Ken Katz’s recent article on the “District 2 Lawn Sign Wars” and Pamela Drake’s “Why I have decided to support Pat Kernighan for District 2” have spawned over 50 comments—from both supporters of Pat Kernighan and supporters of Aimee Allison.
Although the comments are an eclectic mix of light and heat, fact and fiction—I’m overall heartened that the Guardian is providing a forum for active discussion of and engagement over important issues for our neighborhoods.
Here, from the Editors’ Podium, I want to address a narrow issue brought up in those comments, because the question raised (or accusation made) goes directly to the purpose and integrity of the Grand Lake Guardian as a publication. Then I’ll address a larger implicit question.
A recent comment from a reader signed “Joseph Vincent” said:
When this site went up, lot of eyes narrowed. The core cluster of writers—not all of them—were basically attached to Pat Kernighan/Danny Wan/John Russo politcal triad at the hip. The optomists (sic) were hoping the creation of the site on the eve of Kernighan’s campaign was only a coincidence. It’s pretty clear now that it ain’t. So. THIS is it? This the best shot you guys have?
Here is my reply:
I (Jim Ratliff) am the person solely responsible for the timing of the launch of the Grand Lake Guardian. I’m the publisher and a co-editor but, more relevantly, I’m the webmaster and I constructed the site.
The idea for the Grand Lake Guardian goes back at least to January. It took me several months until I identified the software package that I thought would make my online vision for it practical. Over the summer I put in literally hundreds of hours, including 16-hour weekend days (I have a day job), to try to get it launched as fast as possible. [Although I relied crucially on open-source software, I had to modify the code extensively (learning a lot of PHP and other technologies as I went).]
Why was I in a rush? It had nothing to do with the current council campaign. Instead, it was the debacle known as Oak to Ninth that prompted my initial motivation for the site—in hopes that, through a better-informed citizenry, Oakland’s future would be spared from a repeat of our city government trampling democracy and denying us citizens the true public process we deserved.
And it was the prospect for an Oak-to-Ninth referendum that spurred me to launch as soon as possible. I knew that I wasn’t going to get the Guardian launched in time to help the signature-gathering effort, so I could only cross my fingers that that valiant effort would be successful. But I was trying to launch in time for what I hoped would be a vibrant, information-filled campaign over the referendum question.
Of course, as we all know, John Russo, using (abusing?) his office of city attorney, hastily shut down the counting of the signatures (in a way that couldn’t help but remind me of Katherine Harris in Florida in 2000). If the legal challenges (which I support and to which I am a substantial contributor) to Russo’s action succeed, I promise that the Guardian will be a forum to provide an in-depth examination of all the issues raised by a referendum on the the Oak-to-Ninth project.
We started recruiting/assembling neighborhood activists interested in being contributors to the Guardian back in the spring. At no time was there any kind of litmus test for either the then-upcoming mayoral election or for the District 2 election. Among the contributors, we have people who supported all three major mayoral candidates, for example.
The lack of Guardian contributors who have spoken up for Aimee Allison isn’t by design, but I think it is an understandable byproduct of the Guardian’s focus on recruiting contributors who have a track record of activism in these Lake-side neighborhoods.
A comment from a reader signed “Jerome Peters” may provide the key insight here, and it is worth reading in its entirety. The most-relevant for my purposes here is his explanation that those who value “experience and accomplishments, working with community groups and neighbors matters” are likely to favor Pat Kernighan. That’s pretty much a dead-on description of people who invest tons of their private time in neighborhood activism. No surprise, then, that these activists and Guardian contributors favor Kernighan.
In addition, those of us active in many of the neighborhood’s issues actually know Pat personally and know first-hand the significant involvement she’s had in many of our successes. That personal, first-hand knowledge innoculates us to many of the charges made against Kernighan that can only be seen by us as, at best, seriously ill informed or, at worst, deliberately false and deceptive.
As just one example from a recent letter published in the Oakland Tribune:
Kernighan says she cares about public safety, yet she did nothing in response to recent murders, not until people spoke out, not until Allison was highlighted in an article about the Bangkok Palace murder.
I’m in an excellent position to assess the truth/falsity of this assertion. I was chair of my Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council (Beat 15X, Haddon Hill) and on the board of the Lakeshore/Lake Park Avenues Business Improvement District (BID) during the entire period during which Pat Kernighan assumed her position on the city council and Wayne Tucker became Chief of Police, continuing through the tragic murder at Bangkok Palace and the redeployment of a walking officer for the Grand Lake business district. I personally attended several meetings, over a roughly 18-month period, involving Pat Kernighan, Chief Tucker, and sometimes both, where the neighborhood’s need of a walking officer was discussed. I personally discussed/debated the issue with Chief Tucker at least twice.
The truth is that Pat Kernighan was a tireless, perseverant, and effective champion for a walking officer from the instant she was inaugurated until we finally got one less than a year later. As we all know, Oakland has too-few police officers and for Chief Tucker to deploy a walking officer in Grand Lake he’d have to remove an officer from somewhere else. Chief Tucker is no pushover, so it wasn’t an easy sell. It is unfortunate that it took a murder, but it was Pat Kernighan’s meeting with the Chief following that tragedy, and the foundation she had already laid, that resulted in the long-desired redeployment of a walking officer in Grand Lake.
So from my perspective, the writer’s letter in the Trib would be laughable if it weren’t so infuriatingly clueless. My reaction was “what planet is she from?”
And that’s not to mention other efforts, such as Pat Kernighan’s intensive and sustained involvement in efforts to reduce the crime and violence along 23rd Avenue (a k a the “Murder Dubs”). (These efforts, in a daunting environment, have actually been pretty successful.) Pat’s a doer rather than a horn-tooter, so folks outside the affected neighborhood won’t be very familiar with this. But that neighborhood is grateful. Kernighan took this initiative just because it was the right thing to do for part of her district. It wasn’t politically strategic; there’s not a high rate of voting there.
The contributors to the Guardian, though united in activism for and love of their city and neighborhoods, are actually a varied bunch, fiercely independent, and make up their own minds.
If the Guardian had been launched last spring, you would have seen lots of differences over the choice of mayor. You would have seen Ignacio bashing and Ignacio praising. You would have seen disagreement over whether newcomer Dellums or Oakland-veteran Nadel would better carry the progressive torch. We’ve carried both sides of the Oak-to-Ninth debate.
Empirically it’s true that those contributors who have expressed an opinion about the District 2 race have come to the same conclusion. That’s not collusion, though. It’s just some independent minds—who don't always agree—agreeing on this one question. It’s just how the chips fall.
(Permalink)
Comments
Nancy, you say
I hate to keep fact-checking you :), but… There are two editors at the Grand Lake Guardian: Ken Katz and I. Of those two, only Ken was a signatory of the “Where’s Aimee” flyer, which I had nothing to do with.
So “Where’s Aimee” was an independent action by one of the editors but certainly not of “editors” (plural).
I actually agreed with your critique of the “Where’s Aimee” message, when you said
Although I did agree with the flyer’s more-general assertion that Aimee doesn’t have a track record of accomplishment on District 2 issues.
While I agree with you that the detailed argument of “Where’s Aimee” was weak, I disagree that it was “Swift Boat-esque,” simply because it was factual and clear and not deceptive. And sufficiently clear that anyone reading it could certainly decide for themselves whether the argument being made was a compelling one.
You say:
That was precisely the point of my article: to acknowledge that fact and to seek an interpretation. One interpretation offered was that the Grand Lake Guardian was founded, and timed, in order to provide a platform to advance the Kernighan candidacy. Since I was the primary person behind the timing of the Guardian’s founding, I know better than anyone that that assertion isn’t true, and I explain that in my article. You’re free to believe or disbelieve me on that point as you wish.
Only two of the 15 contributors so far to the Guardian have used the Guardian to make an endorsement: Ken Katz and Pamela Drake. It’s true that that’s two out of two, but it’s also only two out of 15.
The other point I addressed was a related one: Were contributors picked on the basis of their supporting Kernighan? That answer, too, as I explained, is no. In fact, as far as I know, Pamela Drake only recently firmly made up her mind, as I think her endorsement here reflects.
Even mainstream, print news media have columnists and editorial boards, in addition to reporters. There’s nothing anymore “Advocacy Journalism” about a columnist, or indeed an entire publication,” endorsing a candidate. The Trib, the Chron, the Bay Guardian, the East Bay Express, the New York Times, etc. all do that, too. You’ll note that the Grand Lake Guardian has not made an endorsement of any kind about any thing, and I don’t anticipate doing so in the foreseeable future.
The Grand Lake Guardian has a perspective, and a limited one at that. It’s offered as a supplement to the other sources of information that are available. We’re helping to provide additional information and analysis. I wouldn’t want anyone to put blinders on and make decisions based solely on what they read here. (Although, on most issues, including the District 2 race, they would see multiple sides — if for no other reason than all viewpoints can post comments, as you and many others have done.)
The current contributors were recruited from people we already knew to be activists in the neighborhood. There are many dimensions of activism, and my scope is limited: parks/litter/beautification, land use (e.g., McDonald’s), police/public safety, homelessness, waterfront/Measure DD, and preservation (maybe I missed something). There are many other areas that I’m not active in. Not because I don’t believe in them — I’m glad other people are doing them — for example, literacy, education, health care, environmental justice, foster care, reentry of the incarcerated, and, of course, all sorts of statewide and national issues. I’m not involved with them just because I have no more time to devote.
I‘ve always hoped that, after launch, more people would volunteer to contribute. I’d welcome that gratefully!
If there’s a “seamy underbelly” that we’re missing, feel free to write it up — just check out the basic guidelines.
And, Nancy, thanks for your contributions, vigilence, and interest! Keep ’em coming!
Steve, you say that the Guardian is guilty of “not treating the Council race in a balanced manner.”
If you mean that we haven’t had an equal number of columnists endorse Pat and endorse Aimee, that’s true. I haven’t turned down any endorsement of Aimee by a contributor either.
If you mean that the site hasn't devoted an equal number of column inches to proponents of Aimee as to proponents of Pat, I have no idea which way that balance falls.
There are, as I write this, 59 comments to Ken Katz’s District 2 Lawn Sign Wars article. I haven’t tried to quantify the balance beween pro-Aimee/pro-Pat comments on the basis of (a) number of posters, (b) number of posts, or (c) number of words. However that balance falls, I think there’s been enough written there — thanks to the active contributions of the public — that both sides have had a chance to make their points as well as to critique the points of the other side. I think the Guardian has served a useful purpose in facilitating that kind of engagement.
Less than a half-hour later you said—you’re keeping me busy! :)
I think that was the perfect photo for the story. The dreary building by itself has little visual interest. That photo, on the other hand, both clearly communicated the story almost instantly and captured the spirit of the news’ reception. Even Nancy Rieser, on another forum, responded to the news by:
The Trader Joe’s story is big and of interest to many who can’t even vote in District 2. I’ve gotten emails from people in Districts 3, 4, and 5 who are thrilled at the news and thankful we ran the story and did so so quickly.
Simon, thanks for volunteering to redesign the Guardian’s front page and for suggesting that I take photos off the web to publish on the Guardian.
In both cases, I decline.
I’m baffled by your suggestion that the current location of this story (what I’d consider as #3 in prominence) is somehow too hidden. The Trader Joe’s story is much more important. The Halloween parade is, at least for now, more timely.
Pat Kernighan is a huge part of the Trader Joe’s story, so I’m unapologetic about having a photo in which she is an appropriately prominent part.
Steve, in no particular order…
Greg, your first sentence says:
If by that you mean that 100 percent of the endorsements of contributors (as distinct from comments by the public) are in favor of Pat Kernighan, then that’s absolutely true (and pretty obvious, though you spend the remainder of your comment proving it).
My question to you: “Do you have a problem with that?”
The Grand Lake Guardian is in part a journal of opinion (in addition to news, analysis, occasional humor, announcements of events, etc.). Therefore opinions will be expressed.
Many publications endorse candidates. That means they take a side, endorsing one candidate over one or more other candidates. Do you have a problem with that?
In our case, the Guardian itself hasn’t taken a position. Instead, two contributors have each made an endorsement in this race. And they both agreed on the same candidate.
But if it would be fine for the Guardian to take a position for one of the candidates (just like the Oakland Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Times, etc. do on occasion), why should it not be equally OK for all the endorsing contributors to agree on the same candidate?
You seem to have an implicit premise suggested by your last sentence:
That underlying premise is false. It’s never been a goal of the Guardian to be neutral or 50-50 about anything in the opinions expressed. Nor should it be.
You don’t expect The Nation to give equal time to pro-war advocates or for the National Review to give equal time to Bush bashers. They each have a perspective, and that’s legitimate. Our contributors have perspectives, too, and on this race—so far at least—those perspectives are in alignment.
If you re-read the main article, you’ll see that its central point was narrow: neither the creation nor the timing of the launch of the Grand Lake Guardian had anything to with the District 2 council race.
I was not saying that the content published on the Guardian should be neutral on the Kernighan-Allison question. The content reflects the opinions of the contributors who write on that subject. There’s nothing neutral about that; nor should there be. (The rest of the article was discussing why the expressed opinions of the contributors have been in fact tilted exclusively toward Kernighan.)
I appreciate that you don’t have time to read all the comments. I barely do myself! So please allow me to direct you to just one comment of mine that I think covers most of the bases I’d want to hit in responding to yours. Please read this one.
And for my explanation of the choice of photograph, read this one. It says it all and I don’t need to add anything to that.
[I do wonder what alternative you’re suggesting. It’s not like I’m the teacher of a high-school debate class, where I can assign sides to each columnist, like “OK, Ken, you’ll take the Kernighan side and, Pamela, you’ll take the Allison side.” The reason we haven’t run any endorsements of Allison is because none of our contributors has offered such an endorsement. Plain and simple.]
Freddy, re your first comment, I don’t know the answers to your questions, though I think you probably meant “Pat” rather than “Nancy.”
In your second comment, you referred to an earlier comment of mine, where I said in part:
I can’t understand what part of your quote you object to. That we might reject a contribution that wasn’t factual or well-reasoned? Or that I pointed out the obvious that, even if a contribution if rejected by the Guardian, it would be easy to publish it elsewhere?
A “James” (but distinct from James Zahradka) said in an earlier comment today:
James: In addition to the Wilson Riles letter, I’ve received two letters that could be characterized as pro-Aimee/anti-Pat. (I don’t know either of the authors personally and certainly don’t know whether either is African American, so such a bias could not be the basis for my editorial decisions in regard to their submissions.)
In both cases, I communicated to the author the ways in which the submission did not comport with the guidelines for letters to the editors that we announced when we launched the Guardian.
In both cases, I invited the author to revise and resubmit for reconsideration. In one case, revision would have simply been a matter of making the narrative more coherent and clearly stated. In the second case, the author misquoted an interview that she/he provided the cite for. (I told that author that the quote would need to be correct and the rest of the argument adjusted to account for that change.) In neither case did the author avail him/herself of that opportunity.
In the case of Wilson Riles, you say that, apparently because we didn’t print his submitted letter, “he had to post in ‘sign wars.’” Wilson sent me his letter via email at 4:58 p.m. on October 25, when I was driving to attend a meeting with Mayor-Elect Dellums. By the time I returned from that meeting, Wilson had already posted his comment, just over five hours later. If you or Wilson think that we need to post letters within five hours of their arrival, one or both of you has unreasonable expectations.
Steve wrote (at nearly midnight Halloween):
My first reaction is: Why have you waited so long? It’s much more constructive to provide us with viewpoints you want to see than to complain that we haven’t printed viewpoints we’ve never been sent. This would ideally have been a topic we’d been exploring for the past couple of weeks.
I can never guarantee publishing anything sight-unseen, but I welcome any contribution that respects the guidelines. I anticipate and am optimistic that yours will be appropriate so I’ll try to schedule some time for review and publication. You’re really doing this at the last minute. Realistically, if you get it to me tomorrow, I’ll try to have it up—and linked to a new edition of the front page—by the end of the weekend. That’s just how my schedule is booked right now.
James re your recent "YOU, KEN KATZ AND PAMELA DRAKE ARE FULL OF YOU KNOW WHAT!" comment... Please excuse me if I don't make a comprehensive reply, but I'll respond to some of your comment.
You say that I "have a double standard regarding the letters to be published," citing "many falsehoods and inaccuracies" from Ken and Pamela, e.g., as "evident in Pam's posting re. 'push-poll.'"
What falsehood/inaccuracies in Pamela's article? After publication, Pamela added one word and we issued a correction. Something else? And are you saying there are inaccuracies in Ken's "sign wars" article? If so, what are they?
You say:
To be the best of my knowledge, neither I nor the Guardian more generally has ever made such a representation. First of all, the Guardian "serves the neighborhoods surrounding Lake Merritt." That scope includes only some of District 2 and some of District 3.
You give a list of individuals and organizations (of which "many members live in D2") which "were conveniently left out during your 'recruiting/assemblage' of contributors," apparently suggesting that we should have included them within our contributors.
It comes across to me that you're complaining that the Guardian isn't the publication that you'd like it to be. However, it's not the obligation of the Guardian, its publisher, or its editors to be that publication.
Our focus is on neighborhood activism in the neighborhoods surrounding Lake Merritt. To the best of my knowledge, the groups you mention (from SEIU to Filipinos for Affirmative Action to Delores Huerta to Code Pink, etc.) aren't prominent players in neighborhood activism in the neighborhoods surrounding Lake Merritt.
It makes sense for the Guardian to have the relatively narrow focus that it does. We created the Guardian precisely because we felt the need for a publication with that focus. The Guardian's content will be useful, interesting, and relevant to some people and not to others. That's how it should be.