Press Talk: Trying to untangle the web

by Lou Brancaccio : 5/30/09 5:57am - Report Abuse

Good morning all. Hope you're having a great weekend!

by Matthew M : 5/30/09 6:49am - Report Abuse

My favorite class in college outside of all the science courses that led to my degrees was symbolic logic. It provided me with the ability to review someone's statements and cut through the spin to get to whether it held the proverbial water.

So, in this case, I'm trying to understand how the man with the website who is "...shout[ing] crazy, demeaning, inappropriate stuff..." isn't some personal attack on the public. Somehow you've already convinced yourself that the Columbian is more qualified than either some crazy blogger or those who comment here. The position is that, as a business in charge of producing a community newspaper, you have no need to prove that you're more qualified than that 'guy with a soapbox'.

And so, rather than actually prove your point that the Columbian upholds some higher quality standards than the average citizen, you go on to attack commentors that don't use their real name. Well, some of us used to have those accounts, but they fail to post comments anymore. I just gave up and used my next account.

"At a recent meeting of readers..." - I'd love to hear more about this, how the selection was made, and whether you actually had any feedback on your coverage and editorial practices. Maybe it was all about us commentors.

So I'll give my feedback and then head back to my corner with the other soapbox losers. I don't care about databases, videos, more links, etc. I want news, quality writing, acceptance of outside opinions, and a more balanced editorial side. I want to quit hearing about the poor industry, the struggles of the advertising in the craigslist era. I think I've found a solution, and in the times of tough economic choices, it involves my account. Come Monday account 257660 will cease our paper.

I've had a great time trying to give you feedback, Lou. But you're just too high up on your own soapbox to care about the opinions of your readers. You'll disagree on that point, but that's just the way it is.

by Craig Sayre : 5/30/09 8:13am - Report Abuse

Anyone who regularly visits The Columbian forum knows that the element Lou refers to exists. It's not a 'personal attack on the public', it's an observation. Extremists on the left and the right use this as a 'soapbox' from which to spew their propaganda. Lou, keep your standards in place, but let them rant. It's not going to hurt anything.

Lou, I think those who suggest that you separate contributors who use their real names from those who use pseudonyms are just plain wrong. If you do that, you'll severely curtail the free exchange of opinion.

I appreciate that you give writers as much leeway as you do. Sometimes it's painful to read their comments when it's one attack after another, but it's worth it.

I would like to hear more about the meeting with readers you conducted. Hopefully you can tell us more in upcoming columns. Was that an invitational or an open public meeting? If it was an open meeting, I missed the notice.

By the way, I like The Columbian's video page. Very informative stuff there. I recently viewed a video of the proposed Columbia River Waterfront Development changes. I didn't like what was proposed, but was very glad that the video was posted. Otherwise, I wouldn't have known about the impending disaster. Can you imagine what they wanted to do? They were trying to create a wall between the elite condo owners on the river from the 'riff-raff' to the north. Look at the video and you'll see what I mean.
http://www.columbian.com/article/20090313/MULTIMEDIA0405/90313001/0/MULTIMEDIA

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 5/30/09 9:40am - Report Abuse

Well Lou, I have never used a nom de plume or nom de vitriol but have been accused of it by those too ignorant and culturally inbred to understand that many American Indians carry two legal names and many do not translate into English what their names in their own languages mean (and then you get your name mocked by someone who writes in grade-four- level English also). But I can understand why some people use a fake name in the age of Google searches by employers and the national security state.

Next, on looking down on Bloggers by the mainstream press. First of all how many times can you count that the MSM got it pure wrong even with their touted "two-source-minimum" rule? Secondly, most so-called professional journalists, are really commentators, particularly on TV, and have no special training in journalism, not even a bachelor's degree in Journalism, and many actually have not much formal schooling at all (Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, Peter Jennings etc never went to university) and/or have degrees known to be soft and for the lazy trying to avoid math and any rigorous coursework (History, Sociology, Communications, Literature etc) whereas many Bloggers are both highly schooled in the areas on which they write, as well as highly educated overall as well. Also, many Bloggers, especially those who do not write in their own name, have no real interests driving what they write and are not likely to gain materially from what is clearly a labor of commitment to a cause on which they write. They do not pick fluff-n-puff topics, avoid controversial topics, take slants on topics and self-censor themselves to keep access to important sources, to keep the advertiser dollars coming in, to try to save an enterprise that is bankrupt in more ways than one, or to keep a cushy job and avoid having to look for perhaps real work in hard times; they write because they think they have something to contribute to the debates of the times and often risk a lot to do so from what we know now about warrantless surveillance of the internet and the keeping of files by NSA and others and/or employer retribution from internet contributions.

On "painful attacks". My mother taught me long ago that "only the truth stings, and even then, only when it is from a worthy source and for worthy motives." So even if one is say overweight and is being characterized as being "fat", which is true, if such a fact was being brought up not to help someone reduce weight and liv longer, but to slam them in ways intended to hurt, then even such a "truth", but from an unworthy source and for unworthy motives, should not sting. But my mother also taught me not to let such attacks go unanswered; not to convince the person attacking you, but to expose them to those innocents who might be influenced by them and their untrue statements and/or from unworthy sources a/or for unworthy motives. So it does no good to make continual reference to alleged painful and unfair attacks if one does not answer them with solid counter-reasoning and counter-evidence; that is just empty whining.

by Craig Sayre : 5/30/09 11:20am - Report Abuse

Ohmakohkiaayo - your mother is a very wise woman. As I think back on the comments I've read, I see the truth of what she told you.

by FelidaJoe : 5/30/09 11:36am - Report Abuse

I'll have to agree totally with Matthew here.

by Lou Brancaccio : 5/30/09 2:39pm - Report Abuse

Thanks all. I will get more into what the readers told us at our meeting. It is a standing meeting we have with folks. We get together about once every other month with the summer off.

by Tom Halpenny : 5/30/09 4:09pm - Report Abuse

Walter Scott grew up in Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland. The home office of the Royal Scottish Country Dance Society is located in Edinburgh ... http://www.rscds.org/ . Vancouver is home to the local Southwest Washington State branch. This dance form dates back to Walter Scott's time ... I wonder if he tried it?

by Bill Swettman : 5/30/09 4:28pm - Report Abuse

Lou,
When I read your column this morning I knew that you would receive some interesting commentary. You couldn't have use a better quote. Both the web and some of the blogs are very tangled. This blog is always very tangled but I guess that is why I read it.

I totally agree with Craig. There is a "crazy" element on the web just as there is in the general public. It has always been that way and I don't see it changing in the future. But I can see both sides of the issue on the use of "fake names". Using a fake name is a little like making anonymous phone calls. You can say anything and be as abusive as you want with no repercussions. People will say things that they wouldn't say face to face. But then on the other hand like Omah as mentioned, anything that you say on a blog or in an email is public domain and you can be held accountable. So I can see the "readers" point about cleaning up the blog but I think that it is best to leave it the way that it is now and if someone is too abusive then deal with them directly.
I also think that too many on this blog lose sight of the fact that it is not their personal domain. We have paid nothing to log on to this site and express our opinions. The purpose of the site is supplement the Columbian's overall package. Some buy the paper for the local stuff and some buy the paper for the national and regional news. Others buy it for the editorials and the comics. And I'm sure that some just buy it to wrap the latest catch before it goes in the garbage (Sorry Lou, that was just a play on your fishing column). So I think that it is very appropriate to have a variety of things on the website. In otherwords, give the people what they want. We all want something different.
I am not a big fan of many of the political editorials and I think that the newspaper has a definate slant. I will offer my opinions and make suggestions but the bottom line on the complete package that the Columbian is trying to develop is that if we all quit the paper then we won't have this column and we won't have Lou to abuse every Saturday. I subscribe to the paper so that it will be there to provide me with the news, opinion and entertainment. As all of you know, that is capitalism at work.

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 5/30/09 5:59pm - Report Abuse

Thanks Craig, my mother died in 1985 and her words come back to guide, and sometimes haunt me.

Let's take the whole quote from Sir Walter Scott: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." What he was really talking about is something we all know: if we lie, cover-up or any form of deception, often we have to tell more lies to try to cover the first lie. Social psychologists have actually done experiments in which they induced someone to lie by putting them under pressure and then measured how many derivative lies they told to cover the first one. One study showed an average of 22 lies to cover a small initial one and over 50 to cover a big one.

At the Service Academies where they take an oath not to "lie, cheat or steal nor tolerated anyone who does." they include, and actually are especially harsh, on what is called "quibbling" or playing fast and loose with literalisms and words in order to deceive but appear not to be doing so--this is seen as a more egregious form of deception because it requires some calculation to dance around the truth while appearing to be honest.

Now one form of deception, or quibbling, is coming up with all sorts of lame excuses and cliches about why certain types of stories are never covered while others are--we just can't be everywhere and cover everything. Yes, true. But what about patterns in types of stories and personages not covered versus those that are? What about choosing which questions from readers to even acknowledge let alone answer and patterns there? What about using quotes but only using part of a quote and applying that quote in ways as it was never intended and not diclosing how it was originally intended?

"Oh what a tangled web we weave WHEN FIRST WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE"

by Lou Brancaccio : 5/30/09 7:28pm - Report Abuse

Bill,

Thanks much for the thoughtful words. And as mentioned in my column, I lean toward being as open as I can, allowing quite a bit more than some of our readers appreciate. Sure I wish everyone would act in the best possible way. But that's not the way the world works. I can appreciate that.

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 5/30/09 8:07pm - Report Abuse

"What about choosing which questions from readers to even acknowledge let alone answer and patterns there? What about using quotes but only using part of a quote and applying that quote in ways as it was never intended and not disclosing how it was originally intended?"

"Oh what a tangled web we weave WHEN FIRST WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE"

Apparently the readers cannot win. When no one responds or the responses are meager, Lou you almost beg people to write in (see last column) and/or spins the low response level even if they are going to abuse you in your view. When they do write in, sometimes with measured comments that are pointed yes, but abusive no, then you pick and choose the ones schmoozing you, or less abusive in your view, and heap praise on them, while ignoring the others who also took some time and thought to write. Further, when The Columbian was getting its new building and not in its present economic circumstances, and full of itself and its ambitions, all sorts of censorship was going on in the blogs and letters to the editor and comments that are now "allowed" were never allowed before. The Columbian is now more "open" only because it has to be because all sorts of alternatives exist, substance sells, and looking for work in today's job climate is not an attractive prospect.

If you are going to build a whole column around a quote from Sir Walter Scott, how about putting in the whole quote and apply it as Scott intended it to be applied? Do you see the irony? By putting out only part of a quote, the part about tangled webs, as an entre to a discussion of the world wide web and its uses and misuses, but not putting in the whole quote and applying it as it was intended (about how one form of deception leads to others to cover-up the original deception thus creating a tangled web of deception) this column winds up being a good example of exactly the kind of tangled web (not the world wide kind) of deception that Sir Walter Scott was alluding to. And that is why so many are writing in a bit angry and/or have just stopped bothering to watch and respond to this train wreck.

by Lou Brancaccio : 5/31/09 7:54am - Report Abuse

It feels like a bit of over analyzation but then that happens quite a bit. I try to avoid that but I know I'm guilty of it as well.

The column was not about Scott's quote or full quote. I was having a little fun with the word "web" and "tangled" just as a lead-in to the column. I said in the column that Scott meant "tangled" in a bad way but the word mostly means "confusion." That then allowed me to transition into a discussion about the confusion the web has brought us.

My hope of course was that readers would discuss the confusing aspects of the web that I mentioned. And many of you did so. Thanks much. But then the possibility also existed that we'd get into a long discussion about Scott and the rest of the quote and I guess maybe all of his works. Again, I wasn't hoping for that to be the point. But for some it was. I respect that.

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 5/31/09 1:03pm - Report Abuse

Thanks for your response Lou. Look, your column, with your invitations to respond with our commments and ideas (and that does take time, and for some of us time is the most precious and scarce resource we have) is clearly part of an overall marketing/revitalization campaign intended to increase subscribers--both for print and online editions--which of course is a large part of getting new advertisers, holding on to existing ones and holding on to rates charged advertisers. and I presume that in quoting rates to advertisers, you do not just quote number of subscribers to the print edition and the online edition, but also number of hits--of whatever nature and extent--on the freebee side of the online edition.

I agree that some of the comments are downright abusive and lack real substance. But being critical, or being direct, is not the same as being abusive. And when it comes to marketing, that is one sphere among many where perception not only influences reality and vice versa, but perception can be reality. In that regard, what do you say when those on the far right, and some on the left, and some in the center, who agree with each other on just about nothing, except they appear to have some common perceptions and critiques of The Columbian--and the regime of Boss Pollard--that transcend their significant differences; these should be addressed and in many cases have not been addressed and/or if addressed sometimes in rather cavalier and even contemptuous (given the amount of thought that went into the critiques)responses.

But the full quote of Scott is precisely to the point and it illustrates one of the main critiques of the mainstream media: that by appearing to avoid certain taboo topics (and the memoirs of established journalists all attest that certain taboo subjects are indeed known and avoided) and/or by appearing to shape stories in various ways, or appearing to dance around certain comments, the MSM appear to be doing what Sir Walter Scott talked about because the public knows darn well what is not being covered by the MSM often--and why--because they are living it. So when they see all sorts of unreported scandals going on that they know more about than the MSM that is supposted to be reporting and informing them on, and instead, they see some meaningless award given to some meaning functionary in the local network, or a puff-piece that looks like an infomercial for some local entity, spashed all over the front pages, they ask: "Why should I pay for this and/or what is different about and thus worth paying for, The Columbian over say The Oregonian or even the New York Times or Washington Post online? And then, when such questions are posed and are blown off, questions about the MSM and what it is supposed to be about versus what it appears to be about, then a tangled and expanding web of non-responses, insulting responses or quibbling responses develops and spreads that alienates those you are trying to reach. Then an imploding dynamic results where responses bring alienation and alienation brings more responses until people just go away and leave The Columbian to implode. The fundamental question you must address: What is in The Columbian that is unqiue and of value, not found elsewhere, (market niche) that would justify the time and money expenses on being a subscriber?

by B. Anker Jr. : 5/31/09 3:22pm - Report Abuse

Smokescreen Loubra? Your content is mostly read in print and that's what generates your dwindling revenue. Ya know most of this is gibberesh that makes no sense to the coffee shop reader or the folks at the retirement center and whomever else forks out their quarters so the Columbiabra can kill more trees. Really Loubra, brag a bit about all those journalism awards your staff is winning. Eh, what's that? The mid-sized Columbian can't compete these days? Well, then blame it on Scott Campbell bankrupting his inherited business and that it has been such a difficult year that good journalism is lost at the Columbian. Whatever you do, don't look inward.

by Lou Brancaccio : 5/31/09 4:10pm - Report Abuse

Thanks Omah and B. As is often the case, I'll let you have the last word. Thanks much again.

by B. Anker Jr. : 5/31/09 4:36pm - Report Abuse

K Loubra, guess I'll try a new bait next time. Pretty sure I'd reel ya in but guess I'm too good for my own game today.

On a note related to Loubra's column (anyone can respond), do you like my pseudonym better as "B. Anker" or "B. Anker Jr?" I kind of like adding "Jr." at the end because it makes me sound younger. Kind of a literary hair dye if you will.

by M W : 5/31/09 7:49pm - Report Abuse

The public commentary piece poses an interesting challenge for The Columbian. I experienced my first foray into it today on the Mielke comments article (WOW). Whatever substance is presented rationally and respectfully gets lost, it seems. People do like to voice their opinions and this would be a huge draw in attracting and retaining internet readers (it is a bit addicting, I see.) However, some of the posts amount to vicious personal attacks and outright threats (double OUCH). Posting anonymously is smart, in my mind, given the rage and irrationality I have read today. I would not want one of these apparent loonies coming after me. It is self-protection. However, anonymous posts seem to be the most snarky. How does The Columbian staff monitor this stuff? Do you guys really read the abuse complaints? How bad is bad? What is abuse and what is free speech? There are such risks and I am sure litigation abounds over violence perpetrated over forum fights. As passionately as I feel about Tom Mielke's self-destructive comments, I think I will pass on any more forum fights. It left me exhausted over the depth and range of emotion that was hurled about. There is enough drama at work during the week.......

by Koukla 1225 : 5/31/09 10:19pm - Report Abuse

lou, the quote at the beginning said it all for people to go off and voice their opinion. Such interesting thoughts on here; whats sad is you can tell the ones who are happy and not happy with their lives, so they have to attack other peoples' happiness. I could tell it was sort of a word play with the quote- its very true!
Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi- I always like to hear what you have to say, its always sad that people can never look at the directions more than just once- instead they have to abuse and down people!

KEEP it up don't quit your day job! Have Fun enjoy life and people just laugh a little!

by K Gero : 5/31/09 10:56pm - Report Abuse

Tangled web, huh? Well, that just about sums it all up. A story is printed with a generalized and sometimes slightly slanted view expressed by the writer, then KaBLAM!!! Suddenly, attacks from all angles by views expressed by readers. Bantering, bashing, slashing and hashing through all the opposing views, ideologies, personal interests, facts and differing interpretations of the facts and there you have it. Another tangled web has been woven, but was it to deceive? The wonders of fantastic journalism which has sparked reaction by its readers!

by Lou Brancaccio : 6/1/09 8:32am - Report Abuse

This turned into an interesting discussion. Thanks guys. Keep it going. M W, I hear ya and it certainly takes some getting used to. As everyone tries to figure the web out,one thing we wonder about is if one or two folks dominate the conversation and/or are too "off the wall" does that discourage others from joining in? And you might be an example of someone who would come in more often but worn out by the exchanges.

We're still trying to sort the entire thing out.

by M W : 6/1/09 10:53am - Report Abuse

Lou and others: About the forums---from my limited experience, it seems to me that the participants are not well-representative of Clark County's entire population. It seems skewed in one direction to me. Using the Mielke article as my reference, there were not a lot of measured responses or polite exchanges. Perhaps this reflects our current "reality show" culture of humiliating and denigrating others for sport. Perhaps those who understand the value of reciprocal, respectful communication are spending their spare time meditating and serving others. I am sure sociologists and psychologists are studying this phenomenon as I type. These ugly exchanges are not good for the health of our community, but, boy are they popular. Call me old fashioned, but I will resume my morning ritual of picking up The Columbian from my porch (the delivery person NEVER misses!) and enjoy it with my coffee before work. And when I discuss politics with my friends, it may be passionate, but it will be polite.

by K Gero : 6/1/09 2:43pm - Report Abuse

M W: At one time, daytime and nighttime soap operas were blamed for women expecting more out of their men and all the hassles represented by the soaps. Now it is like you say - it IS the reality show culture affecting attitudes of society. It sure seems the comments are becoming more reflective of the reality shows every day. I notice when there is an article I normally would not comment on, it is the same bantering and personal attacks as on one I would write. Drama! At least one can get personality traits for characters when writing a book or two.

Lou, I have to ask you and please don't take it the wrong way (if there is a wrong way), but why are the article themes repeating themselves so frequently when it is usually the same news with no new twists? Is is just to generate new readers to the forums? Are these tangled webs crisscrossing and forming to keep people in check with today's issues or is it all of the above?

by Lou Brancaccio : 6/1/09 2:55pm - Report Abuse

If you're speaking about my column K, I try to stay with what's hot and what's current and that certainly is the web. But last week, for example, I wrote more about Hollywood coming to film here, etc. I recently also discussed the printed of the name of a 17-year-old who was accused of a crime. (Far from a done deal so no one is guilty until a jury or judge says so.)

But I often come back to web issues.

by K Gero : 6/1/09 5:09pm - Report Abuse

Okay, I got it. Thanks Lou. By the way, I didn't feel the Hollywood stories were repetitive. You were taking us through the steps from day of arrival to day of dismantling, even updating us on future shoots. Not only is that good for those who flock to the scene in hopes of capturing a glimpse, but for those who wish to avoid the chance of higher crowds, too! Enjoyable articles. In my own ignorant mind, I was referring more in the way of the bridge issue, but that IS forever changing and IS important for all of us to keep abreast of the issues. Keep up the good work. I enjoy reading the printed circulation as well as the web circulation!!! Recently, there was a letter from a reader who expressed content with scenic pictures which made her day. I have also enjoyed those photographs over the years. Is that an option on Columbian.com website too?

by K Gero : 6/2/09 5:46am - Report Abuse

...and what I am referring to is a face page with the day's picture on it. I am aware of the pictures of the day.

by Lou Brancaccio : 6/2/09 10:38am - Report Abuse

Thanks K. Almost anything is possible on the web. I'll pass along to our photo editor and web editor.

by K Gero : 6/2/09 5:34pm - Report Abuse

Lou: I appreciate that.

by K Gero : 6/4/09 9:28am - Report Abuse

Lou - It looks like some changes are in the works today on Columbian.com!!!

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 6/4/09 9:31am - Report Abuse

8/28 comments by Lou; 5/28 comments by K Gero; 4/28 comments by Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi; 2/28 comments by Craig Sayer; 2/28 comments by B Anker Jr.; 2/28 comments by MW; 1/28 comments by Matthew Mc Bride; 1/28 comments by Felida Joe; 1/28 comments by Koukla 1225; 1/28 by Bill Swettman;1/28 comments by Tom Halpenny.

10/28 comments, chit-chat, thank yous, one-liners no serious issues or issue-based responses. One side comment that Lou has apparently learned from our discussions how selectively naming teenagers accused of crimes on the basis of amorphous criteria of who does or does not get named to show up in Google searches of future employers and/or the government, and others accused with a crime need, unlike in Alice and Wonderland, to get a sentence for a crime after a competent verdict and not before, and need to get a verdict after a competent trial not before it, and need to get a competent trial after the charges not before them, and need to be charged after thorough investigations and initial press coverage of a possible crime having been committed not before or during them.

Perhaps we could see stats of average duration of hits and a breakdown of hits by IP address origins/frequencies. Since the claim has been made that this venue is one of the more popular ones, and some stats are being collected and touted to influence future readership stats as well as advertising rates and revenues, why not develop metrics that reveal more than they hide rather than the reverse?

You just got a free Statistics lesson.

by Lou Brancaccio : 6/4/09 11:39am - Report Abuse

K. If it's the web there are ALWAYS changes in the works. ;-)

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 6/4/09 5:41pm - Report Abuse

9/32 comments by Lou; 6/32 comments by K Gero; 6/32 comments by Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi; 2/32 comments by Craig Sayer; 2/32 comments by B Anker Jr.; 2/32 comments by MW; 1/32 comments by Matthew Mc Bride; 1/32 comments by Felida Joe; 1/32 comments by Koukla 1225; 1/32 by Bill Swettman;1/32 comments by Tom Halpenny. 13/32 comments, chit-chat, thank yous, one-liners no serious issues or issue-based responses.

In a market economy, the pressures are to commodify and put a price on everything including human beings. We are taught to go to job interviews to sell ourselves like a box of cornflakes--we do the same with elections, media, religion and every other sphere of existence. We are all taught to "product differentiate" and "market niche" and to be able, at command, to list off reaasons why we should be hired over any possible competitors. I was once asked to "prove" to the interviewer some reasaons why I "know" I was the best candidate for the position, and I answered that if I did answer that question, I for sure would not likely be the best candidate because how could I give any kind of a credible answer, devoid of empty braggadocio (which there is far too much of in the business world and elsewhere) in comparing myself with others and whose performances I have never seen in the competition, and, the core terms like "best", and the metrics for measuring them have not been defined?

But it is a legitimate question for The Columbian as it is for every person or even whole nation: "What does The Columbian have and offer that is unique and of value that cannot be replaced or found in other newspapers (global, national or local) or even other media.?"

by B. Anker Jr. : 6/4/09 8:27pm - Report Abuse

Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi's statistical analysis is fascinating.