A post appeared yesterday on Salisbury News (I blog which I contribute to) which I find disturbing on several levels. My friend and colleague Joe Albero has chosen to reprint an entry from the Daily Times "Story Chat". While there's nothing particularly wrong with that, unless the folks at Gannett want to get into a twist over a perceived copyright infringement, the piece has no context and is riddled with inaccuracy. The writer of the "Story Chat" entry lists a series of "Facts". Sadly, there is only one fact listed. Everything else is opinion or conjecture.
Yes, it is a fact that nearly seven in ten GOP voters in Maryland's First District voted against Wayne Gilchrest. We all knew that late Tuesday night / early Wednesday morning.
The writer claims that Maryland Sen. Andy Harris' win would have been by an even larger margin had the weather been better on the Western Shore. While this is possible, perhaps even probable, it certainly does not rise to the level of fact. An equally strong case can be made that better weather would have narrowed the margin a bit. Let's face it, among registered Republicans, much of Gilchrest's support was "soft". Far more of Harris' voters are willing to go out in bad weather because they have a strong philosophical bond with Harris.
The writer claims that "Wayne Gilchrest is a dirty campaigner". "Dirty campaigner" is a subjective term. Logically, it cannot be a fact. What evidence does the writer provide?
He (she?) claims that Gilchrest convinced Banks to enter the race in an effort to siphon off Harris votes. Perhaps. Can it be proven? Even if he did, so what. Has the author looked at how many votes Banks received?
He claims that Gilchrest persuaded Maryland Sen. E J Pipkin to get into the race for the same reasons. Is there any evidence to prove this claim? No. The writer's claim is a not uncommon tactic. I've seen it used many times in my life. I fully expected Gilchrest to do this last summer. However, after Pipkin did enter the race I spent some time talking to friends and acquaintances who work closely with Pipkin and this doesn't appear to be a credible claim.
The other claims in that paragraph are either subjective or provide no evidence. The writer also claims that Gilchrest inquired into the possibility of running as an independent. Certainly possible, but certainly not proven. Ditto, the claim that Gilchrest is a sore loser.
The writer claims that Gilchrest's claim of a Reagan endorsement is false. Sorry guy. There was an endorsement by Reagan from, I believe, 1988. Using the endorsement in later races is fair game. Don't like it? Ask to be sent down to "Rookie League".
By now you are wondering, "So what?".
It's simple. Joe likes to portray Salisbury News as an alternative to the Daily Times and other MSM. By printing pieces like this he is committing the same sin so prevalent in the Daily Times, that of "he said, she said" journalism. Just by quoting what someone else has said or written doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to your readers.
I know that many readers will claim hypocrisy on my part because I don't criticize Joe in the same manner that I do the Daily Times. The criticism is fair, but false. I don't hold myself up to be a reporter. I've never claimed to be objective. The difference be me and my friends at the Daily Times is that I'm willing to admit it. I am a journalist only in the sense that other writers of op-ed are journalists. I am very careful to get my facts right before I make claims, but I do not claim to be a neutral observer reporting the news. As for any claim of hypocrisy regarding Albero v Gannett, it's simple. I write what I want. I choose the subject matter. I don't claim otherwise.
I know that some readers will wonder, "Why now?". I've seldom, if ever, criticized Albero in the past. Joe is a friend. Any criticism has been between he and I, either in person or over the phone. My concern now is political as much as anything else.
As I wrote yesterday, the Daily Times appears to be trying to keep the collective knickers of Gilchrest supporters in a perpetual twist. If Albero is the ardent supporter of Andy Harris that he claims, does it serve the best interests of his (and my) chosen candidate for Congress to keep poking sticks at folks who might hopefully vote for Harris in the general? No.
Regardless of the political implications, I simply don't enjoy reading pieces that are actually more guilty of certain sins than the Daily Times. Does Salisbury News aspire to be an online version of a real newspaper? How about the National Enquirer? Either is fine. It's simply a matter of personal taste. However, if the Salisbury News wishes to be an online version of the Daily Times, then I have to beg off. We already have one of those; and while they have been getting better of late (in some areas) they still need a lot of improvement.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Technorati Tags: 2008, Maryland, politics, Maryland politics, media, criticism, Joe Albero, Andy Harris, Wayne Gilchrest, E J Pipkin, Daily Times, Gannett, Salisbury News
Yes, it is a fact that nearly seven in ten GOP voters in Maryland's First District voted against Wayne Gilchrest. We all knew that late Tuesday night / early Wednesday morning.
The writer claims that Maryland Sen. Andy Harris' win would have been by an even larger margin had the weather been better on the Western Shore. While this is possible, perhaps even probable, it certainly does not rise to the level of fact. An equally strong case can be made that better weather would have narrowed the margin a bit. Let's face it, among registered Republicans, much of Gilchrest's support was "soft". Far more of Harris' voters are willing to go out in bad weather because they have a strong philosophical bond with Harris.
The writer claims that "Wayne Gilchrest is a dirty campaigner". "Dirty campaigner" is a subjective term. Logically, it cannot be a fact. What evidence does the writer provide?
He (she?) claims that Gilchrest convinced Banks to enter the race in an effort to siphon off Harris votes. Perhaps. Can it be proven? Even if he did, so what. Has the author looked at how many votes Banks received?
He claims that Gilchrest persuaded Maryland Sen. E J Pipkin to get into the race for the same reasons. Is there any evidence to prove this claim? No. The writer's claim is a not uncommon tactic. I've seen it used many times in my life. I fully expected Gilchrest to do this last summer. However, after Pipkin did enter the race I spent some time talking to friends and acquaintances who work closely with Pipkin and this doesn't appear to be a credible claim.
The other claims in that paragraph are either subjective or provide no evidence. The writer also claims that Gilchrest inquired into the possibility of running as an independent. Certainly possible, but certainly not proven. Ditto, the claim that Gilchrest is a sore loser.
The writer claims that Gilchrest's claim of a Reagan endorsement is false. Sorry guy. There was an endorsement by Reagan from, I believe, 1988. Using the endorsement in later races is fair game. Don't like it? Ask to be sent down to "Rookie League".
By now you are wondering, "So what?".
It's simple. Joe likes to portray Salisbury News as an alternative to the Daily Times and other MSM. By printing pieces like this he is committing the same sin so prevalent in the Daily Times, that of "he said, she said" journalism. Just by quoting what someone else has said or written doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to your readers.
I know that many readers will claim hypocrisy on my part because I don't criticize Joe in the same manner that I do the Daily Times. The criticism is fair, but false. I don't hold myself up to be a reporter. I've never claimed to be objective. The difference be me and my friends at the Daily Times is that I'm willing to admit it. I am a journalist only in the sense that other writers of op-ed are journalists. I am very careful to get my facts right before I make claims, but I do not claim to be a neutral observer reporting the news. As for any claim of hypocrisy regarding Albero v Gannett, it's simple. I write what I want. I choose the subject matter. I don't claim otherwise.
I know that some readers will wonder, "Why now?". I've seldom, if ever, criticized Albero in the past. Joe is a friend. Any criticism has been between he and I, either in person or over the phone. My concern now is political as much as anything else.
As I wrote yesterday, the Daily Times appears to be trying to keep the collective knickers of Gilchrest supporters in a perpetual twist. If Albero is the ardent supporter of Andy Harris that he claims, does it serve the best interests of his (and my) chosen candidate for Congress to keep poking sticks at folks who might hopefully vote for Harris in the general? No.
Regardless of the political implications, I simply don't enjoy reading pieces that are actually more guilty of certain sins than the Daily Times. Does Salisbury News aspire to be an online version of a real newspaper? How about the National Enquirer? Either is fine. It's simply a matter of personal taste. However, if the Salisbury News wishes to be an online version of the Daily Times, then I have to beg off. We already have one of those; and while they have been getting better of late (in some areas) they still need a lot of improvement.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Technorati Tags: 2008, Maryland, politics, Maryland politics, media, criticism, Joe Albero, Andy Harris, Wayne Gilchrest, E J Pipkin, Daily Times, Gannett, Salisbury News
5 comments:
Nice writing GA. I read this blog (sbynews) daily, and have for some time, and am encouraged by the changes the new year has brought about, namely more contributors and a (mostly) subdued tone.
However, as you contirbute more posts, and other writers take part in the site, I am (sadly) growing tired of the "ranting" posts of Joe. Let me state: I do not know Joe, and have no problems with him at all. I am not an "anti-Albero" or someone who has any problems with him or his opinions.
However, his sometimes over-the-top posts and "hey, look at me" writings can get distracting, to the detriment of the overall quality of the site.
It is a relief to see that the ranting and comlaining and back-and-forth with fire department members has stopped, since it was all mostly unreadable on both sides. However, over the last few months, I wold come to the site and be left rumbling, "Christ, another Andy Harris post? I get it. You like him." This is not becuase of my support (or lack of support) for any candidate. I jsut felt, as a reader, that sbynews was becoming a surrogate of the Harris campain, and les of a community information forum.
I believe your post about the facts is dead on. To prove sbynews is "better" than the Daily Times, it should not do the same things it lambasts the Times for. The Daily Times gives nearly 3/4 of its opinion page to anonymous people, and a once-weekly "9/11 was in inside job" wacko. Posting unsubstanitated Grapevine-esque pieces, and allowing anonymous commenting is the exact same practice as the Times, and just as detrimental to quality discourse.
Keep up the good work GA, and Joe, and everyone. Holding yourselves and each other accountable will improve everyone's invovlement, and provide your readers with a greater product.
Good comment, Dan. And I agree with G.A.'s assessments.
As for him taking Albero a bit to task, good for them both.
It's called accountability, a term which Louise Smith knows how spout but clearly knows NOT its meaning.
We can hope that SBYNEWS gets back to what it does best -- exposing the lies of the Tilghman/Smith administration so us locals can know what's really going on.
Sorry, GA, but the damage is done.
No doubt the Kratovil camp already sees Joe Albero as the gift that will keep on giving until November, just like Barrie Tilghman is counting on him to get her reelected (and Debbie Campbell defeated) in next year's City election.
I agree with you, G.A. I'm an independent who is tired of hearing how bad Gilchrest was. He lost, move on. Harris's opinions on the issues would be welcomed, but the constant negativity on his behalf is pushing me in another direction.
Sadly, as I've said numerous times, this blog could be a HUGE benefit to the greater Salisbury Community, however Joe's rambling over the top posts removes any credibility, ulitmately diminishing the value here to entertainment only. Joe, either tone it down some or everything you've been fighting to change will stay the same just to spite you. If you value G.A.'s work and opinions, take the advice man.
I have doubts that you will though. For some reason, I sense the end of this marriage ending REALLY soon.
Alexander Harper
Salisbury, MD 21801
Post a Comment