It is two months before Mayor Don Saylor leaves office, and we already have a letter to the editor of the Davis Enterprise lobbying for Councilmember Stephen Souza to become the Mayor when Mr. Saylor leaves.
The letter was written by longtime resident Richard Yamagata. With all due respect to both Mr. Yamagata and Mr. Souza, I hope Mr. Yamagata was acting on his own and was not part of a concerted public effort whereby Mr. Souza would lobby for the position.
Writes Mr. Yamagata, “Stephen Souza is always thinking and working to move the City of Davis along a road to progress. Even Stephen’s political critics say ‘he works well and gets along with others, and he gets things done.’ Those words to me are words of endorsement for this hard-working Davis City Council member.”
As perhaps one of Mr. Souza’s critics, I certainly would not say that. Stephen Souza, in my view, has had moments when he has astutely helped to forge the middle ground on some issue. However, on other key issues he has been very much part of the council majority.
He was a strong proponent of the current budget and the current round of MOUs, he helped usher in the unsustainable contracts, and he was an unabashed not only supporter but also cheerleader for Covell Village.
Moreover, he has simply come up with some weird suggestions at times. He can work well with others in one breath, then, in another breath, shout from the dais that he is the decider. He frequently puts forward ideas from the dais, only to backtrack, stating that he was merely posing the idea or considering it.
I will never forget when he thought he had cut a deal with developer Steve Gidaro for the use of the Shriner’s Property. I refer to the Davis Enterprise article, where Mr. Souza took it upon himself to open negotiations with Gidaro to acquire the 228-acre property known as the Shriner’s Property, and possibly turn it into organic farms and sports fields.
Mr. Gidaro achieved infamy in Davis when he funded a push poll that harmed both Stan Forbes and Michael Harrington by purporting to support them.
Mr. Gidaro wanted to develop his property north of the Mace Curve. However, suddenly in 2007, he was going to give it up.
“As much as I was upset with him, initially, in the meetings that I have had, there have been good faith promises, and good faith discussions about preserving this land,” Stephen Souza told the Enterprise at the time. “So yes, he is interested in doing something good.”
And there isn’t a catch, Mr. Souza said.
“There’s no quid pro quo,” he said. “This is about you, Steve Gidaro, doing something good for the City of Davis and doing something good for the children of Davis.”
The kicker was toward the bottom where Mr. Souza was quoted as saying, “I’m a shrewd negotiator.”
Problem is that he was snookered, and that Mr. Gidaro was trying to get leverage to be able to develop part of his property.
I bring this up because of the audacity of Richard Yamagata to presuppose the view of Stephen Souza’s critics.
However, I don’t dislike Mr. Souza. At times he has been an important swing vote on the council, warding off bad policy decisions that Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson were supporting.
But he is also inconsistent. Two years ago, in December of 2008, he supported an equal-weight EIR for the Hunt-Wesson site. That decision drove Lewis Planned Communities to abandon their four-year-old efforts to develop the site. I supported that vote and the equal-weight concept.
Two years later, he voted in a 3-2 majority to allow Con Agra to have a single-weight EIR. So he is giving ConAgra what he did not give Lewis. That is patently unfair.
That is a problem with Stephen Souza, he is not consistent. You never know which Stephen Souza you will get – the swing vote, or the guy yelling from the dais that he is the decider. The guy who thoughtfully considers a proposal or the guy who thinks he is smarter than everyone else and is going to tell everyone how shrewd a negotiator he is.
The fact of the matter is that Stephen Souza should not become Mayor of Davis. And not just because at times he seems to lack good judgment, or that he lacks the temperament. But because Davis has a process for people to become Mayor.
People in Davis become Mayor by becoming the Mayor Pro Tem, as the highest vote getter in the previous election, and then in the next term, they become Mayor.
If the Mayor is absent from a meeting, the Mayor Pro Tem presides over the meeting. Thus, when the Mayor steps down, the Mayor Pro Tem ought to become the next Mayor. That is why we have a Mayor Pro Tem.
Politically, I do not see him getting the votes. Most likely, the council will decide who the Mayor will be once Don Saylor is off the council. If that’s the case, I do not know from where Mr. Souza is going to get three votes.
You know Councilmember Sue Greenwald will not vote for him. Joe Krovoza is likely to support the Mayor Pro Tem becoming Mayor. Rochelle Swanson would seem likely go with the Mayor Pro Tem as well, and Stephen Souza did not even endorse her for council.
The policy is already set up and I cannot count to three votes for Mr. Souza on a four-person council, and maybe not even two votes.
Even if they do a variation on that approach by taking the vote with Don Saylor still on the council, which I doubt they would do, or take the vote once they appoint the new member, I still do not get to three votes for Mr. Souza.
As I said, I hope this is not the start of a public relations campaign – it is both unseemly and beneath the dignity of the office to overtly have political supporters lobby in the paper. And frankly, I doubt it makes much of a difference because the political support of council would not appear to be there.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “As I said, I hope this is not the start of a public relations campaign – it is both unseemly and beneath the dignity of the office to overtly have political supporters lobby in the paper. And frankly, I doubt it makes much of a difference because the political support of council would not appear to be there.”
I assumed the letter from Mr. Yamagata was his won personal opinion. I do think the logical and proper choice for mayor is the current Mayor Pro-Tem Joe Krovoza. I have no idea what the City Council would decide… they continually surprise me with some of their recent off-beat decisions. It seems as if they are still finding their way, which is understandable. We have two new Council members with one about to leave in January, and a new City Manager. The dynamic has drastically changed in a lot of ways, with Saylor trying to push through an accelerated agenda of his own which doesn’t seem to mesh with community values. So many City Council decisions seem to be a bit off kilter lately…
“Two years later, he voted in a 3-2 majority to allow Con Agra to have a single-weight EIR. So he is giving ConAgra what he did not give Lewis. That is patently unfair.”
Two years ago, we had Emlen as city manager whose planning director persona/ego was heavily invested in his planning department creating and developing a master plan for the ConAgra site and Whitecombe’s CV property together. Souza, as a Whitecombe’s proxy on the Council, did what he could to make Lewis Home’s separate development proposal process as difficult as possible. Souza’s shift here, as in most of his Council voting, reflects his patron’s interests which now do not see Emlen’s mater-plan scenerio as a possibility along with the Lewis Homes property returning to ConAgra’s hands rather than being sold to Whitecombe for what we can guess was a fire-sale offer
Maybe its a slow news day,
How about an article on Trader Joe’s. Yesterday at 2pm seven cash registers were open (more than at the Covell Nugget at that time, which is the busiest store in the city). TJ’s is going to have a huge impact. The West Village market appears to be struggling and the Save Mart not too far away is in the black, but not by a lot.
THe combo of TJs and Target is changing the face of Davis grocery stores. Sorry this is off topic but its a big story.
No, Dr. Wu, it’s not a “big story”, but yes, it’s “off-topic”. Trader Joe’s has its niche, but not somewhere I’d go for ‘daily’ groceries, like milk, hamburger, etc. We shop for food @ COSTCO, Nugget and Save Mart, and yes, will get Jarlsberg cheese and some other ‘special’ things @ TJ’s. If the West Village market fails, it’ll be because they are not meeting the needs/expectations of the surrounding community. Please get over this.
hpierce:
I don’t care particularly about West Village (though DMG does). Like most good Davisites I like Trader Joe’s–they have good food at reasonable prices. Having analyzed projects in the grocery industry for many years though, if you think the TJs is just a small niche player you don’t know TJs. They will generate more sales than some supermarkets in Davis (e.g., the smaller Nugget and the Save Mart and yes West Village market).
I work with industry insiders who say the Save Mart is doing just OK and the Nugget chain is struggling overall (not in Davis but the W. Sac, and Elk Grove stores are hemorrhaging money, and other stores are not doing well outside of the Covell store which is a huge cash cow for the chain).
My comments were exactly that, comments. Its a story. When Borders goes bankrupt that will be a story as well.
There is also a long term change in the grocery industry as non-union firms (Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, TJs) supplant unionized ones. Nugget may follow Winn-Dixie into bankruptcy court soonish. Again I think we ought to notice what is going on in our community–I guess you disagree.
THere will be many retail bankruptcies in the next 5 years–it effects Davis. If and when the Save Mart closes and if the Nugget chain goes under (though their Covell store will obviously be bought out–maybe by Whole Foods) you might think its worth reporting on.
Dr. Wu: In the next two months, the biggest story in Davis is going to be who will the council appoint and who will become mayor. This story shows that those forces are already at work behind the scenes, well away from the glare of public scrutiny. That should concern you a little bit – no?
David:
Yes it does. I didn’t mean to imply it wasn’t a big deal though ERM comments also seem applicable. I think you are correct that Krovoza will be chosen mayor.
I think you will find the TJs story compelling if you look into it, especially given your coverage of the West Village Supermarket. I’ve held off commenting but thought it was time to say something. As my comments suggest I think TJs is a much bigger fish than most people realize. They will outsell some much larger supermarkets in this town and give others a run for their money–I’m not saying that’s bad–just something we ought to be aware of. For what its worth I desperately wanted a TJs.
David, your emailed link to this article misleadingly says Steve is lobbying to become mayor. Your title asks if a campaign is underway. Then your text just says that Richard Yamaguchi wrote a letter to the editor and you hope he was acting on his own. I appreciate your being careful to identify speculation vs. known fact in your articles; how about the same for your titles? To address your question this time, I know Richard Yamaguchi to be a caring person who always thinks for himself and who thoughtfully complements others he appreciates. We could do with more positive people like Richard.
The idea of a headline is to get people’s attention, my headline for this story is framed as a question, the answer to that question at this time appears to be no, but we don’t know that for sure. The intent here was to raise an issue not disparage Richard, I contemplated not naming him, but thought that might raise eyebrows.
This is getting way off topic, but I don’t think there is the slightest evidence that the Nugget stores are suffering financially. Since it is privately held, I don’t think there is any way to discern. But to say “Nugget may follow Winn-Dixie into bankruptcy court soonish” is sheer speculation with no substantiation that I am aware of.
[i]”Then your text just says that Richard [b]Yamaguchi[/b] wrote a letter to the editor and you hope he was acting on his own. … [b]I know Richard Yamaguchi[/b] to be a caring person who always thinks for himself and who thoughtfully complements others he appreciates.”[/i]
I’m not sure if this is a typo (twice!) or you know someone else who is actually named Richard Yamaguchi. However, the person in question is not Richard Yamaguchi. It’s Richard Yamagata.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with a friend of Stephen Souza’s lobbying in favor of Stephen becoming mayor by writing a letter to the Enterprise. David is right that the 5 members* of the council will make this decision, that the public won’t vote on it or have any formal say. But a great part of democracy is publicly expressing your view on a topic like this, the way Mr. Yamaguchi did.
My own view is that the two junior members should not become mayor. After just a few months–particularly bad months in which they did nothing but approve the unreformed status quo labor contracts–I think we would be better served to have Sue or Stephen hold the gavel. (And if Sue’s supporters start writing letters to the Enterprise to express that view, that would be democratic and great, too.) Of Sue or Stephen, it should be the one who has the most support of the other three.
Jo Kro will get his turn as mayor come 2012. Until then, I don’t support him becoming mayor. I think the guy is at best wet behind the ears, at worst unaware of what Davis needs to fix our long-term labor problems.
*Souza, Greenwald, Ro, Jo plus the 5th person the other 4 appoint.
I can’t reveal my source but he talks to the Nugget managers frequently. They are struggling. Have you been to the W. Sacramento store? It was designed to be upscale like the one on Covell and is significantly larger. But the demographics in W. Sac are very different than Davis.
Oops! I made the same typo as Adrienne did (but mine was much worse, given I pointed out hers).
[i]”But a great part of democracy is publicly expressing your view on a topic like this, the way Mr. [s]Yamaguchi[/s] [b]Yamagata[/b] did.”[/i]
Dr. Wu, I wouldn’t over weight the performance of one store. My wife and I were at the Eldorado Hills store recently and it was packed. Vacaville is always packed. Woodland is the flagship . . . and probably does as much business as Covell. I’ve never been to West Sac, but given the fact that Nugget wins more than 80% of the “price battles” with its competitors, I can’t imagine West Sac shoppers are turned off by low prices and superior quality. Its a hard combination to beat.
[quote]but given the fact that Nugget wins more than 80% of the “price battles” with its competitors, I can’t imagine West Sac shoppers are turned off by low prices and superior quality[/quote]
Matt:
I hope you are right but at the very least the chain needs to close non-performing stores and believe me West Sac and Elk Grove are losers. Nugget may be based in Woodland but the Davis store is the cash cow.
As far as prices are concerned, Nugget is a rip off. The store on Covell is very nice, the service is nice, the produce/meat is very good but its overpriced. We often buy at Whole Foods in the Bay are to save money (!!!!!) over Nugget. If Nugget is more expensive than “Whole Paycheck” then its not cheap. THey have no economies of scale and blundered in the bubble years–that effects us.
Sorry to go so far afield but lets have a blog on Trader Joe’s.
The fact that Nugget so prominently displays its motto, “William and Mack Stille, co-founders of Nugget Market declare that since 1926, Nugget Markets has had the lowest Prices of any conventional grocery store in town. Take their price survey and see for yourself. You could win a $1000 Nugget Gift Card!” and its Price Survey results board, makes me skeptical of your assessment of their pricing.
I’m curious, what are some of the items that you find at lower prices elsewhere?
I am not sure how this discussion has gotten so off topic. But to get back to the subject of this article, I am very surprised to see the Vanguard getting so worked up about the possibility of Steve Souza becoming mayor. Steve was the candidate with the most votes just behind Don Saylor in the election before last (2008) which determined the current mayor to be Don Saylor. So why is the Vanguard so down on the idea of Steve Souza being mayor since he was very close behind Don Saylor in votes? Maybe Joe Krovosa would be just as happy not being mayor right now having just gotten on the Council?
One of the main reasons we went off-topic appears to be that I ‘engaged’ Dr. Wu, even tho’ I confirmed she was off-topic. Mea culpa… will try not to commit that sin again.
Hopefully “on-topic”… selection of Council members is inherently political… the fact that we typically (although, in the not too distant past, it was not always so) award the mayor-ship to the mayor pro-tem who gets that title due to most votes from their cycle.
If Don died, suddenly moved away, Joe would be the mayor, absent any Council vote to the contrary. Council inaction, IMHO, would lead to that result.
Is Joe the best leader for the Council? I leave that to others, tho’ it was disturbing that he apparently was trying to direct staff to implement reverse diagonal parking in the Core w/o any Council discussion… that was when he is just as a ‘member’… will this tendency to act independently intensify if he had the title “mayor”?
The letter to the Enterprise was free speech… anyone have a problem with that? If 25-125 people have the same view and write to the paper, why wouldn’t that also be free speech?
[quote]I am very surprised to see the Vanguard getting so worked up about the possibility of Steve Souza becoming mayor. Steve was the candidate with the most votes just behind Don Saylor in the election before last (2008) which determined the current mayor to be Don Saylor. So why is the Vanguard so down on the idea of Steve Souza being mayor since he was very close behind Don Saylor in votes? Maybe Joe Krovosa would be just as happy not being mayor right now having just gotten on the Council?[/quote]
I thought I explained my objections fairly clearly here. I don’t think procedurally he is entitled to be Mayor.
Given all of the innuendo in your article about Steve Souza, your procedural comment does not seem to be the issue. You certainly seem to have a personal vendetta against Council member Souza. Your article is anything but objective.
“I am very surprised to see the Vanguard getting so worked up about the possibility of Steve Souza becoming mayor.”
I don’t think David writing a column pondering the implications of a Souza supporter testing the waters is “getting worked up.” It’s an opinion column – one which appears well reasoned and supported – on local politics that I’d bet took him less than 30 minutes to write, edit and post. Posting these 1,000 words doesn’t take space away from investigative articles about grocery stores like it would in a print paper. It’s not a zero-sum situation.
Besides, I thought most of us read this blog in large part for thought-provoking content you don’t find anywhere else.
Off topic TJ comments – IMO any grocery store at that location would likely be – on the whole – creating more new grocery store customers in Davis than it’s taking from Nugget. Prior to TJ, the thousands of freshman who use that shopping center everyday went “grocery” shopping at the AM/PM or RiteAid. It’s probably so busy bc its customer base is mostly college kids buying 1-2 items a couple times a day rather than families stocking up once or twice a week. Just bc TJ is busier doesn’t mean it’s making more money or that it’s the reason Nugget might be loosing money.
@Hawthorn — Are there statements about Souza’s record in this piece that are factually inaccurate? If not, the “vendetta” and “bias” comments lead me to suspect you’re either an avid supporter of Souza, or that you fundamentally don’t understand the difference between political commentary (as in a “column”) and news (as in an “article”).
To youngalum: Given your defensive and condescending tone it sounds like you also have a vendetta for Steve Souza. I have never thought of myself as a supporter of non-supporter of Council member Souza but I think the Vanguard is showing some personal resentment towards him. It’s hard to believe any information published like this with such a negative tone to the whole article.
I also think it is pretty offensive that this Vanguard blog author uses words like “audacity” when referring to a resident who simply expressed their opinion publicly in the Enterprise. The Vanguard seems to be going “off the deep end” in opposition to one letter to the editor.
“Given all of the innuendo in your article about Steve Souza, your procedural comment does not seem to be the issue.”
Innuendo means “An indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression” – there is no innuendo in this piece. I stated very clearly my position on Souza – what I see as his strengths and weaknesses and why I don’t believe he would make a good mayor.
“You certainly seem to have a personal vendetta against Council member Souza.”
No I don’t have a personal vendetta against him. I disagree with him politically.
“Your article is anything but objective. “
You are correct, it is an opinion piece based on my opinion. By definition an opinion piece is subjective.
“I also think it is pretty offensive that this Vanguard blog author uses words like “audacity” when referring to a resident who simply expressed their opinion publicly in the Enterprise.”
The resident has the right to express his opinion, but I have the right to express my opinion about that opinion.
In the election when Steve Souza last ran for Council I lobbied long and hard for him here on the Blog. For the most part the discussions here were reasonable and considered. The biggest criticisms of Steve then were 1) his support of Measure X and 2) the unpredictability of his votes.
So, IMHO the issues David has raised in his article are neither new, nor nor narrowly believed by Davis voters.
David’s use of the word “audacity” may be a bit strong word in his sentence, “I bring this up because of the audacity of Richard Yamagata to presuppose the view of Stephen Souza’s critics.” but based on my experience when I suppoeted Souza’s candidacy here, the idea David expresses is spot-on. The letter does presuppose the opinions of Souza’s supporters, and IMHO is inaccurate in its portrayal. Perhaps it would be better not to call it “audacity” but rather “short sightedness” or “naïveté.” Would that be more comforting?
Oops, my last paragraph should read . . .
David’s use of the word “audacity” may be a bit strong word in his sentence, “I bring this up because of the audacity of Richard Yamagata to presuppose the view of Stephen Souza’s critics.” but based on my experience when I supported Souza’s candidacy here, the idea David expresses is spot-on. The Enterprise letter does presuppose the opinions of Souza’s [u]critics[/u], and IMHO is inaccurate in its portrayal of those opinions. Perhaps it would be better not to call it “audacity” but rather “short sightedness” or “naïveté.” Would that be more comforting?
All… the manner for determining who the Mayor is is “squishy” at best. I agree with David that the ‘best’procedural method would be the “traditional” line of succession… but I recall, when the procedure was every bit as much as “squishy” as it now is, Debbie Nichols Poulos, who had received the most votes in a 3-way race, was denied her Mayorial spot on the dias by a ‘freshman’ councilman who made a ‘back-door deal’ with Tom Tomasi & Ann Evans. Jerry Adler tried to thwart it with an amusing counter-strategy, which was to move to re-elect Ann Evans. All she had to do was “take the bait”, and she would have had consecutive terms (Evans, Adler, Poulos voting ‘aye’). But, a back-door deal is a back-door deal. At least the letter to the editor was “transparent”.
It’s not that I think the current method is best either. I prefer what they do in San Luis Obispo where the Mayor is separately elected to a two year term. So each year they elect two councilmembers and a mayor.
But the advantage with going with the current procedure is that it operates independently of a presupposed outcome. The Mayor Pro Tem becomes the next Mayor, period. The Mayor Pro Tem is chosen by the candidate that earns the most votes. Joe Krovoza earned the most votes last time, he is the Mayor Pro Tem, he should be the next Mayor whether that is in two months or two years.
Matt: I think it is audacious to misrepresent the views of those critical of Mr. Souza.
If I said, even my critics believe I’m sincere and hardworking, I think that would be an audacious statement.
Let’s ignore Matt’s contributions… he is not a Davis resident, and El Macero folks aren’t even paying their sewer bills for the service the city provides…
correction:
Let’s ignore Matt’s contributions on the subject of who should be mayor, or how selected… he is not a Davis resident, and El Macero folks aren’t even paying their sewer bills for the service the city provides…
To hpierce: no more attacks on other blog participants, please.
Dr. Wu: “THe combo of TJs and Target is changing the face of Davis grocery stores. Sorry this is off topic but its a big story.”
I know Safeway has started a clever new on-line coupon campaign, to keep people from buying their groceries at Walmart, Costco and Target. I suspect TJ’s will serve a niche market, as it is somewhat small, crowded and the parking situation is not great. I don’t think it will make much of a dent in people’s regular shopping habits…
David Greenwald wrote: “As I said, I hope this is not the start of a public relations campaign – it is both unseemly and beneath the dignity of the office to overtly have political supporters lobby in the paper.”
This is an extraordinary piece of sanctimonious pap.
And the disingenuousness of the author is also worth noting.
He starts the article with the statement: “Barring an onslaught of similar letters, [u]I will give Mr. Souza the benefit of the doubt.[/u]”
He then contradicts himself (and reveals his true opinion?) in the comments section with the statement: “This story shows that [u]those forces are already at work behind the scenes, well away from the glare of public scrutiny[/u].”
It is clear that this article is little more than a petty hit piece directed at Councilmember Souza. Getting smeared in the process as collateral damage is Richard Yamagata. Pawn or co-conspirator … take your pick.
The question is why would David Greenwald elect to take this cheap shot?
Does he lack good judgment? Does he lack the proper temperament? Does he think he is smarter than everyone else?
These are all questions that he directed at the Councilmember, but are more relevant to Mr. Greenwald himself.
@ youngalum “you fundamentally don’t understand the difference between political commentary (as in a “column”) and news (as in an “article”)”
Apparently, neither does David Greenwald.
He ends each piece with “David M. Greenwald reporting.” Given the unvarnished bias he routinely brings to the table, the tagline is a joke.
[quote]He ends each piece with “David M. Greenwald reporting.” [/quote]
Does reporting only refer to one kind of story?
Looking at the definitions for the word reporting, it’s quite broad:
[quote]re·port
(r-pôrt -prt)
n.
1. An account presented usually in detail.
2. A formal account of the proceedings or transactions of a group.
3. Law A published collection of authoritative accounts of court cases or of judicial decisions. Often used in the plural.
4. Common talk; rumor or gossip: According to report, they eloped.
5. Reputation; repute: a person of bad report.
6. An explosive noise: the report of a rifle.
v. re·port·ed, re·port·ing, re·ports
v.tr.
1. To make or present an often official, formal, or regular account of.
2. To relate or tell about; present: report one’s findings. See Synonyms at describe.
3. To write or provide an account or summation of for publication or broadcast: report the news.
4. To submit or relate the results of considerations concerning: The committee reported the bill.
5. To carry back and repeat to another: reported the rumor of a strike.
6. To complain about or denounce: reported them to the principal.
v.intr.
1. To make a report.
2. To serve as a reporter for a publication, broadcasting company, or other news media.
3. To present oneself: report for duty.
4. To be accountable: She reports directly to the board of directors.[/quote]
I use the tagline on every piece I do so that people know that I am the one who wrote it, I do not use it to distinguish between a news story and commentary.
DMG: I also know how to use a dictionary.
And I also realize, of course, that you are a blogger. However, you clearly want to be taken seriously.
If so, perhaps this would help …
Canons of Journalism
Ethical rules adopted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 28, 1923, and since endorsed by many state associations and other groups of journalists.
The primary function of newspapers is to communicate to the human race what its members do, feel and think. Journalism, therefore, demands of its practitioners the widest range of intelligence of knowledge and of experience, as well as natural and trained powers of observation and reasoning. To its opportunities as a chronicle are indissoluble linked its obligations as teacher and interpreter.
To the end of finding some means of codifying sound practice and just aspirations of American journalism, these canons are set forth:
(1) Responsibility — The right of a newspaper to attract and hold readers is restricted by nothing but considerations of public welfare. The use of newspaper makes of the share of public attention it gains serves to determine its sense of responsibility, which it shares with every member of its staff. A journalist who uses his power for any selfish or otherwise unworthy purpose is faithless to a high trust.
(2) Freedom of the Press — Freedom of the press is to be guarded as a vital right of mankind. It is the unquestionable right by law, including the wisdom of any restrictive statute. To its privileges under the freedom of American institutions are inseparably joined its responsibilities for an intelligent fidelity to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) Independence — Freedom from all obligations except that of fidelity to the public interest is vital.
A. Promotion of any private interest contrary to the general welfare, for what ever reason, is not compatible with honest journalism. So-called news communications from private sources should not be published without public notice of their source or else substantiation of the claims to value as news, both in form and substance.
B. Partisanship in editorial comment which knowingly departs from the truth does violence to the best spirit of American journalism; in the news columns it is subversive of a fundamental principle of the profession.
(4) Sincerity, Truthfulness, Accuracy — Good faith with the reader is the foundation of all journalism worthy of the name.
A. By every consideration of good faith, a newspaper is constrained to be truthful. It is not to be excused for lack of thoroughness, or accuracy within its control, or failure to obtain command of these essential qualities.
B. Headlines should be fully warranted by the contents of the articles which they surmount.
(5) Impartiality — Sound practice makes clear distinction between news reports and expressions of opinion. News reports should be free from opinion or bias of any kind. This rule does not apply to so-called special articles unmistakably devoted to advocacy or characterized by a signature authorizing the writer’s own conclusions and interpretations.
(6) Fair Play — A newspaper should not publish unofficial charges affecting reputation or moral character, without opportunity given to the accused to be heard; right practice demands the giving of such opportunity in all cases of serious accusation outside judicial proceedings.
A. A newspaper should no invade rights of private feelings without sure warren of public right as distinguished from public curiosity.
B. It is the privilege, as it is the duty, of a newspaper to make prompt and complete correction of its own serious mistakes of fact or opinion, whatever their origin.
(7) Decency — A newspaper cannot escape conviction of insincerity if, while professing high moral purpose, it supplies incentives to base conduct, such as are to be found in details of crime and vice, publication of which is not demonstrably for the general good. Lacking authority to enforce its canons, the journalism here represented can but express the hope that deliberate pandering to vicious instincts will encounter effective public disapproval or yield to the influence of a preponderant professional condemnation.
All: something hit a ‘nerve’ and I posted inappropriately… Don Shor caught it, and he was correct in deleting the post… my apologies to all, particularly the subject of my post. Good catch, Don…
To Johnson: High ideals to be emulated for sure, but rarely achieved, if ever, by any news outlet…
Johnson: I’m failing to see your point here? What exactly are you complaining about?
DMG: You routinely use your blog to push an agenda while posing as a reporter (broadly defined). In addition, you have a moderator/censor that posts (bad idea).
In my opinion, it’s destructive to the community and diminishes the credibility of the very hard work you put in.
Johnson, interesting comment. You posted it for a reason. Can you elaborate on how and why you feel “it’s destructive to the community”?
[quote]You routinely use your blog to push an agenda while posing as a reporter (broadly defined).[/quote]
I’m not sure that I have an agenda other than keeping watch over government and public entities. I have always been pretty up front about where I’m coming from.
[quote]In addition, you have a moderator/censor that posts (bad idea).[/quote]
I’m not sure why that’s a bad idea or a problem.
Also I’d be curious as to what exactly you disagree with that I wrote here.
MW: In my opinion, individuals like David Greenwald, Sue Greenwald, and Bob Dunning all “make their livings” by doing things to make sure the community is as divided as possible. Otherwise they become irrelevant.
In the case of The Vanguard, I think Mr. Greenwald is squandering an opportunity to build a legitimate on-line alternative “regional news source” by abusing his soapbox.
I view it as needing to expose what is going on at all levels of local government and providing the citizens with information and transparency into local government actions.
I’m still interested to hear what it is that you disagree with with specifically in this column.
” … what exactly do you disagree with … “
DG: You laid out a conspiracy theory (Richard Yamagata as the possible vanguard of a movement to inappropriately influence the mayor decision), and then used it as an excuse to take a long series of cheap shots at a sitting Councilmember (which I won’t repeat here).
If you were sincere in questioning the motivation for the letter, the obvious place to start would have been the issue of why a member of Councilmember Greenwald’s political team (see for example http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/vme/arena/greenwald/bio.html) is endorsing a pro-Covell member of the “gang of three?”
“I view it as needing to expose what is going on at all levels of local government and providing the citizens with information and transparency into local government actions.”
DMG: The operative phrase here is ” … expose what is going on … “
In actuality, all you are exposing is “what you [u]think[/u] is going on.”
If you sincerely want to provide “information and transparency” as a service to the community, then stick to the demonstrable facts and stop filtering everything through your biased prism. At best you are currently providing “opacity.”
In my opinion, if you can reinvent yourself as more of a journalist and less of a thinly-veiled activist, then The Vanguard will blossom.
Conspiracy theory? More like foil.
My argument was: “With all due respect to both Mr. Yamagata and Mr. Souza, I hope Mr. Yamagata was acting on his own and was not part of a concerted public effort whereby Mr. Souza would lobby for the position. That would not only be unseemly but it would disparage the process. Barring an onslaught of similar letters, I will give Mr. Souza the benefit of the doubt.”
So where is the conspiracy theory? There may be a campaign underway, it is equally likely perhaps more likely that Mr. Yamagata is operating on his own. Foil is the better term here.
The cheaps as you call it were to demonstrate that the statement by Mr. Yamagata was untrue, “Even Stephen’s political critics say ‘he works well and gets along with others, and he gets things done.'”
I disagree with that, I have a much more mixed view. I find it interesting that you call them cheap shots, even though they are completely accurate. He is quoted as saying he was a shrewd negotiator, he did blurt out – more than once I’ll add from the dais – that he was the decider. And those do contrast with his more thoughtful and contemplative moments when he truly was the moderate swing vote.
[quote][quote]In addition, you have a moderator/censor that posts (bad idea).[/quote]I’m not sure why that’s a bad idea or a problem.[/quote]It has a chilling effect on the debate and creates the perception of bias.
Someone that posts comments should never, under any circumstances, have the power to delete anything.
Johnson said . . . “MW: In my opinion, individuals like David Greenwald, Sue Greenwald, and Bob Dunning all “make their livings” by doing things to make sure the community is as divided as possible. Otherwise they become irrelevant.”
Thanks for the direct and timely response. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t see any of those three doing that. Dunning’s brand of humor requires neither unity nor division. He’s an equal opportunity insulter. Sue also doesn’t require division to pursue her ideals. I’ve personally been on both sides of her issues over time, and either I was “right” or I was “wrong” . . . sometimes one and other times the other. However, the choice was always up to me, and I never felt she had a vested interest in my being with her or against her. Many think here “ideals” are far from ideal, but I don’t think many people would consider her not to be an “idealist.” Your term “make their livings” sounds so venal . . . don’t you think? Idealists are rarely venal.
Now we get to David. His pulpit is different than Sue’s, but IMHO in many, many ways they are cut from the same cloth. The difference in how they manifest their idealism is different. Sue is much more of the public showman and David is a product of the electronic generation. She pursues her cause and he pursues his KOS. But they are both peas as best as I can see.
“In the case of The Vanguard, I think Mr. Greenwald is squandering an opportunity to build a legitimate on-line alternative “regional news source” by abusing his soapbox.”
Interesting comment. Are you saying you want the Vanguard to be more like the Enterprise?
Johnson said . . . “It has a chilling effect on the debate and creates the perception of bias.
Someone that posts comments should never, under any circumstances, have the power to delete anything.”
Earlier I said Sue and David were idealists. Now you are sounding like an idealist as well. The moderator you decry 1) posts with his real name, and 2) is extremely open about what kinds of posts are outside the boundaries. In an ideal world your suggestion makes sense, but in our tiny little news/opinion hamlet, is what you suggest realistic? To the best of my knowledge, Don volunteers his time to the Vanguard in the interests of helping it be exactly what you accuse it of failing to be . . . a legitimate on-line alternative news source. If Don didn’t provide his free time, the name calling banter would overwhelm the real discussion. Far from having a chilling effect on the debate, it fosters it.
MW: I wouldn’t have used the word alternative if I wanted The Vanguard to be more like The Enterprise.
I long ago gave up the notion that Councilmember Greenwald is an idealist.
If the quid pro quo for moderation is posting, then The Vanguard would be better off with name calling banter (at least the traffic to the site would go way up).
I couldn’t disagree with your final paragraph more. It would simply be a Tower of Babel. Very little coalescing and refinement of ideas/voices would occur.
MW: Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. The idea that The Vanguard stimulates any significant “coalescing and refinement of ideas/voices” is unsupported by the facts.
Johnson, all you have to do is look at the Measure P discussions to find the facts you need. The discussions were daily, active, spirited and in the end more telling than in any other venue. What issue do you feel the Vanguard has failed to coalesce and refine the voices?
[quote]”The idea of a headline is to get people’s attention, my headline for this story is framed as a question, the answer to that question at this time appears to be no, but we don’t know that for sure.”[/quote] There would be no story to write without your totally unsupported implication. First, you pose it as a question in the headline then express it as your sincere hope that your own speculation is meritless. There’s nothing with just responding to the merits of Mr.Yamagata’s letter, so why beef it up with suggestions of a political PR conspiracy that you’d consider unseemly and undignified.
If by getting people’s attention you mean making up stuff for which there’s no basis, I don’t think that’s really the purpose of an article’s headline. It is a tried and true technique of the tabloids, but I think readers resent getting sucked in by unsubstantiated sensationalism. Did Marilyn Monroe have James Dean’s two-headed baby? I hope the answer’s “no”–but we don’t know that for sure, so I’m obligated to raise the question.
I meant: “There’s nothing [u]wrong[/u] with (you) just responding to the merits of Mr. Yamagata’s letter….”
Just Saying: The headline is neither misleading nor inaccurate. I have heard that there are a number of “campaigns” underway and maneuverings for both the Mayoral position as well as the vacated Council position. There was a clear purpose to the article.
“so why beef it up with suggestions of a political PR conspiracy that you’d consider unseemly and undignified.”
You call it beefing it up, I call it heading it off.
DMG: I challenged you with the statement …
“You routinely use your blog to push an agenda while posing as a reporter (broadly defined).”
You responded …
“I’m not sure that I have an agenda other than keeping watch over government and public entities. I have always been pretty up front about where I’m coming from.”
“I view it as needing to expose what is going on at all levels of local government and providing the citizens with information and transparency into local government actions.”
In response to JustSaying you wrote …
“I have heard that there are a number of “campaigns” underway and maneuverings for both the Mayoral position as well as the vacated Council position.”
Fine. Setting aside the issue of your framing of a conspiracy theory based on undocumented hearsay from unnamed sources; this is in keeping with your stated agenda to “expose what is going on.”
You then, however, make the remarkable statement …
“There was a clear purpose to the article … I call it heading it off.”
So, in your own words, we are finally at the heart of the matter. You now say that you wrote the article to “head off” the “campaigns” and “maneuverings” related to the mayoral decision. Am I misunderstanding what you wrote?
Unseemly and disparaging of the process indeed!
JustSaying said . . . There would be no story to write without your totally unsupported implication. First, you pose it as a question in the headline then express it as your sincere hope that your own speculation is meritless. There’s nothing with just responding to the merits of Mr.Yamagata’s letter, so why beef it up with suggestions of a political PR conspiracy that you’d consider unseemly and undignified.”
The word “conspiracy” wasn’t David’s. Johnson introduced that word. Conspiracy has a much different meaning and connotation than “campaign” does. If you want to hold anyone accountable for “beef(ing)it up with suggestions of a political PR conspiracy” I could be wrong, but I think you should address your comments to Johnson, rather than David.
“If by getting people’s attention you mean making up stuff for which there’s no basis, I don’t think that’s really the purpose of an article’s headline. It is a tried and true technique of the tabloids, but I think readers resent getting sucked in by unsubstantiated sensationalism.”
What is your opinion of the following headlines? 1) “Irish Debt Woes Revive Concern About Europe” 2) “U.S. Sweetens Offer to Take Sudan Off Terrorist State List” 3) “The Porous Bernstein Border” 4) “She Who Belts Out the Uncertainty” 5) “Announcement of New Jackson Album Is Kind of a Thriller”
[quote]”Just Saying: The headline is neither misleading nor inaccurate. I have heard that there are a number of ‘campaigns’ underway….”[/quote] It’s both because it’s attached to an article that doesn’t support the headline. Here we are nearly 60 comments afterwards, and you’re finally revealing that you [u]really did[/u] have a reason to question whether Mr. Yamagata is a stalking horse for a system-disparaging, Souza-orchestrated campaign? Did you hear about these “campaigns” from another secret source? [quote]”I bring this up because of the audacity of Richard Yamagata to presuppose the view of Stephen Souza’s critics.”
“You call it beefing it up, I call it heading it off.”[/quote] You call that audacity, but not [u]that[/u]?
“Here we are nearly 60 comments afterwards, and you’re [DMG] finally revealing that you really did have a reason to question whether Mr. Yamagata is a stalking horse for a system-disparaging, Souza-orchestrated campaign?”
What perplexes me is why a member of Councilmember Greenwald’s political team would endorse a rival in the run-up to the next political cycle. Mr. Greenwald’s theory makes no sense, irrespective of any credible sources or special insight that he may think he has.
Have Mr. Yamagata and Ms. Greenwald gone their separate ways? If not, the letter would be more suggestive of Ms. Greenwald trying to position herself as the king-maker in exchange for political concessions than the system-disparaging, Souza-orchestrated letters-to-the-editor campaign (horror of all horrors!) posited by Mr. Greenwald.
Yamagata supported the three incumbents in 2008 – Greenwald, Souza, and Saylor. He has always supported them. I’m not sure why you would describe him as being part of her political team.
[quote]”The word ‘;conspiracy’ wasn’t David’s.”[/quote] You’re correct, Matt, it was mine. I used it to describe David’s supposed worry–a group of people entering into a covert agreement to conduct an unseemly, disparaging PR campaign that would be beneath the dignity of the office. If “campaign” means that for you, fine.
Either way, David inappropriately tossed in the worry to open and close his otherwise appropriate opinion piece on the letter. I’m just saying that the tactic was beneath the dignity of this blog. [quote]”What is your opinion of the following headlines?”[/quote] My opinion is that these headlines, as well as any headline, should accurately tell the reader the gist of the information they’ll get if they choose to read the story.
DMG: Look here …
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/GO/greenwald2000/
Sue Greenwald
Dennis Dingemans
Richard Yamagata
All listed as points-of-contact for the 2008 re-elect Sue Greenwald campaign.
Pam Gunnell listed as well on the bio page.
JustSaying said . . . “I’m just saying that the tactic was beneath the dignity of this blog.
My opinion is that these headlines, as well as any headline, should accurately tell the reader the gist of the information they’ll get if they choose to read the story.”
I can’t understand how you see the information David shared in the storywas inconsistent with either the headline or the beginning of the article? David simply followed classic presentation form . . . 1) tell the reader what you are going to tell them, 2) tell them, and then 3) tell them what you told them.
It seems pretty clear you don’t want this topic discussed. If that is true, then you would have been better served by never having posted in this thread.
JMHO . . . for what its worth. 8>)
[quote]”It seems pretty clear you don’t want this topic discussed. If that is true, then you would have been better served by never having posted in this thread.”[/quote] And what topic would that be? [quote]”I can’t understand how you see the information David shared in the story was inconsistent….”[/quote] Well, you’re not alone in thinking that way. I’ve done my best to explain why I feel David was wrong to raise the spectre of a Yamagata/Souza conspiracy with no support for his alleged concern (then say “never mind”) before getting into his commentary, but I haven’t convinced him yet either.
JS: “Well, you’re not alone in thinking that way. I’ve done my best to explain why I feel David was wrong to raise the spectre of a Yamagata/Souza conspiracy with no support for his alleged concern (then say “never mind”) before getting into his commentary, but I haven’t convinced him yet either.”
FWIW, some on the City Council/City Staff have done a lot of behind the scenes wheeling and dealing, repeatedly not following proper process. As a result, citizens (rightly or wrongly) have become very suspicious of EVERYTHING the CC/CS does. Frankly, the CC/CS have only themselves to blame if citizens are suspicious…
The bottom line … David Greenwald “reported” that Richard Yamagata’s letter to the editor was evidence of an unseemly and process disparaging “campaign” or “maneuver” by Councilmember Souza to influence to outcome of the upcoming mayoral decision. He then used this contrived argument as a convenient segue into a series of attacks on Mr. Souza’s judgement, temperament, and character. In the process he attacked Mr. Yamagata for “audaciously” misrepresenting the opinions of Mr. Souza’s critics (ironically assuming for himself the same mantle he accused Mr. Yamagata of wearing).
While a little rhetorical excess from Mr. Yamagata in an endorsement letter could be easily dismissed as innocent, the calculated smear of Mr. Yamagata by Mr. Greenwald in the service of his hit piece on Councilmember Souza is much more serious.
People in this community should be able to write letters to the editor without becoming collateral damage in The Vanguard’s apparent efforts to manipulate the political process under the false colors of alternative journalism.
There is no excuse.
Johnson, the bottom-line you lay out in your first paragraph will be absolutely right if Mr. Yamagata was NOT acting on his own and was [s]not[/s] part of a concerted public effort whereby Mr. Souza would lobby for the position.
If on the other hand, Mr Yamagata was acting on his own and there is no campaign, then the bottom-line is different. In that scenario, David lays out 1) Mr. Yamagata’s incorrect statement, and 2) recounts information from the public record that documents that Souza
[list]A) has had moments when he has astutely helped to forge the middle ground on some issue,
B) on other key issues he has been very much part of the council majority,
C) puts forward ideas from the dais, only to backtrack, stating that he was merely posing the idea or considering it,
D) at times he has been an important swing vote on the council, warding off bad policy decisions that Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson were supporting, and
E) is not consistent. You never know which Stephen Souza you will get – the swing vote, or the guy yelling from the dais that he is the decider. The guy who thoughtfully considers a proposal or the guy who thinks he is smarter than everyone else and is going to tell everyone how shrewd a negotiator he is.[/list]
Which if any of those five parts of David’s description of Steve Souza do you feel is at odds with the facts or the public record?
My bottom-line is different . . . Steve Souza has tried to steer a course through the middle ground, and is a walking example of the old adage that you can’t please all the people all the time.
The Vanguard apologists now appear to be circling the wagons. It’s worth noting that ERM and MW have both published their own articles on this blog.
The issue is not Mr. Souza or the trustworthiness of the the City Council and staff. To repeat[quote]The bottom line … David Greenwald “reported” that Richard Yamagata’s letter to the editor was evidence of an unseemly and process disparaging “campaign” or “maneuver” by Councilmember Souza to influence to outcome of the upcoming mayoral decision. He then used this contrived argument as a convenient segue into a series of attacks on Mr. Souza’s judgement, temperament, and character. In the process he attacked Mr. Yamagata for “audaciously” misrepresenting the opinions of Mr. Souza’s critics (ironically assuming for himself the same mantle he accused Mr. Yamagata of wearing).
While a little rhetorical excess from Mr. Yamagata in an endorsement letter could be easily dismissed as innocent, the calculated smear of Mr. Yamagata by Mr. Greenwald in the service of his hit piece on Councilmember Souza is much more serious.
People in this community should be able to write letters to the editor without becoming collateral damage in The Vanguard’s apparent efforts to manipulate the political process under the false colors of alternative journalism.
There is no excuse.[/quote]
Johnson, there is no apology and none is needed. You have ducked the question I posed to you. I pose to you again. Do you have the courage to answer it honestly?
[list]Which if any of those five parts of David’s description of Steve Souza do you feel is at odds with the facts or the public record?[/list]
I will also pose the question another way. If a description is not at odds with the facts and the public record, how is it a calculated smear campaign?
Finally, let me pose one more question to you, was Mr. Yamagata’s representation “Even Stephen’s political critics say ‘he works well and gets along with others, and he gets things done.” accurate or inaccurate?
As I said in my initial post, I campaigned long and hard on the Vanguard and in person for Steve in his last election . . . and in the process took a considerable amount of abuse. I stand by all the reasons that I stated then. If that same election were to be held tomorrow I would make the same arguments in support of a Souza vote. With that said, the five points A) through E) in my post above were accurate then, and they are accurate now. As I said before, you can’t please all the people all the time. Steve is no different on that score than anyone else.
dmg: “It’s worth noting that ERM and MW have both published their own articles on this blog.”
Your point being? Secondly, my opinion is somewhat at odds with DGM’s, as I said as the very first poster “I assumed the letter from Mr. Yamagata was his won personal opinion.” Not once in this article did I express an opinion about Council member Souza. However, I do believe the City Council (not all members) and City Staff (not all) have sown the seeds of mistrust by their actions (behind the scenes wheeling/dealing and circumvention of process)…
Oops – correction. Wrong attribution. It should read:
johnson: “It’s worth noting that ERM and MW have both published their own articles on this blog.”
My name is Friday—I’m a cop. All we want are the facts. Just the facts, ma’am.