There are many who probably care little about this issue, I acknowledge and understand it. Frankly I would have simply ignored it but at some point when a person is challenging your integrity, you ought to at least clarify the issues from your perspective. For those who read the Davis Enterprise, I wish to thank Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis for being willing to print a shortened version of this in today’s Davis Enterprise. She certainly was under no obligation to do so. So for that I am grateful. For those not interested in this issue, don’t worry, we have some major breaking stories you won’t get anywhere else coming out in the next two weeks, so stay tuned.
These days I feel the glee that Olbermann must have had in that very first moment when the behemoth took time to swat this gnat from his brow and resume his merry ways. I have long been a critic of Bob Dunning, having been an early and unwitting victim to his sometimes cruel humor … having watch the destructiveness that his column and ink supply could wield on unsuspecting victims … having watched the ease with which he could misconstrue and twist comments and innocent errors into a grand conspriracy of lies and corruption … and finally having watched the fear under which angels tread in his presence.
The irony of it all, is that I had no real intent to irritate Bob Dunning this month. In the spring, early April to be precise, the Vanguard was looking to promote itself and we created a brochure with quotes from various elected officials, citizen activists and community leaders. I solicited and received a great quote from Jim Provenza and put it on the front of a brochure that contained a total of 10 individual quotes from people that Jim would happily claim as peers. He and his wife loved it. Several months later, I came up with the idea of taking the front cover off that brochure, and turning it into a mailable postcard. Despite the fact that it was the same already approved quote, 20/20 hindsight says that I probably should have checked back in with Jim, but there was absolutely no malice in my failure to do so.
Mr. Dunning has been very clear that he perceived the postcard as a specific attack on the Davis Enterprise. The opening of the brochure was: “As Local Newspaper Coverage Wanes, More People are Turning to the The People’s Vanguard of Davis.” It was not meant as a shot against the Enterprise but rather commentary on the nationwide newspaper industry. But be that as it may, it was also a true observation about the Enterprise, which has (if my information is correct) laid off perhaps one-fifth of their employees, seen a loss in revenue, and even ceased production of a physical Monday paper. Regardless, what I thought was an innocuous header, inflamed the Wary Eye.
The unfortunate complication in all of this was the involvement of Supervisor Jim Provenza. He did himself no favors when he told Dunning:
“I regret that I trusted the Vanguard to use my name and quotation in a responsible manner.”
Dunning ran the story under the header: “Provenza: I did not authorize mailer.” And concluded: “Jim has always been a straight shooter whose concern for the ‘common good’ guides his efforts as an elected official – I continue to respect his opinions and his efforts – case closed.”
The events of the past week have an ironic element because Dunning never bothered to check with me to understand any to-that-point unspoken additional elements of the story. The irony exists because when I first got started writing the blog back in July 2006, I presumed to know his opinion on a particular issue, got it wrong, and he very correctly let me have it. He wrote: “No wonder you print things The Enterprise doesn’t. The Enterprise actually does research and prints facts… You could have called me.”
So here we are with the tables turned. This time it is the Enterprise’s Columnist Bob Dunning that did not do his research and as a result did not print facts. If Dunning had called me, he would have quickly found out that I had an April 2009 email record of the exchange between Supervisor Provenza and me. That exchange showed that I asked Mr. Provenza for a quote for a Vanguard brochure and he had sent me the quote without any qualifications or stipulations as had the other nine individuals quoted.
Setting the Provenza matter aside for a moment, as the week has progressed Mr. Dunning has expanded his attack to denigrate my reporting about the features of the Wildhorse Ranch project. He has very specifically accused me of taking payoff money from the Wildhorse Ranch developer. I have been very upfront about the fact that in September of 2007, I accepted a paid ad from Senses Magazine which ran for six months. The owner of Senses Magazine is indeed the spouse of the Wildhorse Ranch developer. It is an enormous stretch to tie any support for WHR to that advertising money which went directly to the Vanguard.
But that point aside, for all of his research skills, it is amazing that he did not come up with a search from a Vanguard article in January of 2008 when the project first came before council –only four months after the advertising purchase. At the time the Vanguard was very critical of the project. The difference between the project then and now is of course night and day in terms of density, in terms of scope, and in terms of sustainability. The Socratic question I posed to my readers challenged them to educate themselves on just how far the project had evolved since being rejected by Council.
What has changed between then and now is not another purchase of a Vanguard ad for Senses Magazine or a donation from the WHR developers, but rather a vast and dramatic improvement of the project which has seen the size trimmed from 259 to 191 units, the project shifted to the east to mitigate impact on the neighbors, the accomplishment of 90% GHG emission reduction with 100% solar photovoltaics, the accomplishment of 100% accessibility in the affordable units, the elimination of fourth stories and nesting of the third stories between two story townhomes to reduce the impacts on sightlines, etc.
But instead of looking at these facts, Mr. Dunning is drawing on comments taken out of context to suggest a more sinister force at work.
As he writes:
“But he insisted that his blog ‘has not endorsed the (Wildhorse Ranch) project,’ which is interesting, not to mention entertaining, since the blogger in question did write, ‘When will we see another opportunity like this, one that causes little impact to the community, does not convert productive farm land, and delivers so much toward meaningful progress toward reducing the impacts of climate change?”
Sorry but as Dunning would be the first to point out, notice the little punctuation mark at the end of the paragraph — that is a question mark, which means that (as I noted above) my closing line was in fact not a statement but a question, meant to spark discussion and debate (which it did in the form of 166 comments) rather than convey an opinion. Lets be clear, am I more positive about this project than I was 19 months ago — that answer is a very emphatic yes. But at this point the Vanguard does not endorse it, rather only discusses and analyzes and reports. I might add, much in the same way that Dunning does not endorse.
I have more problems with his next line:
He goes on to note that taking developer money is no different than the “‘Davis Enterprise and other publications accepting advertising from businesses such as Tandem Properties, Covell Village Partners and the Yes on Measure X Campaign in advance of The Enterprise’s endorsement of the Covell Village project …’
Yes, yes, but this would be the same blogger who told his readers in one post about another project: ‘the nice thing about not accepting money from the developers is that there is no question in anyone’s mind about the promotion of one property over another.’ … indeed … too bad he didn’t follow his own advice.”
This is completely taken out of context and also misses my point entirely. Dunning fails to differentiate between a newspaper or blog taking advertising money and a candidate accepting campaign contributions. The quote that was used was in reference to city council candidates taking money from developers. A city councilmember has voting authority over a project. A newspaper or a blog can only express an opinion.
Is Mr. Dunning suggesting that the Davis Enterprise, which took $35,680.53 in advertising from the 2005 Smart Planning – Yes on Measure X – Yes on Covell Village campaign and then turned around and endorsed the Covell Village project in November of 2005, should not accept advertising dollars from developers? The second he makes that claim, I’ll follow suit. In the meantime, can you think of any reason why the Vanguard should not continue to accept paid advertisements from anyone stepping up to purchase ad space? I will assume the answer to that question is a no for both the Vanguard and the Enterprise.
Hey we know the Enterprise is facing challenging times . . . we all are. Perhaps Mr. Dunning showed what his intent really was when he tipped his hand as he wrote:
“Summer is supposed to be a slow time for local politics, but a check of the mailbox shows that this town is as opinionated as ever.”
Perhaps this is all an effort to increase the entertainment value of the Enterprise during the slow time. If that is the case I’ll continue in my role as Mr. Dunning’s scapegoat. He doesn’t even have to acknowledge that that is what he sees me as.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The Countdown, after bouncing around between networks and indeed between genres. He found his niche this time however as a wry commentator utilizing his humor along with his intellect to attack the forces on the right.
One of his early tactics was to go after the egotistical and self-righteous commentator, Bill O’Reilly
olbermann can get pretty self-righteous himself, also he’s pretty obnoxious in his criticism of o’reilly.
He found his niche this time however as a wry commentator utilizing his humor along with his intellect to attack the forces on the right.
olbrmann’s so called intellect is debateable.
LOL Olbermann, why are you going after the intro rather than the actual article?
Bob Dunning schooled you David , you should treat people the way you want to be treated ,didn’t your mom Sue ever teach you that ?
Your petty article shows your true colors , they are me me me me , blend together and you get me .
Bob Dunning is even above Clark Kent and Lois Lane !
Keith Olbermann is right on!
Daily on MSNBC Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz correct the record by refuting right-wing distortions, lies and ommissions which are the hallmark of right-wing talk radio and the Fox (Faux) news network. They are a beacons of light shinning their beams on the corruption and hypocrisy of the rightwing conservative political movement and their corporate and religious right handlers.
Olberman, Maddow and Schultz expose everyday the lunacy, hate, bigotry and racism of these appalling people.
DPD, thanks for taking the time to correct the record with Bob Dunning. Dunning is well known to have over the years manipulated and distorted facts to suit his agenda. Omission and the use of half-truths are two of his frequently used tools.
Yes David , your right , Bob Dunning schooled you , I’ll let you put your op-ed in my newspaper , even more people will read how unprofessional you are .
DPD got someone’s goat this morning is that Bobby W or Bobby D?
Olberman, Maddow, Joe, O’Reilly, Beck and Dobbs they are all the same spewing hate and one sided arguments, attacking each other, yelling over each other. Is this the future of debate, the absence of dialogue. Is this what you aspire to become?
Turn off the TV and open a book.
Great article David! I was pleased to see that you took Dunning on and schooled him. Dunning has been a thorn in our community for some time. I get a kick out of reading his articles, but when he attacks people without any facts he has crossed the line. Especially when he critiques people on doing the very same thing.
Olberman and Maddow are a refreshing change to the right wing takeover of many media outlets. And, locally the Vanguard is a refreshing addition to the reporting of local news that we don’t read elsewhere.
Keep up the good work! We enjoy reading the Vanguard daily.
Disagree with Typhoid Mary:
The members of cable news who you group together are not all the same. O’Reilly and Beck are outright distorters of the truth. Lou Dobbs has his low moments too, such as his obsession with Barack Obama’s birthplace. It is a reality that many people watch TV and get their news from it. Therefore, folks need to be on guard against bad reporting or authorship whether it is found on TV, in a newspaper or in a book. Some of the most outrageous and untruthful things publshed are found in books. Ann Coulter’s attacks on liberals as well as Jerome Corsi’s “swift boating” of John Kerry and his attempt to defame Barack Obama in 2008 come to mind.
Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann are for public policy what Hulk Hogan ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_Hogan[/url]) and Ric Flair ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ric_Flair[/url]) are for physical fitness.
This may be something for both David and Bob Dunning to consider.
Rachel Maddow is different. She is a lot better — but it’s as if she’s trying to make TV punditry better than is really possible.
I stopped reading Dunning years ago. His commentary can be spiteful and viscious. He is a very mean spirited colunmnist, using drive by sniping tactics, or what I call “hit and run sniping”. Dunning slings mud, and hopes it will somehow stick once in a while, all for his own personal gain (or for the gain of the Davis Enterprise – which is the same thing, since Dunning works for the Davis Enterprise).
But Dunning is also a hypocrite. One case in point was his complete flip flop on the issue of the Varsity Theater. He was an outspoken critic of the city spending scarce redevelopment dollars to refurbish a private owner’s theater (the reconstruction ran into cost overruns bc of the discovery of asbestos), until he received an invitation from proponent Dave Rosenberg to the grand opening of the selfsame theater. Suddenly Dunning fell all over himself in praise of the Varsity Theater. That did it for me, when I discovered Dunning could be bought. He no longer had any credibility as far as I was concerned. I have since heard this about face by Dunning may have also been bc Rosenberg agreed to help Dunning with a legal matter, in exchange for Dunning’s support of the Varsity Theater.
What is unfortunate in all this is how Dunning manipulated Provenza and DPD for his own Machiavellian (sp?) purposes. Provenza gave DPD permission to use the quote w/o any qualifications. Dunning then stirred up trouble by insinuating DPD used the quote w/o Provenza’s permission, whether it was true or not (drive by sniping). Provenza, worried about his political image, talked to Dunning, assuring Dunning the quote was not given with the intention of slamming the Davis Enterprise. Dunning turns around and insinuates that he now has confirmation from the horse’s mouth (Provenza) that DPD did not have permission to use the quote. What Dunning has done is create a pile of horse manure out of nothing at all, for his own financial gain. In consequence, Dunning has attempted to sully the reputations of DPD, Provenza, and has only succeeded in soiling himself.
Interestingly, Dunning considered DPD’s innocuous comment about the general decline of the print media as a slam against the Davis Enterprise. But the truth of the matter is the Davis Enterprise has been having difficulties financially. Part of the reason, IMHO, is the rise of DPD’s blog, internet news, and the Davis Enterprise’s pentient for not doing good investigative reporting but rather pushing an establishment agenda for its advertising contributors.
To put it in a nutshell, I’ve always told my children to be wary of people that accuse you of something, because it is very likely what they are guilty of themselves. I would say Dunning’s articles about David are more a mirror reflection of Dunning and the Davis Enterprise’s own internal policies and tactics.
[quote]One case in point was his complete flip flop on the issue of the Varsity Theater.[/quote]For the record, it is Theatre, not Theater. Apparently, back in 1921, when the original Varsity Theatre was built — a block east of where the current Varsity was constructed in 1949, a local yokel named Ben Nations decided that [i]Theatre[/i] had more cachet than Theater. So the building has had that pretentious faux-British spelling ever since. [quote] He was an outspoken critic of the city spending scarce redevelopment dollars to refurbish a private owner’s theater (the reconstruction ran into cost overruns bc of the discovery of asbestos), until he received an invitation from proponent Dave Rosenberg to the grand opening of the selfsame theater.[/quote] I guess the refurbishment you are referring to is the one in 1990, when Signature Theatres still owned the building. (I was not living in Davis at the time.) However, not very long after it was remade into a performing arts theater, the City Council bought the Varsity and it has been publicly owned ever since. [quote]Suddenly Dunning fell all over himself in praise of the Varsity Theater. That did it for me, when I discovered Dunning could be bought. He no longer had any credibility as far as I was concerned.[/quote] Are you sure the change in his views did not have to do with the theater being acquired by the City of Davis? (I’m not saying it was — I was not around at that time.) I think before you (cowardly hiding behind a fake name) publicly accuse Mr. Dunning of acting unethically, you should at least ask Bob if he changed his mind on the topic and why his mind was changed. Your mindlessly speculating that he did so because of personal benefits afforded him is far more unethical than anything you have accused him of. [quote]What is unfortunate in all this is how Dunning manipulated Provenza and DPD for his own Machiavellian (sp?) purposes. Provenza gave DPD permission to use the quote w/o any qualifications. Dunning then stirred up trouble by insinuating DPD used the quote w/o Provenza’s permission, whether it was true or not (drive by sniping). Provenza, worried about his political image, talked to Dunning, assuring Dunning the quote was not given with the intention of slamming the Davis Enterprise. Dunning turns around and insinuates that he now has confirmation from the horse’s mouth (Provenza) that DPD did not have permission to use the quote. What Dunning has done is create a pile of horse manure out of nothing at all, for his own financial gain. In consequence, Dunning has attempted to sully the reputations of DPD, Provenza, and has only succeeded in soiling himself. [/quote]This is a very strange recounting of events. After all, you ignore the role of Jim Provenza. Your speculations presume Provenza is a puppet. If you believe David Greenwald’s account of this affair, then you would have to hold Jim Provenza fully accountable for everything he told Dunning, which David suggests is misleading, if not entirely false.
“It is an enormous stretch to tie any support for WHR to that advertising money which went directly to the Vanguard.”
Is it less of a “stretch” to say you support WHR due to you and your wife’s ties to Bill Ritter???
“For the record, it is Theatre, not Theater.”
And I quote, “Posts whose primary purpose is to correct spelling…[is] subject to deletion”. Does anyone really care that it is pretentiously spelled “Theatre”?
What has changed between then and now is not another purchase of a Vanguard ad for Senses Magazine or a donation from the WHR developers, but rather a vast and dramatic improvement of the project which has seen the size trimmed from 259 to 191 units, the project shifted to the east to mitigate impact on the neighbors, the accomplishment of 90% GHG emission reduction with 100% solar photovoltaics, the accomplishment of 100% accessibility in the affordable units, the elimination of fourth stories and nesting of the third stories between two story townhomes to reduce the impacts on sightlines, etc.
Yet more pro-Parlin propoganda by the Vanguard; are you on the developer’s payroll yet for Yes on P; forget the Senses rag, you must all well put a Vanguard ad on the Parlin website!
“I think before you (cowardly hiding behind a fake name) publicly accuse Mr. Dunning of acting unethically, you should at least ask Bob if he changed his mind on the topic and why his mind was changed. Your mindlessly speculating that he did so because of personal benefits afforded him is far more unethical than anything you have accused him of.”
1) Dunning was an outspoke critic of the expenditures of public funds on the Varsity Theater.
2) Then Dunning was invited to the grand opening of the Varsity Theatre by Dave Rosenberg, who also did some legal work for Dunning.
3) Dunning suddenly made a complete about face, and became very supportive of the Varsity Theatre.
I am certainly free to infer Dunning’s favorable commentary on the Varsity Theatre was the result of being “bought off” by Rosenberg with the offer of legal services and an invitation to the Varsity grand opening.
Whether I post anonymously or not is irrelevant to the inference. There are many good reasons to post anonymously (see archives for Vanguard article on the subject.) By the way, Dunning uses pseudonyms when claiming emails come from Dave, or Jane, or Dick, rather than using their real full names, if they were even real emails that is.
Now you wouldn’t be defending Dunnning because you too write for the Davis Enterprise, now would you?
I am totally amazed at what strikes fire and petty rage on the blog! I admit that the editor’s claim of non-support of WHR is a Saran wrap fig leaf, so why not just come out and say, “I think this is a great development, and I support it?” Calling each other names based on who is whose friend is beneath the dignity of this most well educated town. It seems by the amount of rage that all the readers of this rag have a dog in the fight. Does everyone have some developer intersst? Personally I regularly read Dunning and this blog, and often find both petty at times, but either interesting or infuriating at other times. Chill out, folks.
David, It was with great pleasure that I read your Op-Ed in the Davis Emptyprise this morning. You did not come across as defensive or snarky, but measured, dignified and informative. I DID want to know the facts, and I was unsettled by Bob’s claim that Jim Provenza felt you had misused his name and I was relieved to get the ‘other side’ of the story.
So thank you, you are really providing the community with a great service and Bob is unwittingly (or maybe not) increasing your profile in the community.
Daily on MSNBC Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz correct the record by refuting right-wing distortions, lies and ommissions which are the hallmark of right-wing talk radio and the Fox (Faux) news network. They are a beacons of light shinning their beams on the corruption and hypocrisy of the rightwing conservative political movement and their corporate and religious right handlers.
and what about the left wing lies, ommissions, and distortions?
Olberman, Maddow and Schultz expose everyday the lunacy, hate, bigotry and racism of these appalling people
couldn’t be any worse than the lunacy, hate, bigotry, and racism of Obama and company.
Why are you arguing about Olbermann, the analogy here was that Dunning is helping a lesser known by attacking him rather than ignoring him, just as O’Reilly made a similar mistake with Olbermann. This wasn’t an article about Olbermann, it was about Dunning.
It was David that chose to frame this argument around his admiration of Olbermann.
By doing so, he exposes his great blindness.
He has great trouble seeing vitriol when it comes from the left.
Generally David you seem to try to be fair, so perhaps you should rethink this position.
Otherwise you undermine whatever argument follows, as you clearly did here, witness the comments.