Press Talk: Our call to hold the SEH/HP story

by Common Sense : 7/4/09 9:59am - Report Abuse

Lou, you did the right thing for the reasons that you mentioned. It was not as if this story was a scandal or something illegal in the wind. It was a major business transaction that needed (or may have needed) secrecy during the negotiations. The completion of the business deal is and will be good for the community. Really, if an early story that merely spoke about the possibility of a deal between HP and SEH had been published it would have been a yawner anyway.

by Karen Crusty : 7/4/09 10:09am - Report Abuse

By all means let's make our big DEALS in private, Joe Blow does not need to know what is happenening in his backyard...Early disclousure can hurt the deal? What kind of skuldrugery is being hatched with our 'squeeky clean' city father.?

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 7/4/09 10:11am - Report Abuse

Sorry Lou, I just dropped in and saw this and simply could not let it pass. I will give you and your readers a moment of my precious time in this earth for a greater cause. You state:

"He knew we were onto the proposed SEH/HP deal, and he was concerned. Very concerned. Any prepublicity, he said, could possibly kill the deal.

He asked that we hold off."

This only shows very clearly and succinctly, although I am sure it was not your intention, what I for know for sure (from other stories The Columbian for sure knew about and refused to touch) and that many have alluded to: The Columbian is not in the news business; it is a mouthpiece--one of several--of a small, insulated, non-transparent, smug, entitled, two-bit and non-accountable network that runs "America's Vancouver" (I love it what is that all about? "AMERICA's Vancouver"? Can you spell delusions of grandeur?) like a cross between a feudal estate, a country club, a college frat, a testosterone-filled locker room, and a two-bit faux "fort" like "Fort" Vancouver that "Commander" Pollard used to run. When you studied journalism and got your BA, or perhaps sometime after, did you not study the New York /Times Pentagon Papers case and the Supreme Court decision denying prior restraint requested by the U.S. Government who, by the way, were not claiming that "maybe' or "possibly" in some undefined way, some business deal could be killed and if it were, there "might be" unspecified consequences? The U.S. Government was claiming that intelligence sources and methods, and thus actual lives of real people, would be compromised, and not even "could be" compromised. The Supreme Court ruled that for government to call for prior restraint, on any matter, no matter what the issue big or small, as a matter of pure Constiutional law and princple, because of the potential damage to the public interest and right and need to know, because of the special Constitutional protections granted the news media and thus the special responsibilities they have, the standards and tests for even petitioning for, let alone being granted prior restraint, have to be at the highest level to show threats to actual lives and not mere possiblities--but virtual and provable certainties. Did you not study this in journalism school? Then when you add that his Lt. Colonelship, and "His Commandership" Boss Pollard" (his only claim to fame that he keeps trading on over and over, like FTD flowers or STDs, "The gift that keeps on giving"...) is up for election, and when you add that, according to you, "The mayor rarely plays this card." (but apparently does "play" the card on other matters) well you just nailed it along with yourself and this two-bit "news"paper of yours that really does deserve to fail. You, along with Boss Pollard and his ilk need to actually work for a living in a real job in the real world, and perhaps have to actually compete for that real job like the rest of us Lou.

"I decided to hold. After all, we are part of this community."

You decided to hold on to the story, You decided. OK, well then YOU get the accountablity along with it. Maybe this is or is not a "good deal" for the community. The original HP deal was seen the same way now they are leaving as are many companies once their sweet tax-breaks to locate run out. As someone who has more training and experience in economics than you could hope to have at your age, I am here to tell you that when you have purported benefits with no reference to costs, or vice-versa, you have nothing and this is especially the case when the purporeted benefits are being "assessed" and touted, while likely costs are being understated, by hardly disinterested editorial writers who clearly know nothing about economics and how costs and benefits are assessed and forecasted. That is why we have public derbates on public issues and why the news media are supposed to play a Constitution role in providing accurate information necessary for that debate.

This community is a lot more than the few insiders like yourself who knew about the deal (and could have perhaps done some of their own insider trading e.g on land acquisitions or developing busnesses nearby the proposed deal being hatched or whatever) and perhaps that is why Boss Pollard wanted the deal kept quiet along with the public keeping quiet and not debating the issues involved. And you really do not get it Lou what this is all about do you?

Well check your stats as I suggested. And maybe this response of mine will cause more response to your column, that you have begged for, than the previous weeks; unlike last week 15 responses including 4 of them by you; the week before, 6 responses, 2 of them by you;

Mickey Dees is hiring Lou. But are you qualified?

Happy July 4th Lou. How about today you take some time to read the NYT Pentagon Papers case on prior restraint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
followed by a re-reading or eading for the first time if you have not read it, The U.S. Constitution which was written to protect the public and news media against petty despots, megalomaniacs, narcissists, power junkies etc who of course always dress up their intentions and intersts under banners like Jobs-Jobs-Jobs, "Patriotism", "The Community", "Do it for the children" etc etc etc.

by Lou Brancaccio : 7/4/09 10:25am - Report Abuse

I thought you were out Omah? Remember the old days when someone's word meant something?

by Lou Brancaccio : 7/4/09 10:26am - Report Abuse

I know this is a busy, very important day so thanks all for those who commented.

by M W : 7/4/09 11:08am - Report Abuse

I appreciate the disclosures you share in this weekly column, Lou, that illustrate the push and pull of newsmaking. Keep them coming, as they humanize our hometown newspaper.

by Lou Brancaccio : 7/4/09 11:22am - Report Abuse

Thanks M W. Really appreciate the comment. Often there are no right or wrong, black or white decisions in the media business. We try to take all the factors involved and make the best choice we can. And I enjoy sharing the process with public as well.

by MIke C. : 7/4/09 11:23am - Report Abuse

You made the right decison.We,meaning the general public,don't HAVE to know everythinga all the time.IN fact,the news media often tell us waaaaaaaay more than we want or need to know on certain subjects,in the name of 'news'.

You did the right thing.

by Lou Brancaccio : 7/4/09 12:46pm - Report Abuse

Thanks for the view Mike. Appreciate it.

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 7/4/09 12:56pm - Report Abuse

I do not remember giving my word only declaring my intention. You're response however, not addressing even one of the points I raised, shows just what kind of smug, entitled and non-accountable phony you are just like those for whom you are clearly acting as a shill. You literally beg people to write in, unless, however, you do not like and cannot answer the real substance of the issues they raise, while you drool over a few toadies who write in to stroke your ego.

Had I given my word as you put it, I would not have written. But now I will hold you accountable with logic, reason and evidence--all the stuff that you refuse to include in your editorials or respond to and with when you get responses like mine. Then you can censor me as was done before and my point will be made.

No I live here too, and not you, or that full-of-himself two-bit former Commander of a two-bit "Fort", or anyone else from your little cloistered, covert and non-transparent network, will silence me.

You just exposed yourself for what you are along with having exposed this paper for what it really is--a shill and a mouthpiece and a propaganda rag.

Happy Fourth of July? You clearly have no concept of what the U.S. Constitution, the nature and responsibilities of a real news media, or indeed what real patriotism, are all about.

Mike C and the others can speak for themselves, I presume to speak for no one other than myself and then am prepared to debate anyone, any time anywhere my views and mostly importantly, the supporting evidence, sources, methodologies and reasoning for those views. But you clearly are unwilling or unable to answer with more than a few empty cliches and strokes for your toadies.

by K Gero : 7/4/09 1:14pm - Report Abuse

Lou - good call!

To Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi AND all - today is a special day in the lives of every American. It is a day to celebrate the battle against oppression and unfair taxation and to continue the battle for our personal freedoms. It is also a day to celebrate the freedoms of which we take for granted every second, every minute, every day. Some of these freedoms include the right to express ones self as you and everyone wholeheartedly share on this Columbian site. It is a time to be thankful for what we have and the opportunities that lay ahead in the future.

Take the time out today to truly understand what the preamble to our US Constitution is all about - after all, we ARE the People of the United States. Be appreciative of what this day represents.

by Lou Brancaccio : 7/4/09 1:47pm - Report Abuse

Two posts by Omaha after he said he would not longer post! Let me know if you need some help to hold to what you said. By the way this is exactily what you said... "I mean it, and this will be my last submission." That was just a couple of weeks ago.

No need to respond to this comment yet again Omaha since I don't want you to break your intention again. Usually when someone says they "mean it" you would think they mean it.

by Lou Brancaccio : 7/4/09 1:49pm - Report Abuse

Thanks K. It was a somewhat difficult call, I have to admit but there is much more to good journalism than just always being first. Appreciate it!

by ROBERT BIRDWELL : 7/4/09 1:56pm - Report Abuse

"Good call?" Hardly. Good reporting? Not at all because the real story was not printed.

Hewlett Packard was once upon a time a leader and dynamic force in its industry. That all changed in the 80's and 90's when lawyers and accountants began running the day to day decision making of the company. It all began with arguably unlawful tax breaks by cities and counties wanting them to locate huge facilities. Once those were secured, outsourcing was begun. Accountants figured out how companies could make $billions short term by sending the most technical and costly jobs overseas, yet keeping prices high in this country. Do the math. In the long term employees in the country of origin are harmed; the cities and counties are harmed, and ultimately companies wind up hiring complete incompetents like Carly Fiorina to ride it to the grave knowing that the tyranny of political correctness will keep the people from assigning blame where it belongs.

Hewlett Packard WAS an American idea turned into material success. It was destroyed by thieves and incompetents. SEH America is a foreign flag company who is now going to feast on the corpse of a murdered American giant.

The incompetence, arrogance, and corruption of the Royce Pollards and Columbian newspapers of our age make them the head waiters serving up this ghoulish feast.

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 7/4/09 2:22pm - Report Abuse

OK Fair is fair, I had forgotten what I had written. But here is what Lou so solicitously wrote:

Thanks all for the continued conversation. We'll miss ya Omah and I wish you well. I hope you find peace and happiness in whatever you do in the future!

And may Omah find other venues to express his views. I'm sure he will.


So I' gues you did not mean it Lou but OK, I'll take it to other venues including other venues in The Columbian.

K Gero please do not lecture me on the meaning of "patriotism" and the 4th of July. Do you not get it? Boss Pollard feels he can call up The Columbian and get a story killed and it turns out he can with nothing more than summarily declaring a deal "could" get killed. This is to the same newspaper supporting him for re-election; the same newspaper that derclared bankruptcy and the same newspaper trying to get the City of Vancouver to use public money to buy the Columbian building and escape any accountability for Scott Campbell's imperial overreach. Can you spell multiple conflicts of interest? And this is preceisely why Christina Kopinski was denied tenure: because she refused to submit to a form of prior restraint that the U.S. Supreme Court said is a clear and very dangerous violation of the First Amendment without overwhelming reasons, of all articles in The Independent be submitted for censorship. And since this will be my last comment on this site, not on The Columbian which I never promised, then let's take it all the way. The same person who tried to exercise prior restraint on the students of the Columbian was also a former "Commander" of Fort Vancouver, who was installed in his positon by the Clark Board of Trustees despite not meeting the minimum qualifications to even apply for the position, despite being appointed interim president and thus under policy not even eligible to apply for the full-time position; but he got into his former position of VP of Admin services, and his present position with multiple and serious grievances against his administration filed by both unions, directly as a result of recommendations and pressure from Boss Pollard his buddy and fellow former Commander of Ft Vancouver. These are facts not opinion. Now Pollard's autocratic style no doubt reflects on what kind of officer he was and thus no doubt on why he wound up with a nothing "Command" like Fort Vancouver which is the military's way of saying "You were not planning on going for 30 years in were you?; Don't"

My point, whenever there is corruption, and cronyism, nepotism, trading in public employment, prior restraint in the news media, shilling for the powerful, reprisals against whistleblowers etc, all injure real innocents in real ways.

Journalism? Having a BA in journalism not more makes someone a real journalist than having a degree in auto mechanics makes them a car.

Finally notice not one single reference to any point not only that I made but no reference to any point made by anyone criticizing Lou in any way. Talk about keeping your word? How about the "I am just listening crap"?

OK, now I am done but I will respond in other ways consistent with what you cal "my word" But it is clear Lou cannot and will not answer except his toadies and he does't even answer their points except to say I thank and agree with all who thank and agree with me--and will ignore all those who don't any any points they make.

by Not So Fast : 7/4/09 2:23pm - Report Abuse

Regardless of his intentions, Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi was absolutely right. And your utter failure to address his issues does you no credit.

Your relationship with the mayor and the rest of city government, where your paper acts more like you work in Vancouver's public information office than for this community does you no credit and, in fact, makes you a danger to us all.

And bragging about it just goes to show how much the downtown Mafia OWNS you. The cozy relationship you have with democrats generally, where, for example, you managed to scam a hefty B&O tax break that no one else got in the middle of a $10 billion deficit because you act as a political campaign organ is not what journalism is, or should be, about.

Your decision to sit on a story because you were ordered to by someone who had no business even asking you, let along expecting you to come to heel; does you no credit, nor the paper that, for whatever the reason, continues to employee you.

This, in fact, a snapshot of the abysmal stays of your organization, where single-sided, agenda-driven reporting is the order of the day.

You have done nothing here to be proud of.

by Lou Brancaccio : 7/4/09 2:35pm - Report Abuse

Good luck on other venues outside of The Columbian Omaha. Wish you well. (And that was your third post after saying you wouldn't post again.)

by Matthew M : 7/4/09 3:38pm - Report Abuse

Pathetic. That's it. That's the only way I can summarize your comments, Lou. Don't respond to people's points, just attack them somewhere else.

P.S. Your website keeps chewing up comments.

by A S : 7/4/09 4:05pm - Report Abuse

In 30 years in and around news, I've seen this happen dozens of times. It is always a tough decision in trying to balance right-to-know with greater-good. Competition is in play as well as public trust of the media.

I appreciate your coming out with your explanation, I think you made the right call.

I still trust you, Lou :-)

by Tom Halpenny : 7/4/09 4:25pm - Report Abuse

Readers of the e-edition have only read half the story ... due to a technical glitch.

The link to the SEH/HP story is:
http://olive.columbian.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VENMLzIwMDkvMDYvMjcjQXIwMDEwMg==&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom

If we click the "Continuation" link at the top of the page, we are directed to the second half of the story without any text or photos.

Why is The Columbian witholding the second half of the story? Just kidding.

by Helena Handbasket : 7/4/09 5:16pm - Report Abuse

Lou,

So what was the reason you decided to NEVER write an article about the pullout of US troops from Iraqi cities? Its funny how you backed countless attacks on the war and were quick to say we couldn't do the job. Then, when we do return control over to Iraq, you don't even have one article about our brave men and women that accompished the task. Why do you continue to hate our military personnel?

Lou, has time to write and hold a story about a land deal but not the time to praise our troops, just like a normal Liberal.

by Lou Brancaccio : 7/4/09 6:10pm - Report Abuse

Thanks again all. On this day it's important to remember what a great country we live in. That the mainstream media gives voice to those who disagree with the mainstream media is only a snall -- but important -- part of this great country.

Happy 4th everyone! And please be safe.

by K Gero : 7/4/09 7:41pm - Report Abuse

It is not my intention to "Lecture" anyone on this site, but now I feel compelled to perform a small lecture. I have opened my heart and my thoughts to all, thanks to the Columbian.com site. Omah, you should realize that your rather lengthy verbalizations have always been of interest to me; but unfortunately, you have attempted to corral my rights to my freedom of expression. You are a teacher, right? Then try to be open minded and understand I have my rights to share how I perceive things just as you have the same rights. I am sorry Omah, but do you not get it? Although your initial attempts at civility are noted, you are essentially pulling the same stunt as you claim our mayor is doing - attempting to control those who write and how they should write. My final statement to you in this lecture is:

Welcome to the Real World, Omah. Corruption, cronyism, nepotism, et cetera, etcetera is everywhere. Nobody is free of it. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

by K Gero : 7/4/09 7:59pm - Report Abuse

You know, I see so many comments here on a daily basis that continually scream accusations of corruption, unfairness, slanted writing and more. If all you naysayers don't like it, then why do you waste your time bashing down the messenger? As I see it, Lou and the Columbian choose when to write, what to write about and how to write about issues and articles. Yes, breaking news sells, but to hold back with restraints takes guts for journalists. They are human for heavens sake. If you don't like it, then grasp onto other circulations and compare techniques. I think you will see they are staying within the realm of quality journalism. Of anything, the Columbian has done a great service to our community in opening their web site to all of us in order for us to whine, complain, share, laugh, congratulate, get more involved in our community and more. So what if an article appears slanted or shows similarities of control by our governing officials from what is recognized through the miracles of modern television. You get to voice your comments and respond to them, don't you?

by Matthew M : 7/5/09 8:31am - Report Abuse

Regardless K Gero, Lou's transparent. Comments call him out - he ignores them. Comments he dislikes - he puts the commentor down. Comments turning against him - he changes the subject (or asks for things to be positive).

And Lou. No, you're wrong in your own comment. The mainstream media doesn't give us voice to disagree with you. The Constitution does. You just give us one forum, but we participate elsewhere as well (all those blogs that don't participate in real news, as you said). Don't pat yourself on the back for allowing comments. It's a requirement to be competitive in your business.

If you really wanted to give voice to those who disagree with the mainstream media you would have given the public a better idea of the composition of your reader advisory panel, how it is selected, how people could participate, etc. Instead your promise to talk more about it was full of fluff.

by K Gero : 7/5/09 1:32pm - Report Abuse

Matthew M: Did you see the title of this article? The first two words sums it all up. "Our Call" Just as you choose whether or not to respond to questions by other posters, Mr. Lou Brancaccio also has the right to choose whether or not to respond. This isn't any "Public Responsibility" to answer all the time, every time, especially when responding to those who write only to spark controversial responses with every single word posted. Heck, I don't think you would want to see the response. There would probably be plenty of censored verbalizations throughout - either that or carefully chosen words.

Also Matthew M., I wasn't stating it was only the Columbian that allows freedom of expression when responding through letters or the dot.com site. I was stating that I was thankful the Columbian has this feature for us to respond in our community AND beyond as I recognize this as a great service to all.

As far as your reader advisory panel comment, there is a little segment at the end of Lou's articles with his contact number or the Email address you could request the information. No reader has been left out in the cold. If inquiring minds want to know, all it takes is contacting Lou to find out more information. Let me see, Lou is Columbian Editor... Don't you think he is just a bit busy these days? Give him credit where credit is due. I'm not trying to sound like a cheerleader or any thing, but if he chooses not to respond as some spout out that he should, he has his reasons as you or anyone else would too!

by Lou Brancaccio : 7/5/09 4:50pm - Report Abuse

Matthew,

You're welcome to give me a call and I'd be happy to tell you anything more you'd like to know about our Readers Advisory Council.

by Mary Jane Thomas : 7/5/09 10:15pm - Report Abuse

http://people-press.org/report/39/

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Project20Censored/SelfCensorMediaElite_PC.html

Riffing on Brian Williams' special Inside the White House at the Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner Friday night, Obama joked:

"It wasn't easy coming up with fresh material for this dinner. A few nights ago, I was up tossing and turning trying to figure out exactly what to say. Finally, when I couldn't get back to sleep I rolled over and asked Brian Williams what he thought."

by Matthew M : 7/5/09 10:49pm - Report Abuse

Lou:

Why not just post it as promised in your column? Instead you give us a spin column about listening to your RAC, how they wanted commentors to have full names and be verified...I'll send you a private email only if you allow me to post the full details here (which is what many hoped, but never expected, you to do).

by Lou Brancaccio : 7/6/09 7:10am - Report Abuse

Give me a call Matthew. I find people can discuss things over the phone better. Then you're welcome to post what we say.

by K Gero : 7/7/09 9:00am - Report Abuse

Matthew, did you make the call yet? If you did, you need to share with us the conversation publicly as Lou openly allows or you will be eating your own words. I highly doubt you would want that type of label hanging over your head.

by M W : 7/7/09 6:03pm - Report Abuse

K Gero: this is the type of call-out that tells me you want to keep a fight going for your own entertainment. Let it rest, for goodness sake.

by Lou Brancaccio : 7/7/09 6:29pm - Report Abuse

With all respect K, I would agree with M W. Matthew, as well as anyone else for that matter, is always welcome to call me. But I also appreciate it's much easier to post some types of comments than it is to actually get on the phone to speak with a live person. So I too would just let it pass. I don't lose any respect for Matthew by him not calling.

by Matthew M : 7/7/09 6:46pm - Report Abuse

Work travel prohibits it at the moment. Sorry for disappointing everyone, especially K Gero. Still, it would have been easier, quicker and more clear (no misrepresentation of his word) if Lou would have responded to the original inquiry himself. Otherwise he may state that I misquoted him.

by M W : 7/7/09 7:52pm - Report Abuse

You must have had a psychology degree somewhere in your background, Lou.
;)

by K Gero : 7/8/09 7:14am - Report Abuse

Sorry Lou, I cannot let it pass until I provide my rebuttal.

With all due respect to you Lou, your newspaper is not only to print out news only as verbalized by the reporters. This is also a form of information gathering entertainment for everyone as they sit and drink their coffee or tea and read the paper or key on the computer. Matthew M called YOU out Lou and rather than providing information, you choose to hide behind my comment regarding my questioning Matthew and attempt to cut my verbalizations off by telling me to let it pass. There were posters as well as you with comments directed towards me and I have a right to respond. Never mind the fact there were posters on other web pages stating the concern they could not share their opinions on Press Talk so they verbalized their concerns on the other pages, and I let them know I was finally able to respond on Press Talk and they returned. Were you aware of that fact also, Lou? Oh, but wait - this is a call out I am performing on you right now. Will you censor me because I am trying to prova a point? Who knows. At least I will know this post was read before it would possibly be removed. Sorry, but you got my dander up with your performance and I have every right to respond.

I have diligently followed the Columbian.com site with many, many questions and responses myself and have verbalized how lucky with modern age that we are able to interact and have been verrry supportive of the Columbian even through its darkest times. Matthew has opened a door for everyone to read and follow and respond. You may label this a call out all you want as far as my inquiring mind, but if you choose not to have readers who have faithfully continued to read and respond with respect to your industry, then it WILL be the demise of the public news and entertainment industry as far as the Columbian is concerned, and I would not want to see that and I am sure you wouldn't either.

I provided Matthew as well as other readers with the fact that he could call you or Email you, Lou. You could have publicly stressed that point to him yourself, but it took a faithful reader to share that information instead of the ones getting paid to do so. Instead, your telephone and Email number, greyed out below your name is only a subtle reminder to the readers of which tends to be ignored. If you don't like how a comment is expressed, then you shouldn't have this site for everyone to post comments on in the first place. But again, I am sure you wouldn't want the Columbian to slip behind the modern era of journalism now would you? I fully understand Omah's frustrations.

I also want to point out that in Press Talk, questions regarding the RAC or any other subject could have been brought up during its most active session and were not. This was not a cover-up or lack of information production. It was a matter of timing.

Matthew, it is not a disappointment to me. I wanted to know those answers myself, even though it was after the fact.