Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning enjoys a very unique distinction. He has columns in each of the newspaper’s five print editions a week. While some may love his work, finding him humorous and entertaining, he also has the potential to be extremely influential in local politics if he takes on a particular issue.
In the past seven years or so, we can find at least three clear examples where Bob Dunning played a critical role in local politics – on the Covell Village campaign, on the Wildhorse Ranch Campaign and on the 2011 Measure A parcel tax.
He was not successful in defeating the 2011 parcel tax, attacking a letter written to seniors and other procedural facets, but he helped galvanize at that time the strongest campaign against a measure which increased the parcel tax by $200 annually. In the end, the voters still approved the measure with 67% of the vote, but it was a few handfuls of votes over the two-thirds threshold.
Measure I will be on the ballot on March 5. Last week, the Measure I campaign finally created its campaign committee. But since November 13, Bob Dunning has written at least eight columns that featured the issue of water – each and every one of them criticized the water project.
One of Bob Dunning’s biggest issues appears to be personal. He believes that, given the large size of his family, he will be pushed into the punitive rate.
Back on November 13, he wrote, “For my money, any rate structure that doesn’t take into account household size is dead on arrival.”
He continued, “Each citizen in our town should have the right to a basic amount of water for everyday needs before moving into a punitive ‘tier,’ where the cost of the same gallon of water spikes dramatically … higher tiers should be reserved for those who clearly waste water.”
“Large families, or those who have taken in mom and dad or uncle Charlie in their later years, should not be punished … the current system does exactly that …,” Mr. Dunning wrote.
One of my biggest concerns here is the ability of Bob Dunning, through the sheer volume of column inches that he commands on a routine basis, to drown out other voices in the community. The Davis Enterprise has always allowed their cash cow pretty much free range.
They have no problem printing opposing viewpoints, but the fundamental problem here is balance – there is no way to create balance here.
In response to my column yesterday, sounding the alarm that Bob Dunning would once again have the opportunity to frame the issues in the election before the Measure I campaign was even organized, Matt Williams quickly wrote up a second point-counterpoint to today’s Bob Dunning water column – essentially his third consecutive column largely devoted to attacking the water project.
Matt Williams said in his email, “I agree with you that Dunning shouldn’t be left to dominate the field alone.”
Our point is not whether we agree or disagree with Mr. Dunning – in fact, there are a lot of points he has made that we agree on. It is rather the propriety of using his unique position to monopolize and frame the conversation – and to do so at least partly for personal gain.
That is not to diminish the fact that Mr. Dunning has raised legitimate concerns, both with the water rates and the ballot structure. At the same time, as we have argued, by insinuating nefarious intentions, he goes too far.
He writes, “For obvious reasons, the City Council – which chose the exact wording on the ballot – decided it was better if the general public was kept out of the loop on the actual financial facts and figures. So much for informed consent.”
Mr. Dunning implies nefarious intent here – and perhaps the city deserves that criticism simply because they left it open – but my reading of the meeting and decision-making process is that the council followed legal advice where it should have been receiving political advice from someone, anyone. They left the issue open, and now Mr. Dunning is going to make them pay for it.
Yesterday, Matt Williams shared on the Vanguard his correspondence with Davis Enterprise editor Debbie Davis.
He wrote to her on November 20: “I just went to the online version of the Enterprise and saw Bob Dunning’s column for today. Its content didn’t surprise me because Bob and I are in the midst of a 100 e-mail flurry on this very topic since Friday. With that said, I believe that in the days and weeks leading up to the March ballot there is a substantial Bully Pulpit opportunity that it would be a good idea to address.
“Bob’s opinions on the subject of water are just that, opinions. I respect those opinions, even honor them, but I don’t always agree with them. What that poses is an opportunity for the Enterprise to expand Bob’s opinion sharing from a once a day event to a twice a day event. All his wonderful and witty expostulations on non-water issues and events would go in his regular column, while his water feelings would go in a Brooks and Shields or Buckley and Vidal style point-counterpoint covering the water issues/thoughts of the day.
“Sometimes the initial thoughts would come from the point and sometimes from the counterpoint. It could be a very informative, lively and reader increasing addition to the Enterprise between now and March.”
To her credit Ms. Davis responded that she was intrigued, but ultimately told Matt Williams that Bob Dunning “wasn’t a big fan of the idea.”
He argued that “he doesn’t like to be pigeon-holed into taking a ‘counter’ position, just to be counter.”
“I am really open-minded about this as we work through the process. The council may yet come up with something on rates that I think is workable,” he reportedly wrote to Debbie Davis.
He added: “Plus, the ballot language is already set. Not much to debate there. I may well write a column or two about the wisdom of the project, but I don’t see it as being anywhere near as regular as Matt does, unless something strange happens.”
“The same for the rate structure. Within the next couple of weeks, the city will have a firm rate structure in place with real numbers that will be sent out as part of Prop. 218 noticing. At that point, there’s not much to debate. Some commentary, for sure, but again, probably not a lot.”
In the end, Debbie Davis wrote, “I’ll abandon the point-counterpoint idea, but I welcome submission of opinion pieces of all types. I have lots of space to devote to local opinion – columns and letters – so let’s fill it!”
There are two primary problems with this state of affairs. First, Bob Dunning appears to be in denial about his role in this process. Since that time, he has attacked the project at least seven times. In fact, we have not found a single positive reference to the project or the process by Mr. Dunning.
It reminds me of the denial of MSNBC that they have become the liberal version of Fox News. Then again, why would Bob Dunning concede his biggest advantage – his volumn of largely unanswerable columns?
A Pew study conducted at the close of the 2012 elections found, “In the final week of the campaign, both Fox News and MSNBC became even more extreme in how they differed from the rest of the press in coverage of the two candidates.”
Their findings show: “On Fox News, the amount of negative coverage of Obama increased – from 47% in the first four weeks of October to 56% the final week. Meanwhile, positive discussion of Romney grew, from 34% of segments to 42%. On MSNBC, the positive coverage of Obama increased from 33% during most of October to 51% during the last week, while Romney’s negative coverage increased from 57% to 68%.”
MSNBC President Phil Griffin unconvincingly attempted to take exception to the comparison.
“Everybody tries to make an equivalency between the two of us and it’s not true,” Phil Griffin attempted to defend. “There is no equivalency in the way we do our analysis and reporting. I am not saying this about all of Fox. They do some good work but in prime time and in tone, they have an agenda.”
He argued, “One side was cheerleading… When it was over, they struggled because they had totally created this bubble of misinformation.”
His side, “We do honest analysis with – yes – a point of view, but it’s honest and our folks called out Obama when he failed but they weren’t cheerleading.”
As one media critic noted, it was not convincing. Wrote the Washington Post‘s Erik Wemple, “Following the first presidential debate, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews just about broke down on air. He trashed Romney and appeared distraught at the performance of Obama, virtually coaching him to improve for the next game. Is that not the reaction of a cheerleader?”
Mr. Griffin responded, “He was angry that a guy that he has said on policy issues he respects was so terrible in that first debate. Instead of misleading people, saying everything was fine, he was honest. Yes, it had emotion to it but he wasn’t cheerleading.”
Earlier this week, it was reported that “Fox producers who wish to place Karl Rove or Dick Morris on-air must get ‘permission’ to put them on.”
Mr. Griffin apparently feels vindicated, “If you’re looking for evidence that the Pew study is inaccurate, take a look at what just happened. MSNBC does have a point of view but was honest and accurate about what was going on with the election. Fox was dishonest and misleading in their analysis and now benching two of their key contributors.”
But there is a bigger problem here locally. There is no effective way within the Davis Enterprise newspaper to counter a columnist who gets five columns a week to write whatever he wants.
Even allowing Matt Williams carte blanche to respond, it will take the structure of the paper several days for his response to get printed, and in the meantime, Bob Dunning can write several columns in the intervening days and respond with several columns before Matt Williams can respond again.
Bob Dunning wrote his “Friends, Davisites, countrymen, lend me your ears” column on November 20. Matt Williams’ response was not printed until November 25.
The Vanguard operates on a quicker medium. So today, Matt Williams can respond to today’s Bob Dunning column.
The Vanguard‘s goal in this election is not to take sides, but rather to ensure a fair and open process and to make sure that the facts get out, and misinformation is corrected.
It is an emerging role in the new era where traditional media has become increasingly less important than the internet, social media and citizen journalism.
There was an interesting article yesterday in Politico talking about the GOP’s effort to catch up to the Obama campaign in terms of digital campaigning.
Politico wrote: “How both Republicans and Democrats decide to use their 2012 data headed into the 2014 midterm elections and the next presidential race could determine who has the digital edge for the forseeable future at a time when television ads are becoming less important and more voters are turning to the Internet for their political information.”
The water campaign figures to be interesting, as the Measure I campaign figures to struggle and fight for ways not to cede the campaign message to Bob Dunning.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Please. The rates are a mess, and they aren’t even on the ballot. Don’t attack the messenger. I’ve been demonized for over a year for saying these things, and now there are attacks on Dunning for speaking the truth ?
You didn’t read this column very carefully Mike.
I wrote: “Our point is not whether we agree or disagree with Mr. Dunning – in fact, there are a lot of points he has made that we agree on…
That is not to diminish the fact that Mr. Dunning has raised legitimate concerns both with the water rates and the ballot structure.”
In fact: Show me where there is any attack on Dunning at all in this column?
DMG: [i]He was not successful in defeating the 2011 parcel tax, attacking a letter written to seniors and other procedural facets, but he helped galvanize at that time the strongest campaign against a measure which increased the parcel tax by $200 annually. In the end, the voters still approved the measure with 67% of the vote, but it was a few handfuls of votes over the two-thirds threshold.[/i]
I didn’t see Dunning as being personally against Measure A. In fact, there were hints of his support of it. But he did have a couple of issues with how things played out in that campaign that weren’t favorable to the Yes side. As I saw it, I don’t think Dunning shifted opinion that much. He gave some validation to those who were going to oppose it anyway, however. There were several other reasons why Measure A was a close vote apart from Dunning’s criticisms.
Nothing is perfect in politics, and I think Dunning often likes to point that out to keep anyone from getting too self-righteous on any issue. He likes to engage in that discussion and also have his concerns addressed.
What Williams is doing is correct. Explain his thinking, what went into it, and point out why his (Williams’) position is the best result one can come up with. It’s not exactly an issue of winning an argument, but to respect the concerns others have.
Davis voters show certain characteristic patterns on issues, but regardless they don’t want their vote taken for granted.
“I didn’t see Dunning as being personally against Measure A. In fact, there were hints of his support of it. “
i have a different take. dunning claimed he was for it and other parcel taxes even though most of his words were against it. he didn’t want to take an unpopular position on an issue like schools – particularly having his own litter – but his claims to me always struck me as bill o’reilly’s claims that he was really not a conservative.
So he is for it until he is against it?
David: [i]”He was not successful in defeating the 2011 parcel tax.”[/i]
This is such a ridiculous statement on your part, David. You should be embarrassed. You provide no actual words from Bob Dunning’s column where he says or implies he was against Measure A, yet you use that as your first example of where you claim Dunning was pushing his own agenda to change the votes in Davis?
You don’t even point out that Dunning said in his column that he was voting Yes on Measure A.
If I recall correctly, Dunning’s primary pique came about during that campaign, when the school district was using taxpayer money to openly campaign in favor of a yes vote with regard to seniors being exempt. Almost everyone in town I spoke with, including all supporters, agreed that the school district was mistaken to do what it did. Eventually, the superintendent and Richard Harris apologized for that mistake.
A second and clearly minor complaint of Bob Dunning was over the fact that it was to be a mail-only ballot. Being that I was (long before Freddie Oakley) the first person in Davis openly calling for all-mail ballots, I clearly disagree with Bob on that. But don’t try to pull the wool over your readers that opposing a mail-in ballot is at all equivalent to opposing Measure A.
A third thing I remember Dunning mentioning in that campaign was his opposition to requiring a super-majority (2/3) to pass a parcel tax. He called for 50% +1. He also repeated general complaints he has about the way Prop 13 restricts local tax measures, making them less fair than they could be in his view. Those were not criticisms of Measure A. They were criticisms of Prop 13, which he has stated many times over the years.
and rich, i suppose you are going to claim that dunning is really for the measure i campaign as well because he never said, vote against it?
If Dunning has decided to be against Measure I for whatever his reasons then that’s his choice. Is that okay with everyone? Would you all be complaining if he was advocating for it?
“Is that okay with everyone?”
he can do whatever he wants personally. the issue is news coverage and fairness of coverage, not his personal position.
“Would you all be complaining if he was advocating for it? “
i would have exactly the same complaint.
Oh, c’mon Greenwald. ‘fess up: You’re just Jealous. Bob Dunning gets to “write anything he wants” (which is not exactly true, if you stop writing and think about it a second) and you have to answer to any local yokel who wants comment on your website. Besides, Dunning’s a much better, more engaging writer than you!
growth: [i]”and rich, I suppose you are going to claim that Dunning is really for the Measure I campaign as well because he never said, vote against it?”[/i]
Bob said explicitly in his column that [i]he voted Yes on A[/i]. How hard is that to understand. David Greenwald should be embarrassed by this sh#tty story he tells above.
As I noted, the problems Dunning had with Measure A’s unfairness were not so much with Measure A as they were with Prop 13. He had raised those same points many times previously. He was not alone among Davis commentators on that. For example, when Susie Boyd was on the school board and she was leading a campaign in favor of a different parcel tax, Susie raised the same complaints about Prop 13. Yet Susie said we had to live with that unfairness, just as Bob said about Measure A.
Dunning has never said in his column how he intends to vote on Measure I. It is, however, reasonable to infer that he is leaning No. He has made it clear that he finds aspects of the composition of Measure I to be troubling and unfair, and those aspects are not largely due to restrictions imposed on Davis by state law, but instead are due to choices made by the Davis City Council.
i’m not following why david would be embarrassed about a single line in what appears to be a 2000 word article where even you acknowledge, dunning is likely leaning ‘no.’ the main point he was making was the influence that dunning has – do you deny his influence? moreover, do you think dunning’s five columns a week should have no balance? that’s the point i see greenwald making here – a balance issue.
[quote]You’re just Jealous. [/quote]
I don’t see Davis as jealous. He has a fairness shtick and this prolly violates his ethos.
David – I just do not see the value in bemoaning Bob Dunning’s “power” or how he wields it. A daily, local newspaper gives him space to write. He takes advantage of that to push his ideas. Said newspaper is under no obligation to provide a point/counterpoint approach to the things he writes about. The Vanguard plays an extremely valuable role in providing a counterpoint to his statements. Most of what Dunning writes is pure opinion and not subject to fact checking. When he gets his facts wrong–or distorts facts–he should be called on that–here and in Enterprise letters or Op-Eds. Let’s allow Dunning to be Dunning, value what he brings to the community, and call him out if we feel he is out of line factually.
If large numbers of people in this town base their votes on Measure I solely on Dunning’s pieces then we have a problem that I am not sure how to solve. I don’t think that is the case and I think the Vanguard should point out SUBSTANTIVE errors or distortions in what he writes if/when they occur. Let’s leave it at that.
In my experience, especially in the context of a negative campaign, I think it helpful to present the proposed rate structure graphically. People who may only be exposed to the “common sense” albeit overly simplified criticism from people like Bob Dunning, and who will not spend a lot of time trying to understand what this ballot measure is all about need an “at-a-glance” description. I would suggest a stacked bar chart of the rate structure with the mostly fixed parts of the rate on the bottom and the most variable on the top. Then, one could show three or four examples of, say, a couple living in an apartment, a family of four living in a condo, a typical 3B, 2ba house with a family of four and an Alhambra Estate McMansion on a ¼ acre with a 500 sq. ft. swimming pool. A four-panel picture of what rates will look like for the community that can be placed on one
8 1/2×11” sheet would put to bed all of the issues around pricing.
In my opinion, the more important question is not the rates, but whether we as a community have the vision to look beyond the immediate time horizon and accept higher costs as an investment in our future. We had the opportunity to do just that when Berryessa was built in the late 1950s but passed on it. This is, in fact, the primary problem with Bob Dunning’s criticism. He is focusing only on the price of the project as it impacts individual households. He is placing immediate cost ahead of long term investment that will contain long term costs, near term price increases ahead of long-term planning and environmental impacts. Bob Dunning is paid to entertain, not to inspire or provide vision. You won’t get and can’t expect to get anything more from Bob Dunning, so let’s make sure his questions are clearly answered in a way that forces him to abandon this particular angle on the issue.
@davehart: You raise some very important points that I have been thinking about.
1. I agree fully that we need a graphical presentation. As a visual learner I value a well thought out “infographic.” Matt, if you see this, I would be willing to work with you on this and have some ideas.
2. Your vision comment is very important and trying to have a longer-term vision for our community is what has convinced me to support this effort. We know the risks of inaction and we also know that water is a resource that is going to become increasingly precious in the coming years. Though I cannot say that this is THE BEST way to assure our long term water needs are met, I have heard nothing from those opposing it that reassures me that a better vision is out there. I too am concerned that people are only thinking very short term and only in what appears to be fairly narrow self-interested ways. I think our CC is trying to articulate a strong vision on this one.
[i]He can do whatever he wants personally. the issue is news coverage and fairness of coverage, not his personal position.[/i]
As it pertains to people working in the media, I see these simple rules:
If your job is to write political opinion pieces then it is ethical to write political opinion pieces (Dunning).
If your job is an artist, then it is ethical to use your art to express political opinion and commentary.
If you job is an entertainer, then it is ethical to express political opinions through the entertainment products you help create.
If your job is a news anchor or talking head working for a news media venue format that encourages and practices two-sided conflict and debate, then it is ethical to take a side in that conflict and debate.
Otherwise it is unethical for anyone working in the media to spew forth political opinion and commentary because of the corruptive influence on readers, viewers and fans that know no better and rely on these sources for information… and the corrosive impact this has on the democratic process.
Jeff: agree
[i]”You won’t get and can’t expect to get anything more from Bob Dunning, so let’s make sure his questions are clearly answered in a way that [b]forces[/b] him to abandon this particular angle on the issue.”[/i]
Forces him? I don’t understand that.
Shouldn’t your attention be, if that is your point of view, to ‘make sure his questions are clearly answered in a way that’ [i]convinces a majority of voters[/i] in favor of the way you see things?
I think there is a point somewhere in this piece that is interesting. Unfortunately it is hard to find or extrapolate. It might have something generally to do with Bob Dunning’s extremely large range of topics, or his power in introducing or emphasizing certain perspectives on certain topics.
Perhaps the real point in this is that it might be time for developing a new columnist at the Enterprise? I don’t know, that might be a more interesting read.
I certainly appreciate Bob’s columns but 60% of the time would rather read someone else- say perhaps Richard Harris, if he were ever to return.
Been reading Bob’s column since my days as a Sociology major at UCD I don’t always agree, but it’s always a good read.
one thing of which i am unaware is the effect this will have on local business, especially restaurants that wash dishes and my athletic club where so many come to shower after a workout. a penalty for over a certain number of gallons could be yet another blow to local business.
[quote]he can do whatever he wants personally. the issue is news coverage and fairness of coverage, not his personal position.
[/quote]
Apparently you have’t spent much time on the Judicial/Reisig watch side of this site.
Mercy4all: you are exactly correct. And why don’t we see more businesses publically coming out against this project?
From my research around town, many of them are afraid to speak out, because the CC and staff powers-that-be all want this overly expensive project that is too soon after the economic meltdown, and the fear is they will punish those who oppose it.
And, they are correct.
So, again, the “progressives” have to do the work to keep this town in one piece, and affordable. It’s ok with me. Local business is great, and I support all of them, and since I dont have any local customers in my aviation law practice, I am free to take controversial positions that support local business.
Stopping this water project under its current structure benefits local business, so I am happy to carry that political burden for them.
Same for stopping staff from changing the zoning at Target that our local businesses worked so hard to submit to the voters. I’ll carry that burden for them, as I support local business.