Jackson Free Press

This story is copyright 2005/The Jackson Free Press. Any use of quotes from this article without permission or express attribution to the Jackson Free Press will be considered a copyright violation.

Previous Comments

ID

168683

Comment

Hmmm. On the one hand, I have a lot of respect for Jeff Good and the fact that he supports Melton is another feather in the candidate's cap. On the other...damn, this is a bizarre interview. I can point to a half dozen individual quotes from this article that are way over in H. Ross Perot territory, from claiming ridiculous leads to attributing suburban white flight to the Republican mayor of Madison "doing something right" to claiming a close personal relationship with Sen. Thad Cochran that Cochran doesn't remember having. Well, I guess that settles the question of who I'm voting for in the primary. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-03-24T00:29:09-06:00

ID

168684

Comment

Tom, one clarification: Melton's comments here are from an event I attended last week, and he make these statements as part of his remarks. I was the only media present. I had tried to interview Melton several times before then, but they kept canceling the interview. However, he has now agreed to be interviewed, so there will be more from him soon. I will ask follow-ups to these points then as well, so feel free to suggest what specifics you'd like for me to include. Of course, the responses to Melton are interviews.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-24T00:34:07-06:00

ID

168685

Comment

Thanks for the clarification--I should have said speech rather than interview, since I knew the quotes were from the fundraiser. Bah. My brain is on strike. Too many deadlines lately! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-03-24T01:32:42-06:00

ID

168686

Comment

I have a question: How does Melton explain away the statistics that show that crime is dropping in Jackson?

Author

kate

Date

2005-03-24T08:01:32-06:00

ID

168687

Comment

I'm curious about the "opponents" and the rumors. I have heard those rumors many times and heard them way before he was running for mayor... Actually, they were stirring when he was putting young, black men's faces on billboards and have been stirring ever since. They're currently stirring like a bee hive now that he's in the spotlight again. I find it interesting that it was brought up at his fundraiser. If there's truth to any of them, can you imagine the stain, scandal, and setback this city would face? Eeek! Does anyone know specifically why he's no longer with MBN? Just curious if there's been a formal reason released... I can't remember. Couldn't agree more with Johnson that Melton needs to be careful when attacking the Convention Center... A majority of Jacksonians support it and that could be one big con on his pro/con list.... As for the rest of the event, sounds like a lot of grand-standing. This is why I want the facts and the details. He says he'll do "this" but NO ONE mentioned that's involved with "this" has even spoken to him. Dreams are not reality fellas... SPECIFICS, Melton... Please! Lawd! This is going to be a mess any way you look at it.

Author

kaust

Date

2005-03-24T10:01:15-06:00

ID

168688

Comment

I have a question: How does Melton explain away the statistics that show that crime is dropping in Jackson? The short answer is that he, and his supporters, believe that JPD is underreporting crime on purpose, presumably to manipulate the stats and make crime look better than it is. He had some more crime statements at that event that I'm not reporting, yet, because I needed more JPD responses and because we're working on a "Crime" issue focus. I will share more of that as soon as it's ready for primetime. (Note, BTW, how we're covering this election. See the JFP City Elections Blog that went live about midnight last night (just call me the midnight blogger!) In addition to weekly update stories on their appearances and statements, we are doing in-depth Issues pieces on various vital issues to the campaign. Also blog pages for each city candidate, the Truth Watch blog, and the forums for readers. It's all aggregated on that site now. We are still working on getting everything loaded so it's preliminary. But it should be packed by the end of the week. We like to think of this attempt to get at the real issues "civic journalism.") Now, Knol, on the topic of the "the rumors." It was interesting how openly Melton talked about this -- and it's clear that he wanted to respond to them. I think he should have that chance, being that they are out there. This is ugly either way it goes. Obviously, it would be awful if they were true (which I will not believe unless and until real proof is present: innocent until guilty) and it's awful if his opponents are intentionally trying to spread those rumors. Assuming they're not true, they need to be pushed aside so that we can talk about what really matters here: the issues. Also, I will be publishing more statements from that event, his press conference yesterday, as well as other dialogues with Melton, so keep an eye out. It's a good idea to consider JFP election coverage one long, ongoing story. A candidate is welcome to respond or submit a statement for the blog about anything we report. We are asking them questions every week, and we encourage them to respond. The point here is not to catch candidates saying something they shouldn't -- it's reporting what they say to would-be voters and then discussing and factchecking it. I don't know the formal reason Barbour didn't keep him at MBN? Anyone? Again ... careful with speculation. Let's not tar anyone based on innuendo. That won't help anything and certainly not the city. Also, no problem, Tom. I knew you knew, but I wanted to make it clear for anyone else reading the piece.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-24T11:29:29-06:00

ID

168689

Comment

Good post! However, its a shame JFP is the only paper reporting anything worth reporting. How come the C-L wasn't at the gathering, or at least some Press Releases sent out from his office with some of his quotes about plans for Jackson. This is the second private/quiet gathering, I know of, where Melton has spoke of outlandish engineering plans for Jackson. A friend of mine supporting Melton, heard at one party how Melton was going to somehow create a river down near Farish St. with water from the Pearl, so we could have a river walk area like San Antinio! DO WHAT???? And, all I guess is he is scared to publicly tell us about these near impossible plans because you only get to hear them if you go pay and listen!

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-03-24T15:48:56-06:00

ID

168690

Comment

I'm sure they're all going to impress the hell out of us the week before the election with their amazing coverage! ;-) Seriously, tortoise, I don't know when/if they're going to cover this campaign at all with any substance. At yesterday's Melton press conference to unveil his platform, I heard *one* reporter (other than myself) ask a question. It was whether or not Melton was going to fire the police chief. Now, bear in mind that she hadn't seen this piece, yet, so it wasn't following up on this. It was just wondering whether Melton was going to fire the police chief. Not how he's going to pay to get folks in West Jackson single-family housing. Or anything remotely substantive. Whether he was going to fire the police chief. Interestingly, he wouldn't say in front of that particular audience. Although, as you can above, he told another group of people last week that he was going to fire the chief. So.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-24T15:54:37-06:00

ID

168691

Comment

Here's a little media tidbit: This is all The Clarion-Ledger had to say today about Melton's press conference yesterday and his platform. Note that their little blurb focuses on crime. However, his press conference didn't really focus on crime. Hmmm. Also, did everyone see Eric Stringefellow's last column. It's ostenibly about the fallen policeman, Officer Catchings. But look how it leads: Think Jackson Police Department. Quick, what jumps out? The Maple Linder Study. The Five Point Plan. Perceptions, not reality. Too many chiefs. Poor communication. Corruption. What in hell is up with that? No civic journalism here. The second paragraph: These are the topics that have dominated the headlines and created sound bites about JPD. But when officers do their jobs, or even give something extra, they usually labor largely in the shadows. Yes, they have dominated the headlines. Why? And the topics didn't create the sound bites -- that's a nonsensical sentence. The officials, and in this case the media themselves, did. Considering that Stringfellow has pushed a lot of the "perception" hype, leading this column this way is particularly egregious. I know they think crime sensationalism sells newspaper, but this one just shows how low they will stoop to do it. This is a column about A MAN KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY, for goodness sake. Couldn't Stringfellow leave his anti-JPD rhetoric out of even one column? How is this helping Jackson?

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-24T16:17:17-06:00

ID

168692

Comment

To be honest, I think what bothers me most about the fundraiser is that it sounds like he was pandering to a bunch of rich white women, doing whatever little dance they wanted him to do. The bit about a black candidate not being able to run as anything but a Democrat (implying that he would at least consider running as a Republican if it were possible) makes me wonder if he's seen a picture of Rick Whitlow yet. Obviously the more relevant issue is that a predominantly African-American city like Jackson is unlikely to elect a Republican, so whoever wins the Democratic Party primary is almost assured the mayor's office. But there was certainly nothing stopping him from running as a Republican, if he wanted to do that. The Republican Party is terrible at addressing the interests of African Americans, but it's fantastic at fielding black candidates. Condoleezza Rice is the first African-American woman in a position to make for a natural top-tier presidential contender, and anyone who thinks Colin Powell wouldn't have won in a heartbeat in '96 is dreaming. Republicans run great black candidates; it's just that no Republican candidate is going to be mayor of Jackson anytime soon, and for good reason. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-03-24T16:21:18-06:00

ID

168693

Comment

Perhaps The Ledge could reprint bits of Gannett's own internal studies of its "out of balance" crime sensationalism in their little internal newsletter every week. Find the links here. Some money quotes: "In Jackson, community perception is that crime is growing, despite statistics that show otherwise. The newspaper staff wanted to use the roundtable to help determine if the newspaper's coverage was contributing to the false perception." and "Roundtable participants in both markets wanted more coverage of crime trends, as well as an interpretation of what those trends meant to the safety of their neighborhoods. 'They also wanted more "good news" in the newspaper to balance negative crime coverage. When citing The Clarion-Ledger's coverage of a local honor student's funeral, one Jackson participant asked, 'What would it have taken to get him on the front page when he was alive?'"

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-24T16:21:41-06:00

ID

168694

Comment

I misread his comment; he said that if you're black, you have to run as a Democrat to win. I agree with that. Of course, what he didn't say is that if you're white, you also have to run as a Democrat to win... Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-03-24T16:26:44-06:00

ID

168695

Comment

One of the interesting things about that event was that only one woman that I observed showed any skepticism (the one who asked about how he was going to pay for his ideas). They definitely seem convinced. One does wonder: based on what, considering that so little of substance has been put out there. It's odd, really, especially considering that Melton says things to different audiences that I wouldn't think would sit well with many in the room that day. It's one of the more interesting components of his campaign, I believe. He is definitely fascinating to watch, and I rather look forward to observing him for the next few weeks. (I am covering him for the JFP.)

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-24T16:29:56-06:00

ID

168696

Comment

That whole speech/rant for ca$h sounds like he got a local rapper to write it . it's riddled with hype and transparent hope. A friend of mine supporting Melton, heard at one party how Melton was going to somehow create a river down near Farish St. with water from the Pearl, so we could have a river walk area like San Antinio! ^That'll NEVER happen. I'm glad you didn't pay to go hear that part.

Author

Black Man

Date

2005-03-24T16:33:58-06:00

ID

168697

Comment

We're still working on the interface, but here is Melton's campaign page on the Election Blog. Note that we've posted his Platform, which he distributed yesterday, in its entirety. Let us hear what you think -- over on that page.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-24T18:59:17-06:00

ID

168698

Comment

This is funny. I'm being brow-beaten by an angry neo-con! Over on Alan Lange's new anti-mayor site, Wilson Carroll called the JFP "execrable" for this story above. Of course, he got it a bit wrong, as I actually explained to him on the site. (The first, and hopefully, only time I will ever post on an Alan Lange Production. But this one didn't have the big-ass gun to scare me away. ) Lord, some Melton supporters are furious at anyone who doesn't immediately jump on their ship and start bashing the city, the mayor and anything good that has happened in the last few years. And Lange and Wilson Carroll come across as two of the angriest people I've met in Jackson. Goodness gracious. I hear Carroll is still mad at me because the JFP didn't endorse him for district attorney a year and a half ago -- and seems to think that fact somehow helped sink his campaign. We appreciate the compliment, but, uh, his defeat may have had to do with his running as a white Republican in a 70 percent black city and that he had no criminal experience. Just sayin'. Anyway, it's remarkable to me that Carroll would twist this story as he tries to do there with his idiotic "garbage" comments - especially since people can read it for themselves. He, after all, is posting on a site edited by the same man who put out blatantly false information to fan the flames during the Obadele dust-up, as I've talked about elsewhere on the site. (And to my knowledge has never run a correction, even after being told that, uh, Imari Obadele is NOT Denis Paul Shillingford and is not a "convicted cop-killer." You can despise the guy for what he has done -- but at least base your statements on fact and stop spreading false rumors.) But most importantly, as I pointed out to Carroll on the site, it struck me that Melton wanted to talk about the rumors last week, and did. If people were spreading such horrible rumors about me, I would want the chance to rebut them, not just let them sit there. I was impressed by Melton's willingness to address them. In fact, it might have impressed me more than anything I'd heard him say to that point. It shows a certain courage and gumption. Of course, that doesn't serve the agenda of the exclusive North Jackson Angry Men's Club, so they're just going to ignore the facts, or not bother to get them in the first place, or just make sh*t up. But you know what they say: When you're called "execreble" by a self-appointed neo-con, you must be doing something damn straight. ;-) BTW, what's up with their Plumber-Gate paranoia? Has it crossed their mind that somebody in North Jackson who is afraid to be jumped by these guys for not supporting Melton -- like someone's spouse? -- might have made up an e-mail address to pass around announcements? I myself asked people to send us campaign materials anonymously if they prefer. (And many members of the Angry Men's Club post and e-mail anonymously all the time, for the record, although Carroll and Lange get points for attaching their names to their plumbing). Shall we assume that with all this moral outrage that Mssrs. Lange and Carroll will come out against push-polling this time around? OK, enough about the N-JAM Club. We now return to our regular programming.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-25T18:17:33-06:00

ID

168699

Comment

Per the idea that Melton supporters are "jumping" Johnson supporters, check out this post over on the Ledge's forums. This is in response to a woman who calls herself "notthrilledwithmelton" who seems to be pretty articulate: Mayor Melton - don't you like the sound of that? - will do his dead level best to end the criminal elements control of Jackson. That, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to vote for Mayor Melton. Add his stupendous qualifications, his stellar backgroud and educational achievements, and you wind up with, well, Mayor Melton! Get used to it. On another note, I do not know exactly who you are NotSoThrilled. But, I do know that you write entirely too well to be a teacher as you allude in prior posts. No, you are not employed by the State as a teacher at a local school. I would be willing to wager that you derive most, if not all, of your income from your employment which is directly or indirectly dependent on harveyjohnson being Mayor of Jackson. Without harveyjohnson, you have to find other employment. If my instincts are correct.......and they usually are......you better dust off your resume squire. She writes too well to be a teacher!?! What the ...? I have noticed that a new meme from anti-mayor camps is that everyone who supports Johnson either has a contract with the city -- or, it seems, works for the city. Am I the only one who finds it creepy that these anonymous posters are just deciding that anyone who says something good about the mayor (or questions something about Melton) must have an ulterior motive? Why can't these people just talk intelligently about issues? This guy, for instance, isn't attributing anything -- just making rhetorical statements and accusing people of stuff. Seems kinda like deja vu all over again; this is intimidation. Kind of reminds one of the '60s. This is juvenile and ridiculous. And the sad thing is, it can backfire and reflect poorly on Melton even if he's not telling people to show their butts like this and accuse people who don't agree with them of all sorts of ridiculous stuff. Maybe if the media were actually giving folks something of substance about these campaigns to discuss, they wouldn't go around slining personal insults all the time. Or maybe these people would anyway. Yuck. I plead with everyone reading this: PLEASE, please let's try to talk about issues and not the hotheads drive this campaign because they think that ugly campaigns are so much FUUUNNNNNNNNNN.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-25T19:12:11-06:00

ID

168700

Comment

I've tangled with Wilson Carroll on Stand Firm in Faith, a conservative web site. I also know the guy in person. Wonderful fella off the grid; I suspect you'd like him if he were sitting across the table from you at Cups. Not quite as much fun online, at least when he gets going on politics and/or social issues. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-03-25T19:19:58-06:00

ID

168701

Comment

Tom, I have sat across from Wilson at a few tables as well, and we have mutual friends. He's personable enough. That's not the point. The question is whether he can respect me and what I do enough not to say the "execrable" kinds of things he has to me, and about me, online and perhaps behind my back. Apparently not. That's his choice. The truth is, I have a thick enough skin not to be bothered personally about it; I truly don't care what Wilson Carroll thinks of me as a person. But it is frustrating when someone dismisses your work publicly in such a dishonest way merely because he disagrees with you. That's sad and unfair. It's one thing to criticize on the merits, but he's not doing that.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-25T19:30:25-06:00

ID

168702

Comment

BTW, I went and looked up "execrable" to see if Wilson was actually saying publicly that I and my business are deserving of hate. Indeed: ex?e?cra?ble †† †P†††Pronunciation Key††(ks-kr-bl) adj. Deserving of execration; hateful. Extremely inferior; very bad: an execrable meal. Source: The American HeritageÆ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-25T19:34:52-06:00

ID

168703

Comment

I love Dictionary.com. ;-) ex?e?crate †† †P†††Pronunciation Key††(ks-krt) tr.v. ex?e?crat?ed, ex?e?crat?ing, ex?e?crates To declare to be hateful or abhorrent; denounce. To feel loathing for; abhor. Archaic. To invoke a curse on. [Latin execrr, execrt- †: ex-, ex- + sacrre, to consecrate (from sacer, sacred. See sak- in Indo-European Roots).] exe?crative or exe?cra?tory (-kr-tÙr, -tr) adj. exe?crator n. Source: The American HeritageÆ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Curse? I hope Wilson doesn't have a voodoo doll.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-25T19:43:11-06:00

ID

168704

Comment

FWIW, Donna, he says the same sorts of things about what I do. ;o) Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-03-25T20:43:48-06:00

ID

168705

Comment

I believe you. We are among the cursed; at least the company is good. ;-) I will say, Carroll has ended up much more extreme than I expected when I first talked to him. To each his own.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-25T20:50:13-06:00

ID

168706

Comment

Election Man is pretty funny today. Check out the second frame in relation to the above story.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-26T15:42:52-06:00

ID

168707

Comment

ladd- I am just curious. Do you really consider the article above to be an objective piece of journalism? If your objective is to facilitate a balanced discussion, you might want to think about that. From what little I have seen of your web site, about 75% of the posts are your own. Other participants like Tom Head write your puppy eagerly looking for a pat on the head. I don't know that Alan Lange's site is any more balanced. Maybe that is just the nature of blogs.....

Author

jatran

Date

2005-03-26T19:28:15-06:00

ID

168708

Comment

If you are looking for objective journalism, you are in the wrong place. One example: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=5272_0_7_0_C

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-03-26T19:42:13-06:00

ID

168709

Comment

jatran, there is no such thing as objective journalism. There's only fair and accurate journalism. If you want a journalist who is completely unaware of the fact that s/he is a subjective participant in the world, watch The O'Reilly Factor. And there's a name for forums where the discussion is completely balanced: They're called dormant. Oh, just for the record: I'd rather be scratched behind the ears than patted on the head, but I quit trying to prove my manhood twenty books and two degrees ago. So if you're trying to get me to criticize the site to prove what a big, strong rottweiler I am, don't bother. Read my lips: I. Don't. Care. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-03-26T23:02:58-06:00

ID

168710

Comment

TH- We could debate the difference between objective and "fair and accurate" all day long, but something tells me that we would never agree (I would argue that the two are one and the same.) As for a balanced discussion, such is necessary to make any forum interesting. For example, last night's AZ v IL basketball game was as close to balanced (OT) as you can get in basketball, yet far from "dormant". Reading ladd converse with herself is much closer to dormant, thougth personally I do find it entertaining! Though I am certainly no staunch conservative, ladd makes even O'Reilly appear "fair and balanced!" Lastly, I apologize to getting away from the topic at hand. I just think that this forum would be more effective and useful if the "editor" was more willing to facilitate a discussion open to ranging viewpoints. This election is important to our city and we need to work together to place the best ideas on the table.

Author

jatran

Date

2005-03-27T09:09:12-06:00

ID

168711

Comment

jatran, fair and accurate play well together but they're not exactly the same. Fairness is allowing Trent Lott and Haley Barbour editorials, plenty of conservative criticism in the blog comments field, etc.; accuracy is not deliberately misrepresenting the facts or making stuff up out of whole cloth. As far as balanced goes, I think that if you look at most alternative weeklies nationally, you will find that they hang a little to the left. Nothing wrong with that; the weekly's demographic also hangs a little to the left. The JFP has a large creative culture market, and artists tend to be more liberal than the average bear (which is, after all, the reason why conservatives keep trying to kill the NEA). If you want a newspaper that's terrified of the liberal bias perception and is willing to eviscerate its own style to prevent any accusations of same, try the Clarion-Ledger. But I fail to see how a weekly that will print Barbour and Lott and your comments and Melton's platform could qualify as far left. This is still a fair magazine; it's just not a magazine that's terrified of the "liberal bias" label, and I hope that never changes or it will be a bore to read. If you want a more conservative slant, I believe there's a Christian family magazine published weekly in the city that is unabashedly right-wing; and Planet Weekly has a more centrist, corporate-friendly tone; and if you can read Spanish, La Noticia (the only local Spanish paper) leans right. Of couse the nice thing about the ad-based publishing model is that you can pick up all four at the same locations, so the editors of Paper A have no reason to try to put Paper B or Paper C or Paper D out of business, as is the case with subscription-based papers. So if you don't like the paper, don't read it--you believe in free market capitalism, don't you? (I do only to a point, but then I'm a liberal; you are presumably not.) Donna posts an awful lot to this site because it happens to be her site. Why you find this odd or surprising eludes me. In any case, she is not responsible for "editing" the blog comments field; only the paper. As long as you don't mistreat others or disrupt the discussion, you can say pretty much anything you want in these forums. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-03-27T10:08:25-06:00

ID

168712

Comment

I wonder if a new "Truthwatch" can be started that is based on the weekly email from Mayor Johnson....believe it comes from the PR office of the Mayor. One came out over a week ago and touted the "Quality of Life Task Force"....I'm not familiar with this task force? When was it appointed, who is on it, what is their mission? Sounds like a reaction to Frank Melton stating Quality of Life in all of his campaign PR. The newsletter went on to announce that $3 million has been spent in the last 7 years to demolish over 1,700 properties. Is this $3 million in city general funds or are these dollars redevelopment dollars? If redevelopment dollars, what's the plan and the budget to redeveloping these empty lots? There are goals listed for other areas to tear down housing...where's the plan and budget for redevelopment of these properties? Another point was "collect 100% of the existing fines..." but no mention of what the total outstanding fines are? Why so hard to collect these fines? Also "eliminate the existing list of code violations..." just how many code violations are there and for how long have some of the code violations been out there? I enjoy reading the JFP and would like more details to these "truths" coming from the Mayor's Office.

Author

JenniferGriffin

Date

2005-03-27T12:54:36-06:00

ID

168713

Comment

Hey JPFReader, We're already working on something about the Quality of Life Task Force to be published when it's done. However, we can absolutely start a Truth Watch thread on it. Sounds like a good idea. Other suggestions are welcome as well. Now, quickly, re the "objective" talk. First, Buck, you contually astound me. I looked to see which big news story in the JFP you are called out as not "objective" -- and you link to Kamikaze's opinion column! Uh, even outlets that pretend to be "objective" don't pretend that columns are objecive. Come on. You're going to try harder than that to skewer us. And i'm glad you're getting other people to that thread. It's an important one. Thanks. Jatran, you seem to be mixing up two points -- about this story above and about the blog. First the story: no, it is not objective. I've said many times that I do not believe that objectivity is possible as Tom says; journalists are simply lying (to you and/or themselves) when they tell you're they're "objective." We make too many choices to be "objective." Anyone intellectually honest knows that. Read my lip: Do not trust a journalist who says they are "objective." They likely are not looking at anything below the surface. This is important. However, I do believe this story is as "fair and balanced" as I could make it (with apologies to Fox for violating their trademark. LOL). That is, I reported what Mr. Melton said without regard to whether his supporters or the mayor's were going to like those comments. I didn't pick or choose based on one or the other (which the "objective" media do ALL the time). I got responses to the accusations he made of the mayor as best I could, and I didn't run a few accusations (yet) that were so strong that it would be unethical in my view to run them without investigation and response. And it's not as if it's the last story on these issues; it is part of a six-week package of stories that will look at many of these issues inside and out, and from both sides.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-27T13:57:31-06:00

ID

168714

Comment

"Fair and balanced reporting"--or let's just call it "real journalism" -- is about digging for the facts, and then letting the chips fall where they may. I've seen very few issues that should have down-the-middle coverage -- 3 quotes on each side -- because when the facts are in, they're not "down the middle" stories. Wrong is being done, lies are being told, etc. -- and those stories should not be told "down the middle." He said that; no, she said that. Rattle, rattle, hum, hum; We're all still dumb, dumb. However, the journalist needs to be credible and known for doing their homework and questing anyone (which I do and will) so that they're trustworthy and their voice is strong. Then they should be willing to answer questions and back up their stories and make corrections as needed. Blogs are great for providing even more information than we can fit into stories, and all media outlets should use them to post additional information, full interviews when possible where people can see quote context, links to back-up materials and so on. Think about "fair" for a moment -- what is "fair" about a media outlet just reporting accusations of one candidate without another without getting a response to the other? And that's not just unfair to the parties; it's most unfair to the reader because we end up with a bunch of empty sound bites -- and candidates who don't give us specifics -- due to the bad reporting. Makes no sense. What makes "fair and balanced" journalism, contrary to Fox's twisted take on it, is not reporting an even mix of empty sound bites on each side (not that Fox even does that). ("I'm fighting crime; no, I'm fighting crime.") It is looking into the TRUTH of the statements that are made and reporting that, without regard to which "side" the truth helps or hurts. It's demanding specifics and answers to real questions. That is what I base my career on doing; if I had to just report sound bites, I'd go be an attorney or something and make more money. What a waste of time sound bites are! And because of my devotion to real, live reporting and digging for facts, I've regularly pissed off partisans on one "side" or the other, depending on the issue. And I'm very proud of that fact. It's why petty insults about my lack of, er, "objectivity" simply don't bother me. I understand the source of that -- usually that accusation comes from someone who doesn't like that I've just reported something that makes their position or "side" not look so good. Everyone wants PR-type reporting -- for their side -- and heavy-hitting investigation against the other. ;-)

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-27T14:05:36-06:00

ID

168715

Comment

Re the blogs: They're not supposed to be "objective," and by their very nature are opinionated. That's good. People need to express their opinions -- even ones who happen to disagree with you, jatran. It's OK. We can all survive a world with different viewpoints in it. As for me: On a given week (except one of my busy blogging weeks that happens now and then), my comments account for a minority of the comments here over all. On certain threads, and if I as trying to provide more information on an issue, my posts show up more. I am the moderator of the site! And our "busy" bloggers shift regularly as they have time and inclination. So, yes, over the course of year and a half of the blog, I may well have been 75 percent of the posts, as our other 800+ registered bloggers float in and doubt as they wish. I'm not sure I see a problem in that, jatran. And I rather feel silly responding to that taunt. As for the personal insults of folks like Tom, just don't bother. Tom and I and the types of bloggers that the JFP sites attracts as regulars are adults and focused on discussion, and petty insults just aren't going to stick, even though they may give you some jollies to type them. Doesn't help your case, though, so I suggest you debate issues here, using facts and not insults to back you up, and leave the "execrable" stuff for other blogs. I can zing back with the best of them when insulted, but it's an incredible waste of time. Life's too short. We have excellent debates here, jatran, that people all over the city discuss offline. You are welcome to participate or not, jatran. Your choice. Now, gotta fly. Y'all have fun. Ciao.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-27T14:07:58-06:00

ID

168716

Comment

I should add one more thing, for the record. I've never said Alan Lange's blogs should be balanced or objective, or anything of the like. As Tom says, I'd rather have a variety of media outlets that offer different takes on issues than one bland corporate vessel that bores you to tears and has little local. You'll note I only commented on Lange's site because of what Carroll said over that about me and my work and the above story -- which I must consider way, way out of line, and inaccurate and unfair characterization for me to actually post there about it. I can only guess that he is trying to hurt me in some real way to do that. And note he posted this vicious attack without even linking to my story so folks could judge for themselves! That struck me as particularly cowardly. If Alan is helping the Melton campaign organize fund raisers, he should say that right upfront on the site rather then feign objectivity. Wouldn't that be the most "fair" to the readers? And if you think about it, it shows why the "objectivity" model -- "well, I rotate all three pictures!" -- can be so misleading. OK, now I'm gone.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-27T14:18:21-06:00

ID

168717

Comment

Here's dictionary.com on fair, accurate and objective, just for fun. And because there are hyoooge differences between being fair and being accurate. fair1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f‚r) adj. fair?er, fair?est Of pleasing appearance, especially because of a pure or fresh quality; comely. Light in color, especially blond: fair hair. Of light complexion: fair skin. Free of clouds or storms; clear and sunny: fair skies. Free of blemishes or stains; clean and pure: one's fair name. Promising; likely: We're in a fair way to succeed. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions. Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds. Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic. Moderately good; acceptable or satisfactory: gave only a fair performance of the play; in fair health. Superficially true or appealing; specious: Don't trust his fair promises. Lawful to hunt or attack: fair game. Archaic. Free of all obstacles. ac?cu?rate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kyr-t) adj. Conforming exactly to fact; errorless. Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard. Capable of providing a correct reading or measurement: an accurate scale. Acting or performing with care and precision; meticulous: an accurate proofreader. ob?jec?tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv) adj. Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected. Grammar. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

Author

kate

Date

2005-03-27T18:45:54-06:00

ID

168718

Comment

ladd- I really don't know where to start... and the fact that you believe your writings to be fair and balanced is amusing. You should read what you write sometime. I think that I will take Tom Head's advice and read La Noticia.

Author

jatran

Date

2005-03-27T19:58:09-06:00

ID

168719

Comment

You should read what you write sometime. Damn, jatran! I just never thought about doing that. You're so smart, and I'm so stupid. I've been telling my students and writers all these years just to close their eyes, puke it out and turn it in without reading over it for fact or grammar or holes in logic that one could drive a truck through. There I was, thinking that he-said-she-said-sound-bite journalim made for "fair and balanced" coverage. I also forgot to tell them to make sure you shape your story around the views of the loudest complainers in (or outside) the community and maybe someday Fox News will hire you to cover the president. Thanks for the advice, jatran. Or, I mean, gracias. Adios, amigo.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-27T20:06:50-06:00

ID

168720

Comment

My current acid test is that if a piece of journalism makes me think, and/or helps me to comprehend opposing viewpoints, then it's probably fair, balanced, accurate and thorough. My favorite example was the JFP Jim Giles interview - he still seemed repulsive, but at least I had a sense, after reading it, of why people did support him. Some of the JFP pieces on Kenneth Stokes are like that - they show the complexities of the issues and of the people we deal with everyday, instead of painting in broad brush strokes, and only showing caricatures and stereotypes. As for this article, in particular, for me, it meets that criteria. It gave me more of a sense of the candidate than I've seen in alot of articles, which is nice. Still haven't heard from him or his supporters what he's actually going to do, and why he's still harping on crime when the statistics show that crime is dropping. And I'd also really like to know what he thinks is an acceptable level of crime. Because if we're going to turn Jackson into Singapore and give people haircuts at the border (happened to a friend of mine in Singapore, in the 1970s, or so the story goes, but my knowledge of that area is pretty thin, and he could have been 'embellishing'), then I'd like to know. All in all, I'm really not sure why this article has raised the ire of anyone. Seems pretty innocuous to me.

Author

kate

Date

2005-03-28T07:48:33-06:00

ID

168721

Comment

Kate, good points. It's such an insult to media consumers for these yo-yos to act like people can't think for themselves or handle different opinions. Of course, they seem to just want to spoonfeed one viewpoint, and ignore any variables or context anyway, so they can get what they want: presumably power. As for Tom's comment: This is still a fair magazine; it's just not a magazine that's terrified of the "liberal bias" label, and I hope that never changes or it will be a bore to read. Tom, we're not going to change. Throughout my career, I've pissed off people on the left and the right, and ain't about to stop now. [rubs hands together with glee]. And, no, I so don't give a hoot about the "liberal bias" label, just like I didn't give a damn that the squatters in New York City called my paper there "yuppie scum." As you so eloquently put it above about jatran: I. Don't. Care. They'd all save themselves some grief if they figured this out and stuck to the issues instead of trying to shout down the saucy little lady. They don't know me very well.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-28T10:13:38-06:00

ID

168722

Comment

Goooooooooo, ladddddddd........ :) I have nothing to add, I just love getting your perspective on the issues of Jackson.

Author

JAC

Date

2005-03-28T12:23:58-06:00

ID

168723

Comment

A nice muscular plumber just dropped by the final invitation for the Melton fund raiser at Fondren Corner next week. The full list of supporters is posted on Truth Watch (as we did with the University Club fund raiser for Mayor Johnson). Note that Woodward and Bernstein are taking enough time out from investigating plumber-gate and hosting a "fair and balanced and damned objective" mayoral blog to co-host the event for the candidate that they are not endorsing.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-29T17:57:35-06:00

ID

168724

Comment

Donna, you never cease to amaze me. When have you ever heard me say I was neutral in this race? In fact, I'm pretty sure you received a copy of the plumber's first e-mail which listed me as a Melton supporter nearly a month ago, so why the fake indignation? Hello World -- I support Frank Melton for Mayor of Jackson! See Donna. That wasn't hard. Now let's see how long it takes you to come clean about supporting Harvey. The longer you carry on this charade of neutrality, the sillier you look. Now, back to that other blog, which is actually making real progress on plumber-gate. BTW, Donna, donít you think throwing sand in peopleís eyes with the ìfrightened spouseî hypothesis makes you look sort of like a co-conspirator? Just sayiní ; - p Eagerly Awaiting Your Apologies, Wilson

Author

Wilson

Date

2005-03-30T07:38:36-06:00

ID

168725

Comment

OK, I am terminally stupid on those linky things. Go to jacksonsnextmayor.com to see the latest on Johnson's campaign of sleaze. Cowardly, Wilson

Author

Wilson

Date

2005-03-30T07:43:36-06:00

ID

168726

Comment

FWIW, I'm still technically neutral myself. I am not terribly pleased with some of the things Frank Melton has said, and I want to see a real platform from him (remember: Johnson had one from day one; even when he lost the race in '93, his campaign slogan was something like "I've got a plan"). On the other hand, I remember "The Bottom Line"--I think a lot of people do--and one of the things I remember thinking when I was watching it was "Damn, I wish this guy was mayor." I want an excuse to support Frank Melton, but so far he hasn't given me one--and until he does, I have to vote for Johnson because he, at least, has a record and an agenda. "I'll cut crime and improve the economic conditions of the city" isn't good enough; I need to know what, exactly, Melton's planning to do that Johnson isn't already doing. Other than firing the police chief, that is. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-03-30T10:32:49-06:00

ID

168727

Comment

Donna, you never cease to amaze me. When have you ever heard me say I was neutral in this race? In fact, I'm pretty sure you received a copy of the plumber's first e-mail which listed me as a Melton supporter nearly a month ago, so why the fake indignation? Wilson, er, I didn't say you had said you were neutral. I'm talking about the blog and the way Alan has presented it in the press release and in his comments. You do blog there quite a bit, eh? Lord, learn to read closer, dude. Hello World -- I support Frank Melton for Mayor of Jackson! Good for you. I think it's good to be honest. See Donna. That wasn't hard. Now let's see how long it takes you to come clean about supporting Harvey. The longer you carry on this charade of neutrality, the sillier you look. Wilson, I have explained my take on this race elsewhere on the site in a very honest way. As far as what *you* think of me, Wilson: I. Don't. Care. From the way you present yourself publicly, you do not set the standard by which I do anything. Now, though, I am going to ask you to stop using my blog to try to make all this so personal. I do not wish to get into a pissing contest with you because you hate me to much for not endorsing you. I responded to your posting on that other blog alst week ONLY because you made it personal about me and my work, and a way I felt was dishonest. You admit that you bash me to your friends (which I already know, being that North Jackson is so small). The point is: You are mighty close to being a troll right now. And you are making a fool of yourself in public. Maybe your friends are afraid to tell you this, but I'm not. Wilson, remember that everything you post here stays here unless I delete it. So I URGE you to start sticking with issues and stop trying to unleash some vendetta against me. Really. Now, back to that other blog, which is actually making real progress on plumber-gate. BTW, Donna, donít you think throwing sand in peopleís eyes with the ìfrightened spouseî hypothesis makes you look sort of like a co-conspirator? Just sayiní ; - p I have no earthly idea what you're blathering about, Wilson. Take a breath, dude. Don't come unraveled in public. It's embarassing for us all.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-03-30T10:41:30-06:00

ID

168728

Comment

And scapegoating the police chief is too easy; we've already burned through too many of them in the past ten years. Canning another one isn't going to help; it just screws things up for the JPD and makes their job that much harder. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-03-30T10:49:31-06:00

ID

168729

Comment

BTW, I just have to mention that "the other blog" (the anti-mayor site linked above) is becoming the giggle of the town. Everybody's walking up to me shaking their heads, saying, "I can't believe what those guys are saying in public." Someone sent me a link to a particularly funny one there this a.m. It seems everything's a conspiracy over there -- even the banner on the top of our PoliticsBlog is cleverly designed to send subliminal messages, it seems. And how we managed this is explained in hilarious detail. (Of course, tell our design intern that: I told her, "Find pictures of the main three mayoral candidates and make a banner.") Knol is over there taking no prisoners and demanding facts (of which he is getting very few, I hear). I'm not hanging out over there for the same reason that I don't do talk radio or look at car accidents: I don't need ugly shit in my head. ;-) I can't imagine that they think they're helping Melton, though. Aren't they preaching to a very angry choir who might have already made up their minds--and then turning off others who don't hanker to such ugliness? Just sayin'.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-04-01T13:17:12-06:00