Below is Stew Rieckman's response to my morning post. When getting past the vitriol and angst, the fact remains that Jepson's reporting on Carr is not credited in Hummel's front page story, nor is there any rationale provided as to why the online reporting on Carr can all be summarily dismissed as "sniping." If the Northwestern is really interested in "authenticating" blogosphere reports, failure to credit a key source and a dismissive attitude to boot cannot be considered acceptable. There is nothing for me to retract. Readers can judge for themselves who is the egomaniac here.--Tony
Dear Tony,
Dear Tony,
Post this or don't post this. I don't really care.
I am generally able to laugh off your rants as a product of your blind hatred of the Oshkosh Northwestern. But your well documented hatred has obviously affected your ability to be a useful, unbiased media critic. Further, it calls your academic credibility into question.
I have learned to accept you will never give the Northwestern credit for excellent journalism. You never commented on our trip to Thailand to cover the Hmong refugee crisis, or our report on the prison budget impact on the UW system, or a trip to Louisiana to cover local National Guard relief efforts, or an examination of the location of registered sex offenders in Oshkosh or the detailed reported on the impact of reassessment on the community or the report on charter schools in Wisconsin. Or any of the other enterprise and investigative stories our staff produces. None of that counts because of your hatred of the Northwestern.
Your recent accusations regarding the Northwestern's coverage of Father Carr are unfounded. First, my blog on Friday provided a direct link to Gary Jepson's blog and sites it as being the origins of the recent criticisms of Father Carr. My print column directs readers to my blog for more on the background of the Carr story. That absolutely contradicts your assertion.
Our print report on Carr advanced the story with an interview with Carr, (we like to tell both sides of story unlike yourself, Miles, Gary, et. al.) an interview with Byron Malsin of the Oshkosh Collaboration group, an interview with Kim Luke, case manager of the emergency shelter of the Fox Valley in Appleton, an interview with Eileen Connolly Keesler the head of the Oshkosh Area Community Foundation and an interview with Donna Lou Hertz, public
trust specialist for HUD.
The interview with Carr produced a previously unpublished list of "rules" he uses to operate his shelter.
If you would spend as much energy on research as you devote to your hatred of the Northwestern, you would have read the links to our archive of coverage of Father Carr before your vitriolic post today. It shows a balance of features and hard edge investigative reporting on Father Carr.
Had you taken the time to research your assertions, you would have found that Jeff Bollier covered the vacancy issue 12 months ago, before the League of Women Voters report. You would have found that Jim Collar reported in detail Father Carr's finances in a story in August 2003. It is the exact same report Miles cited on his post. The fact that we reported both first apparently has no standing in your criticism.
Reporting in 1997 by the Northwestern specifically detailed Carr's real estate dealings and financing, the community's concern about his operation and reference to his rules.
We even provided the links to the stories to make your research easier. I suspect you chose not to read the archives because it would have contradicted your hate inspired criticism of the Northwestern.
Do you have the courage to admit you overstated your criticism and retract it? I don't think you do. Your ego cannot stand an objective assessment of your intellectual honesty or an admission of being wrong. Hate the Northwestern if you must, but tell the truth even if you don't like what the truth shows. I thought university professors believed in that. I doubt
today's screed would pass peer review.
Regards,
Stewart Rieckman
Executive Editor
Oshkosh Northwestern 
25 comments:
Thank you Stew, for a job so beautifully done.
I had just finished re-locating the quote I wanted to use this comment, to return here to Tony's blog to find the exact proof of what you have been doing that has been so problematic. The fact that this damning "evidence" occurs when you think you are vindicating yourself is just sad.
There is a recent lawsuit involving a Minnesota blogger. Perhaps you are aware of it. Now, there are 2 ways to look at this.
Myopically, the blogger could be seen as "getting his due" or that perhaps the case proves bloggers are not as trustworthy as "real journalists". Maybe.
Stepping back a bit and taking a broader view we can see this is really nothing new, just that the same ethical or legal standards that have existed for ink-printed words can be applied to pixelated ones. Stew, the guy got in trouble because he smeared an individual in print, in a way that had a direct effect on the guy's career.
It is irrelevant if this smearing is done online or in print.
Tony Palmeri is a communications professor - it's how he makes a living. Tou can't claim ignorance on that. I've read (as did the whole town in which Tony works) an editorial in your corporate rag that was pretty snarky against Tony. Now again, on a widley read blog, you are calling his professional credibility into question. And over the past weeks, both in your blog and your paper you've thrown in other bloggers as seasoning. Spread the love, Stew.
My question is this -
Are you F-ing crazy?
You "don't care" if Tony posts this? Holy crap, you sure should.
You say "..has obviously affected your ability to be a useful, unbiased media critic. Further, it calls your academic credibility into question"
and "Your ego cannot stand an objective assessment of your intellectual honesty or an admission of being wrong. Hate the Northwestern if you must, but tell the truth even if you don't like what the truth shows. I thought university professors believed in that. I doubt
today's screed would pass peer review."
The editor of the local newspaper calling a man's professional credibiltiy into question. Hmmmm.
It probably would not be real hard for a lawyer to make a case that a statement like that from a man in your position might negatively affect Dr. Palmeri's career. That cetainly seems to be your goal.
It might be time for the higher-ups at Gannett to be asked if this is what they want to be happening at their Oshkosh branch. Ya think?
BTW the quote is -
The blogger's "[Brodkorb's] refusal to retract this story that is damaging to the reputation and business of New School Communications and Blois Olson is what forced us to pursue legal action."
.....
and
"in a Delaware case last year, the state's Supreme Court ruled that people aggrieved by a blog had the opportunity for redress simply by posting on the offending blog"
That last bit will not be able to be applied to a salaried print journalist such as yourself.
You've been snarky to Tony, the Troop Withdrawl Ref. and other individuals for a long time. You get too personal. Not to put too fine a point on it, you get a shitty tone with people in your paper. The first time, as an out-of-towner, I encountered this I was quite surprised by it. I beleive the locals are used to it (to a degree) and that helped motivate me to call you on your attitude. IMHO, you are a bully and you use your position at the paper to fulfill this urge. That's my opinion and what motivates my criticism of you.
But I wonder if you can keep throwing shit at a fan indefinitely. I think it would be a really good time to stop. Yup, a reeeeally good time.
(above quote from -
printhttp://www.startribune.com/587/story/163827.html)
I think tony is doing a good job of calling his academic credibility into question without you, Jodi or Stew!
"I thought Jody was done reading my online efforts...no such luck."
I don't really want to get mixed up in this Jody - Stew love-fest or anything. But I do want to fess up that I was the one that sent to Jody the text that Stew wrote on his blog that mentioned her by name, and the link to the Minneapolis story. I knew she was boycotting the Everyday Editor blog and that she might be interested. You see, Jody is my Mother.
Just kidding! (About the mother part, the rest is true.)
MANLY? Sweet Jesus, you must be joking, sir. What burns you more: that Jody openly critisizes you, or that she's a woman? Do you REALLY think that she verbally beats you at Tony's bidding? It must really scar your MANLY ego to think that a mere woman can oppose you (independantly and of her own will) and be intelligent at the same time. For someone so apparently eager to challenge the credibility and professionalism of others, you display a bizarre impulse to chase after people who obviously couldn't care less for you in an immature and pathetic manner.
By the by, Jody is my mother. No joke. So feel free to call her on letting her daughter fight her battles for her. I'd be ever so disappointed if you didn't.
Grow up.
Someone said I talk over people's heads. Let's use little words.
1.) I think you cross a line, Stew.
2.) I would not be surprised if someone wanted to explore this in court.
3.) I think Gannett might be interested in your behavior.
4.) I have considered notifying them myself.
5.) I was letting you know so you would not be surprised.
AND NOW -
6.) All you miserable, pea-brained, sexist sacks of shit who constantly beat me over the head with the fact that I am a woman can shut the F up now.
I am sick of being called Tony's Bitch in one form or another.
I have a high enough IQ. I also have only a High School diploma and have been an at-home mother for many years. I have no career or social position, and God forbid I should show any intellect on a friend's blog. Did I step out of my place? You want me at the back of the bus Stew?
And if Tony TOLERATES these WANTON display of intelligence (DARE I speak of myself in that manner?Perhaps I should be more modest and feminine? Should I bring a dish to pass or a tray of bars to church and then shut up? oh sorry)
then OBVIOUSLY Tony is either feeding me lines, has no dick or perhaps I am gaining intelligence through some sort of osmosis when we "have sex". Fuck you people.
Yes, those are all theories proposed by you ass wipes on this blog and on my own blog months ago when I have dared to speak up as a human being with a brain.
You suck.
No I mean you REALLY suck.
And yes, Jan really is my daughter. She's a smart girl too and I'm proud of her.
Jan dear, Mom is sorry you are going to be navigating a world in which your own intelligence will be reacted to in this manner because of your lower down anatomy.
You
guys
really
SUCK.
To anonymous: Thank you for the brilliant contribution to the discussion.
To Stew: Brilliant. Question my academic credibility and now my manhood. What's next? Are you going to ask me to step outside?
My ommissions reflect no retractions from my original posting. My post complained about the ommission of Jepson from the story, which you have now conceded. I discussed the manner in which you dismissed the web reporters as snipers, for which you have now at least tried to offer a definition of sniping.
Since you have now agreed that Jepson's reporting should have been cited and since you still claim that the "cyber sleuths" did engage in sniping, I stand by this claim: "The 'authenticating' turns out to be an attempt to undermine the cyber sources by labeling them as 'snipers' to readers who might never see those sources, and then to literally steal the reporting from those sources without proper attribution."
The reader of your column this morning and Alex's story could reach no other conclusion than that the web reporting on Carr has been mostly irresponsible and put forward by "unnamed critics." Yet the critics DO have names, and their criticisms framed Alex's story, but the Northwestern chose not to acknowledge them. Gary Jepson in his December 15th post said,"Both Tony and Miles asked me if Alex Hummel had contacted me. He still hasn't." So a man who is the chief source of the criticisms of Carr that (criticisms that Alex's story largely validated) is left in the public mind as an "unnamed source" and a "sniper."
I did not accuse the Northwestern of plagiarism; I quite clearly wondered if the reporting could fit that label and asked if Miles Maguire might know. He graciously responded by citing a useful article from Howie Kurtz that I would encourage you to read if you have not already done so.
Finally, these accusations of my hatred for the Northwestern and unwillingness to give it credit for anything are, with all due respect, red herrings. If I really hated the Northwestern I would have canceled my subscription a long,long time ago.
I see my job as a media critic, in both academic and non-academic settings, to speak the truth as I see it, to discover in all media communications that which is not immediately obvious on the surface, and to communicate that discovery to readers. If I am effective in those roles I will end up agitating some people, especially those who produce the communications I am trying to decipher.
And c'mon Stew, on my website over the last few years I have linked to a ton of Northwestern articles and opinion pieces. Sometimes (certainly not always) I do cast the pieces in a negative light via my choice of headline, but even with that I do not think there is anyone in this city who has directed more people to the Northwestern than me. That's hardly a sign of hate or lack of respect for anything that you guys do. --Tony
Wow I thought High School ended years ago for you folks!
Jody, you do exactly the same thing as you accuse Stew of doing. You have certainly shown us your true self, potty mouth and all! I don't think Stew's attempt at Sarcasm should be blown up into a womens lib deal.
Stew and Tony, kiss and make up and move on. You are both letting your personal disdain show through, and it ain't pretty.
C'mon people grow up!!! Sheeesh!
Jack Straw
What year is this??? I'm just amazed that the editor of our local newspaper could be so utterly and arrogantly sexist. Ok, maybe not suprised, but still amazed.
At least now we know why Michelle and Mary's photos were omitted from the Northwestern's coverage about the City Council race.
Kay Springstroh
I just deleted the comments that tried to fake the identify of Stew and me. To whoever is doing that, would you please stop? Or go do it on your own or someone else's blog?
To Jack Straw: I don't think what you are seeing is "disdain" between Stew and me. I think what you are seeing are some genuine philosophical difference about some pretty important issues, like how to do journalism in the Internet age and how to evaluate the credibility of web sources. Sometimes discussions rooted in philosophical differences get nasty.
My guess is that if I had been, like Stew, a working journalist/editor for a mainstream print publication for most of my adult life, I would probably understand these issues closer to the way he does. Conversely, if he had my background in rhetorical studies and grassroots media like Commentary, Eye on Oshkosh, etc. he might be more appreciative of where I am coming from. Someone once said that "where you stand is based on where you sit," and I guess there is much to be said for that. --TP
"The truth, as I see it."
Tony: that makes for an opinion, not truth.
When I say I "speak the truth, as I see it," I am merely acknowledging that, as with all human beings, what I see as the truth could turn out to be false. I dare say we would have a much more peaceful world if everyone could acknowledge the limitations on their ability to know and speak truth. Osama bin Laden and Pat Robertson do not speak the truth as they see it,they just speak THE TRUTH. I find them equally frightening. [note: what a person believes to be true does not become false when they are subject to a stream of personal attacks that have nothing to do with their truth claim].
An opinion ought to be a statement of the truth as you see it. If it's not, you are most probably "spinning" or engaging in some other less than ethical form of communication behavior. There are exceptions, of course. Sometimes in the classroom I will take opinions that I do not really hold just so as to be able to provoke discussion. That technique is at least as old as Socrates.
Sorry to get so philosophical about your remark, it really does raise an important question about truth, opinion, and how they relate. --Tony
Faking posts doesn't work in the manner that has been proposed here. Only people with poor computer skills would even suggest such a thing.
No one with hacking ablity to that level would waste it on a weenie blog like this, nor would they claim "here I am! I'm hacking!"
I'm Stew!
I'm Tony!
Try - I'm a liar!
With all of the people who would have liked me to stop commenting on this blog there is only one who could accomplish that feat.
And he did that tonight.
I've been played.
Now I'm gone.
I'd like to say it's been fun but, not particularly.
jody you go girl ,dont take no shit from nobody!,i think g/p did a good job on waking this town up,getting the ball rowling.ithink the n/w did a great job on f/carrs,b/s stew u seem to be more for f/c then us homeless people,yes i,am homeless too.
Tony, I cannot believe how out of hand this whole thing got. I understand what both you and Stew were saying. Maybe that's because I sit in both positions on a daily basis, to one degree or another.
What I don't understand is what prompted Jody to become so angry that she exhibited the attitude and vulgarity that she did in her last couple of posts. I know some people and their attitudes can be exasperating at best. And while we may think thoughts similar to those Jody felt, is it really necessary to publish them? In the long-run it does not make those who do look very professional or intelligent. I had given Jody credit for being both and cannot imagine what made her succumb the way she appears to have. I also don't understand why she left the way she did. Stew either for that matter. Perhaps they'll both come back because we all have something to offer to the people who read our sites.
SADBOY!
Hope you see this.
I heard about your post and came back because of you. Thanks, you have no idea how much.
I'm buddhist and buddhists don't pray exactly, not like christians think of it. But I'll remember you every day. I promise.
May the infinitely merciful bodhisattva help you find your way to an easier path.
Be strong.
While I agree that the whole thing got out of hand, I would hesitate to shift the focus.
After calling people a bunch of names on his own blog and then sending one of his "I'M THE NORTHWESTERN AND I'M ALWAYS RIGHT!!!" emails to Tony, Stew then suggested that Tony wasn't man enough to fight his own battles. Good grief. If that's a joke, it's a poor and sexist one and perhaps would get laughed over by the boys in the newsroom, but certainly shouldn't be posted on a blog by a community-minded person. If it wasn't meant to be funny, it's a clear and dangerous warning that the editor does not think before he writes. Either way, the post came from the back of the cave.
BTW, I am still waiting for the photos of the two women who are running for City Council. I would think by now they would have been on the front page of the Northwestern.
Apparently, the rule is that Stew can print and post whatever he wants and no one is to ever challenge or dabate him. I don't think we should enourage that.
Jody,
You're a Buddhist? That's great, but judging by your previous profane rants, I'm thinking you have a long way to go to enlightenment. I'm sure the Dahli Lama could have found a more articulate way of dealing with this situation. I would recommend returning to the basic principles of your faith.
BTW, I agree women should not be undermined, nor underestimated. You are justified in being angry with anyone who devalues our gender, but there are better ways to handle it. Feminism is not man-bashing, it is enlightening.
Peace and healing thoughts to you.
Just as I see no reason for some of the things Stew has said in the past - both in print and by email, etc. - I also saw no reason for Jody to use the language she did. I don't see pointing that out as shifting focus. It is, after all, the result of the same thing. One thing Stew has not done however, is use the kind of profanity in his writings that Jody did. Given that I have read much of her material in the past, that is what I was so stunned by. She is better than that and does not need to stoop to that level.
And I do believe that Stew's blog added something to the community. For someone to believe that he never makes any good points suggests to me they have biases of their own.
All that aside, let's talk about the missing pictures of the female candidates for city council. None of us knows why their pictures were not there. But I can tell you when I have run for office previously, I was called and asked to come down for a photo. I did; my picture ran along with the other candidates. And surely there have been plenty of other female candidates through the years whose pictures have graced the pages of the Oshkosh Northwestern. I think it is unfair to presume that the absence of these two candidates' photos was due to some type of caveman or chauvinistic attitude.
Mary Meyst told Gary and I that she was never even contacted about getting her picture in the paper and one day bam! there it was.
I think that stew "retreating" is the wrong way, like he's been doing it. Why run & hide if you have nothing to hide?
Something fishy is going on in his world and I wanna know what!!!
I am running for School Board and was contacted by Bethany Warner of The Northwestern for a 300 word essay, to come in for a photo and interview to answer 10 questions. I don't know what happened with the two ladies running for city council, we would have to ask them. I do not think The Northwestern has gender issues, as I was contacted right away. I do know Alex Hummel was in charge of the Council stuff, has anyone asked him?
I am not defending The Northwestern, just relaying my experience. I do hope Stew comes back to the "blogosphere" and people can behave like adults, or at the very least save the potty language for person-to-person emails. Even when I do not agree with Mr. Reickman, Dr. Palmeri, Jody, or anyone else, I appreciate the different views. I think a few people forgot that.
it is possible that Alex has too much on his plate and just forgot
then it IS the Northwestern's fault
To Cheryl:
If Jody's goal was to leave no doubt about her feelings about the way she had been treated on the blog, then I think the language she employed met that goal very well.
It's very similar to that picture of Johnny Cash flipping the bird that I had on my website a few weeks ago, and that some people got offended by. When Johnny was photographed doing that, I believe he was aiming it at the mainstream record labels that had given up on him. I think they got the message.
I used that picture as a response to what I perceived as specious argument being used against the troop withdrawal referendum. Vulgar? Yes. Gets the message across with more emotion than simply saying "I think your argument is specious?" Also yes.
There actually was a famous Supreme Court case, Cohen v. California (1971), which dealt with whether the state could ban a certain word simply because word was offensive to most people. Cohen was a young man who had "F _ _ _ the Draft" written on teh back of his jacket and he wore it into a courtroom. He was charged with being a public nuisance and he sued on free speech grounds.
The Supreme Court sided with Cohen, with justice John Marshall Harlan II arguing for the majority that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." He argued also that language has an emotive content, and that in some situations the best way to express the desired emotion is through a vulgarity. For people offended by Cohen's jacket, said Harlan, the solution is to look the other way.
I realize that no one is questioning Jody's legal right to employ a vulgarity, but that's not my point here. My point is that the use of the vulgarity in the way that she did may be perceived as unprofessional and less than intelligent to Cheryl and others, but Stew and others may have perceived it as a crystal clear statement of Jody's feeling about their posts. And at least one other person ("Sadboy") did not seem to have any problem with the vulgarity at all.
On this blog I will have no trouble at all deleting posts that employ vulgarity just for the sake of employing it, or employ it anonymousy without any apparent rationale, or employ it simply to agitate others and undermine a thread (the "Internet Troll" behavior, if you will).
Maybe Jody could have found a way to state her points without swearing that would have had the same impact. But maybe not. I'm not sure yet. --Tony
Post a Comment