It may not have been wrong that LoGro bring up this topic for public discussion but it is the choice of words used by Griff in his original post that I think went to far. You do it again in post #73 Griff by making the statement “abusing their perscription”. Such an inflamitory word -- quite different from how Victor Summa stated it in the NN story.

These discussions are nothing but opinion, except from those who participated in the event, and then they MAY still be opinion.

It often looks to me, that if you do not agree with a statement, it does not even enter the system to be evaluated. You have an OPINION that someone is not “unbiased ” so their eyewitness of hours of the “event” are not substantial, or in any way viewed as accurate by you.

We are all “biased”; why can’t you just see that what you do here is GENERALLY of service to the community ( I certainly am “biased” in saying that ) and that it is enough to do it according to your own standards , as long as those are clear, or at least fair.

It’s when you get into claims of journalistic accuracy that you get into “trouble”…
When you explain away a “problem” with the fact that comments here are protected by the “Good Samaritan” ruling on electronic communications, as opposed to being held to the written standards of libelous statements, you have given yourself a way out of true journalistic responsibility.

No one expects you to be perfect; it would be good to not claim impartiality.

Jane, I don’t agree with your definition of gossip. News reporters use eyewitnesses all the time in their stories. I had a very reliable citizen approach me with the initial eyewitness report and then I sought out another eyewitness with a phone call before I posted my comment about ‘visibly intoxicated.’ I didn’t attribute that wording to anyone because my sources used much informal language to describe the Mayor’s condition.

I then spent many hours talking to several other reliable eyewitnesses, none of whom would go on record for fear of a lawsuit. Everyone corroborated.

An expert opinion was not needed in this case, as I wasn’t attempting a diagnosis of someone’s problem, just a description of their public behavior.

Barb, I mentioned my chem dep background to give some additional credence to my handling of this. The vast majority of the time in my work, I dealt with people when they were sober so I had to rely on reports about their behavior from others. I don’t see why it was a problem to mention this.

I spoke with two eyewitnesses who said they’d been at a recent meeting with the mayor where this behavior had happened as well. I could have phrased it better the first time around.

Jane, yes, I’ve been whacked by folks here and the Nfld News but I’ve had plenty of other people support how I handled it.

Jaci,

1. After Randy Jennings appeared on our podcast, we’ve committed to developing and posting an ethics statement. Your criticism about not knowing when something on Locally Grown is news vs. commentary or what our standards of reporting are is a fair one.

2. What’s the URL of the Northfield News ethics statement? What is the date of the issue when you last published it in print?

3. Victor Summa is not unbiased when it comes to the Mayor, so I find it odd that you’d use him as your only published source for an interpretation of the Mayor’s behavior that night. Why not also get a quote from the police chief, one of the other councilors, or from one of the many other citizens who were there?

4. I find your rationale for publishing private medical information (anti-depressant prescription) to be unacceptable. The Mayor didn’t confirm this with Suzy Rook. It’s not a ‘public behavior’ that can be observed. You published it because a good friend said it. If I told you that my good friend Ross Currier’s pigheadedness about downtown Northfield issue XYZ can be explained because he’s taking more of his Viagra prescription than prescribed, on what grounds would you not print that? I’m anxious to see how your ethics statement guides you on this.

Griff Wigley, co-host
Locally Grown

Welcome, Griff!

Thanks for your comments. Here are mine in response, as you requested, and in no particular order.

The remarks in my blog related to what I termed “idle speculation from those who didn’t do the legwork” were not just in reference to Locally Grown. As past blog entries show, I’m pretty good about linking when I’m specifically (and only) referring to your blog.

I felt some of the comments on our own Web site could be considered idle speculation as well. Good or bad, that’s why I didn’t name names.

As for my decision to use Victor Summa’s comments about Mayor Lansing’s use of antidepressants, I appreciate your concern that his comments were nothing more than speculation from a friend, but I respectfully disagree.

Victor Summa, by both his account and the mayor’s, is one of the mayor’s closest friends. More importantly, Victor is the one who was with the mayor for a big chunk of the evening after the June 2 council meeting (that’s attributable to the mayor, who told us that in an interview). Victor is also the one who drove Mayor Lansing home that night.

That puts Victor’s knowledge of the situation at a level higher than someone who is a friend but perhaps uninformed. Combined with Lansing’s own comments, which clearly show he’s not exactly certain what caused his impairment (although he believes it may have been that he was hypoglycemic at the time), I think Victor’s thoughts are both revelatory and appropriate.

Furthermore, Victor didn’t say — and we didn’t report — the mayor “abused” his prescription. I believe Victor was suggesting that the mayor may have taken multiple medications that didn’t mix well.

Overall with this story and the ongoing blog commentary, I think there is a broader question that might be worth discussing: What are the reporting standards of citizen journalists?

At times, it is my impression that some of the “Triumvirate” consider Locally Grown to be a place where folks can gather to muse on the issues of the day.

But then there are times, like with the June 2 meeting, where it seems you specifically want to serve as a citizen journalist providing news.

Sometimes I have trouble discerning which post is which and I wonder if there are others who feel the same.

I wonder, as you craft posts that are meant to be news and not commentary, what standards you hold your work to before you post them?

It’s clear you are a strong advocate of citizen journalism. So am I, as long as standards have been set, communicated and upheld.

I look forward to reading your response to my ramblings. I love these kinds of debates. They make everybody better!

-Jaci

I think LG went astray early in this thread, first in Griff’s post #2, when he indicated he spoke to “a media person who was there,” and Lee was “visibly intoxicated.” had Griff written “this [unnamed] media person stated that Lee was visibly intoxicated’ would have been an improvement. But would that unnamed media person have been qualified to distinguish between intoxication and an insulin reaction or some other impairment? In post #5, Bill Ostrem stated Lee’s behavior “gave him the impression that he was intoxicated.” Again somewhat better as he stated it was his impression, not a fact.

Griff’s post #6 said that “people who stood next to him said the smell of alcohol was clearly evident…I think it’s fair to say Lee was “visibly intoxicated.” Can you know from the smell of a person that a person is intoxicated? Could a person who is a diabetic have two drinks on an empty stomach, smell like alcohol, look intoxicated and not be? I don’t know whether he was or not, but this all seemed liked convicting Lee of public intoxication on hearsay.

I also think Griff’s post # 32 crossed the line. First of all, what difference does your CD background make if you weren’t even there? Adding the phrase “it’s apparently not the only time it’s happened recently,” with no documenting evidence, seems unfair. Stating that “Lee might very well be a diabetic but his behavior at the meeting had nothing to do with it” was not just speculation or implication, it was stated as a fact that Griff could not possibly know. Suggesting that Lee “abused his prescription medication” in a later post was also ungrounded. There could be reasons other than”abusing” medication, which implies a deliberate act, that could cause a person to take an extra dosage.

Making or passing on statements which may not be true and could be harmful seems to be a good definition for the word “gossip,” and some of these posts/comments appear to fit that definition.

Reporting what you saw is fact. The mayor left the meeting early. His father is very ill and subsequently died. That is fact. Speculating on whether someone’s behavior is normal or weird or indicates a medical, social or personal problem is NOT NICE.

If you see a woman on the street in what appears to you to be a maternity blouse and she appears to have a beer-belly you neither ask her when she is due or report in a blog or newspaper that you think she is pregnant--because YOU DON’T KNOW.

Asking a couple of people who YOU respect what they think is not getting an expert opinion, it is group speculation. LoGroNo was wrong to speculate on what happened at the council meeting or after. Period. There is no way to make it right now, just promise to do better in the future.

Griff, you asked about taking advantage of people under stress, which I commented on in #75. The problem is, you don’t know which people maybe in tough circumstances in their life--if it is the fat woman on the street you think is pregnant, the diabetic-mayor whose father is ill and dying, or the city council man whose child/wife/ other family member is having problems. You definitely took advantage of Mayor Lansing in a most unattractive way, and you have now been whipped with the wet noodle by the majority of the commentors herein, and the News even got a few licks in. Citizen journalism, community journalism, whatever you want to call it, everyone needs to abide by a few guidelines and, shall I say, RULES that help limit the extent we allow our personal prejudices to color our reporting. To pretend that you were follow guidelines and then abandon them because the story is really juicy is wrong.

On the other hand--are you engaging in journalism or when you blog are you just putting your opinion in there--like “Because of what some of the eyewitness’ said, and because the local marijauna hydo-ponic greenhouse was burning and the prevailing winds forced the smoke into the council chambers, I think that the entire city council was stoned when they voted on that resolution.” (Note that this is just an example and I have never witnessed nor been told of such an occurrence, although sometimes you gotta wonder.)

Anyway, as far as I can tell this string is about what makes something bad (gossip) or good for blogging.

Jaci,

All the online conversation about the Mayor’s behavior at the 6/2 Council mtg that you’ve referred to took place in a message thread on Locally Grown here:

http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/archives/3628/

You accuse us of “idle speculation from those who haven’t done the legwork” but I actually did hours of legwork, as I wrote.

Plus, you/the Northfield News made a decision in last Wednesday’s print edition to reveal that a friend of the mayor “… said Lansing may have taken more antidepressants than prescribed.”

It seems to me that in this case, whether or not a person is taking antidepressant medication is a private matter and should not be published in the paper unless the person in question states it to the reporter.

Moreover, I don’t think the paper should publish a friend’s speculation that a person might be abusing their prescription.

Could you comment on this decision, either here or on our blog message thread?

Griff Wigley, co-host

Locally Grown

Great minds talk about ideas; small minds talk about people -- Ann Landers.

We do have a requirement that real first and last names be used.

I tried to email you but the address you used bounced.

Please contact me at:
http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/contact/

I think what’s happening here is that Lee Lansing was and is a beloved person by many in this area because of his long term help and friendship towards the people. Lee might have been given the benefit of the doubt and maybe a little more time might be allowed to pass to allow the facts to come to light
before the issue was raised. A little compassion goes a long way.

As I said in an earlier comment, there’s no way we can win this one. I think mentioning the aberrant behavior of an elected official at a public meeting, especially when it had already generated a lot of talk and questions in public before we mentioned it here, was not only acceptable but necessary if we want to continue to maintain an open forum of opinion and discussion. Granted that some of the ensuing discussion was speculative and pointless. I simply don’t think LoGro was wrong to bring up the topic.

The three of you can do so much better. Why waste your time on this kind of trash?

Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones are offering Internet viewers the lurid details of encounters they claim they had with former President Clinton — for $1.99 a pop.

I’m not even going to link to it, as I think it’s a shitty thing for the AP and the Strib to post. True gossip, IMHO, and I don’t have much respect for Clinton anyway.

I care what you think about this. You know I respect you for your record of civic involvement both here on LG and elsewhere. 

The Wikipedia definition of gossip is a starting point: Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others.

Imagine if I ran for mayor or council and got elected (Randy’s suggestion!).

It seems like it would be irresponsible gossip for a blogger or any local media to report that I had a porn collection. Or that I was seen visibly intoxicated at a local pub. Or that I was seen departing a gamblers anonymous meeting. Or that I was behind in my child support.

If any of those ‘habits’ lead to behaviors that land me in court, it seems like it would be fair to report it, as I’m a public official who’s broken the law.

And if any of those ‘habits’ lead to behaviors that show up in my job as a public official, it would also seem fair to report it. For example, if I made a racist or sexist remark at a public meeting. Or if I displayed some of porn collection in my office at city hall.

I’ve not completely thought all this through so I’m interested in feedback from you and others.