Media Monday - 2007082001
Greg Latshaw could prove to be very dangerous. The “Tilghman Times” reporter now covering Salisbury government appears to be clever, and obviously biased. That is a dangerous combination for local readers looking to the paper and hoping to glean some truthful coverage of Salisbury city government.
A current case in point is Mr. Latshaw’s Sunday piece regarding the lawsuits filed by Salisbury Mayor Barrie Tilghman and Police Chief Allan Webster against “Salisbury News” publisher Joe Albero. Rather than the blatantly biased attacks of Laren Hughes Hall or the “he said - she said” style of Katherine Crowell, Mr. Latshaw weaves a clever tale that hints of balance while telling only one side of the story.
His piece starts off properly enough. Mr. Latshaw is correct that the first amendment does not cloak bloggers in body armor. We enjoy the same freedom that he does, which is provided by the First Amendment as interpreted by “Sullivan v. New York Times” (in the case of libel of public figures). To prove libel against a “public figure”, the onus is totally on the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove the following:
- The supposedly libelous statement is untrue. and …
- At the time the article was printed that the author new it was untrue. and …
- The author did so with malice.
No, its not body armor but it’s a pretty tough hurdle for any plaintiff (who is also a public figure) to overcome.
Now we come to Mr. Latshaw’s subtle methodology in spinning a story.
Quoting Mr. Albero, Mr Latshaw writes “a semi-retired businessman who says (my emphasis) he made…”. Note the inference (albeit slight) that Mr. Albero is untruthful. Note that persons taking the Mayor’s POV are not subject to such description, they are merely quoted.
“They (blogs) have drawn the ire of Tilghman in the past. Last year she held a news conference lambasting the negative approach of several blogs.” Mr. Latshaw should have done some research; and reading the “Tilghman Times” does not suffice. Indeed, Barrie Tilghman did hold a press conference. Indeed, she did attack blogs in general, but only cited one blog (Mr. Albero’s I believe) as evidence to support her attack. As I have stated time and again, when we make a claim of fact in “Delmarva Dealings” we almost always have written, audio or video evidence of the claim. If it’s opinion or supposition, it’s stated as such. The Mayor didn’t cite us, probably because she couldn’t risk a reporter asking questions about some of the things we have published. It should also be remembered that it was Mr. Albero who singlehandedly uncovered the scandal at the city’s waste water treatment plant. The Mayor initially denied all of Mr. Albero’s allegations (which were eventually proven true) and somehow got a free pass when she initially claimed that there would be not fine, then told the public (through the “Tilghman Times”) that they should feel luck because the fine was only (I believe) $10,000. Not once did the paper point out her initial misstatements (dare we say lies), nor did Mr. Latshaw point them out here.
While I like Joe Albero, and consider him a friend, I do not believe that Mr. Latshaw is correct in his inference that the “Salisbury News” is “Everyman” for the local blogoshphere. I’m willing to bet that Joe Albero wouldn’t make that claim either.
Quoting Barrie Tilghman, Mr. Latshaw writes - “I welcome criticism,” Tilghman said. “That (sic) part of my job is an important part of a representative democracy. But we all, including Mr. Albero, have a responsibility to be truthful and accurate in our statements.” I find it amusing that this same newspaper would print such a statement yet refuses to hold Mayor Tilghman or her cronies to the same standard. The Mayor is not corrected in the “Tilghman Times” when she tells an obvious whopper, not does this bastion of truth make note that Barrie Tilghman welcomes criticism about as much as I would welcome the election of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to the Presidency. How many other places do you know of where the Mayor routinely attacks ANYONE who publicly criticizes her. Let us not forget Councilwoman Campbell or the famous and sainted “Dirty Dozen”.
Mr. Latshaw infers balance by claiming that “Several authors of Delmarva blogs declined to be interviewed for the article because they wished to remain anonymous.” The inference being that the authors were hiding something. In the case of “Delmarva Dealings” we offer our contributors the option to remain anonymous. However, since I have taken over the publishing (as well as the technical) duties I have not been anonymous. Bill Duvall of DuvaFiles is not anonymous. Michael Swartz of MonoBlogue is not anonymous. Other than the blatantly anti-Albero blogs (who are all anonymous), who did Mr. Latshaw seek comment from?
Mr. Latshaw quotes Salisbury resident Cynthia Hanagud, “If these blogs, or any other blogs, publish material to specifically hurt someone, that’s wrong. It’s like having a driver’s license,” she said. “It allows you to drive, but you’re responsible for not hurting anyone. You can’t run stoplights.” Again the inference being that Mr. Albero, and local bloggers in general, publish material to specifically hurt someone.
One quote I particularly loved was a legal opinion by a SU theater professor. “Opinion is mixed on how the courts would view these acts of journalism, said Chrys Egan, Salisbury University associate professor of communication and theater arts. ‘It’ll be interesting to see if he’d be seen as a citizen journalist or a crackpot with Web access,’ she said.” This person is obviously well qualified to deliver a legal opinion. I think Mr. Latshaw just needed it to get in the “crackpot” remark.
One area that Mr. Latshaw touches on, but fails to explore is the Tilghman administration’s refusal to grant bloggers the same rights that are taken for granted by Mr. Latshaw and his MSM buddies. The Tilghman Administration claims that Mr. Albero (and by extension other bloggers) are not the Press. It’s an opinion, certainly not fact. You would think that Mr. Latshaw may take issue with the concept given he could be denied access to a Press Conference at some point in time simply because the powers that be don’t like him. The Mayor’s opinion is difficult to defend given the fact that elected officials from the White House down, and both major political parties recognize bloggers as valued members of the fourth estate.
One tidbit that I did enjoy was Mr. Latshaw’s confirmation that former Salisbury Councilman Mike Dunn based (at least in part) his decision not to seek re-election on negative coverage in the local blogosphere. This is proof positive that blogs can have a positive influence on the communities they serve.
Of course Dunn’s comparison of the blogosphere to McCarthyism is hilarious on its face. As for telling us what’s right and wrong, I would suggest that Mr. Dunn be careful of that glass house he just bought in Tony Tank.
The bottom line is that Mr. Latshaw’s piece may be a scary harbinger of things to come. Give the Tilghman Administration free reign and use non-local sources to present an opposing view. Infer, infer, infer.
I have a sneaking suspicion that “Media Monday” is going to take a lot longer to put together in the future.
Technorati Tags: Salisbury, politics, salisburypolitics, media, blogging, TilghmanTimes, Gannett
Sphere: Related Content
//END Quantcast Code
Not a bad article on the whole. However, unless Mr. Latshaw has been living under a rock since he hit town, he has to know that Barrie’s “I welcome criticism” is pure BS, and that can be gleaned by examining the newspaper’s archives, too.
Excellant analysis of the Times article by Latshaw. It is quite obvious to me that he was led by the nose in writing this article, by his boss Bassett and others at the Times. Just once I would like to see a forthright and true article about bloggers to include all the good, plus all the bad they do (if any).
This is not a perfect comment as I threw it together quickly. Please ignore any gastly errors that may be there:
Let’s see if you let this comment in and if you respond so that we can intelligently discuss this issue, as it appears as though a small, hardheaded minority does not get the intent of the anti-Albero blogs. Do not let Little Joey into the discussion as he has no intelligent insight on this issue and will only insult and name call.
With regards to the article, I would agree with you that it was a horrible article. To me it was your typical “blogger pushes envelope, what is the First Amendment” article that can be found in numerous newspapers. He failed to get to the point of this debate.
There is a fundamental difference between Salisbury News, your blog, monoblogue, duvafiles, and all the other local blogs- none of which are supporters of the Mayor. An intelligent man such as yourself should have no problems differentiating, but you and others like you are so blinded by your rage at the Mayor that you can not think clearly and objectively on this issue. There is a reason why only one blogger is being sued, while the other anti-Mayor blogs are allowed to type away at will.
You reference specifically that your site always is able to back up with you publish and clearly differentiates between opinion and fact. Little Joey’s site does not. That is the main fact that is at issue that is always conveniently overlooked by his supporters that bombard the StoryChat.
Another huge difference is that you are a conservative. So is monoblogue, and duvafiles, and Gunpowder Chronicle. You guys, while obviously completely wrong in your political philosophy (zinger), have a concrete belief system that you adhere to. It is something that you have formulated over years of intelligent research of the facts and news.
Little Joey does not have a concrete political belief. He says he is a Democrat, but I have seen no indication of similar beliefs that I share with him. He then goes off and supports Harris. But still supports the County Executive. There is no rhyme or reason to where he stands politically. The only constant in Joey’s political ideology is that he is against the Mayor. Now he is not against the Mayor because of TIFs or because of the policy decisions to bring businesses to the Eastern Shore like many of the conservatives are due to their political beliefs. He is against the Mayor because she spurned his requests to chastise or fire Rapp, who he feels disrespected his wife. Those who view these blogs have seen this vendetta spin out to harm numerous people that have been bullied by a man with no consideration towards others.
Why does it take this crazy man insulting these people personally and taking it way too far, before they realize how dangerous he is for the community? How much are you, and Councilwoman Campbell, Cohen, and Smith willing to sell out your integrity by associating with a man, merely because his vendetta serves your cause to bring a more conservative approach to Salisbury government?
Now back to your attack on the Mayor about her willingness to allow for dissent. Show me where she has not allowed for dissent? She is suing one blogger that is out of control, not yours that constantly attacks her. Because she called you guys, in essence, bullies, she is not for allowing discussion of her policies? All of these sites have called her, and insinuated worse about her, and all she says is that you guys are crude and negative, and she is therefore the Eastern Shore Chavez? It is something that could be successfully argued that many of you people are negative, vindictive, bitter people that are only interested in bashing the Mayor. This was before Joey came to the blog scene too. I was reading then and I saw a lot of gossiping and personal insults with little to back it up. It was definitely a lot of hurt feelings for something bigger than I probably realize, but it was there nevertheless. Can you not see that?
How hard is it to step back and look at your own behavior? How hard is it to stick to policy and leave personality on the side? When I see your anti-Mayor bloggers acting EXCACTLY how I see you claiming to act, I can only laugh. It is a childish cyclical game that has devolved intelligent adults into the mature equivalence of Middle School girls at the lunch table.
I would also ask you how you would like the Mayor to respond? For years there has been a small group of cranky people that would not agree with her on the time of day. I honestly haven’t heard one thing supportive from you people about what she has done correctly. There is no way that everything she does is wrong. How do you respond to people that are constantly talking about the bad and publish personal attacks?
How should I respond to Bush? I honestly think that he is the worst president in modern history. I am scared for the economy and the shrinking middle class. I feel less safe every year that passes. But you know what, he is still the President. He still needs our respect. That doesn’t mean that I wont disagree, but I respect the democracy that our government was founded upon, and I would never trying to bring him down or act as if he is something he is not. As horrible as he is, and I will let history settle that question, I do not think that he has done everything correctly. I also do not believe that he is out to harm America. If I can still respect what I consider to be the worst president in modern history, how come you people can’t at least respect a small-city Mayor who has had every decision magnified?
Please enlighten me on this issue. Maybe there is something that I am missing. I just don’t understand why you can’t criticize the Mayor without trying to bring her down and without getting to personal?
So in closing, I ask you to respond to these issues and bridge the gap for me. What am I missing? Why is it okay to attack a Mayor and get personal? Why do you not understand the difference between your site and Joey’s? How do you not understand that free speech does not have limitations? Why do you not believe that Little Joey does not care about Salisbury, but about bringing the Mayor down? He literally stated such on monoblogue. Ask the firefighters, they are a perfect example as to how Little Joey will publish anything to make the city administration look bad regardless of the truth. They are starting to see that Joey does not have their interests at heart, why cant you?
As a man who I am assuming loves America, how can you look yourself in the mirror and be proud after stating that you are proud that Mike Dunn did not run again because he was harassed too much and lied about too much by a man with a vendetta? In what line of the conservative platform does it state that harassment is a valid form of democracy? Is that what I should expect from conservatives from here on out? If you can’t beat the man through facts and debate, make fun of him until he steps down. I think you might want to check with your fellow conservative bloggers on that fact. Would you stand for that if I were to do that to Councilwoman Campbell? No, and you shouldn’t, because that would be wrong. Why doesn’t that apply to Mike Dunn?
This is a serious inquiry and I would expect that you would have the conviction to respond and hopefully acknowledge some of my points as I am not coming from left field. There are plenty of people out there that feel the same as us. Let’s open up some serious discussion and quit the polarizing bomb throwing that is getting intelligent policy debate nowhere.
PS- That bullshit about Salisbury being the 11th most dangerous city has got to stop. I have been to some dangerous cities and I guarantee you that most of you would not survive. Salisbury is a cakewalk in comparison. That repeated fact, while perhaps technically valid after playing with the numbers, only furthers the impression that you are biased and negative and care less about the perception of Salisbury then in making the Administration look bad.
One more thing that bothers me that I have heard numerous times repeated that is incorrect:
The Mayor did not send the FBI to the house of Old Man Duvall to shut him up. It was because she was legitimately scared that he had hacked the city’s computers. If you remember at the time, he had broken many stories that were embarrassing to the Mayor, and she was probably enraged about how he could be coming up with all this information. He then proceeded to make a joke about hacking into the city computers as to the explanation for his recent string of good luck in finding incriminating evidence. The joke is on the Mayor for not understanding what cookies are and for jumping on the paranoid train. Duvall got to her. There was never any attempt, and she would not be so stupid as to believe that she would silence him with this stunt. I believe she was legitimately concerned that she had been hacked. Ok, now that we have settled this, I don’t want to hear anymore that the Mayor has tried to silence other bloggers. I am sure that even Duvall would agree with this assessment of the situation. Everybody on the same page? Good, back to the adult discussion….
Idiot, please enlighten me and anyone else that is unaware. Exactly what good has Barrie Tilghman done for the city of Salisbury while in the office of mayor? Her entire tenure has been nothing but controversy, stirred and created by no one other than herself.
I am not sticking up for the Mayor, nor do I intend to. You are missing the whole point of my post. I was asking why there was the need to get personal, and not just discuss her policy and management decisions? Why do those that are against the Mayor support bringing her down to the detriment of democracy by an individual with a vendetta that could care less for the city?
And all I hear is that she called her naysayers the “Dirty Dozen” after months of personally attacking her. She characterized a organized group of people with a singular mission, a gang, by a moniker. She did not attempt to shut anyone down by that, merely to draw attention. I see two groups of hardheaded individuals who have entered into a fight that has gotten so personal that neither wants to give an inch to another side, at the detriment to the city.
Stay on point. Do not jump in to call names. That is all I get from this side. “You are just _______”( fill in the blank for FOB, Libs, idiots!) I have rarely seen an intelligent response as to why one side feels the way it does, and especially not for why as though it is neccesary to get personal and tear people down that have differing view points.
idiot!
You do see your hypocrisy here, don’t you? Jeepers, you have a whole website going off on the guy, and your comments sections often include all sorts of shots at his wife. What was that thing my mom used to say about two wrongs?
You like to lecture people about the proper way to argue, but you often don’t follow your own admonitions. Rather than address some of the very real issues the mayor’s critics have identified, you lazily lump them in with Albero and then can dismiss them as cranks. That is an age old political strategy–if you go after the messenger, the message disappears. In this case, the messenger has made himself an easy target, and you can conveniently call all mayoral critics a “gang” implying that they all speak with one voice, led by Joe somehow. It is possible to support some of Joe’s efforts while not supporting his more questionable activities, you know. And if you want to find an organized gang out to undermine democracy, look no further than the city council, where three members have publicly admitted over and over again that they haven’t read the materials they are voting on! And when someone who has actually gone to the trouble of reading tells them what is written, they refuse to listen! When Debbie speaks at council meetings, Shanie physically turns away and refuses to listen, no matter what they subject is. Not only is this HUGELY disrespectful, it indicates Shanie is not doing her job. Bubba simply gets a look like he has gas pains, and then tries to find something to complain about. Know this–I’m a card carrying liberal who fundamentally disagrees with Cato on just about everything. But I have had great conversations with the guy–he’s smart, hilarious, and listens to opposing ideas with good humor. That is the case with virtually all of the so-called “Dirty Dozen,” who, believe it or not, actually care about the city.
FINALLY, an intelligent engagement. No surprise that it took a liberal to want to discuss this issue intelligently and to have enough balls to put himself out there.
Let’s dive right in.
My website would take too long to say here, but needless to say the direction of the site has changed as we have fought on. It was started when there were no other sites out there bringing to light to lies in misinformation that was being spread and insinuated. Much like sites such as these, I was trying to get the truth out there.
I do not believe I have ever spoken about Little Joey’s wife because she is not the one out there ruining the city. I am not affiliated with the zoo so I have no personal feelings towards her and do not care one way or the other. I specifically remember writing something to PHP that she should be off-limits as she stays behind scenes, more than likely crying about who life has stuck her with. Old Man Goetz on the other hand is fair game, but that is like shooting fish in a barrel and I wouldn’t even know where to start. He is also harmless, so of no concern to me.
I am not here to address the issue, that is the whole point. You dissenters have valid points, and the Mayor’s string of bad policy decisions and budget mismanagement has mad it more difficult to get my point across that the politics should not be so personal. But it does have one bright side in that it makes it easier to say that- If there are so many bad policy decisions, then you should not have time to get personal because you should be sticking with all the bad political.
Once again, you have completely misunderstood my message. But that is ok, I am here to explain it out without the inflammatory rhetoric. I am not trying to dismiss the messenger to dismiss the message. There are plenty of other blogsites that are getting the message out with intelligent discussion. The commentators on Duvafiles and Gunpowder’s site have no problem critiquing the Mayor’s policy decisions and even getting slightly personal, but they have no problem in staying away from Joey and realizing how dangerous he is and that he does not care about the city.
My problem and the problem of many others is that Little Joey runs around with his camera looking for stuff to pin on the Mayor to bring her down. He does not care about the proper way to run the city. He has no problem making the city look bad to further his goals. You don’t think the word has gotten out about the nuts on the Eastern Shore? What was a community problem with leadership is now turning Salisbury into a statewide laughingstock with less and less attention paid to the policy decisions. Ask the firefighters, former “buddies” of Joey, how quickly Little Joey will ignore their best interests to instead stretch the truth in order to get a cheap dig in at the Mayor. That has been repeated numerous times in the past and has left Joey with a trail of former “friends” who he has turned on.
It is almost cliché now, but the Italians loved Mussolini because he made the trains run on time. Just because he is fighting the same person that you are doesn’t mean he is fighting with you.
And I can see how my gang comment could be taken the wrong way and that might not have been the most conducive way to start a dialogue. I meant it in the sense that it is an organized group of people with the same mission. Look at it from the other side, how would you respond to someone at your work constantly over your shoulder criticizing what you are doing and questioning your intentions. That is the one thing I can’t stand about the Democrats and their response to the worst president in modern history, is their insistence on his lack of intelligence and his harm for America. Now he very well, in my opinion, puts higher value on corporations and his wealthy white backers, then on American soldiers. He very well puts higher consideration for his corporate backers then for his conservative religious base in pushing his policies (very little evangelical legislation vs. much pro-business legislations)….but I digress. Critical judgments should be passed on the President in moderation and should definitely be such for a Mayor of a small city. Put yourself in her shoes.
Now that doesn’t allow for bad performance but there should be respect in disagreements. You bring up how horrible the Council members are like I am defending them, which I am not, so we can pass over that. But damn, do they need a political strategist to help keep their foot out of their mouths. I said it before, and Ill say it again, perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever heard a small town politician say was that they do not read all of the documents. JESUS they should still be kicking themselves over that one.
Individuals of different maturity levels handle things a certain way, but there are only so many ways you can hear a broken record over again, especially if that broken record is openly critical. If you are a true Democrat, you would know that the past 6 years have been hard to stomach. But you know what? That is America and that is Democracy. This is the hand that we were dealt. All that can be done is make your feelings heard, make sure that the other side is aware of your side, get your feelings on the record, and prepare a whole list of “I told you so’s” come the next election. If you have ever had any experience in politics, you would know that even though you are the minority you can still win occasional victories for your side, but that will only come through cooperation with the majority. I have seen many good ideas shelved due to the fact that the person who suggested the idea had pissed of the leadership to such an extent that they were made completely ineffective. Why should the leadership allow that to happen?
If Campbell were Council President, how many ideas from Bubba would she allow to make it to the table? Do you blame her? Look at it with the shoe on the other foot and it will make this go a lot easier. Now is this right and does this best serve the public? Of course not. So what can be done? Well encourage open dialogue and do not allow negative forces disrupt positive actions. I have seen many polar opposites come together to create surprising legislation by teamwork.
Now, I am sure you don’t need the Civics 101 lesson. The point is that Albero is a bad man and that I am shocked that somebody with even a hint of intelligence could not see right through him and his scheme. How many people does he have to railroad before you see that he is a detriment? Why is it not possible to agree with him at face value, but disagree with the method he goes about it? Why are we the only ones telling him to stop?
Now, I took a lot of times to answer your questions and concerns, and I would appreciate it if you would answer mine. This issue is one that people from all stripes have come to support- young, old, really old for Duvall, conservative, liberal, moderate, environmentalist, etc. I hope to soon add you to the enlightened fold.
Idiot!
Guess we’ll have a little chat here while nobody else notices. I have never defended Joe’s more outrageous tactics, and completely understand what you are saying about him. I’m not sure Duvall is significantly different, more a matter of degree than anything else. Do I wish joe would tone down his rhetoric, quit taking pictures of the mayor in shorts, and maybe stop to think a little more before he posts something? Sure! But you have to admit, it is pretty darn funny when he posts a picture of Chief Wiggum from the Simpsons every time he refers to Chief Webster! I do think you are incorrect about whether Debbie Campbell would treat Comegys and Shields the same way she has been treated if she were council president, though. If you watch the council meetings, she actually listens to the other folks and has changed her mind after listening to them (and then been blasted for it). She also almost always pours Shanie a glass of water before each meeting–I know that seems to be a silly thing to point out, but it is something I noticed the other day. It says something about her character that she would do a little nice thing for someone who physically turns away and makes noises when Debbie speaks. I think what has happened is that all perspective has been lost here on both sides–those who demonize the mayor look for any litle thing to go crazy on (bottled water), and the mayor’s supporters have demonized Debbie and Terry to the point that they can’t give them any credit for anything, including finding $5.8 million in “extra” money. I’m a good tax and spend liberal in the odd position of asking for greater fiscal responsibility from my government. Believe me, if the mayor came out and said we need to raise taxes because we are going to build a cutting edge water and sewer system in Salisbury, I’d be the first one to support her! But the b.s has to stop, and as the C.E.O of Salisbury, she needs to swallow her pride and reach out to her detractors. That’s real leadership–she doesn’t have to like them, but at least try to hear some of the more intelligent voices out there. Lumping everyone in with Albero is easy, lazy, and allows her to ignore some actual constructive criticism. Last point: I truly believe there’s some corrruption going on–maybe not technically illegal, but certainly unethical. At least one example is about to be exposed, so stay tuned–I’m fascinated to see how the mayor is going to try to spin it! Oh, yeah, one more final point. I think you and G.A (Cato) and I would probably be the best coffee klatch ever–we should get our own show on PAC 14!