Comments by StephelIndependent
Page 1 of 1
Posted on November 4 at 9:07 a.m.
As my high school English teacher used to ask, "So what?"
I don't mean to be flip -- but what exactly is the point here? The seeds of at least five worthy theses are hinted at, yet none reaches any conclusion.
Is nudity scary and wicked? When nubile teens flaunt their sexuality, is this Darwinian preservation of species, or aberrant behavior? Is alcohol okay for over-21s but immoral for teens? Do legal sanctions that impact college acceptances benefit society as a whole? Should the law respond differently to teens experimenting with alcohol in a hotel where they're spending the night vs. drinking and driving?
Lots of questions implicit in Chong's column, but it begs focus.
Posted on August 15 at 6:05 p.m.
" "These are employees who have testified and will testify here that their sole goal is to take over the newspaper so that the owner of the newspaper has no involvement in how they write their stories or when they write their stories.” It was a statement that everyone in the room could agree with. "
Maybe Kettman should have explained WHY this is a statement everyone could agree with. Readers coming from a purely business POV might see this as absurd -- the idea that an owner shouldn't have total control of the business. Those of us more concerned with freedom of the press see that scenario -- where the publisher controls revenue but not editorial -- as the ideal.
Posted on August 13 at 5:30 p.m.
I'm already on record with my strong support of Ray Ford's reporting. His original statements arose from first-hand experience, on the ground, in meetings with the decision makers and from his own expert direct observation. Alarming? Well, duh. What's not alarming about a 93,000-acre wildfire, large parts of which are burning out of control in an inaccessible wilderness? To censor the best reporter we have would be a huge mistake. Of course the public has a right to know.
On How Much Info Should the Public Know? (Zaca Fire Bulletin Board)
Posted on August 10 at 9:32 p.m.
Ray Ford is doing a remarkable job. His lead was "In a sign fire command does not believe it can stop the fire from crossing the Santa Ynez River and moving to the front country, the decision has been made to burn out a huge part of the Santa Barbara backcountry."
The "corrected" lead says "In a sign fire that command may not believe it can stop the fire from crossing the Santa Ynez River and moving to the front country, officials are looking into burning out a huge part of the Santa Barbara backcountry."
The first phrase of the correction is gibberish. Usually, when a "correction" is ungrammatical, that's a * sign that somebody who shouldn't be allowed into the editorial office made the correction. (That anonymous tinkerer also forgot to "correct" the photo caption, which still asserts that "fire command has decided to burn out a large part of the backcountry.")
If Ray had made the correction, based on new information, he would likely have appended that correction to the end of the article, as he has done in the past. That is the journalistically ethical way to make such a change, and Ray Ford is a professional. I suspect that some other meddler has been at work here.
============================
* * * * As one of several site meddlers (but not the one who transposed Ray's lead) I appreciate you pointing out the error, which as you now can see is corrected. Thanks also for pointing out the differences in the initial posting and our first update, which occurred about 5pm today.
* * * * We have some formatting limitations on these updates -- in fact I just attempted to make the correction more transparent by utilizing a "strike-through" font, but our system won't accept it. Our current practice notifies readers of significant changes with the "Updated" dateline. Other smaller changes of grammar, spelling, style, clarity, or formatting are not indicated.
* * * * Our ultimate intent is to make the process clearer with increased graphic and format options.-- like making our addendum to your comments perhaps in bold case, which we presently are unable to do.
* * * * Thanks for keeping us on our toes --WebAdmin, 10:58pm August 10.
Posted on August 10 at 7:35 p.m.
I filed a PDF of the article as it was published this afternoon. The revision tells a very different story. This is not the way responsible journalism is handled. If the writer, or the editors, or the publisher, or the mayor, wanted to soften the story -- to say that no decision was actually made last night -- then the correct and ethical way to make that change is to publish a correction. Making invisible changes to a published article is a trick worthy of the SB News-Press.
Posted on August 9 at 11:54 a.m.
hydro420, I'm sure we both recognized this as a "summary." The place for a summary is in Features or, perhaps, Editorials. This one was categorized as News (note the search engine key words and the URL). As "news," it's borderline, and no substitute for substantive information. The Independent has been publishing data directly from inciweb, which is a useful source but lacks expert interpretation for a civilian audience. My comment was intended to express the wish -- surely not only my own wish -- for the Independent editors to continue to seek and pay for the best and most qualified writers to keep us informed. Namecalling is uncalled for.
Posted on August 9 at 8:52 a.m.
Ray Ford's recent articles provided solid, meaningful information we weren't finding elsewhere. This article is a fluffy rehash of sound bites and local gossip. I want to know specifics -- fuel, terrain, strategy. Please ... bring back the maps and the expertise.
Page 1 of 1
Previous Month
Posted on December 26 at 10:38 a.m.
Ethan Stewart is a decent journalist with good local knowledge and a respectable track record. This "year in review" piece doesn't do him justice. It's thin and flip -- and quite a stretch to imply that statutory sex is "diabolically evil" on a par with gang homicide. Nope. This article leaves me with a bad taste.
On The Slime of Santa Barbara