The Best Of The Drifts - Fairness In Blogging

Originally published November 18, 2009

A Point Of View But Fair

A point of view but fair. It could be the organically evolved creed of this three year exploration of citizen journalism.

Long have I held the view that media as a whole is shackled by the unattainable goal of "objective reporting". (Having said that, before the furies of old world media descend, there is still a need for objective journalism, but it is part of the equation, not the whole.) The concept is now warped by 24-hour news cycles with powers-that-be seeking the modern day version of a live apartment fire. Readers and viewers, with some arrogance, spout the endless mantra of "just report the facts and let us decide" then scurry as quickly as possible to the latest report of a blonde girl snatched up by a crazed fanatic who force acts of debasement found only in the deepest recesses of the psychotic soul. We bathe ourselves in filth, then complain the news givers never provide cleansing water.

Objective reporting has its place but so does non-objective reporting and how we deal with the consequences of injecting the first person will determine if the form can be elevated or is relegated to an eternal mud wrestle with the Nancy Graces.

In my own world of first person reporting, I certainly do not hide my perspective but in order to maintain fairness, I've stood by three basic rules:

1. Research
2. Quote accurately
3. Give the other side a chance to respond

To the professional journalist, these are as familiar as shoes and socks. In our world, we still have a ways to go.

Monday, the admittedly biased Atlanta Progressive News released a "story" with "community reaction" to its previous story which reported mayoral candidate Kasim Reed's work as an attorney with Holland & Knight defending Cracker Barrel in a wage dispute case. APN noted Cracker Barrel's previous history of involvement in racial discrimination cases and noted the NAACP filed an amicus brief in the wage case. The tenuous connections of race to a non-racial issue caused lawyer blogger Going Through The Motions to brutally dissect APN's research and assertions.

APN's Matthew Cardinale defends his piece claiming that "we made it very clear that the Cracker Barrel case had to do with a wage dispute". He also noted the article clearly points to a separate race discrimination case. Although, he never clearly states it, Cardinale clearly claims the article was fair.

But was it? Let's apply my three rules.

1. Research - Shoddy at best. Obfuscating at worse. After giving great detail in the wage case, including the arguably irrelevant facts of Cracker Barrel's history of involvement in racial discrimination cases and the involvement of the NAACP, Cardinale points to a single case of alledged racial discrimination against a real estate firm. No details on the allegations or the conclusion. In the follow up article, once again quotes regarding Cracker Barrel are extensive, but no specifics about the second case. Perhaps, because there were no specifics.

2. Quote accurately - The whole of the quotes are in the follow up community reaction piece. We assume they are accurate since no one disputes them. Which leads us to...

3. When confronted with the lack of response from the Reed camp, Cardinale stated, "I've been doing this (APN) now for 4 years and usually have a good idea of when a PR department is going to respond, and when they aren't. So, I just didn't want to waste my time, nor my readers' time." Zero effort was made at giving the other side an opportunity to respond.

You might give a pass on the first - although it can certainly be viewed as selective research used to color the sky a particular shade of blue. There isn't much problem with the second. But the third - that sin is so dire it should never pass. A commenter claiming to be a journalist laid out the real world consequences of such a transgression, "I'd more than likely be fired. Maybe if I'm lucky I'd just be docked a week's pay".

I'm not bold enough to say my rules should apply to all. To each their own and let the readers decide what to believe and what is fair.

But if you can't follow these basic rules, then you should never get close to using the "j" word. And you're really quite a peacock if you attach some hopped up, unearned title like "News Editor" to your name.

The Rest Of The Top Ten

I have no time for this anymore. Here is the rest of my top ten blog stories of 2009. If I get to them, I get to them.

1. The Flood
2. Republicans Implode
3. John Henderson, ATAC and Crime
4. The Mayors Race
5. More Media Turmoil (AJC Shrinks, Ben Eason out at CL, SoVo closes)
6. The Governor's Race
7. The Town Halls
8. The Eagle Raid

Feel free to discuss among yourselves.

The Strangest Day Ever?

12-1-09. Next time you think things can't get any weirder, remember that date.

Atlanta elected a new mayor and it wasn't even close to the top story. Not even locally. Why?

Republicans scurried behind close doors to determine the fate of politically wounded leader Glenn Richardson. Two news outlets reported his resignation was imminent. In typical Richardson manner, his people immediately fired back with a "nu uh". Yet, still this morning Republican insiders are saying it's going to happen. (And I ain't even going to get into that "other shoe about to drop" Erick mentioned)

President Obama gave a speech about sending more troops to Afghanistan which resulted in Democrats whining about a "war President" (when this is exactly what Obama told them over a year ago he would do) and Republicans plumbed new depths of cognitive dissonance by calling it isolationism. And you thought the partisanship in the Atlanta Mayor's race was screwy.

Speaking of affairs, the most famous man in the world has been caught not only in one affair, but now two (maybe three, maybe infinity) and even better than Richardson's ex, this one has tape! If you haven't heard the voice mail, let's just say it is devestating.

Oh.

And Atlanta elected a mayor. Maybe. Maybe not.

It's like the entire world took a big huff of glue yesterday.

Atlanta Mayor's Race - The Morning Line

The final morning line!

How weird can it get, bubba? This weird. The candidate who was a delegate to a Republican convention is being called a progressive and the candidate who has the backing of the Democratic Party of Georgia is being called a Republican. Nobody knows what the GBLT community will do. And everybody's stealing yard signs.

Hang on, Mable! The final twist might be a doozy!

Your final line. Things tighten up a bit as Norwood has finally started to make some noise. All eyes will be focused on turnout in the Post 6 Commission race. But don't let anyone fool you into believing they know what the hell they are talking about. (A reminder. This is a football line, therefore the favorite has the negative number)

Kasim Reed: -1.0
Mary Norwood: +1.0

Over/Under on turnout: 32,000

Wager wisely and if your are breathing citizen inside the city limits of the ATL, please vote.

Virtual Mayor's Forum

The Committee For A Better Atlanta is hosting a virtual forum today with the the mayoral candidates as well as others in next Tuesday's runoff.

The event is from 4:30pm to 7:00pm.

Drop by here for more information.

Originally I had not planned to attend but it appears I'll be able to make it. Wonder what I'll ask...

Here's the approximate schedule of candidate appearances:

4:30 pm Kasim Reed
4:45 pm Amir Faroki
5:00 pm Clair Muller
5:15 pm Ceasar Mitchell
5:30 pm Mary Norwood
5:45 pm Liz Coyle
6:00 pm Alex Wan
6:15 pm Aaron Watson

If you have any questions you would like asked, feel free to leave them in the comments.

UPDATE: Due to my work proxy I can't get into the chat to ask a question so you're on your own. But it's a pretty cool deal. Maria Saporta is asking the questions and you definitely should check it out.

Georgia Politics Podcast Episode 23

The podcast is back!

Jason, Catherine, Rusty, Joseph and myself revive the Georgia Politics Podcast with an episode ranging from the Atlanta Mayoral race to the saga of Glenn Richardson.

Listen here.

It's a good one.

Behind The Scenes In the APN/ Reed Battle

As we approach the final lap of the 2009 Atlanta Mayoral Race, tempers travel where they wont and usually arrive in the land of hyperbolic outrage.

It is no secret Atlanta Progressive News has targeted the campaign of the Kasim Reed. In the past week, APN's Matthew Cardinale published stories accusing Reed campaign workers of stealing yard signs and running whisper campaigns against Norwood supporters. APN also endorsed Reed's opponent Mary Norwood.

In return, he has drawn fire from members of Atlanta's blog community and from Creative Loafing's Scott Henry. Not one to shy away from conflict, Cardinale fired back accusing Henry of "waxing right wing".

Last Friday, Cardinale sent an email to a high ranking member of Reed's campaign, copying supporters on the Norwood side, with accusations of theivery, false witness and a general lack of integrity. Cardinale confirmed he authored the email stating, " If I had known you would help publicize, I would've copied you sooner".

The missive does not start lightly.

The fact is you have no credibility anymore. And when I asked you about those yardsigns, you knew EXACTLY whose car it was. That means you're a liar, xxxxx. And you said you'd fire the person, but he still works at the campaign. How does it make you feel to be a liar? How can you even look at yourself in the mirror? Look at what you've become.

After recounting some of the previous accusations, Mr. Cardinale seems to express disappointment.

I actually thought you were a good person. I actually thought you had some integrity.

He concludes with the ultimate political gig - selling that which should not be sold.

You should be ashamed of yourself xxxxx. Maybe you'll land a PR job with a big bank or the insurance industry next--you're just what they're looking for--someone willing to say anything, no matter who they're hurting, no matter what the truth is. You've sold your soul- I hope it was a good price.

Politics is local and many times personal. Often players in the game, stoked by the fury of the moment, allow passions to consume reason and issues. And some appear to have no inclination to back down. In fact, it might be said some relish the immersion into the flames.

(Editor's note: The name of the recipient of the email has been redacted as they have been contacted but have not provided a response at this time. If a response is forthcoming it will be reported ~gd)

A Point Of View But Fair

A point of view but fair. It could be the organically evolved creed of this three year exploration of citizen journalism.

Long have I held the view that media as a whole is shackled by the unattainable goal of "objective reporting". (Having said that, before the furies of old world media descend, there is still a need for objective journalism, but it is part of the equation, not the whole.) The concept is now warped by 24-hour news cycles with powers-that-be seeking the modern day version of a live apartment fire. Readers and viewers, with some arrogance, spout the endless mantra of "just report the facts and let us decide" then scurry as quickly as possible to the latest report of a blonde girl snatched up by a crazed fanatics who force acts of debasement found only in the deepest recesses of the psychotic soul. We bathe ourselves in filth, then complain the news givers never provide cleansing water.

Objective reporting has its place but so does non-objective reporting and how we deal with the consequences of injecting the first person will determine if the form can be elevated or is relegated to an eternal mud wrestle with the Nancy Graces.

In my own world of first person reporting, I certainly do not hide my perspective but in order to maintain fairness, I've stood by three basic rules:

1. Research
2. Quote accurately
3. Give the other side a chance to respond

To the professional journalist, these are as familiar as shoes and socks. In our world, we still have a ways to go.

Monday, the admittedly biased Atlanta Progressive News released a "story" with "community reaction" to its previous story which reported mayoral candidate Kasim Reed's work as an attorney with Holland & Knight defending Cracker Barrel in a wage dispute case. APN noted Cracker Barrel's previous history of involvement in racial discrimination cases and noted the NAACP filed an amicus brief in the wage case. The tenuous connections of race to a non-racial issue caused lawyer blogger Going Through The Motions to brutally dissect APN's research and assertions.

APN's Matthew Cardinale defends his piece claiming that "we made it very clear that the Cracker Barrel case had to do with a wage dispute". He also noted the article clearly points to a separate race discrimination case. Although, he never clearly states it, Cardinale clearly claims the article was fair.

But was it? Let's apply my three rules.

1. Research - Shoddy at best. Obfuscating at worse. After giving great detail in the wage case, including the arguably irrelevant facts of Cracker Barrel's history of involvement in racial discrimination cases and the involvement of the NAACP, Cardinale points to a single case of alledged racial discrimination against a real estate firm. No details on the allegations or the conclusion. In the follow up article, once again quotes regarding Cracker Barrel are extensive, but no specifics about the second case. Perhaps, because there were no specifics.

2. Quote accurately - The whole of the quotes are in the follow up community reaction piece. We assume they are accurate since no one disputes them. Which leads us to...

3. When confronted with the lack of response from the Reed camp, Cardinale stated, "I've been doing this (APN) now for 4 years and usually have a good idea of when a PR department is going to respond, and when they aren't. So, I just didn't want to waste my time, nor my readers' time." Zero effort was made at giving the other side an opportunity to respond.

You might give a pass on the first - although it can certainly be viewed as selective research used to color the sky a particular shade of blue. There isn't much problem with the second. But the third - that sin is so dire it should never pass. A commenter claiming to be a journalist laid out the real world consequences of such a transgression, "I'd more than likely be fired. Maybe if I'm lucky I'd just be docked a week's pay".

I'm not bold enough to say my rules should apply to all. To each their own and let the readers decide what to believe and what is fair.

But if you can't follow these basic rules, then you should never get close to using the "j" word. And you're really quite a peacock if you attach some hopped up, unearned title like "News Editor" to your name.

The Morning Line - Atlanta Mayor's Race

We're down to the two candidates and this means the Morning Line changes it's methodology. Instead of a Horse Race parimutuel set of odds, we now shift to football game style "line". For those not familiar with the concept, a minus means the team is favored, a plus means the team is an underdog. The line will be set at what I believe to be the eventual margin of victory at the polls. Wager wisely.

Kasim Reed (-1.5) : Reed's late momentum in the "primary" appears to continue as according to the WXIA poll he is now in a statistical dead heat with Norwood. Combined with his recent endorsements by former foe Lisa Borders and the unions, Reed is the clear favorite.

Mary Norwood (+1.5): Where, oh where is Mary? Norwood desperately need to regain momentum and having odd press conferences is not going to saddle the horse. She needs a big splash or we could see the spread grow.

Finally, I don't do "endorsements" for races where I cannot vote, but I will say these thoughts reflect my own.

Kasim Reed holds a unique position in this pivotal point in time. He has the respect of two distinct and distant constituencies who are both integral to the future growth and success of the City. Worst case scenario, it is four more years of status quo while the forces for change are able to recruit a better candidate. But if Kasim is to live up to his challenge, he is the person best suited to bring all parties to the table, and set a course for Atlanta to work with the surrounding region and not against it.

Place your bets.

Lisa Borders Supported Micro-loans?

Who knew Lisa Borders supported micro-loans? Well, Kasim Reed did and according to the Political Insider, he used it this morning on V-103 as a not-so-subtle come hither attempt at Border's endorsement.

She talked about making small loans – certainly to women-owned businesses, and small businesses, to really get them [on] their feet. They don’t need $100,000 to start a business. They may need $10,000 and $15,000 or $20,000 to start that small business.

If you've read the Drift for any length of time, you know that I am a big fan of micro-loans. And I think I can safely say I paid attention more than the average bear to the recent race. And this is absolutely the first I've heard about this.

How much would have Borders blunted the "too developer friendly" tag if she had shot back with a "let me tell you how I'm going to help small business"?

More evidence to support Scott Henry's thesis that one of the reasons Lisa Borders failed so spectacularly is no one knew exactly what the hell she represented.

Fearless Predictions Sure To Be Wrong!

Mary Norwood will not get a majority and will face Kasim Reed in a runoff.

Hoffman will easily win NY-23.

Erick Erickson will be a pompous ass today.

Actually, I'm pretty damned sure 2 of those 3 will play out. I leave you to figure which ones.

Atlanta Mayor's Race - The Morning Line

Is this the final morning line? Will we have a runoff? With Mary Norwood showing solidly in the 40s in every poll, the likelihood of a runoff decreases, lengthening the odds to even. Given this strange last minute shift of the winds, The Morning Line returns to the meta question of who will be the next mayor.

Mary Norwood (4-5): Norwood gets out and out attacked by the DPG and is attacked under the covers by a mysterious "GOP" robo-call. Good politics if it swings the numbers towards Reed and generates a runoff. Bad politics if it stirs up a hornet's nest including firing up one of the fiercest progressives in the state.

Kasim Reed (2-1): Kasim attacked Mary in the weekend TV wars and positioned himself as the only "Democrat" in the race. Will it be enough? The "machine" needs a last lurching lunge.

Lisa Borders (7-1): Fading fast. Only hope is to sneak into the runoff then play the low turnout numbers.

Jesse Spikes (75-1): Everybody loves Jesse but it never shows up in the polls. Here's hoping he doesn't give up, because he certainly intrigues.

Democrats On The Mayors Race

It started with a spilled box of legos. The audience tittered; some probably thinking they had seen an unfortunate omen, some a symbol of the last year, some both. ~griftdrift, 2007

It took them a while, but they've started acting like Democrats.

The Divining Witches Hammer

The Witches Hammer has added fortunetelling to his repertoire.

Just a day after the Augusta Chronicle noted the racial dynamics at play and at stake in the Atlanta Mayoral election,Shirley Franklin comes out to attack the cracker.

When I noted Franklin never mentions race and Peach Pundit front pager Icarus noted Franklin seems to judge Norwood on the content of her character, not the color of her skin, Erick responds -

Just wait.

Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God. ~Deuteronomy 18 (10-13)

The Hammer treads dangerous spiritual ground.

The Morning Line - Atlanta Mayor's Race

Runoff Edition! The Morning Line will hand out odds of the candidates making it to the inevitable runoff. Are we guaranteed a runoff you ask? The Morning Line sets the odds of a runoff occurring at 1 to 4. Wager wisely. Now on to the field!

Mary Norwood - 3 to2: Mary's poll numbers have remained solid and there was even a goofy mystery poll which claimed she could win without a runoff. Don't bet on it.

Kasim Reed - 2 to 1: Reed's odds get shorter based on the latest WSB poll which has him creeping ahead of borders and the majority of the city workers (AFSCME) endorsing his campaign. The last item has been a bellweather in previous campaigns.

Lisa Borders - 3 to1: Borders is slipping. She missed the AFSCME endorsement and instead got the smaller PACE endorsement. This is not a good sign for the "establishment" candidate.

Jesse Spikes - 50 to1: No improvement in his numbers for months. Bye Jesse.

Kyle Keyser - OFF: Nice guy. Has as much chance of winning as I do. (And I don't even qualify)

Millelou Speaks!

Mayor Millielou has been coy about supporting any of the mayoral candidates.

But one thing's for sure - she ain't gonna support Norwood.

Perhaps it's time to update the Morning Line.

Lisa Borders Wants Your Property

I don't have a vote in the City of Atlanta election but if I did, Lisa Borders just lost it.

Atlanta mayoral candidate Lisa Borders says she'll use eminent domain powers to take land from owners who poorly maintain their property..."We need to take it from them," said Borders, the City Council president.

Many a politician will hem and haw when it comes to eminent domain, then when no one is looking they'll sign off on stealing grandma's shack in order to throw up the latest prefab condo/mixed use/Starbucks hostel.

I suppose give Borders credit for blunt honesty, but advocating the government deciding who has blighted property and who is all lilies and roses is shocking. Hell, it's frightening.

Deets On The Eagle Raid Rally Tomorrow

They be a rallyin' at city hall tomorrow. Here's the details:

Date:	Saturday, September 19, 2009
Time:	12:00pm - 3:00pm
Location:	City Hall Downtown
Street:	68 Mitchell Street
City/Town:	Atlanta, GA

Our intent is to show the City of Atlanta and the APD the vast number of community members who are concerned about what happened & that we want answers to valid questions:

-Is typical protocol for these type of charges normally a citation and not arrest?
-Was this high number of APD officers the best use to address such minimal charges with Atlanta crime concerns skyrocketing?
-Why was intervention by City Council candidates necessary for the release of the staff after 19 hours in jail on no bond?
-Why does APD have an LGBT liaison if that position is not utilized?
-Who is to be held accountable for the formal filed complaints of mistreatment?
-Where has Mayor Franklin been and why hasn't she made a statement?


APD LGBT liaison Officer Dani Harris will be present Saturday and will be speaking to the community. Please keep in mind, she cannot address any specifics regarding the case as it is an on-going investigation. Her position IS to serve as a bridge directly between the LGBT community and the APD.

I'll be there. Lookin' for a story.

APD Releases Complaints Filed In Eagle Raid

The APD has released the complaints filed against officers involved in the Eagle raid. Southern Voice has excerpts.

Here's the one that jumped out at me.

An employee who lives in an apartment over the Eagle, who said he was not working that night, said someone started pounding on his door. He opened the door to two cops who asked if anyone was having sex there. They asked why there was a bed and he said it was because he lives there. He was made to come downstairs and was arrested with the other employees.

There seems to be many details missing here (apartment attached to a nightclub?), but if true, how will you answer the next time the cops knock on your door and ask if anyone is having sex and why do you have a bed?

City Council Meeting Brings More Questions

Creative Loafing's Thomas Wheatley attended yesterday's City Council meeting and as expected, supporters of The Eagle were present.

The meeting may have answered some questions but may have raised more.

If the sole source for the raid were two anonymous complaints and undercover work which alleged illegal public sexual activity (and nothing more), why did the APD commit such a large force (reports of three "paddy wagons" and 21 officers) ?

APD Deputy Chief Carlos Blando stated The Eagle was not singled out and pointed to six other bars and clubs which had received similar "raids. Which leads to the questions, did those raids involve a similar level of resources and was the amount of "evidence" of infraction similar to that which spurred the Eagle Raid? An additional question, exactly what was the evidence which caused these other "raids"?

At this point, the APD's policy of "raiding" businesses seems either random or based on the flimsiest premises. The only way to quell these assumptions is transparency.

Finally, the question which remains unanswered and may cause the most tension - why was Atlanta LGBT Liason Officer Danni Lynn Harris not notified and consulted prior to the raid? Whispers of "window dressing" are already emerging.

The APD, the City Council, Chief Pennington and Mayor Franklin are sitting on a burbling volcano of frustration. Blanket apologies and generic responses are no longer working. Actual answers are needed.