Our Dumb Elecion 2007
18 11 2007There were a lot of races this year, and a lot of dumb things happened. For my purposes in this, however, I’m going to focus on the Mayor’s race because that was the one that was of greatest importance to me, personally.
Our Daily, part one: There are a lot of difficult decisions that go into deciding what will be used to fill the precious few column inches on any given day, and I think that the Herald could and should have devoted more space to this.
The first objection to my statement is obvious:
“You handsome devil, you’re a junkie so of course you wanted more political coverage. If you had your way there’d be a special 16-page section every day. There’s only so much that the paper can squeeze in on a given topic.”
All true, but paper isn’t the only way to get news across. They’ve got this whole gigantic website that, in theory, could be the hub for the online world in greater Whatcom County. It’s a terrible shame that the Herald didn’t even get together a dedicated political blog until shortly before the election itself.
Come on Herald, you’ve got that hotshot Government reporter so put him to work.
Our Community (also: Our Daily, part 1.5): Speaking of the internet, I hope that some clear lessons have been learned over at the Herald. Their decision to let people run wild with the comments feature has been covered here and elsewhere so I wont waste any more time on it. What I will talk about is authentication.
I’m all for free speech. My right to call whichever Republican candidate has caught my eye a crazy idiot is very important to me. What I don’t consider to be of much value is a free for all. The lack of any form of authentication at all leads to things like this:
The lack of a persistent identity, even a false one, makes it difficult to justify even reading that mess. How am I to know that whoever signs their work “Stan Snapp” is the same person who did so the day before (let alone whether or not it’s the Stan Snapp)? If I know someone’s email address then what is to stop me from posting as them? Or, conversely, what is to stop me from claiming that something stupid I wrote while out at a bar was actually someone else?
The lack of authentication encourages bomb throwing, and thats what we got. What really gets me about all of this is that the Herald does have an authentication system, but instead of giving me a persistent identity across the stories and blogs all it seems to do is track what I read whenever I actually visit their website.
Now, before someone goes to the trouble of putting finger to key, I’ll admit that this blog currently allows anonymous posting without authentication. In my defense, I’m not the paper of record in this town and have no desire to be. I’m just some idiot blogger.
I’m not saying that the Herald should require a urine sample and three references before someone should be allowed to comment, or even that they should have to sign their real name, but they should set things up where people have their own unique ID that they post under. Commenting at the Bellingham Herald should be serious business, not at the coat and tie level but at least as serious as you can get sitting at home in your underwear.
Our Radio: I know that suggesting that Brett Bonner isn’t the most credible guy in town is preaching to the choir, but I think that a few points should be made.
Bonner made two decisions this election cycle that really elevated him in my mind from “Radio Blowhard” to “Complete Jackass.” The first was attempting to devote an entire show to Lisa McShane, and the second was his angry ranting to Elizabeth Britt about her PDC complaints filed this year. I’ve talked about both in the past, so instead I’m going to skip ahead to the conclusion.
Both seem to point to the idea that Bonner is very, very upset at the two of them for reasons that go beyond the usual election year fracas. I get the impression that they’ve picked on him in the past and that he’s still angry about it, especially based off of what he said to Britt. That blog entry over at KGMI seems to be gone but there were a couple of passages I can’t help but comment on (from his email to Britt, which the blog entry was taken from):
By the way, following the upcoming general election, I will be filing an official ethics complaint against an elected official (city/county/state/federal I’m not saying). The complaint stems from something that happened in 2006 but I only recently discovered. I am not naming the individual now, nor will I be sending out a press release when I file the complaint. You see–I am more interested in officials being held accountable than in publicity.
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this passage contradict itself? If he really does have a complaint, and he really does care about accountability, then why is it a secret? And just who are elected officials supposed to be accountable to?
If the information isn’t made public, in as many venues as will have it, then where in all of this is the accountability? I’m not going to say that he just made this up, for all I know he really did have a complaint, but come on.
We, the Citizens of Whatcom County, have moved beyond the politics of personal destruction. We, the People, declare an absolute end to hate and lies in the pursuit of political gain. We, the Public, will not be divided by those whose sole agenda is to gain power. We, the Voters, may disagree on issues of the day, but we will do it with honor and respect. This is our neighborhood, our city, our county, our state and our nation. No longer will we sit silently by. We have a voice, and truth shall prevail.
This section would have had quite an impact, maybe even moving, were it not for the passage quoted above (and several others I can’t bring myself to care about). This Limbaugh-lite sanctimonious righteousness makes the perfect case for authentication at the Herald’s website. If I knew that a user had made statements like this in the past then I would know that I could just skip over whatever he wrote in the future. But honestly the “radio announcer just making things up” cliche makes it difficult to take any of this too seriously, and hopefully I’ll never reference him here again.
Our Weekly: Ok, I know I’ve talked about this before, but the Weekly’s decision to all but explicitly endorse Dan McShane was something of a let down. With the exception of some of the people in the McShane campaign itself I haven’t talked to a single person who read it and did not think that it was an endorsement, but those four little words (”I endorse Dan McShane”) still would have been nice to hear.
Ideally (for me) they would have endorsed Pike, and then I could claim to be the only media (to the extent that I am) in town to have endorsed McShane and set it up so that in the background this website would be playing “Me Against the World” by Superchick. Or maybe if they’d endorsed McShane I could have made some statement about solidarity or something. Instead my dreams of persecution and self-righteousness were deflated. I hope in the future the Cascadia Weekly will spend a little more time thinking about my feelings before going to print.
Our Daily, part two: Twice now I’ve talked about Scott Ayers and the waterfront, and hopefully this will be the the last time. To recap:
- August 24th - On his blog Scott Ayers makes a comment about how Dan McShane had some sort of crazy moment at the endorsement meeting an said some very strange things about the waterfront. He doesn’t say what it was, just that McShane was getting ready to go against the will of the community (nor does he say what that was)
- The same day - McShane writes a clarification in the Herald’s comment thread for that post, Ayers doesn’t really clarify what was said. I assume that everything is ok, and go back to playing Bejeweled
- October 16th - The Herald’s endorsement for Pike once again gets McShane’s waterfront proposal wrong.
The first time I wrote about this I titled the post with a Chinatown quote that I thought was clever, and I suggested that maybe it was because the editorial board had already endorsed Pike but that I doubted it. But after the fact, it looks a little more blatant.
I’ve been told quite a bit, even from Herald employees and Pike supporters, that McShane did not get a fair shake this election, and frankly I believe them. The thing that I don’t understand, though, is why? I don’t know that Ayers did it on purpose or if he was just being irresponsible, but that’s not really the point.
The point is that he did it, and that he should be ashamed for it. If something is actually said at an editorial board meeting that people should know about then for the love of God just say what it was, and get the hell off of my turf. I’m the blogger, you’re the journalist. Your job is to present the facts as best you are able, my job is to say “that guys a doof” whenever I think someone is being a doof. You get the respect and credibility that comes from having a commitment to the truth and I’m the guy that nobody takes seriously because he spreads innuendo and half-truths.
When you’re a Jet, you’re a Jet all the way, so you stay on your side and I’ll stay on mine.
RE: Authentication
You’re correct that I may not be who I am claiming to be, and thus I can/could post some really nutty stuff here in an effort to slime Mr. Gray, but I assure you, I am who I’m claiming to be.
Authentication is difficult when posters are not required to log in prior to posting. What you can do, with a little coding, is to tie an IP address to the individual posting. That way, while you don’t really know the user at the keyboard, at least you know what address they are coming from.
Thank you for the comment.
I think that having the users log in is the way to go. IP binding would be problematic for users like me who frequently use public wifi at restaurants and coffee shops, or those who have the patience to type out comments on their mobile device.
Not that it shouldn’t be an option, as I’m sure the majority of our community still use one desktop computer at one address for most of their web activity. But even in that case I’d envision a system where someone could register an account and then log in and specifically tie their credentials to their current IP address.
To clarify a couple of points in your blog re: the election:
I dedicated an entire show to talk about Lisa McShane for two reasons. The first was that Lisa had become THE ISSUE. Fair or unfair, justified or not, any person who follows local politics knows that Lisa’s political activism/machine/personality had become THE deciding issue with regard to her husband’s political fate.
The second reason I spent an hour talking about it is that Dan McShane requested time to address the issue. Believe me–I was sick of the race at that point. But following the Britt PDC complaint and the airing of my opinion about it, Dan McShane requested to come on the show (again). I agreed and it was very informative (I think it may still be online…go to kgmi.com, click on “Hear it now.” It was 10/24. Listen to the show and tell me if I was unfair in any way. )
Item Two: Britt PDC. You missed my point about making an ethics complaint following the election. I believe a complaint against a public official should only be publicized AFTER the proper authority (PDC, Attorney General, Ethics Board, etc.) has conducted an investigation and had decided on a penalty or to file charges. To release information prior to an investigation leaves the system open to highjinks. I don’t know how to resolve this before an election. I would want a way to hold officials accountable before voters go to the polls, but at the same time I know that PDC complaints are very often used as political cannon fodder and are often publicized by the media–even when the allegations are unsubstantiated and spurious.
I will acknowledge that my “Ode to Democracy” was a bit over the top…but only if you acknowledge that you could find just two, minor problems in my 2400-word, point by point critique of the Britt PDC complaint. One problem you pointed out was your conjecture that I felt “picked on” or something in the past (not true…but more on that in moment). The other was the question about my ethics complaint (which I addressed above). So, other than that, I must assume that everything else I had to say was factual and correct.
By the way, I invited Britt to come on the air to have a dialogue. She declined.
In closing, the main motivation I had during the campaign was to ensure that the politics of personal destruction I have seen so many times in this community would not work again. It REALLY was that simple. I didn’t want to see a good man brought down by rumors, innuendo and the tytpical “tools of the trade” used in politics.
I enjoy your blog. This “Complete Jackass” reads it everyday!
Thanks for the comment Brett.
As to Lisa McShane, I appreciate that in your position perhaps you’d been hearing quite a bit about her, but I disagree that it was the issue in this election. Perhaps it was your issue, but outside of a very limited circle most of what people were talking about was the waterfront and Lake Whatcom.
There is always a grim undercurrent in local politics with ugly rumors and ridiculous lies. That’s not going to go away, and it’s really in everyones best interest that it is marginalized. Devoting your show to that sort of thing gives such talk credibility.
I listened to your show that day (through that ‘Hear it now’ feature) and in the first segment alone you called Todd Donovan a ‘minion’ of Lisa McShane, which frankly is a bizarre assertion. I don’t know how anyone could meet Donovan and believe him to be a minion of anyone, and what really confuses me is how it could be assumed that since he gave money to the campaign he is somehow at their beck and call.
Item two: You and I clearly have a different idea of how these things should work. I think that given that since investigation is such a slow process that people should know when there are questions about the candidates and what those questions are before they vote. That way they might see fit to conduct their own investigation.
I consider PDC/FEC/AG/Ethics board complaints to be fair game when backed up with the proper documentation. There is a process in place that determines how such things must be handled and when those rules are followed I think it is valid, and appropriate, that they be made public.* Britt and Donovan each did their own homework and did exactly what they were supposed to do.
I apologize for not being clearer, but it would be a mistake to assume that I only found fault with only those two passages from your ‘Ode.’ I admit to commenting on the low hanging fruit instead of posting the whole thing. I hope that in the future it will be understood that when I comment on something that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
My whole point, though, is that you are engaging in the politics of personal destruction. PDC and FEC complaints were filed against the Pike for Mayor campaign, you went after the supporters of Dan McShane personally. You rail against a supposed machine and it’s minions to conjure visions of Chicago and Tammany Hall. A machine so powerful in it’s grip on this community that it doesn’t seem to have a single media outlet, couldn’t match the fund-raising of it’s opponent, and lost the election.
Thanks again!
*I didn’t notice until this point, but it seems that you and I have a completely opposite idea of what is fair game in an election. Weird.
Hi Dave -
Thanks for the hilarious post election round up. I just about snorted coffee out of my nose during parts of it.
I agree that the election was filled with ludicrous innuendo and rumors, much of which was perpetuated on the Herald Haloscans and to a lesser extent, comments on local blogs.
I think that much of the rumor and innuendo that Brett mentions in his comment was perpetrated against the McShane camp as well. The very phrasing:
—I didn’t want to see a good man brought down by rumors, innuendo and the tytpical “tools of the trade” used in politics.—
could easily apply to Dan McShane with regards to this election.
Thanks Anne-Marie, and I agree that it’s ridiculous to suggest that the angry idiot chorus favored anyone in that race.