it can quickly lead to worse infractions. Fair criticism. The column could have stopped or started there.
As to the "lie," or what most everyday folks would call a "white lie" or a fib, the media's upset is totally out of line with what the average person would consider sensible. The media's indignation at being "deceived" for a short time will be seen by most as the result of inflated self-importance of the media. "Outrageous, that a public official would lie to US, the high-exalted, self-appointed keepers of the public's right to know. It's worse even than farting in church."
But normal, sensible people would say, sure, for security sake there are times when a white lie is in order. (Most people would not think it through like this, but AP is a big organization and if they got wind of four or five governor's in states with large contingents in Iraq being "out of town" simultaneously, they might put two and two together and perhaps, inadvertently, blow security. Then it would become a subject for teeth-gnashing commentary on journalism belly-button-examination websites.)
This is not a lie with legs, after all; soon enough everyone found out the TRUTH -- the governor was in Iraq. So this was a temporary white lie, a fib, maybe even a fibette. To equate it with Bush's Iraq deceptions, even to be able to can say it "does not rise to that level" in the next paragraph, is the kind of self aggrandizing hogwash that gives journalists and especially journalists-slash-commentators a bad name. Get a grip. You were misled for a brief moment. It's over. You know where she was, why she went there, what she did. Grow up!
Finally, the lead, "Do you know who your governor is?" Really. Someone as technologically akamai as Richard ought to be writing about how this "acting governor" nonsense, when the governor is out of the state, is totally out of date -- so 20th century. With instantaneous communications, cell phones, satellite communications, video conferencing, fax machines, it really makes little difference where the governor is. She can be in her office or in Baghdad and perfectly able to make a decision and convey it to anyone who needs to know. She can read any document, see any photo, talk to anyone with barely a moment's delay. Only the ceremonial duties cannot be performed so well virtually; and who exactly cares. Duke Aiona may have been acting governor, but he knew who the governor is/was/will be and you can be sure he made no moves she did not approve of. The "acting governor" pretense is meaningless and the law and constitution if necessary should be modified to reflect the world we live in, not a time when travel and communication were by steamship. For gosh sake!
I think the writer could have a point with his view on the "acting governor" provisions, although physical presence still counts for something despite today's marvels of communication. At least it makes for an intersting debate.
On the "little white lie" issue, I'm more inclined to agree with Borreca because of the dynamics of the delicate dance between journalism and public relations. Let's face it. Reporters are dependent, to varying degrees, on the public relations professionals who grease the skids for the daily information flow. But a PR person who bends the truth, fabricates data, or who fibs, even if it's a well-intentioned and temporary fib, violates the unwritten rules of this interaction. They earn a reputation for being unreliable and, in the process, damage their clients ability to communicate with the world. When the client is the governor, where PR is a two-way street of communication and the public's right to know, the dance is even more delicate and the fallout of an episode like this potentially more serious.
I think Borreca's right. There were ways to be evasive without lying. While to the person on the street it may look like the same thing, to professionals there is, or should be, a world of difference.
Whew. That's way too intense this early in the a.m.
February 17, 2004 - Tuesday
We started our morning walk yesterday just a few minutes after the rescue of Mr. Cardinal. When I went into the garage to pick up my daily supply of dog biscuits, I looked into the shadows to check on the cat carrier where Mr. Cardinal would be spending the next hour until our return and his release. Something back there didn't look quite right, so I flipped on the light. There was Mr. Duke, the big Siamese, laying regally across the top of that carrier with an air of anticipation.
I had to displace Duke and whisk the cardinal and his carrier into temporary but solitary confinement in the car.
| That blurry patch of red is Mr. Cardinal, and my fantasy of a great rescue photo, taking off into the front yard. Well, actually he took off and sat for a minute or so in the plumeria tree beside the driveway. Then another cardinal flew up, whether a mate or a rival wasn't clear, and they took off for parts unknown.
|
 |
The photo? Well, I realized later that I had set the camera for "macro" mode in order to try for a closeup of Mr. Cardinal, but he was fluttering around the cat carrier where I had put him for safe keeping. So I opened the door and went for this shot without changing that close-up setting. So there went the bird and my photo.
After a question about Kentucky Cardinals in the islands, I checked my vintage George Monroe bird reference--the Kentucky Cardinal was introduced to Hawaii in 1929. No newcomers here.
| I added another round of photos of our Kaaawa morning dogs, including Mr. Zeus, who flew off to the mainland with his people a couple of weeks ago. Just click on Zeus, or on the Mornin' Dogs banner for the latest. |
|
Now I have the little task of finding my glasses, which weren't where I expected to find them when I slid out of bed this morning. I'm worried that they became a cat toy at some point in the night. It's about time for a serious search.
Meanwhile, even without my glasses, I enjoyed Richard Cohen's column in today's Washington Post.
February 16, 2004 - Monday
I spent hours yesterday choosing my favorite photos of 2003. This was no easy task.Although I'm pleased with this particular set of results, it might turn out different if I went through the whole process again. In any case, just click on the "Best of 2003" banner to the right and enjoy the trip.
I notice on the HGEA web site that the union sent a "letter to the editor" concerning their Unit 13 arbitration, but I'm not sure if it made it into print.
The Star-Bulletin's Richard Borreca had a good "On Politics" column yesterday in reaction to the governor's secret trip to Iraq and the lies told by her staff to cover her whereabouts. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to link to the column, so you'll have to track it down on the SB web site.
And I had just one reaction to yesterday's comments about the scene in SF:
The folks that are complaining about our allowing same sex marriages here in San Francisco may base their objections on Christianity, but in truth their objections are based on their own prejudices. I am and always have been a devout Christian (Lutheran, to boot) and I think the government should stay out of saying who can form legal relationships and let God decide who he will sanctify in union. And I am actually pretty conservative in my beliefs. Many devout religious groups (not just Christians) like to use their "beliefs" and their "faith" as reason to promote their political and moral agendas. As it says in Romans, Chap. 2, Verse 1: "That is why everyone of you who judges another is inexcusable. By your judgment you convict yourseelf, since you do the very same things".
Whew. I'm just back from a quick run to the source of a ruckus out on the deck, where I successfully rescued a fledgling Kentucky Cardinal from three leaping cats. The poor bird got lost in the dark (what was it doing flying around in the first place?) and then was fluttering against one of our big windows, sending the cats flying in its direction. I was able to snatch the bird and place it safely in a cat carrier down in the garage and cover it with a towel. When there's a bit more light, I'll let it go.
It's a pleasure to actually succeed in rescuing a critter before the cats do their very effective work.
February 15, 2004 - Sunday
It's Sunday morning. I just finished reading another round of descriptions of the wonderfully exhilarating chaos in San Francisco's City Hall this weekend as gay couples from everywhere line up to be married. It makes me ponder, again, how so-called Christians can so piously reject the contagious humanity of this incredible spectacle. What political or cultural process has transformed the Christian search for peace, love, and the quest for heaven into a dour philosophy that oozes hate and glorifies war? All I can do is shake my head in wonder.
The Bush flap continues. A story out of Memphis quotes two pilots from Bush's former National Guard unit who insist he did not make an appearance during the key year.
And Jimmy Breslin focuses on the issue:
That Bush was not near any of this is his business. Of course he had joined the National Guard so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam. That he barely went to any National Guard drills is also his business.
What matters to all our senses is that he is a president who struts around as a war hero, who dodged Vietnam and most of the National Guard drills and who with less shame than anybody we have had maybe ever, sends your kids to a war that he ducked as if he was allowed to do it by birth.
The picture of him playing soldier suit on an aircraft carrier, the helmet under his arm like he just got back from a run over Baghdad, marks him as exceedingly dangerous. He believes he is a warrior president. He is not. He is a war dodger.
Previous week • Other
Search this site,
courtesy of the folks at
|
|
