Argus Article

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Argus Article

Talk about saying the same stuff over and over.....

Anyhoo, it's a public opinion forum guys. People are going to have different opinions and thoughts and beliefs. If it gets under your skin that much, this is probably the last place you should be. You don't have to read, you don't have to respond, you don't have to be rude to someone just b/c you don't agree with them.

Personally, I think locking a thread is weak. It suggests that the people who want it locked can't handle hearing opposing viewpoints.

God Bless America.

Agreed with everything here. Some people are overly sensitive.

[mitchellrabbit]

Re: Argus Article

So is there more here?

ya think?

[Nidaros]

Re: Argus Article

ya think?

I dunno know and I do not care.

[Nidaros]

Re: Argus Article

I dunno know and I do not care.

How about it, this got me some negs, and the person giving them requested that I let it die. HUUUUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!!!

[jackrabbit1979]

Re: Argus Article

This is not an attack on you Nidaros, even though it follows your post.

IMHO, this board was a lot more enjoyable and fun when everyone didn't get their panties in a bunch about positive or negative rep points. Carry on.

[Rabbitlivinginverm]

Re: Argus Article

This is not an attack on you Nidaros, even though it follows your post.

IMHO, this board was a lot more enjoyable and fun when everyone didn't get their panties in a bunch about positive or negative rep points. Carry on.

Agree 110%

Rep points to you

[Nidaros]

Re: Argus Article

This is not an attack on you Nidaros, even though it follows your post.

IMHO, this board was a lot more enjoyable and fun when everyone didn't get their panties in a bunch about positive or negative rep points. Carry on.

I did not take as an attack and I was not worried about neg pts yesterday, and I got a few, and I am not worried about negs today. I do appreciate the fact that some people on this board came to my defense and added positive points to offset the negs so I guess I am above average as they are in Lake Wobegan, Minnesota. I like the little green squares more than the red ones, but I dont loose a lot sleep thinking about them nor do I get angry over rep pts.

[zooropa]

Re: Argus Article

On the sports show (and I'm mentioning this because it should be out there and known by the board in general) TV said that he could not use anonymous sources in the article, that it is against policy at the Argus.

You can hear him for yourself here:

http://www.brookingsradio.com/sports-show.html

---

He also criticized the state's personnel records laws which I find rather disingenuous as he talks about how it's a protection to employees....... and yet the only employees he would have it apply to are state employees.

Frankly, if it is -good- for employees to allow anyone in the known universe access to their personnel files, then they should be open everywhere, not just at government institutions.

Also the argument that a matter can be 'investigated' by the press as to whether it is being handled properly by a government agency is, again, disingenuous.

If, primarily, the press existed to protect innocent victims of repressive bosses, TV's argument might carry some weight, but since the press exists to turn a profit, any claim that access would not be abused for sensationalism should be taken with a grain of salt.

---

Ultimately, you don't want personnel actions done in dark corners, yet the alternative--opening these records for public inspection is also problematic.

No member of the press (or any profession or industry) should be trusted completely when they assert that anything that favors them in particular is in the best interests of the public in general.

---

After all, the drug companies were quite adamant that widespread TV advertising of prescription drugs would be 'educational' and 'benefit' the consumer

[Nidaros]

Re: Argus Article

Good points Zoorapa, but Argus is our watch dog. So I guess they did me a favor

[JackJD]

Re: Argus Article

Zooropa: Since your comments were not directed at one article, one journalist or one newspaper, but instead you’ve trashed some concepts which are part of the essence of this country’s makeup, I can only conclude you’re kidding and just trying to stir the pot to stimulate discussion. If your post was completely serious, then I recommend you take some remedial history courses, particularly those that show the interrelationship between the press and government.

The most important protector of our right to say and write dumb things, a right I exercise frequently, is the press. You don’t have to love journalists but try living in a country where there is a controlled press or no press....

And while I do not advocate throwing open all state employee personnel records, I think I understand the basic argument for having access. It goes something like this: That's my money paying these guys and I'm entitled to know what they’re doing at work when I’m writing the check. Access to government records is a subject of honest debate.

I have no idea who you are or where you work, zooropa, but let's assume you do not work for the government. I don't give a rip about your personnel records because I'm not paying your wages. To the extent you have major screwups, chances are fair that either certain laws will get you (for example, try demanding sexual favors from your female assistant as a condition for her continued employment with you, her wonderful boss) or the marketplace will get you because your work product may eventually suffer and I won't buy whatever it is that is produced where you work. And, perhaps nothing will get you but I don’t really care if it’s not my dime.

On your comment about the press existing to turn a profit: I disagree that is why the press exists. Of course, a newspaper must be run on sound business principles or it disappears (look at what is happening to many newspapers in this country). You need to visit a newsroom and see what the editorial side thinks about the guys on the business side. You’ll walk away knowing the writers aren’t thinking about profit – and that’s why there is tension with the publisher’s office.

I think any argument that goes like this: XXXX must be wrong because someone is trying to make a profit, probably does not deserve a response. So I will stop responding.

GO JACKRABBIT BASEBALL TEAM!!! BEAT ORU TODAY!!!

[filbert]

Re: Argus Article

{homer simpson mode}
Mmmmm. Profit.
{/homer simpson mode}

[NoVaJack]

Re: Argus Article

On the sports show (and I'm mentioning this because it should be out there and known by the board in general) TV said that he could not use anonymous sources in the article, that it is against policy at the Argus.

You can hear him for yourself here:

http://www.brookingsradio.com/sports-show.html

---

He also criticized the state's personnel records laws which I find rather disingenuous as he talks about how it's a protection to employees....... and yet the only employees he would have it apply to are state employees.

Frankly, if it is -good- for employees to allow anyone in the known universe access to their personnel files, then they should be open everywhere, not just at government institutions.

Also the argument that a matter can be 'investigated' by the press as to whether it is being handled properly by a government agency is, again, disingenuous.

If, primarily, the press existed to protect innocent victims of repressive bosses, TV's argument might carry some weight, but since the press exists to turn a profit, any claim that access would not be abused for sensationalism should be taken with a grain of salt.

---

Ultimately, you don't want personnel actions done in dark corners, yet the alternative--opening these records for public inspection is also problematic.

No member of the press (or any profession or industry) should be trusted completely when they assert that anything that favors them in particular is in the best interests of the public in general.

---

After all, the drug companies were quite adamant that widespread TV advertising of prescription drugs would be 'educational' and 'benefit' the consumer

Find this post rather ironic the week that Iran released the former Miss North Dakota from prison for daring to... well, write and express herself freely, and question the government. In not-too-distant-past Iranian nut-job regimes, she might have lost her life. This is a woman who chose to be a reporter in a country whose most extreme clerics advocate stoning rape victims and whip women for baring their arms. She sang the Star Spangled Banner to keep her spirits up; funny, she didn't mention a burning desire to turn a profit as one of the things that kept her going.

Thank God we can sit at home in the freedom of our keyboards and proclaim to no end - even make sweeping, oversimplified, stereotypical declarations about entire professions to comment on a single story. Being a career free presser myself, I will defend your right to such ad hominum - it's everyone's First Amendment. But if you think the profit motive drives every single decision by good, professional reporters and editors - and TV is one of them - then you are massively misinformed.

[zooropa]

Re: Argus Article

try living in a country where there is a controlled press or no press....

That's my money paying these guys and I'm entitled to know what they’re doing at work when I’m writing the check.

I don’t really care if it’s not my dime.

On your comment about the press existing to turn a profit: I disagree that is why the press exists.

I think any argument that goes like this: XXXX must be wrong because someone is trying to make a profit,

1) Where did I advocate censorship? Where? How is DENYING ACCESS equivalent to CENSORSHIP?

Because if DENYING ACCESS is CENSORSHIP then, well, it's time to start crusading against HIPAA.

2) "I pay your salary" If you live in Sioux Falls, you're paying Stu Whitney's salary too. Unless you make it a point to boycott EVERY Argus advertiser.

I don't buy the 'government employees are different' line. Elected officials and political appointees, yes, but run of the mill employees, I don't think so. What legitimate interest is served by access to personnel records of non-political employees?

Now maybe a position as visible as AD should come with more disclosure requirements than the receptionist at the Secretary of State's office, but the idea that the public interest is served by accessing records that are among the most closely controlled records at ANY business is, frankly, laughable.

3) Regarding your snotty misquote, "XXXX must be wrong because someone is trying to make a profit"

That's not what I said.

There's nothing wrong with turning a profit, but don't take my money and tell me you're doing me a favor.

-----

And, regarding the press in general, I'm pretty much sick of editors crying about how print media is 'necessary.'

Print media is getting what it, as an industry, has earned. They jacked up their ad rates year over year regardless of external realities, they proclaimed their virtues as 'watchdogs' even as factual errors became more and more abundant. Or at least more and more widely publicized.

In response to the excesses of the internet and talk radio they imitated the excesses of those outlets with none of their immediacy. They tainted their reputations with screeching and unrealistic op-ed pieces.

Even with the internet becoming more popular, in their dismissive attitude toward it, publishers practically gave away advertising on it.

Rather than soul-searching, and asking if the complaints of the public (and advertisers) were justified, too often the publishers and editors retrenched themselves in their mistakes. Op Ed pages became MORE shrill, ad rates continued to climb, and finally the advertisers and public said, collectively, 'we've had it.'

[zooropa]

Re: Argus Article

Find this post rather ironic the week that Iran released the former Miss North Dakota from prison for daring to... well, write and express herself freely, and question the government.

Stu can bellow from the rooftops about how vital it is that the Argus be able to, oh, say, find out if Sally Jenkins was warned about stealing office supplies from the Social Services field office in Aberdeen.

You certainly don't see me arguing that he should be gagged, and that the government should shut him up.

But I will say that, IMO, his case is weak, at best.

I will also say that I distrust, on principle, anyone who tells me, basically, "What I want to do is in your best interest. Trust me."

[JackJD]

Re: Argus Article

NoVaJack: well said.

I have a journalism degree from SDSU. I belonged to the Society of Professional Journalists and took very seriously that organization's code of conduct. Rather than mow the lawn, I decided I would respond to zooropa's latest.

1) Where did I advocate censorship? Where? How is DENYING ACCESS equivalent to CENSORSHIP?

You didn't advocate censorship. Did someone say you did? Is denying access equivalent to censorship? Did you say something about that earlier? Has anyone?

A comment on censorship. You use that word as though it has a negative meaning no matter how used. Some forms of censorship are perfectly appropriate. I censored some of the music my kids listened to when they were 10. OMG!!!! CENSORSHIP in uppercase letters!!

Because if DENYING ACCESS is CENSORSHIP then, well, it's time to start crusading against HIPAA.

What's this connected to?

2) "I pay your salary" If you live in Sioux Falls, you're paying Stu Whitney's salary too. Unless you make it a point to boycott EVERY Argus advertiser.

I don't live in Sioux Falls. I am an infrequent reader of the Argus. I choose to not allow Stu Whitney to take space in my head. I don't care about his personnel file.

You really aren't going to try to make an argument that a private employee like Stu Whitney is the same as a public employee are you? You don't have to buy an Argus Leader. You have to pay your share of taxes.

I don't buy the 'government employees are different' line. Elected officials and political appointees, yes, but run of the mill employees, I don't think so. What legitimate interest is served by access to personnel records of non-political employees?

I stated previously my opinion that access to public records is a subject of honest debate. I noted some understanding of the position taken by journalists who want access to public-employees' personnel records in some cases. I may or may not agree in particular cases. The legitimate interest that may be served in appropriate cases (talking hypothetically here and not directed at any particular case) may include: 1) determining if public money has been properly spent; 2) determining conflicts of interest; and 3) determining fitness for a particular position. Those are just three reasons. In a particular case, there may be many more reasons. Access to public records has helped us as a public uncover things like high-ranking public officials using public money to pay for personal trips, condos used as residences for girlfriends etc.

Now maybe a position as visible as AD should come with more disclosure requirements than the receptionist at the Secretary of State's office, but the idea that the public interest is served by accessing records that are among the most closely controlled records at ANY business is, frankly, laughable.

Personally, I'm on the side that the AD's files could remain closed. I haven't heard any compelling reason they should be opened. Now, as to you dismissing the entire concept of whether public-employees personnel files as "laughable", is one position among countless positions. I continue to believe this is a serious subject, worthy of debate. I do not find any side of the argument laughable. But, if I brightened your day and made you laugh, that's great!

3) Regarding your snotty misquote, "XXXX must be wrong because someone is trying to make a profit"

Regarding your refusal to read (okay, now, that was snotty) -- go back and read what I wrote. I made no attempt to quote you on that point. I stated my position that when I am presented with an argument like that, I do not find it worthy of a response. I thought your argument discounting the work of journalists because you think they are driven by profit is an argument like that.

There's nothing wrong with turning a profit, but don't take my money and tell me you're doing me a favor.

I don't think any journalist is trying to do me a favor other than in some general sense of me receiving a benefit when the journalist does his job well.

But let's play a little with what I think is the concept you're talking about: "...don't take my money and tell me you're doing me a favor."

I pay my Physician. He does me "favors" all the time. I pay my car mechanic. He does me "favors" all the time. I pay my barber. People pay me for what I do and I bust my butt for them and won't stand for you to suggest otherwise. I trust my Physician, my mechanic and my barber to do what is best for me in what they are hired to do and I willingly pay them for their expertise and service.

If I conclude that someone is taking my money and I am not getting what I perceive as a fair benefit from whatever it is I paid the money for, then I stop paying the money. You can do that easily with newspapers if that is your wish.

And, regarding the press in general, I'm pretty much sick of editors crying about how print media is 'necessary.'

Print media is getting what it, as an industry, has earned. They jacked up their ad rates year over year regardless of external realities, they proclaimed their virtues as 'watchdogs' even as factual errors became more and more abundant. Or at least more and more widely publicized.

I defend your right to form the opinion just expressed. I happen to strongly disagree with the opinion. Further, I think you may be incorrectly mixing the publisher's office with the newsroom. You seem to delight in the print media "getting what it has earned" for having "jacked up their ad rates". You may wish to delve into why some of the newspaper are having such trouble. You may find that in many cases, business decisions including overpaying for acquisitions and acquiring lots of debt in the process, is the underlying cause of many of the failures and near-bankruptcies of some papers still hanging on.

In response to the excesses of the internet and talk radio they imitated the excesses of those outlets with none of their immediacy. They tainted their reputations with screeching and unrealistic op-ed pieces.

I personally think it is improper to refer to those engaged in TV and radio as journalists. There are some journalists who work in the electronic media but there are many more reading news stories who are not journalists. The commentators certainly cannot be considered journalists. (Rush Limbaugh -- I believe he has the largest audience -- often refers to himself as an entertainer.)

Even with the internet becoming more popular, in their dismissive attitude toward it, publishers practically gave away advertising on it.

Rather than soul-searching, and asking if the complaints of the public (and advertisers) were justified, too often the publishers and editors retrenched themselves in their mistakes. Op Ed pages became MORE shrill, ad rates continued to climb, and finally the advertisers and public said, collectively, 'we've had it.'

Wouldn't it be nice if was all so simple?

My lawn beckons.