Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘journalism’ Category

The electronic stranglehold on our lives and relationships

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , on April 21, 2011| 3 Comments »

Two recent stories about electronic communication — one in The Star and the other in The New York Times — have brought into sharp relief, for me, the hazardous communications terrain that many of us navigate.

The Times’ story emphasized the seemingly irresistible urge to text or check one’s smartphone while engaged in personal conversations. The story, titled “Keep Your Thumbs Still When I’m Talking To You,” was illustrated by a young man crouching before, and shouting at, a woman busily engaged with her phone.

The story, written by Times’ media reporter David Carr, says society has come to this: If someone is “looking over your shoulder at a room full of potentially more interesting people, she is ill-mannered. If, however, she is not looking over your shoulder, but into a smartphone in her hand, she is not only well within modern social norms, but is also a wired, well-put-together person.”

“Add one more achievement to the digital revolution,” Carr wrote. “It has made it fashionable to be rude.”

The Star story, on the other hand, by Edward M. Eveld, primarily addresses the fading of the old-fashioned phone call in favor of text messaging.

“Anymore,” Eveld wrote, “a phone call happens generally if it’s pre-arranged. That’s practically a rule in business circles but also holds sway among acquaintances.”

Three observations:

Texting and e-mailing are not character builders, the way old-fashioned phone calls and face-to-face conversations can be.

Example: I’ll never forget the days when I was a teenager and called girls up for first dates. I would start by going to a phone out of earshot of the rest of the family. Then, I would stare at the phone for a few minutes and think of what I might say and how I might lead up to The Big Question. I’d usually make one or two false reaches for the phone, pulling back my hand as it neared or touched the receiver. Then, finally, I’d pick it up and make the call. In most cases, my courage and preparation were rewarded.

More important, those experiences helped me learn how to make difficult calls.

These days, though, most teenagers don’t even have dates, much less make calls and ask each other out. They send a text, or place a call, saying something like, “Wanna hang out tonight?”

That way, you understand, it’s all very informal and virtually risk free. If the recipient texts back, “I’m busy,” you haven’t really been rejected. And you, the initiator, are covered because you really didn’t ask for a date.

As far as I know, our 21-year-old son has seldom “asked anyone out” in the traditional sense. It’s all text- or call-arranged get-togethers. The trouble with this type of arranging is that “plans” fall apart very quickly because more appealing offers come in. And no one has really made a firm commitment, so nobody should be able to claim hurt feelings.

Almost all electronic commitments, it’s my impression, are tentative.

Unlike our son, our 23-year-old daughter, an old-school sort, hates the assignation-by-text system. A couple of times she got together with a young man who called asked her if she wanted to “hang out.”  At least once, after they had met up, it turned out he wanted to take her to a fancy restaurant. She considered that “bait and switch” and didn’t appreciate it because she is the type of person who likes to have definite plans and likes to prepare for the event or occasion. If a young man wants a date, she’d prefer that he call and state his proposition.

My guess is that a lot of people who rely on the text message or e-mail as their primary means of communication shun personal confrontations or difficult phone calls. They probably avoid uncomfortable situations by texting or e-mailing their regrets or bad news that needs to be imparted. In other words, they duck out the back door.

Which leads me to this…

Many times, I have advised against attempting to resolve any significant or delicate issues by e-mail.

Significant issues — and the people embroiled in them — deserve to be dealt with either in person or, at the very least, over the phone.

As Eveld said in his KC Star story, “Not only is it often rude to try to dispatch a touchy issue by e-mail or text, it doesn’t allow for the free flow of information and discussion that is often necessary, and it strips the exchange of the nuances that attend personal conversation.”

Eveld quoted Dan Post Senning of the Emily Post Institute as saying that face-to-face conversations are best because body language, facial expressions and voice inflection play important roles in personal communications. Voice-to-voice conversations are the next best thing, Sening said, because without it, “there’s a whole layer of information that’s incredibly deep that just goes away.”

Example: Last year, I was involved in a volunteer initiative that became somewhat controversial. In e-mails with the person who had the power to give the green light or kill it, I sensed a lessening of commitment on that person’s part. I called the person to try to get a straight answer. On the phone, the person reiterated support for the initiative. A few days later, however, I got an e-mail that said something like, “Can we just forget this? It’s taking up too much time and is too tiring.”

I was stunned. Not because it wasn’t the right call — it probably was — but because it so clearly cried out for a personal call of resolution.

While I’m smart enough to know when a personal conversation is in order, I’m not without my electronic-based failings.

My personal demon is the computer.

Between blogging, e-mailing and checking various web sites, I am on the computer several hours a day. When my wife comes home from work (thank you, dearest, for giving me the opportunity to retire early) I’m usually sitting at the computer. When our daughter comes home from yoga or her volunteer job, I’m usually at the computer.

When I’m needed for something around the house, I usually say, “Just a second; I’ll be right there,” as I try to wrap up something or get to a breaking point.

I often feel guilty about it and know that I tend to isolate myself with the computer. Nevertheless, I  have a hard time tearing myself away. Just this week, my daughter and I were talking about our relationship, and she said, “A lot of the time, even when you’re there, you’re not really there. You know?”

I nodded.

These electronic tools that we have at our disposal are amazing implements, aren’t they? They are so helpful and have opened so many doors for so many people.

But it is immeasurably important that we use them responsibly and not allow them to push aside our manners and encroach on our availability to friends, family members and others. We are most alive when we are engaged with others, sitting across from them — talking, arguing, laughing, explaining — not exchanging electronic signals.

Read Full Post »

Carnac makes the call on the EPA’s move from KCK to Lenexa

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , , on April 13, 2011| 15 Comments »

A veritable waterfall of words has been written since April 4 about the federal government’s decision to move the regional Environmental Protection Agency headquarters, and its 610 jobs, from gritty downtown Kansas City, Kan., to the enticing Kansas suburb of Lenexa.

From the information that’s been put out, I can’t gauge whether moving to Lenexa is a good business decision or not. The Kansas City Business Journal says it is, while The Kansas City Star suggests that it is not. More information is needed to make a determination, it seems to me, and maybe it will come out.

In the meantime, though, one key question has gone unanswered: Who made the decision?

We know this much: The agency within which the decision was made was the General Services Administration, which is the federal government’s real estate arm.

But who at the GSA made the decision?

Isn’t it the case that in almost every real estate deal someone makes the decision? A live person, someone in authority, assumes responsibility and says, “We’re accepting this proposal, and we’re rejecting that proposal.”

Shockingly — shockingly, I tell you — no one at the GSA has stood up to take responsibility.

You’ll be happy to know, however, that your intrepid, irrepressible blogger has conducted a thorough investigation and has come up with the answer.

The decision was made by none other than Carnac the Magnificent, the old “mystic from the East,” who has the power to “divine” unseen answers to unknown questions.

Carnac the Magnificent

When Carnac was last heard from, he was making periodic appearances on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. Carson’s longtime sidekick Ed McMahon would set the stage for Carnac by dramatically saying: “I hold in my hand the envelopes. As a child of four can plainly see, these envelopes have been hermetically sealed. They’ve been kept in a #2 mayonnaise jar under Funk and Wagnall’s porch since noon today. No one knows the contents of these envelopes, but you, in your borderline divine and mystical way, will ascertain the answers having never before seen the questions.”

Here’s how I know that Carnac is alive and well and calling the shots on the EPA deal.

First, I talked to GSA spokesman Charlie Cook, whom the GSA threw out to the media hounds to explain and defend the decision to go to Lenexa.

Cook, a cooperative fellow who actually picks up his own phone, said that a “selection panel” consisting of GSA and EPA employees evaluated the competing offers for the EPA regional offices. Those included proposals from the owner of the Lenexa building, on Renner Road, and the owner of the Minnesota Avenue building that the EPA has been housed in since 1999.

From there, I called Jason Klumb, regional administrator for the GSA. Regional administrator — top guy in the Heartland Region. Must have had something to say about the decision, one would surmise.

I reached a secretary in Klumb’s office and asked to speak to Klumb. She asked me to hold and came back a few seconds later, saying Klumb was “in a meeting” and would call me back.

Right, I’m standing by. I was going out to rake the dead spots in the lawn, but now I’m going to wait for Jason’s call…OK, I’ve waited two minutes and he hasn’t called back, so I’m on my way to the garage.

A longtime friend who knows the intricacies of the federal system and specifically knows a lot about the GSA told me that Klumb wouldn’t have made the decision, anyway. The person who probably made the decision, the friend said, was Mary Ruwwe, regional GSA commissioner for public buildings service.

My friend gave me her number, and I called it. Shockingly — shockingly, I tell you — she picked up. (Now, either that’s a great source or Ms. Ruwwe is one accessible public official.)

When I told her I had heard that she might be the person who made the decision on the EPA relocation, she said, “I am not involved in the acquisition process.”

She proceeded to elaborate on the panel that Cook had told me about. It is “a source selection panel,” she said, consisting of “contracting specialists and contracting officers” from the GSA and the EPA regional offices.

The panel members, she said, were charged with analyzing and scoring various factors, both technical and financial and then presenting their findings to…”THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY.”

Yes, THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY — someone within the regional GSA office who was vested with the power to make the decision on the EPA headquarters.

I mustered up the courage to ask what I viewed as the seminal question: Just who is THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY?

“I have to find out what I can give you at this point in time,” Ms. Ruwwe replied.

As I was most keen on learning the identity of THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY, I gave her my home and cell numbers and e-mail address.

A few hours later, I heard back from the GSA…Not from Klumb and not from Ruwwe, however. No, it was my new friend Charlie Cook, who said Klumb and Ruwwe had asked him to return my calls to them.

So, I got tough and mean — very mean– with Charlie, demanding, “Just who is this THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY?”

His initial answer was “a GSA leasing specialist.” After we talked for a few more minutes, he augmented it to “a seasoned GSA leasing specialist.”

But he couldn’t give me the specialist’s name, he said, because that’s very sensitive, closely held information.

I thanked Charlie for his time and patience and told him he had helped me out. He had led me right to the door of THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY.

It’s elementary; it’s Carnac.

Read Full Post »

KC Star reporter travels to Augusta, Ga., but misses the golf tournament — at least the one that most people saw

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , , on April 11, 2011| 12 Comments »

I am completely befuddled by The Star’s weekend coverage of the Masters golf tournament.

Two things, in particular:

First, I don’t know why The Star wasted several thousand dollars sending sportswriter J. Brady McCullough to Augusta, Ga., to cover an event that offered no strong local connection. Tom Watson wasn’t a factor, and KU alumnus and Topeka native Gary Woodland finished 12 strokes back. This is an event that the national press can cover just fine, without help from golf reporters of the amateur variety.

Second, and perhaps most important, McCullough, who normally covers KU sports, didn’t really cover the Masters; he covered “The Tiger Woods Show.” Woods was not the story, however. Oh, he was part of it for a while, especially during the front nine on Sunday, when he briefly grabbed a share of the lead. But then, just like many other contenders, he faded like a tulip in August.

As the back nine wore on, the spotlight shifted from one contender to another before settling on the ultimate winner, South Africa’s Charl (that’s right, Charl) Schwartzel, who birdied the final four holes to take a two-stroke victory. Did you get that? He birdied the last four holes four holes at Augusta National. It had never been done before. He didn’t back into the win; he grabbed the course by the throat and strangled the life out of it.

Now that’s a story!

But where was Brady? Unfortunately for K.C. Star readers, Brady was fixated on Tiger, about whom he had written a big feature story in Sunday’s paper.

From The Star’s packaging of today’s Master’s report, it’s not immediately clear what a horrendous job McCullough did.

The headline at the top of today’s sports section says, “OUT OF AFRICA.” Good enough. A tag line above that says, “Closing kick gives Charl Schwartzel the green jacket.” On target. And the centerpiece photo is of a jubilant Schwartzel, arms upraised after canning a long putt on the final hole. Nice.

But then there’s the story itself.

Here’s how McCullough started it: “The short woman in the off-red shirt and floppy sun hat seemed important. A team of people in red Nike golf shirts were leading her around Augusta National Golf club, and one of the men in her entourage offered her his left arm for support.”

Now, if McCullough was writing about Schwartzel’s mother, that lead paragraph might actually be leading somewhere. But it’s not about Schwartzel’s moher; it’s about Tiger Woods’ mother! That’s right, the Tiger Woods who finished tied for third, four shots behind Schwartzel.

And so the story went — more of it about Tiger and his Mama than about the winner and his spectacular finish.

The logical thing for McCullough to have done would have been to research Schwartzel and introduce him to Star readers, many of whom might not have heard of him. He has played in several U.S. tournaments but just joined the PGA Tour this year. Until now, the 26-year-old golfer has been a fixture on the European tour.

I guess that was too much effort for McCullough. Or maybe he’s just devoid of the skill that’s most indispensable to a reporter: Pivoting in response to the direction that a breaking story takes.

Talk about a fluid, breaking story…that was Augusta on Sunday. But, clearly, McCullough was not prepared to follow the story wherever it went. He had already decided that the story was Tiger Woods, the outcome be damned.

And so, Kansas City Star readers were subjected to quotes like this (from a fan in the gallery): “Did you see the ring on Tiger’s mother? I’ve got to see that again.” For the record, McCullough described the ring as “a large oval stone that was covered in sparkly diamonds.”

I don’t know about you, but I think it’s time to pull McCullough’s press pass to big golf events and put him on the jewelry beat.

Correction: My friend John Landsberg of Bottom Line Communications, bottomlinecom.com, pointed out that I misspelled Brady’s last name. It’s McCollough, not McCullough. Sorry, Brady, I gave you enough grief in this piece without misspelling your name.

Read Full Post »

The E-tax: On the way out in St. Louis; looking for a permanent home in Kansas City?

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , on April 7, 2011| 6 Comments »

Very interesting, this E-tax situation. Not just the Kansas City situation but the combination of Kansas City and St. Louis.

Quite a contrast, actually. In both cities, voters overwhelmingly approved retention of the one-percent tax on salaries and business profits. But that’s where the similarities end.

Consider:

— In Kansas City, the opposition, led by eastern Missouri billionaire Rex Sinquefield spent about $600,000 trying to defeat the tax. In St. Louis, there was no organized opposition.

— In Kansas City, all indications are that it will be “business as usual” at City Hall and that a serious, extensive review of city taxes and finances is not likely to occur. In St. Louis, however, it appears that it’s almost a foregone conclusion that the E-tax will be eliminated before the next retention election, which would take place in five years.

So what’s the deal?

Well, it seems clear to me that, in St. Louis, Sinquefield and Mayor Francis Slay, a friend of Sinquefield, made a deal.

Here’s how the conversation that led to that gentleman’s agreement likely went…

Rex — “Uh, Francis, you know you’ve got to get rid of that E-tax; it’s killing job and business growth.”

Francis — “Yes, Rex, I realize that. But we can’t chop it off all at once, you know. How about this: If you don’t contest it on April 5, I promise you that we’ll get rid of it before it comes up for retention in five years, and we’ll come up with ways to replace the revenue.”

Rex — “You got it.”

How could such a clear-cut deal take place in one city, while, at the other end of the state the battle will be re-engaged every five years for the foreseeable future?

It’s the difference between a strong mayor form of government (St. Louis) and a council-manager form of government in Kansas City.

Slay can make that deal without having to worry about being undermined by the Board of Aldermen. In Kansas City, however, the mayor can’t promise anything, unless he’s got the signatures of six other council members, giving him a 7-6 majority, including himself.

Slay

To see the difference in the E-tax intentions of leaders in the two cities, one had only to read Slay’s comments in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Mayor-elect Sly James’ comments in The Kansas City Star.

James: “What a great victory. We now have confirmation that we’re going to have the earnings tax that we need so much.”

Slay: “What we saw here was a step, an important step toward what I believe to be a necessary and inevitable change in the way the city delivers services and the way the region is governed.”

The Post-Dispatch story went on to say that city officials already had begun talking about other ways of getting the revenue that the E-tax generates. “I don’t think there’s going to be another campaign on this earnings tax” in five years, Richard Callow, pro-earnings-tax campaign manager was quoted as saying.

That about says it all, doesn’t it? The wheels are in motion in St. Louis, and the E-tax is going away.

Now, if Kansas City leaders are paying attention, that should set off all kinds of alarms.

Two reasons:

1) The E-tax undoubtedly is hurting business and job growth in Kansas City. We’re already getting poached to death by the Kansas side, and now, with many Missouri-side suburbs growing, they, too, will pick up the cherry-picking pace.

2) After St. Louis gets rid of its E-tax, it will start competing more stoutly for businesses that are looking to relocate to Missouri. And when it lays out its package of incentives, it can say, “If you come to St. Louis, you won’t have to worry about an earnings tax, but if you go to Kansas City, you’ll be hit for one percent of your profits.”

Ouch!

Let me make this clear: I was not only for the E-tax, I was on the Save Kansas City Committee steering committee and made two presentations on behalf of the tax. At both appearances, however, I advocated for a thorough review of Kansas City finances.

And while I like the idea of forcing the “sundowners” — those who leave the city after work each day — to help pay for the amenities and facilities that bolster the urban core, I think this newfound focus on the E-tax is fostering a lot of unnecessary resentment among the sundowners.

You remember, don’t you, E-tax proponent Dan Cofran’s now-famous quote to a woman who was frustrated because she had to pay the tax even though she didn’t live in Kansas City? “Then, don’t work here,” he said.

Ouch…again.

The reply didn’t hurt the tax’s chances of passage at all, but it didn’t help relations between those of us who live in Kansas City and those who don’t. We shouldn’t allow the E-tax to drive the wedge even farther between us and them.

So, let’s see what we can do about getting rid of that E-tax, OK, Sly? OK, council members?

The last thing we want, other than that wedge being driven deeper, is the sight of St. Louis steaming by us as we cling to a tax that only about 20 percent of the largest cities in the U.S. are holding on to.

Sinquefield

Also, this looks like a case where the big dog, Sinquefield, isn’t going away. He’ll be back in five years — assuming he’s still alive — and he and his minions will dump several hundred thousand more dollars into that campaign, and he’ll make our business community shell out another $1 million or so to try to beat him.

To me, he looks an awful lot like Local 42 of the International Association of Fire Fighters: He won’t quit until he gets what he wants.

Read Full Post »

Weird and stupid utterances

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , on April 1, 2011| 2 Comments »

As you read this, I’m on the way to Louisville, which I’ll use as my base to make forays to Indianapolis for the women’s NCAA basketball semifinals and finals Sunday and Tuesday.

So, I want to leave you with something entertaining. And what’s more entertaining than some of the weird things that come out of people’s mouths? (Sometimes, unfortunately, I hear weird things coming from my own mouth, but in this case I’m going to focus on the folly of others.)

Three examples:

1) As you know by now, Karen Pletz — she of the spiked, blond hair and surgically altered face — was indicted yesterday for allegedly embezzling $1.5 million from the school she formerly headed, Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences. Among other things, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court, the 63-year-old Pletz forged approvals of bonus payments totaling more than $1 million.

And what was the reaction of her lawyer, Brandon J.B. Boulware?

“With today’s indictment, the federal government has injected itself into the civil litigation dispute between KCUMB and its former president, Karen Pletz…It is unfortunate, in our view, that local federal prosecutors would choose to spend public resources on a case like this when there are other, legitimate processes already at work to resolve the issues in dispute.”

Pletz

Whichever Kansas City Star reporter interviewed Boulware — Alan Bavley or Tony Rizzo — must have had to stuff a handkerchief  in his mouth to keep from laughing.

“Dispute”? Oh, yeah, a little dust-up over a $million or so.

How about the federal government “injecting itself” into the case? Shocking! Why, those brazen prosecutors ought to be put in time out.

“Other, legitimate processes already at work”? Can’t we all just get together over coffee and work this out?

Personally, I think Karen’s hair will settle down after a few weeks in prison. And I think Brandon B.S. (I mean J.B.) Boulware will get over his indignation.

2) Earlier this week, federal prosecutor Richard L. Hathaway (there go those prosecutors again) said that former KU assistant athletic director Rodney Jones used proceeds from stolen tickets on “an extensive rolling party scene that persevered for five years.”

God, how I used to hate those persevering parties! They just would not stop. You’d invite a few people over, and pretty soon everybody would be drunk, and days would turn into weeks, and weeks would turn into years.

In Jones’ case, though, law enforcement authorities plucked him off the merry-go-round, and now he’ll have to persevere through 46 months in prison.

3) In a March 25 story, Kansas City Star sports writer Mike DeArmond clicked off the steps leading up to Mike Anderson’s decision to resign as men’s basketball coach at the University of Missouri and take the same post at the University of Arkansas.

It was high drama, the way DeArmond and Mizzou athletic director Mike Alden recounted it.

Alden

“At 6:20 p.m., Alden said, his telephone rang. It was Anderson calling with a request for Alden to meet him around 6:45 p.m. in Anderson’s office at Mizzou Arena. Alden made the walk from his office on the opposite side of the arena to Anderson’s door.

‘He informed me at that time that he was going to be resigning his position with the University of Missouri as our head men’s basketball coach,’ Alden said.”

Well, thank you, Mike Alden, for letting us know exactly what Anderson’s title was, and thank you, Mike DeArmond, for taking up three lines of newsprint with that powerfully redundant information.

Now, I can hardly wait to see who Alden is going to hire as the next head men’s basketball coach at the University of Missouri.

Or should I say next head men’s basketball coach at the University of Missouri-Columbia?

Read Full Post »

Wal-Mart balks at $7,000 fine — but federal guidelines are the real issue

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , on March 29, 2011| 6 Comments »

Here in Kansas City, we already know a little more about Wal-Mart than a lot of people because a former Wal-Mart c.e.o., David Glass, owns our Kansas City Royals.

The common complaint is that Glass runs the Royals like Wal-Mart executives run their company — on the cheap.

Well, cheap is one thing, but allowing unsafe employment practices is something altogether different. And that’s what it looks like Wal-Mart is guilty of in its two-year-old battle to overturn a $7,000 federal fine that stems from a customer stampede on Thanksgiving weekend, 2008, at a Long Island, New York, store.

Damour

In case you’ve forgotten — although it’s pretty hard to purge this from the memory — a 34-year-old temporary worker named Jdimytai Damour was trampled on Black Friday as he and other Wal-Mart employees attempted, unsuccessfully, to hold back a crowd of shoppers who charged into the store when the doors were unlocked at 5 a.m.

A story published in today’s New York Times summarizes the situation: “Eight to 10 employees were pushing against the door to counteract the press of customers trying to get in…Once the doors were unlocked, customers fell in the vestibule and employees climbed on top of vending machines to protect themselves. As in years past, the doors popped off their hinges. Mr. Damour was trampled. He died at the site.”

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined Wal-Mart $7,000 — the maximum penalty — and last Friday, the agency’s chief administrative law judge, Covette Rooney, upheld the fine, concluding that unruly crowds on Black Friday in each of the three preceding years — 2005, 2006 and 2007 — should have prompted Wal-Mart to take precautions by 2008.

And what was Wal-Mart’s reaction? Accept the $7,000 fine and pledge to improve conditions? Oh, no, it’s planning to appeal the fine to the full OSHA review commission.

Well, you’ve got to hand it to Wal-Mart; it has been consistent on this. The company has spent more than $2 million on legal fees trying to overturn the $7,000 fine. Of course, the fine isn’t the point with Wal-Mart. It’s all about a bigger principle, the principle of the government sticking its nose in the company’s (and other companies’) business.

Specifically, according to another New York Times story, “Wal-Mart asserted that OSHA was wrongly seeking to define ‘crowd trampling’ as an occupational hazard that retailers must take action to prevent.”

In other words, Wal-Mart is saying, “Let us deal with our crowd-trampling problem, if, indeed, we have a crowd-trampling problem.”

Well, now, that rings a bell with me — and perhaps you, too — on a problem we had here in Kansas City regarding smoking in bars and restaurants.

If you’ll recall, when city officials first began proposing a limit or ban on smoking in bars and restaurants about 20 years ago, the proprietors raised a hue and cry. I remember, specifically, Carl DiCapo, owner of the former Italian Gardens, appearing before a City Council committee and saying, “Please, let us police ourselves.”

For a long time, DiCapo and other opponents of a ban were able to hold the city off — and did little more than designate, in some cases, nonsmoking areas. Finally, three years ago, a citizens initiative petition got enough signatures to put the issue to a vote, and voters implemented an effective ban on smoking in indoor, public places.

The idea of letting Wal-Mart and other big retailers police themselves in the matter of crowd control makes about as much sense as letting Carl DiCapo — a fine citizen in every other respect, by the way — and his entrepreneurial pals decide how to control smoking in bars and restaurants.

Fortunately for big-box employees and customers, as long as the $7,000 fine stands, retailers will have to begin putting in place new crowd-control guidelines that OSHA issued last year.

Wal-Mart wisely implemented some changes at all of its New York stores as part of a 2009 settlement with Nassau County, and it has extended the approach to most of its stores.

For one thing, Wal-Mart stayed open from 7 a.m. on Thanksgiving Day through the night. For some special-sale items, like electronics, people were given tickets so they did not have to surge into the store and make a run for the items. Also, outside the store, officials set up steel barriers in zigzag patterns to prevent a massive, forward press of shoppers.

The steps that Wal-Mart took were in line with the new OSHA guidelines.

The guidelines, according to today’s story in The Times, “say that barricades should start away from the store’s entrance, and that they must have breaks or turns in them to prevent customers pushing from the rear. The guidelines also say that employees should be assigned to specific spots, and that the local police, fire department and hospitals should be alerted about an event that might draw crowds.”

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have OSHA setting the crowd-control rules than relying on Wal-Mart to do so. After all, if Wal-Mart was so on top of things, wouldn’t it have taken action earlier, after surging crowds had popped the doors off the hinges at the same Long Island store in 2005, 2006 and 2007?

No, didn’t happen, not even after three consecutive years of difficulty managing Black Friday crowds.

And the result? The doors popped off the hinges again, and a 34-year-old temporary worker — a little guy working for a big, big company — lost his life.

I’m sure Wal-Mart regrets the loss…just not enough to allow the big, bad, federal government to hand down crowd-control guidelines.

Read Full Post »

The Star stumbles; The Star shines; and Yael Abouhalkah dings Sly

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , on March 14, 2011| 9 Comments »

Despite the blogs, the TV ads and the candidate forums, most frequent voters still rely on The Kansas City Star to help them sort out the issues and gauge the candidates in the mayor’s race.

In recent days, The Star has, in some instances, yielded valuable insight. On the other hand, it fell face-down in the mud on a story last Friday about the legal cases that candidates Mike Burke and Sly James — both lawyers — have handled.

Let’s get the mud-splatter job out of the way first.

Political reporters Dave Helling and Steve Kraske set up their front-page story about Burke’s and James’ legal backgrounds by quoting Jim Bergfalk, a longtime political consultant who engineered the ill-fated campaign of Deb Hermann, who finished fifth in the Feb. 22 primary election.

On the front-page part of the story, before it “jumped” to an inside page, Helling and Kraske said that “because both men have thin experience in public office, some attention has turned to the pair’s legal careers for clues about their approaches to government.”

Then came the stage-setting quote from Bergfalk: “It (the legal perspective) is absolutely relevant. It’s the only real body of work that voters have” for the two contenders.

Oh, really?

Never mind that Burke has served as chairman of three economic development agencies, headed the city’s Public Improvements Advisory Committee for five years, founded the July 4 Riverfest celebration and headed the committee that got Kansas City named an All-America City in 2006. And forget that James was co-chairman of the Save our Stadiums committee and served on the boards of Operation Breakthrough, the United Way and Genesis School.

First, shame on Bergfalk, who should and does know better. I don’t know what the hell he was thinking or doing when he said that. Maybe whichever of the two reporters who interviewed him led him in that direction. Maybe he was thinking about how, on his watch,  Hermann plummeted from favorite a month before the primary to fifth on Election Day.

But the bigger shame goes to Helling and Kraske, who also know the quote is completely misleading and are guilty of using it to artificially pump up the importance of that day’s story. OK, the candidates’ legal backgrounds are relevant — no doubt about that — but is it…

“the only real body of work that voters have” ?????

Come on…In my view, those two reporters were trying to sell their story to both their editors and their readers. Once again, as is often the case at The Star, one or more editors failed to rein in the reporters. One of an editor’s main jobs is to make sure a story is balanced and in perspective. Sometimes, editors have to stand up to heavy-hitting reporters, blow the whistle and say, “No, that’s outta bounds.” Unfortunately, the editor who handled this story was a milquetoast.

Just that one quote blew the legal backgrounds of the two candidates out of perspective and, correspondingly, unfairly denigrated their respective civic-activist backgrounds.

…Guess I’ve gotta rein myself in here…Let’s move on to the next point.

On Thursday, Yael Abouhalkah, Op-Ed columnist and member of The Star’s editorial board had a column that, in part, addressed the two candidates’ leadership styles.

As a Burke contributor and supporter, I have to say, I loved that column. To my surprise, Abouhalkah said that James’ emphasis on being a mediator was “starting to wear thin.”

I say that surprised me because The Star recently endorsed James, although it was complimentary to Burke.

It sounds to me, just from that column, like Abouhalkah either didn’t cast his editorial vote for James or he’s had second thoughts.

Listen to what he went on to say…

“James recently hasn’t taken definitive stands on the Polsinelli law building/Country Club Plaza dispute, the future of Acting City Manger Troy Schulte and pension reform.

“His continued reservations won’t earn him points with voters who want leadership on issues that have been discussed for months, sometimes years (such as city pensions).”

Wow. Those are two powerful paragraphs that the Burke campaign could blow up into 60-point type and smack James in the head with.  Whether the campaign will take advantage of that godsend remains to be seen.

That brings us to side-by-side stories in Sunday’s “A” section. Reporters Lynn Horsley and Michael Mansur interviewed both candidates on the most important issue in the race — Why should voters choose you? — and ran excerpts of the interviews.

Both stories were excellent and riveting — riveting to those of us who like politics, anyway. Here’s a link to the Burke story, and here’s a link to the James story.

Congratulations to Horsley and Mansur on stories that might prompt many voters to go for one candidate or the other.

I will leave you with the final questions and answers.

Question to James: Is there anything else we haven’t touched in terms of differences (between you and Burke)?

A: The key difference between Mike Burke and Sly James is we’re totally different people. Because I’m willing to accept that he has good ideas doesn’t mean we’re the same. … I believe I’m the leader that we need to go forward…I believe that the past is part of the problem for why we are where we are. I’m not saying that’s his fault. I don’t want that to be said at all. I’m just saying the time for politics as usual needs to cease and we need to do things a little differently in this town.

Question to Burke: Anything else in contrasting yourself with Sly James?

A: The main thing is who’s ready to walk in the mayor’s office and know how City Hall works, know who at City Hall are the good administrators, are the people you can trust for advice. That’s something I’m sure he can learn over time, but I don’t think we have a year or two of on-the-job training.

Read Full Post »

Blogger (not me) gets an earful…and gives back a mouthful

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , , on March 11, 2011| 14 Comments »

I thought the Kansas City mayor’s race was the biggest story in town these days, but fellow blogger Tony Botello (Tony’s Kansas City) has pushed the powerhouse politicians to the curb.

First, Tony was the subject of a big, cover story in the March 3-9 issue of The Pitch. Then, yesterday, he was on KCUR’s Central Standard show with host Jabulani Leffall.

Congratulations to Tony, whom I call the Blogger Baron of Kansas City. Every blogger should have his or her 15 minutes of fame. Who knows? Maybe even JimmyC will get a nod from the mainstream someday. (Yes, I said mainstream: Even The Pitch has now moved into the mainstream, by default, because it publishes stories that the old mainstream media, like The Star, can’t do properly…See Tony Botello story, for example.)

However, Tony’s day in the sun wasn’t greeted with a warm embrace in all quarters. There’s this business of Tony’s “girls,” the busty babes that Tony sprinkles his blogs with.

Some people, I’m sure, enjoy the view. Others think it dampens his credibility. Some think it’s just plain sexist. Such a one is my friend, first name Stacy, who, upon hearing on KCUR that Tony might be involved in moderating a council-mayoral debate tomorrow, screeched loud and long.

Here are excerpts from two comments that Stacy posted yesterday, as well as Tony’s replies, one of which I posted yesterday. The other he sent this morning.

Stacy:

Okay – this has nothing to do with the post but I’m a little hot right now. What is this about Tony of Tony’s Kansas City hosting a debate for the candidates this weekend? WHY would this man be given this opportunity? Why would the candidates not demand a non-sexist host the debate? Seriously ticked right now…The type of photos on Tony’s blog supports objectification..You would think the candidates would try to get away from this type of person instead of giving him legitimacy by agreeing to this debate.

I responded that Mike Burke’s public calendar said that a TV news reporter would be the moderator but that I would try to find out if Tony would be playing any official role. I also wrote that while I believed a lot of women shared her feelings about the cheesecake photos on Tony’s blog, that he had established himself — through hard work and inspiration — as the top blogger in the area and could credibly argue that he would be a competent moderator of a mayoral forum.

I then e-mailed Tony to find out about his role in the upcoming forum. He replied quickly, saying…

Christina Medina is the Mayoral Moderator . . . KC Hispanic News publisher Joe Arce might help her.

I’ll be asking Council some questions just to get started . . .

But what I’m trying to do is get as many people there so there will be a crowd of people to ask their own questions.

Christina seemed very open to doing like an Oprah-type thing . . . Which is something a bit different than what we’ve seen.

But as far as the Mayoral Candidates go, I won’t be asking any questions.

My role . . . Promoting, trying to organize doing as much publicity as possible and I’ll be one of three panelists for the Council session.

Hope that helps.

However, I wonder . . . What question could I possibly ask that would screw things up?

Peace,

Tony

That prompted Stacy to respond directly (in the comments section) to Tony.

It’s not what questions you may or may not ask – you may ask wonderful, insightful questions. It’s what your web site represents that makes we wonder why any candidate would want your promotion. I know that I am not alone in my reaction to the type of photos you post on your web site. It is very difficult to continue reading what you have to say, or to hear what you may be asking, when the thoughts that are screaming in my head are, “This is the type of behavior that hurts women. This is the type of behavior that lets men (and women) think that objectification of women is okay.

…I can’t stop the thought process that occurs after I hear someone who supports the objectification of women open his/her mouth. It’s the Howard Stern effect. I just stop caring what the person has to say and I can’t hear what the responders have to say. And I do try, but it’s just lost. I am not the only woman I know who feels this way. So, the question boils down to: Will the candidates be seen in the same light as your blog if you are one of the promoters?

Not knowing if Tony had followed the entire give-and-take, I sent him the excerpts from Stacy’s comments and offered him the opportunity to respond to the substance of her charges, that is, that he is sexist and treats women as objects in his blog.

Early this morning (he doesn’t sleep much, you know), he sent me an e-mail, apologizing for not responding “in detail,” but what he did write gives me a new frame of reference for “in detail.”

First, he said that he was a dues-paying member of La Raza political club, which is a co-sponsor of tomorrow’s forum (9:30 a.m. to noon, Guadalupe Center, 1015 Avenida Cesar Chavez). The other sponsors are Dos Mundos And KC Hispanic News, newspapers for which Tony has worked in the past.

Then, he turned to the issue that so upsets Stacy.

Why are they allowing me to participate? Again, because I’ve had a business relationship with the organizers. Even through the jokes, alleged misogyny and typos, in all of my writing and work, I strongly advocate for Latinos. The forum is open to everybody, but some questions will be geared toward our community that is one of the fastest growing in Kansas City.

However, I think the root of her question is: Why hasn’t this alleged sexism or misogyny caused people to steer away from me? I don’t know for a fact, but I’ll guess that it’s just plain old expediency, pragmatism and people with a better sense of humor than the old bag who is asking these questions.

JimmyC interrupts this soliloquy to state unequivocally: Stacy is not an old bag. Now, back to Tony…

Simply in terms of photographic content: The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is lot racier than my pictorial referencing on most days . . . But the editors aren’t branded with the “misogynist” label. Also, some of the nation’s best journalists have written for Playboy, amid straight-up beaver shots. Racy content in Rolling Stone hasn’t overshadowed groundbreaking reporting. And today some of the best alternative journalism comes from magazines like Vice that feature nudity and far more divisive (and funny content) than my daily ramblings. Really, the images I use from time to time are akin to Victoria’s Secret advertising, and that’s a multi-billion-dollar company propped up by a public that seems to consume their “content” at a rate where any objections are negligible.

But beyond that . . . I will acknowledge that I’ve written some very nasty things about women . . . in the context of a jokey blog with funny photos, typos, big red type and an overall spirit of cheeky news-ish (attempts) at humor.

Of course there are facts on TKC and even some breaking news . . . But I’ve never hidden my objective: More than anything else I consider my blog an exercise in entertainment.

When Andy Kauffman wrestled women, it was part of his act, and the charges of misogyny still didn’t stop a great many people from noting the genius of his performance art. Obviously, I’m not at the level of an Andy Kauffman, but that’s my gold standard and the best analogy I can offer for my rhetorical battles with the opposite sex.

Ask the politicos about why they “dare to associate” with me, but I think in the end it’s because I do have a rather deft touch when it comes to what to take seriously and when to simply do straight (dare I claim?) “reporting” rather than my bloggy shtick.

So, because I’m not getting in the ring and throwing around women, because the photos that I love are tame and boring by most late-night, cable-television standards and because I’m only one person among many working on a collaborative effort to inform the KC voting public . . . I don’t see a problem with my involvement and basically regard these complaints as overwrought and coming from a lady too wrapped up in her own political correctness, delicate sensibilities and with far too much spare time.

The lady is welcome to protest my involvement, but the fact is that city council and mayoral candidates already made their decision knowing full well my content offerings and weighing that against the more important concerns of KC voters in the urban core and the Latino community.

This lady is entering into a debate that has already been settled. If she’d like to go on a date, maybe we could trade numbers and I could ask her permission before I decided to pursue any other form of civic involvement.

In a world where porn is a multi-billion-dollar industry and working its way into mainstream culture every day, reality television has introduced drug abuse, intervention and therapy as prime-time entertainment, and Ben Affleck is trying to save the Congo despite his horrendous acting work in Gigli and Daredevil . . . the humor blogging and writing that I do has not precluded me from doing just a bit of local organizing in the context of a town where very few people vote.

Peace,

Tony

There you have it — the prosecution and the defense?

What do you think?

Read Full Post »

The Star goes for Sly James: Here’s why

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized on March 6, 2011| 10 Comments »

I turned 65 on Friday, and we broke out the hats and hooters at our house last night, celebrating well into the night — past 11 o’clock.

The only thing that blemished the party — for me and a few of the guests, anyway — was news that The Star had endorsed Sly James for mayor. (The endorsement editorial that appeared in today’s paper went up online last night.)

I said in a Feb. 26 post that, partly because I had contributed heavily to Mike Burke, I would not attempt to “cover” the race in the traditional journalistic sense, but that I would write about mainstream press coverage of the race.

The Star’s endorsement of James is about as mainstream as it gets. So, what’s up with this endorsement?

First, it obviously hurts Burke and boosts James. The editorial, probably written by Yael Abouhalkah, who has written about City Hall for more than 20 years, casts James as the candidate of “fresh ideas” and Burke as the candidate more familiar with “City Hall’s inner workings.”

OK, there in a nutshell, is the justification. But what’s going on behind the scenes with the seven-member editorial board, which made the decision? Besides Abouhalkah, the board includes publisher Mark Zieman, editorial page editor Miriam Pepper, Matthew Schofield, and columnists E. Thomas McClanahan, Barbara Shelly and Lewis Diuguid.

While I certainly believe the editorial board members worked hard at their decision and tried to come to it based on the pluses and minuses of the two candidates, other factors had to be in play. (I worked at The Star for 36 years and know something about how editorial decisions are made.)

Specifically, I think two factors tilted the board toward James: political correctness and the desire to pick a winner.

Political correctness

Four years ago, the editorial board chose Mark Funkhouser in what turned out to be one of the most ignominious endorsements in Star history. Funkhouser has been a disaster, and Yael and the board were so embarrassed that, a year or so ago, they rescinded the endorsement, and Yael later personally apologized for his ill-fated selection.

Back in ’07, however, The Star didn’t just select Funkhouser. It also passed over a relatively strong black candidate, City Councilman and community icon Alvin Brooks. It was a close race, but Funkhouser won, and he won for one reason: The Kansas City Star.

Once again, this year, The Star was faced with a difficult choice between a black man and a white man. I’ve got to think that The Star — a bastion of liberal thinking (which suits me just fine, by the way) — couldn’t bring itself to oppose another good, black candidate for the second consecutive four-year cycle.

Picking a winner

James started running more than two years ago and spent hundreds of hours developing connections and wooing support from people in various fields of interest. In addition, he proved to be an articulate, engaging candidate. In the primary, he cast himself as an eye- and ear-pleasing anti-Funk — a refreshing contrast to the glowering, sloop-shouldered mayor.

Burke has portrayed himself, justifiably, as the straight-and-steady candidate, the one with the most city-related experience and better prepared to start turning the city around the day he takes office. He says, convincingly, that his learning curve would be much less sharp than James’.

As is often the case, though, charisma is hard to beat. As I have sought out people’s opinions on the contest, a majority of the people I have talked to (those who have an opinion, anyway) say they favor James. Take a look at the yard signs, too, which is usually a good barometer. Again, James has the edge.

James’ populist appeal has not escaped Yael and his fellow board members. They sense that James is the candidate who is playing best on the streets.

Shamed by its selection of Funkhouser, The Star badly needs a winner to get back on track. Collectively, the editorial board members have their finger in the air, and they feel a breeze, propelled by a rush of east-side votes.

Does this mean Burke can’t win? Absolutely not. The race probably will be decided in the Ward Parkway Corridor, which has the highest proportion of registered and frequent voters.

In the corridor, never underestimate a Rockhurst High grad.

That’s Burke.

Read Full Post »

Hot off the presses: The Ten Commandments of Blogging

Posted in journalism, Uncategorized, tagged , , on February 24, 2011| 8 Comments »

I like to think of myself as a thoughtful blogger, not some stream-o-consciousness blatherer who’s trying to fill some column inches.

And so, a couple of things I’ve seen recently — one in the “mainstream” media and one on a local blog — got me thinking about the issue of blogging and ethics.

The first thing was an Election-Day story (thanks for the nice photo, fellas) by Tony Botello on Hearne Christopher’s KC Confidential blog.

Tony — the baron of KC bloggers — raised the issue of blogging ethics as it related to my significant financial contributions ($3,000) to Mike Burke’s mayoral campaign while I was also writing about the race. (Shockingly, I wrote some very positive pieces about Mike.)

Tony wrote: And while Fitzpatrick repeatedly criticizes mainstream media like The Star for deviating from old-school journalistic standards, in the case of his support of Burke he’s gone native with his biases like an untrained blogger.

(Not sure I completely understand that sentence, but I guess I get the drift.)

The second thing that arrested my attention was a story in today’s Kansas City Star about a liberal blogger named Ian Murphy who was able to get Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on the phone by pretending to be Kansas billionaire industrialist David Koch.

Now, that rankles me because this fellow Murphy is giving us bloggers a bad name…making us look like unethical lowlifes.

So, I started looking around to see if there was any code of ethics for bloggers. Shockingly, (am I overusing the word?), I couldn’t find one. No code of ethics…How can this be?

Most newspapers, including The Star, have extensive codes of ethics, but apparently the blogging version has slipped through the cracks. Upon reflection (like I said, that’s my deal), I thought I could leave a legacy to the medium by fashioning a “Blogger’s Code of Ethics.”

This morning, then (I move very fast), I appointed a 10-member, blue-ribbon Code of Ethics Blogging Panel (COEBP — pronounced co-eb), and gave them five hours to come up with a draft.

This afternoon, minutes before deadline, the draft landed on my desk with a resounding thud.

I took one look and was flabbergasted: The panel did such a good job that, without any editing, I accepted it Chapter and Verse. Extending profuse gratitude, I sent the panel off to Mike’s Tavern with a blank, JimmyCsays check.

And now, with no further ado, here is the Blogger’s Code of Ethics (BCE — pronounced bitchy), a Ten Commandments, of sorts, for bloggers.

1) Obey the law.

2) Never misrepresent thyself.

3) If thy skin is thin, find another passtime.

4) When writing ill of others, remember the backboard effect.

5) When contributing more than $1,000 to a political candidate, don’t tell thy spouse.

6) Disclose thy political contributions to thy readers. (I do!)

7) When writing about a former employer, remember they was thy meal ticket.

8) If someone calls the police because they don’t like what you’re doing or how you’re doing it, be sure to get the investigating officer’s name so you can put it in thy story.

9)  If you accept bribes, limit them to no more than you can eat or drink in a single, 24-hour cycle.

10) Have fun & express thyself.

Cheers, everyone!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »