2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Hi folks, TJ from Loaded Orygun here--the catalyst for this discussion. I've made some initial comments after the show here:
[url]http://www.loadedorygun.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=1412[/url]

but I'll hit a couple of bullet points in this post as well--

*I was very pleased to hear the Mayor both refute any idea that I was (solely) a "knucklehead with a laptop," and to pledge to work with the respective constituencies to come up with a rational and workable plan. While I think on balance the City's response has been needlessly disdainful and mistrusting, I don't perceive a specific intent to shut out bloggers on a de facto basis.

*I suggested the idea of a civil fine for individual journalists (ie, those not affiliated with a professional media organization), which the Mayor seemed to like as well, given her overriding interest in accountability/enforcement as a way of protecting the government. I don't recall who said so on the show, but it was raised that this was legally unworkable. I'd like to hear more on why and how that is.

*The "vouching" idea suggested by Mr. Cox (and appreciated by Hammerstad) seems like the best idea all around: offer training and education on the ethical/legal rules for independent journalists, and recognize/certify that training with some kind of stamp of approval. I would have no problem submitting myself to this requirement.

*Mr. Chisholm's idea in comments on this site that "audience" is a relevant factor seems odd to me--why? Imagine if an intrepid blogger had been trying to cover Wasilla, AK's City Council. The town had fewer than 10,000 residents, yet you want a blogger to show 1,000 readers a day in order to be considered credible? Clearly the "audience" size is relative, and in fact bears no relationship to the value of the information being disseminated.

In fact, the true value may only appear or accrue long after the fact, as the rest of the media "catch up" to the information provided. For instance, my good friend Goldy at HorsesAss.com was the first to report on Michael Brown (FEMA) and his former employment with the Arabian Horse Association. He has quite a large readership at this point--but what if it had been another Washington blogger, someone with just a few dozen readers a day? And they had reported it the day Brown was confirmed? Perhaps it would have sat unnoticed for weeks, months or years, initially...but as soon as Brown entered the media consciousness, suddenly that old nugget becomes big news to a lot of people. Yet the person who was so far ahead of everyone else in wondering why this unqualified person was being confirmed, doesn't deserve consideration as a member of the media?

*Finally, I support the Executive Sessions law. I think both transparency and confidentiality are important, and this law has worked very well so far to my knowledge, in accomodating both concerns. Some things are better left not made entirely public, but that process of "not making it public" needs to be watched closely. The media are the right organ for that job, IMO.

I welcome comments at LoadedOrygun.net as we continue to follow the story.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

how are "employees of" a drug company the same as "a drug company?"

posted 5 years ago
view in context

I think you heard wrong, Jackmurray. Novick has NEVER said he would vote for Frohnmayer over a Democrat in the general election. In fact, he has said exactly the opposite, and urged Frohnmayer to consider dropping out. And truth be told, the chances that Frohnmayer WOULD drop out are much better should Novick win than Merkley; Frohnmayer has made his preference among them fairly clear.

posted 5 years ago
view in context