I inadvertently got into a debate over the difference between reporter and blogger with one of the reporters from the Davis Enterprise. As it turns out, there was a sore spot left over from last week’s story on the Enterprise newsroom cuts and the inexplicable blame that was placed on Bob Dunning.
It appeared the blame was placed there by Editor Debbie Davis. The crux of the story was run in the Sacramento Business Journal, which appeared to have interviewed the Davis Enterprise publisher. The key statement was, “The cuts also follow loss of an advertising contract with Hanlees Toyota, and fall-out from a column written by Bob Dunning. Classified advertising is down, too, due to the sluggish economy.”
The reporter told me in a Facebook conversation, “Not a single person blamed Bob for the layoffs, David. Not one. From some unfortunate phrasing in a graph.or so, by the reporter from the Business Journal, who did call, and an apparent leap of imagination, you ended up with an editor using a longtime columnist and friend as a scapegoat for a painful decision.”
I’m sure I’m not supposed to be quoting from a Facebook conversation either, although Bob Dunning certainly would, so I would consider it fair game.
My fault though? What about the traditional journalist who had the “leap of imagination?”
In fact, I did contact Mr. Dunning and Ms. Davis. Mr. Dunning responded as he always does – to his credit. Ms. Davis didn’t respond.
The crux of my story, of course, was to show that it was illogical that Hanlees would pull their ad based on a Dunning column, but apparently that does not matter. As I wrote, “I simply see no plausible explanation that Dunning’s column led to Hanlees’ pulling their advertising.”
What is really the objection here? That I repeated a mistake from an actual reporter – if it was a mistake? I’m sorry I just do not get it.
I am sorry, but you cannot have it both ways – you cannot not to talk to me and then complain when I get a story wrong.
I have the same problem with the DA’s Office. The DA’s Office will not talk to me. You can say, hey, I criticize them. Great, they are a public agency, they are going to get criticized.
I criticize the City of Davis, guess what, they talk to me. I criticize UC Davis – they always make sure they get a quote in response. I criticize every public entity in this county, and they all talk to me, except the Yolo County DA’s Office.
I ran a story on grants and the DA’s Office. The story was entitled, “Vanguard Investigation Finds Evidence of Exaggerated Crime Figures in DA Grant Applications.”
The DA’s Office is pissed off at me. They wrote to other media entities calling the allegations “libelous,” according to Jonathan Raven. He told Cosmo Garvin of the News and Review, that our article was “at the very least, a reckless disregard for the truth and even malicious conduct.”
However, at the same time, the Yolo DA never once offered to sit down with me and show me the error of my ways. Never once did anyone from that office respond to an email request for information or a comment.
As Mr. Garvin wrote, “After he published, the agency chose not to respond to the Vanguard or to Greenwald directly, but instead sent a strongly worded statement to local mainstream media outlets claiming “his allegations are all false.””
Mr. Garvin continued, “In fact, the district attorney’s statement uses ‘false’ in all caps and bold six times as it dissects Greenwald’s article. To take one example, the DA says that Greenwald conflated Yolo County arrest statistics with those of the Yolo Narcotic Enforcement Team, a multijurisdictional drug enforcement agency. “The blogger was most likely ignorant of these facts,” the statement explains.”
We are working on a follow-up and a response to the DA’s two-page release sent to all media entities except for the Vanguard. We believe that most of the corrections by the DA were wrong and missed the point. We stand by most of the story. In fact, we have bolstered the story with additional evidence.
That is aside from the point. If you want to complain about our coverage, fine, talk to us. Go on the record. Respond to requests for information. Because if you do not, then you have no right to complain.
I had a long conversation with Chief Deputy DA Jonathan Raven back in February or so, when we first launched the judicial watch project. He was concerned that our reporting would be biased, and said they would wait to see how we covered things before choosing whether or not they would respond.
That is the wrong approach. In fact, it becomes self-defeating. If I cannot weigh in on the DA’s position on something, it makes it more difficult to accurately represent the position.
At the end of the day, I may agree with the DA’s Office or disagree, but at least they’ll have had their say. Now, they are trying to have it both ways. They are refusing to communicate with the Vanguard, and then complaining about our coverage.
If you want to complain, fine, talk to us, maybe we’ll agree with you. But you won’t know unless you try. The alternative is that you are going to have to spend a lot of extra time refuting allegations that arise – because we are not going away, we are going to continue to monitor public agencies and tell people what is going on in their county and their community.
Sometimes reality is unpleasant. Sometimes we also make mistakes and we would like to correct those mistakes, but that requires cooperation and communication. Without that we are left to respond to second-hand information, after the fact. There is a better way to do things, but the ball is now in their court.
In any case, I have never claimed to or aspired to do traditional reporting. I do not have a problem with reporters, I read newspapers all of the time. I find the format to be a bit limiting, personally. My goal is to report the news, but also go beneath the headlines and the spin that one gets from self-serving quotes from official stories.
Neither Jonathan Raven nor Debbie Davis are going to tell me the “truth” regarding what happened in their respective organizations, instead they will give their perspective and their take. That’s fine, it’s in fact valuable and I wish they would do that. But it also only goes so far.
We need to look beneath that rhetoric. As I argued a few years ago, sometimes fair and balanced is actually less accurate. Most newspapers attempt to achieve balance through a balancing of quotes. They get one side, then the other. People accuse them of bias when they disagree with the newspaper, but the truth is, reality can be biased. The truth may well be somewhere in the middle of two opposing viewpoints, but it is by no means certain that it is directly in the middle as opposing to leaning toward one side or the other.
In the end, we are what we are. People who want to read traditional news coverage will go to traditional news services. Those interested in a different perspective and coverage of things that are not being covered elsewhere go here. The steady growth in this site in both popularity, readership, and influence is a testimony to the fact that something is missing elsewhere. I don’t disparage the job that most reporters do, and I understand it is a labor of love that pays little. I may disagree with them, but that’s what makes this a great country.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Raven can’t tie his shoe without permission from DA Reisig. Any comment you get from him is scripted and approved by Reisig.
DA Reisig knows that the worst thing for his cases is when people accused of a crime refuse to make a statement, even if they are guilty, by not making a statement the person can hide behind he does not have to incriminate himself.
So, Reisig is doing the same thing, he knows he is guilty, he knows he is dirty, so he takes the 5th with you. That way you can’t use any of his lies to prove you are right and he gets it hide under his rock.
Jeff Reisig’ silence speaks loudly to his guilt, just like he would say if a defendant refuses to make a statement or refuses to take the stand.
People forget that when you deal with mainly crooks, criminals and other lawyers you are bound to pick up some good tricks on being crooked. Mr. Reisig learns his lessons well.
dmg: “If you want to complain, fine, talk to us, maybe we’ll agree with you. But you won’t know unless you try. The alternative is that you are going to have to spend a lot of extra time refuting allegations that arise – because we are not going away, we are going to continue to monitor public agencies and tell people what is going on in their county and their community.
Sometimes reality is unpleasant. Sometimes we also make mistakes and we would like to correct those mistakes, but that requires cooperation and communication. Without that we are left to respond to second hand information after the fact. There is a better way to do things but the ball is now in their court.”
Keep doing what you are doing. I don’t always agree with your viewpoint, but I respect your attempt to uncover public agency/gov’t misbehavior. Most of your readership recognizes there is a certain liberal bias in your blog reporting, but that does not take away from the fact that you have often uncovered things that needed to be seen in the light of day. And I do believe this blog has had a positive effect on the community. I will say the same thing about Bob Dunning’s column at times (his zipcar coverage was a gem), and the Letters to the Editor in the Davis Enterprise. They serve as a check to absolute power corrupting absolutely…
[b]Sac Business Journal:[/b] [i]“The cuts also follow loss of an advertising contract with Hanlees Toyota, fall-out from a column written by Bob Dunning.”[/i]
There is no attribution to Debbie Davis or to anyone else from The Enterprise that Debbie Davis told the Sac Business Journal that a Dunning column caused Hanlees to drop its advertising. Don Shor specifically pointed this out in his comments.
Nonetheless, you wrote: [i] “… the question is why would Debbie Davis blame Bob Dunning for this? Even if it is true, why mention him by name at all?” [/i]
[b]Civil Discourse:[/b] [i]”… She didn’t (blame Dunning). She just relayed what happened.”[/i]
[b]David Greenwald replies immediately to CD that Davis blamed Dunning:[/b] [i]” (A) Not according to my information. And (B) even if try, why blame your employee publicly?”[/i]
I am seriously confused here, David. I took it from your reply to Civil Discourse that you had some other source of information, such as talking to the Business Journal or Hanlees, which confirmed your conclusion that Debbie Davis had blamed Bob Dunning. You knew that was not in the SBJ story. And you repeated the claim again and again.
But now, today, you seem to be retracting your former claim about Debbie Davis laying blame on Bob Dunning, making it clear you had no source for that claim, and blaming everyone but yourself for that mistake you made:
[b]DG:[/b] [i] “It appeared the blame was placed there by Editor Debbie Davis. The crux of the story was run in the Sacramento Business Journal, which appeared to have interviewed the Davis Enterprise publisher.”[/i]
This is just untrue. The story did not state that Debbie Davis blamed Bob Dunning. There was no source at all for the claim that Hanlees dropped its ad over Dunning’s column. You were right to question whether Hanlees ought to have been upset with Dunning. You did a good job showing Hanlees ought to have had no beef with Bob. But it was you and you alone who said that Debbie Davis told the SBJ that Hanlees was upset with Dunning.
The SBJ is obviously not blameless here. It should have said who told them that Hanlees was dropping its advertising because of a Dunning piece. (If you re-read their story, you will note that they talked to others at The Enterprise, not just Ms. Davis.) But it’s not the SBJ’s fault that [i]you decided[/i] that the SBJ’s source was Debbie Davis. That is your fault.
I should add that I have no information on this story. I spoke with Debbie on Wednesday of that week, the day after the layoffs took place. We did not talk about Hanlees, Dunning, the Business Journal or anything of that nature. I am not an Enterprise employee and have no inside or other information about this story.
The “leap” in your earlier story is a quite simple, very apparent one. You attributed what you’re calling “the key statement” to Debbie Davis–then built an article (now a second) on [u]your[/u] leap. You called it truth when it was just speculation.
The [u]SBJ[/u] writer didn’t attribute the statement to anyone. You found it incomprehensible. Dunning found it surprising. You didn’t confirm your leaped-to assumption with either party you figured might be involved in the conversation.
Yet, you wrote “Editor Blames Columnist For Loss of Ad Revenue” with no evidence that it happened and without trying to justify your conclusion. That’s called a “leap.” (Not to say that it wasn’t refreshing to see you sticking up for Nasty Bob or whether your unsupported, lonely leap might be a good one.)
Now, here you are all defensive and unable to comprehend your very visible transgression. And, are you really trying to shift blame to the [u]SBJ[/u] reporter for something that you did but that she did not do?
Hang on a sec here JustSaying. First of all, I’m not being defensive, I’m saying if you want to complain about my coverage then at least return a call or an email.
Second, “Now, here you are all defensive and unable to comprehend your very visible transgression. And, are you really trying to shift blame to the [u]SBJ[/u] reporter for something that you did but that she did not do?”
How is that exactly, she reported it, the only one she talked to was Debbie Davis, so where would the information have come from? She’s the one who reported it, not me.
[quote]I am seriously confused here, David. I took it from your reply to Civil Discourse that you had some other source of information, such as talking to the Business Journal or Hanlees, which confirmed your conclusion that Debbie Davis had blamed Bob Dunning. You knew that was not in the SBJ story. And you repeated the claim again and again. [/quote]
That’s true, I do have another source of information, that I cannot reveal because it was told to me in confidence.
What is in the SBJ story is the claim that Dunning’s column was a reason for the loss in Hanlees. It was unattributed but came directly after her discussion with Debbie Davis. To me the problem is that statement not my reporting of that statement.
Rich: I agree with you (as you can see), but didn’t have the benefit of your post while I was composing mine. Since several of us pointed out David’s problem while commenting on his original story, I’m surprised that he’s surprised and doesn’t realize that this point already has been made.
And, I’ve watched and searched unsuccessfully for the [u]Enterprise[/u] coverage of the firing of the four full-time employees. Did i miss the announcement? Is it possible that the paper’s only acknowledgment will be this response in the Letters section: [quote]”Editor’s note: We are still grieving the loss of four treasured colleagues who were laid off last week for economic reasons. However, we’re happy to report that Derrick Bang will continue to review films weekly….”[/quote]
[b]DG:[/b] [i] “… the only one she talked to was Debbie Davis, so where would the information have come from?”[/i]
If you would look at the SBJ story again, you will see that Ms. Davis was not the only person she talked to.
[b]DG:[/b] [i]”She’s the one who reported it, not me.”[/i]
Again, she did not report, as you still are claiming, that Debbie Davis told her that Hanlees dropped its ad due to Dunning. She reported that Hanlees dropped its ad due to Dunning, but gave no source at all for that claim.
You also repeat that you “… do have another source of information, that (you) cannot reveal …” But surely you understand that by not revealing this clandestine source and by restating your mistaken belief that the SBJ attributed the claim to Ms. Davis, you come across as less than credible.
[quote]”To me the problem is that statement not my reporting of that statement.”[/quote] Here I am, one post behind again. David, are you serious?! The problem is not your reporting of the paragraph. The problem is that you’re claiming it’s the [u]SJR[/u] reporter quoting Debbie Davis when she did not.
When you label your report, “Editor Blames Columnist For Loss of Ad Revenue,” shouldn’t you attempt at least a tiny bit of justification for the claim? If your premise is based on your confidential informant rather than what your cited, shouldn’t you report that? When your readers point out critical missing links in your original reporting, should you really get all huffy?
Come to think of it, you’re saying this incident is a lesson in: “you cannot not to talk to me and then complain when I get a story wrong.” Did Debbie Davis really complain to you that you got this story wrong? (Or was it another unacknowledged secret source who told you that she’s complaining about you?)
I’m wondering if the SBJ story was deliberately/inadvertently ‘parsed’ wrong…
I could read the original as there were 3 factors in decreased revenue that caused the ‘down-sizing’…
1. Hanlee’s cutting of advertising
2. Folks discontinuing/not renewing subscriptions due to Dunning
3. Reduction in advertising due to sluggish economy
It is not clear whether 1 is related to 2 OR 3
I’d think that if I was a journalist trying to clearly state ’cause & effect’ instead of [quote]The cuts also follow loss of an advertising contract with Hanlees Toyota, and fall-out from a column written by Bob Dunning[/quote], I would have written, [quote]The cuts also follow loss of an advertising contract with Hanlees Toyota, [s]and[/s]which as due to fall-out from a column written by Bob Dunning[/quote]
“That’s true, I do have another source of information, that I cannot reveal because it was told to me in confidence.”
Mentioning another source in the comments section was your mistake. It should have been mentioned in the actual story (i.e “according to an anonymous source”) to support your headline. A news editor would have caught that.
Still pointing to the original SBJ article in the wake of your Facebook fallout is again misleading.
My advice is own up to the mistake of not mentioning a source in the first article (the comments section doesn’t count) and stand by your source now, regardless of your interpretation of the SBJ article.
[quote]”How is that exactly, she reported it, the only one she talked to was Debbie Davis, so where would the information have come from?”[/quote] She didn’t tell you, but I have it on good authority that she got this little tidbit from a confidential source who has a grudge against Dunning! (Or, of course, maybe she made a mistake in her reporting. That’s why it would be good to confirm that single-source, first impressions are accurate.) [quote] “That’s true, I do have another source of information, that I cannot reveal because it was told to me in confidence.”[/quote] Are you now saying that your source is really the place you got the information that Debbie Davis is making this complaint about Dunning? If so, why didn’t you attribute it to your source instead of to the [u]SBJ[/u] article (which, finally, we all agree didn’t include it). Keeping sources secret is okay, but misdirecting us by saying their information came someone else isn’t right. [quote]”Hang on a sec here JustSaying. First of all, I’m not being defensive….”[/quote] Sorry. I tend to call it “defensive” when someone tries to defend the indefensible (attributing something to someone who didn’t write or say it).
I would like to discuss these quotes in David’s story:
“I ran a story on grants and the DA’s Office. The story was entitled, “Vanguard Investigation Finds Evidence of Exaggerated Crime Figures in DA Grant Applications.”
The DA’s Office is pissed off at me. They wrote to other media entities calling the allegations “libelous,” according to Jonathan Raven. He told Cosmo Garvin of the News and Review, that our article was “at the very least, a reckless disregard for the truth and even malicious conduct.”
I find it strange that the DA responded to David’s story to local newspapers and not to David. It sounds to me that they are trying to pre-empt the local papers from looking into the story David did on the grants. If they had a rebuttal to David’s story, why would thy not contact David first to set the record straight with him.
The logical answer is that they couldn’t set the record straight so they didn’t contact David…..instead the DA office sent a press release to the local papers saying David doesn’t know what he is talking about. Basically saying–don’t pay any attention to the Vanguard….don’t investigate this story.
I am very interested to seeing what else David has on this topic. And very curious why the local papers have chosen not to contact David to investigate this story.
“I am very interested to seeing what else David has on this topic. And very curious why the local papers have chosen not to contact David to investigate this story.”
Perhaps it is because if the DA wants no one to question his/her wrongdoings, a great tactic is to kiss ass to the local media and have them on his/her side from the very beginning. Davis Enterprise has been somewhat of a joke regarding courts matter. Need I say about the Daily Democrat. And Sac Bee’s editor and Reisig are supposedly well acquainted.
I am glad to hear that David mentions, “We believe that most of the corrections by the DA were wrong and missed the point. We stand by most of the story. In fact, we have bolstered the story with additional evidence.”
Can’t wait to read the follow-up. In the end, I hope that the Daily Democrat, the Davis Enterprise and Sac Bee will be left to ponder to how they missed such a BIG story.
Hearsay reporting , leads to stories that aren’t credible , thats what is happening here . Journalism as stated by this blog isn’t his top priority , which means no integrity .
Avatar:
Coming from you that’s hilarious
Here’s a highlight reel:
“Put them all to death , thats why they’re there , pretty simple . “
“Bad decision , this guy can barely do his finance job ! “
“I’ll throw this out there because the article is basically a repeat , Sydney is hot ! What are the rest of you thinking ?”
“She [Gina Daleiden] is Hot , I’ll vote for her , twice !!!!!!!”
“He’s [Tim Taylor] also Hot , I’d vote for him twice also !”
On July 26: “Sue , or maybe you truly haven’t taken the time to understand how the system works , or maybe your mind is closed about looking at alternative ideas , when it comes to the fire department .
Your jaded view of this department and others is unbecoming of a city council person .
You were elected to make the best decisions you can , based on what facts you are presented with , I feel that you don’t do this .”
Rich Rifkin responds:
“Avatar, that may be your most nonsensical post yet.
You accuse Sue of not understanding the bogus system which you and your friends in the fire union created and pushed through the last council. The problem for you, alas, is she knows what you guys are doing.
You then accuse her of having a “jaded view of this department.” Frankly, everyone in Davis who is not ripping off the taxpayers has a jaded view of a department which chases ambulances in order to pretend they are keeping busy, a department in which every ff’er is paid overtime in every paycheck, because the ff’ers are paid to sleep, etc., etc.
You can go on pretending like this system you and Saylor and so on created makes any sense at all to the taxpayers. But the truth is we are going bankrupt because of your system, Ava. And once we file bankruptcy, the jig is up.
So by attacking me or David or Sue is just a waste of your breath. We can no longer afford you ff’ers ff’ing us.”
Not to mention your ridiculous post that you were burning your fireplace in response to word burning discussion in the middle of July.
The Yolo County DA’s attempt to quash by virtue of vitriol the Vanguard’s reportorial allegations concerning the possibility of exaggerated crime statistics contained in their Grant applications; only serves to diminish and denigrate his public reputation, while calling into serious consideration his ability to conduct the peoples’ business with unimpeachable integrity.
I don’t look to Avatar for much more than attempted humor around here. I’m much more concerned about David maintaining his credibility. He has built The Vanguard into an important voice and forum that’s much needed in our community.
Maintaining basic journalistic standards is as important to a quality, on-line reporting and opinion site as it is to a local printed publication. Accuracy, reliable sourcing, labeling what’s fact and what’s editor opinion–all are critical to maintain The Vanguard’s role as a legitimate alternative news source.
Just because other publications haven’t done their job of keeping our government bodies accountable, it doesn’t necessarily follow that David will get to keep filling this niche if he slips into predictable reporting, bypassing significant happenings in order to nitpick “enemies,” exaggerating evidence and conclusions, etc.
Brian , dude smoke a blunt , and drink some alcohol , unless your Brian the attack dog and you can type . If thats the case better stop the acid or shrooms !
No more of the back-and-forth personal attacks, please, folks.
Don: To which folks are you addressing the “no more personal attacks” request?
Sorry: Avatar and brian.
Can anyone tell me if Debbie Davis, or anyone else, covered this story in the [u]Enterprise[/u] since Ms. Davis was interviewed by the [u]SBJ[/u] more than 10 days ago?
I realize that we now are getting almost all of our local government, law enforcement and legal system news from [u]The Vanguard[/u], but it’s upsetting to think that our local paper might have completely missed this story. If so, it would be just one more way that the [u]Enterprise[/u] isn’t serving its community as a newspaper.
The people have a fundamental right and responsibility to expect and ensure that their public officials are held accountable for their decisions, indiscretions (concerted or otherwise) and achievements.
Regrettably, the vituperation and self-serving invective emanating from the DA’s office towards the Vanguard is contemptible and beneath the dignity of any elected official who is duly sworn to protect and honorably serve the people’s interests.
Consequently, the DA should summarily cease and desist from issuing public declamations of libel as a substitute for inviting an independent audit of the Grant application programs, which legitimately appear to be plagued by inflated and potentially inaccurate statistics.
There is no law theattruth has to be somewhere between both positions. One can be right and the other wrong. (E.g. 50 year debate on if Cigarettes cause cancer- was true somewhere between the two sides of that debate?). And in fact truth can be at a third position all together different from the two opposing sides and not “between” them.
And why only two sides to an argument? This model of “right vs left” is an artifact unique to American Politics that only has 2 major parties…
Balanced presentation of argument does mean it the article gets at the truth.
Just Saying: “I realize that we now are getting almost all of our local government, law enforcement and legal system news from The Vanguard, but it’s upsetting to think that our local paper might have completely missed this story. If so, it would be just one more way that the Enterprise isn’t serving its community as a newspaper.”
Why is all the news about local government, law enforcement and legal system news coming from the Vanguard. David is spending a lot of time and energy on these stories. But why are the local papers not reporting? Are there connections between the politicians, law enforcement and legal system that interferes with this reporting?
Treeguy is right. Not only is there no guarantee that the truth lies somewhere between two stated positions, it frequently does not.
A good investigative journalist will seek out relevant evidence from other sources, and let the chips fall where they may. A lazy (or overloaded) journalist prefers to tell stories and report on the conflict itself. It requires less work: interview both sides; write the story.
good story, I liked it
Don’t you all think the real story is the Hanlees empire? And isn’t that the point? The city tries to develop good public policy about encouraging less auto use while simultaneously loaning money to a car sales firm. We’re all sort of forced into both camps, but the difference is that a firm like Hanlees has a lot more economic muscle and apparently is not afraid to flex it. Dunning, in search of good conservative humor does his usual thing unaware that Hanlees management, ultra-thin skinned about auto sales in an era of global warming, are wreaking revenge on the naysayers. What will the Enterprise have to do or promise to woo back the big advertising dollars? The same story works its way out in how coverage is or is not done on any number of issues in small and large media.