Vanguard’s Guiding Principles
The Vanguard is a community-based watchdog and news reporting organization that seeks to cover community debates and other events in a full and thorough manner. As our audience has grown, we seek to codify our goals and principles underlying our operations. Our goals are to provide transparency, accountability and fairness to local government, while promoting social justice and democracy, and adhering to principles of accuracy and fairness in our reporting.
Accuracy – Our fundamental goal, whether it is a news story, commentary or investigative piece is the pursuit of truth. We must do our best to ensure that what we report creates an accurate depiction of reality. When we do err – which is inevitable – we will do our best to correct the stories and the record in a way that makes sense. We must rigorously and systematically review our facts and be convinced of their accuracy prior to reporting them to the public.
Fairness – The Vanguard‘s overriding goal is for all involved to believe our coverage was tough, but ultimately fair. We eschew conventional notions of false balance – adding statements that do not add to the reader’s understanding of the story for the sake of balance. We also eschew the notion that balance equals accuracy. Sometimes fair and balanced is actually less accurate. Instead, we view our primary job with respect to fairness is to accurately depict the competing positions, make reasonable efforts to gather responses to those who are the subjects of criticism, unfavorable allegations or other negative assertions in our stories. Whatever is quoted or interpreted should be as faithful to the intended meaning as possible. Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth and hold those who are in power accountable for their decisions in ways that are tough but ultimately accurate.
Independence – Our primary allegiance is to the public good, open government and transparency. As such, we do not endorse candidates as an organization, on our pages, or among our principals. The Vanguard is a donor-based organization – as such we take monetary donations and advertising from people and businesses in the community much as commercial enterprises rely on subscribers and advertising for their revenue. Under no circumstance do we skew our reports in order to gain advertisers or sponsors. Decisions about what we cover and how we do our work are made by the principals involved in the Vanguard and not by those who provide the Vanguard with financial support.
Impartiality – The Vanguard is primarily a watchdog organization that, through its reporting, supports open government, transparency and social justice. The Vanguard frequently takes active positions on issues in this community. While we take active positions on the issues of the day, we have and maintain an open submission policy, whereby any party is welcome to submit an editorial/op-ed in response to an article or to raise an issue in general with the public. When we receive an op-ed on issues with multiple opinions, we will attempt to seek out an op-ed from the other side.
Transparency – The Vanguard operates in an open and transparent manner. We will attribute information we receive from others, making it clear to our audience when the information is derived from other sources and when the Vanguard learns that information firsthand. Sources of information should be appropriately attributed. In order to report stories that promote transparency and open government, and expose corruption or wrongdoing, it becomes necessary to use information from anonymous sources. We must determine to our satisfaction whether the source is credible and reliable, and whether there is objective justification for using the source’s information without attribution.
When using anonymous sources there are several things that are of critical importance. First, there should be no anonymous attacks on other people. Second, while the name may be withheld, any time that they are withheld completely or in portion, the Vanguard will make it clear. Even within anonymous sourcing, the Vanguard will provide as much information as we can about the anonymous individual or individuals. When we attribute information to anonymous sources, it is assumed that these are our sources and that we have obtained the information firsthand from them.
Accountability – The Vanguard takes full accountability and responsibility for what we report and we are ready and willing to answer for it. Reader feedback is a critical part of that accountability. We have an open process for submitting comments that includes required registration. Users are free to comment and express any opinion they wish to, so long as they avoid the use of profanity and avoid making unnecessary personal attacks. The Vanguard will never edit or remove a comment for content, criticism, or disagreement with a stated position.
The Vanguard will correct any factual errors that occur during the course of its reporting. That may take the form of an in-text edit or a retraction depending on the severity of the mistake. Egregious errors will demand a separate article or rebuttal. Smaller errors may be corrected without notation. It is important to note that factual errors are by definition errors in describing the facts of situation – for instance reporting that Joe Doe said something, when in fact he said the opposite. These need to be corrected. Those differ from differences of opinion.
Vanguard Values
The People’s Vanguard of Davis is devoted to four critical values: transparency, democracy, open government and social justice.
Transparency and Open Government go hand in hand. The Vanguard believes that in order for citizens to monitor their government, they must know what their government is doing. We view this principle as showing the public what public officials have done and allowing citizens and the media to have full access to scrutinize the actions of government. The Vanguard voraciously guards these values and makes frequent use of the Public Records Act (PRA) and other acts that require public disclosure to ensure that the citizens know what its government has done even when the lights and camera have been turned off.
Along with transparency in government, the Vanguard seeks its own transparency through a disclosure of its donors. Donors for 2011 shall be immediately available. On an ongoing basis, the Vanguard will provide quarterly updates. All requests must be in writing to: P.O. Box 4715, Davis, CA 95616. Requests must be made by actual, verifiable persons using their full legal names. Notwithstanding this policy, the Vanguard reserves the right to redact names upon request of the donor.
Democracy – The Vanguard believes that the process of government is more important than its outcome. This principle means ensuring that government bodies adhere to proper democratic process and allow for the citizens to voice dissent. Moreover, it means ensuring that all actions are taken in the open and are above the board, that the process allows the dissenters to have their say, and allows the minority members in a governmental body to have an equitable but proportionate say in the matter.
In the realm of criminal justice, we believe in the due process of law, the rights of the accused, and the federal and state constitution. We believe every individual is entitled to a fair trial, quality legal representation, an impartial judge, and a trial before the jury of one’s peers. We question local decisions and state and federal laws and case law that would deprive individuals of these rights.
Finally, we view government and government actors with fair but passionate skepticism. We believe in the need to question decisions made and the rules under which they have been made.
Social Justice – Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities. Above all else, the Vanguard stands for the fight for social justice. In our view, we believe that means that people should express their views without fear of persecution or retribution. They should enjoy the right to freedom of speech, dissent, press and assembly. There should be a right to representative democratic institutions that will reflect the will of the majority, while protecting the rights of the minority. We believe that people of all races, creeds, religions, ethnicities, income, socio-economic and sexual orientation should have access to the same rights and opportunities. We believe that an injustice to one is an injustice to all. The Vanguard at its core believe as Martin Luther King, that the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice and the Vanguard supports that struggle toward freedom, justice and the fight against inequality.
What about “honesty”… as an expectation of the Vanguard, and those who post to it?
no comment.
[quote]Notwithstanding this policy, the Vanguard reserves the right to redact names upon request of the donor.[/quote]Should this be allowed by government entities, as well?
Meant to say should this be allowed by candidates, PAC’s as well…
You have said that you will provide a list (redacted) of donors… how about “principals”?
David, the activities of the past week are going to be good tests of both the Fairness and Accountability provisions of your Guiding Principles. [i]”The Vanguard’s overriding goal is for all involved to believe our coverage was tough, but ultimately fair.”[/i] and [i]”The Vanguard takes full accountability and responsibility for what we report and we are ready and willing to answer for it.”[/i]
The first sentence of Accountability needs to be expanded to say [i]”The Vanguard takes full accountability and responsibility for what we report and do not report, and we are ready and willing to answer for it.”[/i] What you choose not to report on, or delete from the site, is every bit as important as what you choose to report on or not delete. Cover-ups are probably even more explosive than expose’s.
To bring the above comment on principles down to real life specifics . . .
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”So, will you be reporting on the charges [Sue Greenwald] made in the Vanguard (as I think you said you would do once you did your own investigation)?”[/i]
David M. Greenwald responded . . .
[i]”Sue was never willing to give me anything specific and her comment to me the next day led me to believe she didn’t have anything specific.”
“There is nothing to report.”[/i]
So David, if I read your words correctly, Sue gets to paint Steve with the innuendo slander brush with no substantiation, and you give her a free pass . . . and cover up her words of innuendo.
Do I have that right? If I do, how does that square with your commitment to be “tough, but ultimately fair”?
[quote]We must determine to our satisfaction whether the source is credible and reliable, and whether there is objective justification for using the source’s information without attribution.[/quote]
This is and has been a troubling issue for the Vanguard as well as a Council member – the old “unnamed sources” or “unnamed experts” problem. First of all, it is easy to opine as if an expert when you know you will not be held accountable for what you say. Secondly, the Vanguard gets to arbitrarily decide whether the source is “credible” and “reliable”, which is most definitely a judgment call and very subjective. And often those alleged “credible” and “reliable” sources are highly questionable IMO…
For those who are interested in the innuendo, it went as follows . . .
[i]Sue Greenwald
05/08/12 – 11:04 PM
…
Due to new information that I have received, I am no longer going to argue that there was more than one victim.[/i]
and
[i]Sue Greenwald
05/08/12 – 11:19 PM
…
I am no longer going to argue that there was more than one victim in today’s mailing. I will no longer be defending the other party.[/i]
When I asked her what that meant, her response was essentially no comment. Based on that, I pulled her comments. I was then asked if I would pursue the matter further, however, there was never enough information to act on and based on that, I made the decision to leave it a dead issue.
“T’he Vanguard gets to arbitrarily decide whether the source is “credible” and “reliable”, which is most definitely a judgment call and very subjective. And often those alleged “credible” and “reliable” sources are highly questionable IMO… “
That is correct, ultimately the Vanguard whether myself or someone else ultimately has to make the call. I pulled the language almost verbatim from NPR’s policies. At some point you will either have to trust the Vanguard or not.
What this policy does do is a few things:
1. It expressly puts the policy down in writing
2. It limits the use
Sue Greenwald’s comment could simply have meant that she no longer thinks that the attack mailer against her would be harmful to Souza as well. You all are reading into it. No accusation was made.
[quote]That is correct, ultimately the Vanguard whether myself or someone else ultimately has to make the call.[/quote]
But you do see the problem? If the Vanguard has an agenda, let’s say a dislike for the DA for instance, then the Vanguard will tend to tilt towards unnamed sources that agree with its agenda, such as the defense no? And there is no way for the reader to be able to tell if the source is credible or not. Secondly, unnamed sources don’t have to be responsible for what they say, so it is easy to formulate any conspiracy theory one wants to imagine, for instance the DACHA issue. At times it is almost impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff when the stalk of grain is unidentified in a vast field of wheat… JMO…
A distinction probably should be made between the article and the comments. Or are comments, even by the author of the article, expected to abide by the same values?
If you look under accountability you see the principles do distinguish between comments and reporting
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”Sue Greenwald’s comment could simply have meant that she no longer thinks that the attack mailer against her would be harmful to Souza as well. You all are reading into it. No accusation was made.”[/i]
In isolation that makes logical sense davisite; however, Sue’s comment doesn’t exist in isolation. Sue chose not to respond to David’s request. She didn’t come on the Vanguard and say anything like what you have laid out above. She simply let the innuendo hang . . . and in the process extended the politically hanging of Souza.
JMHO
[quote]davisite4 said . . .
“Sue Greenwald’s comment could simply have meant that she no longer thinks that the attack mailer against her would be harmful to Souza as well. You all are reading into it. No accusation was made.”
In isolation that makes logical sense davisite; however, Sue’s comment doesn’t exist in isolation. Sue chose not to respond to David’s request. She didn’t come on the Vanguard and say anything like what you have laid out above. She simply let the innuendo hang . . . and in the process extended the politically hanging of Souza. [/quote]
I don’t follow your logic here. There are (at least) two different interpretations of Sue’s words. You’re simply saying that because she didn’t explicitly state that she meant one, that she must have meant the other. Seems like a stretch to me.
Any responsible journalist should not have to tell its readers that it follows ethics in its writing, that should be apparent to the readers. The quality of the writing should be able to stand alone and speak for itself.
You of course have studied to see what other major news organizations have done. Of course if you had, you would recognize that this is very standard in the industry. Your argument is kind of like arguing that we don’t need to have written laws since any responsible individual’s behavior should adhere to a basic set of standards. It’s always important to lay out what exactly your standards and practices will be, even if parts of them are seemingly common sense.
no, I did not argue that governing principles should not exist. Of course they do and should. I think if you were so confident of your adherence to those principles, you would not need to claim you adhere to them as it would be evident in your writing you do. But you know and I know you do not adhere to those principles beginning with the unnamed sources problem.
I do not study journalism, although I am aware of different level of judgement in articles. In some type of articles, the author would report what [i]others[/i] have said, but would never make a judgement on whether what was said was valid. In some other types of article, the author would both report and analyze the validity of what was said.
According to what I have read from Vanguard, Vanguard belongs to the second type because it is investigative. In this type of reporting, TRUTH goes beyond accurate reporting, and includes systematic disqualification of false information. To fairly disqualify information, the author would list a common set of laws, rules, and procedures that the author uses to disqualify information.
(Note: disqualifying information does not mean censorship. If Mary and John were fighting and each of them claimed the other started the fight (i.e. a contradiction), the Author would report both claims, but would not stop there. The intention to know the TRUTH leads the Author to investigate. If the investigation shows that Mary’s claim was incorrect, the Author would state the falsehood and state the reason.)
In this context, Impartiality is evident when information from any perspective is subjected to the same process of disqualification and the same explicit judgement is stated regardless what side that information supports. Transparency is evident when the common rules and the situational information used to disqualify is disclosed. Fairness is an redundant principle to list if Truth is listed as a principle.
Fairness becomes non-redundant if the reporting goes beyond disqualifying information, into proposing solutions. Evidences of a fair solution proposal is an accurate account of the concerns from all parties, a solution that addresses all concerns or a common method to prioritize the concerns when the solutions cannot address all of them. In this type of reporting, in additional to fairness, the Author could also adhere to a principle of “mutual good” over “collective good”, where the Author first and foremost has a mindset that look for a solution that is good for every individual, not just sacrificing some for the greater good. Collective good is not the intention but a backup plan.
Therefore there are at least four types of reporting sitting on a continuum:
1. Report
2. Report and disqualify
3. Report, disqualify, and propose
4. Report, disqualify, propose, and act
In some organization the action is limited. For example, news reporting typically limits itself at the first level. However, ultimately, every individual in a community should operate at the fourth level. Therefore, any concern on not operating at the fourth level is only legal (fear of litigation), not ethical (fear of doing the wrong thing). When an Author operates at the fourth level, the Author inevitably would have this mindset:
The Author recognizes that there is an issue, and knows that to solve the issue, the Author needs to know the accurate concerns of all parties so that a solution can be created to address all of them. Fairness is a by-product of looking for look for the inclusive solution. Independence is a non-issue because when all concerns are addressed, it does not matter who is funding whom since the Author is acting on the concerns of everyone and no one is exploited. Accountability becomes a non-issue because no one is dissatisfied.
The Author also knows that he can make mistakes, therefore he discloses all information and rules he uses to draw the conclusions for others to spot his own mistakes. knowledge as a common good and should be disseminated to the public. Transparency and Accuracy are by-products of being diligent and the intention to disseminate knowledge as soon as possible because their goodwill for the community extends beyond their own life and they can’t predict whether their would live the next second.
The Author is not writing to persuade anyone in order to affect a change. The Author is writing to disclose his own understanding of the situation so that the audience can check the logic of the conclusions and the validity of the proposed solutions. Transparency is not a services to the audience, it is what the Author needs to find the solution that would address all concerns. Accountability is a non-issue because the Author is not making any assumption about the parties involved, nor making any accusation. The Author believes that people intend to cooperate and find solutions. In that context, it is everyone’s responsibility to disclose all information, concerns, and ideas, so that the SOLUTION would solve the true problem. The concern of the Author is that if people are withholding information and goodwill to cooperate, then the community as a whole would be wasting a lot of time patching problems instead actually solving them.
Expressed in terms of principles:
To David: Could you remove the last two blocks “The Author is not writing…” to “Expressed in terms of principles:”? Those two blocks were redundant and I didn’t see them when I was adding comment.
‘Notwithstanding this policy, the Vanguard reserves the right to redact names upon request of the donor.”
“Should this be allowed by government entities, as well?” hpierce asked.
Good question. Why don’t you lobby your Legislators and demand that they allow “Government entities ‘ to redact the names of their donors. They redact and hide everything else.