Orcas Issues States Election Season Policy
Readers who scroll down the sidebar (Patience, please, a redesign is coming this spring) will find a link “About” that describes the guiding spirits behind Orcas Issues, News and Views. It reads, in part, Orcas Issues “promotes internet citizen journalism that adheres to journalistic ethics of accuracy, accessibility and transparency and to editorial ethics of impartiality, fairness, courage and questioning. Through the Orcas Issues model, citizen journalists and contributors are monitored by editors, with all participants responsible for a new model of journalistic notice, debate and depth.”
This political season, with a primary election in February, a court challenge, and a general election in April deciding who will seat on our new, three-member County Council, has stirred civic involvement and discourse to a new level. The editorial staff at Orcas Issues questions: “Is the publication of letters and comments furthering this “new model of journalistic notice, debate and depth”?”
In last week’s straw poll (another sidebar feature) 49 percent of poll respondents completed the statement “I find the tone of our current county election… is getting too over-the-top in personal attacks.”
We concur. At Orcas Issues, we pride ourselves on being fair, airing views from differing viewpoints and providing background and depth to shared issues. We believe that politics is the art of keeping people happy while implementing your vision for the greater community AND that all politics is personal.
We also feel duty-bound to the community to set a standard for respectful communication that encourages engagement.We believe that, as a community, county residents are intelligent and kind enough to state our opinions, preferences and conclusions in a way that allows for a back-and-forth of opinions. The alternative is often disengaging in disgust. We also respect that people may decline to answer continued charges.
Recently, some of the letters we’ve received have more the tone of a personal vendetta and inconsiderate domination.
With the intention of providing a forum for respectful political discussion in this election season, Orcas Issues is implementing some policies to keep the letters and commentary informative, considerate and thereby engaging:
- We re-state our policy that all comments and letters be signed with the full name and not with a pseudonyms;
- We will remove comments, and not publish letters containing statements that we know to be factually untrue;
- We will limit comments to one response per post, and will remove additional comments from the same person
- We will allow Council candidates to respond to each others’ statements and to comment on these exchanges more than one time if they choose to do so; we will restrict all others to one comment as stated above.
It may be difficult to separate the person from the policies, but our frustration and anger must be tempered by respect … and kindness. In all these policies, we ask that our readers and contributors respect the standards that we have set for Orcas Issues to “adhere to journalistic ethics of accuracy, accessibility and transparency” and beyond that, to address our audience, including opponents, in a tone of respect, if not geniality.
Whatever the election outcome, moving on, we have to work with each other. That will be possible only if we view debate and discussion as something we are building together, not tearing down each others’ walls as fast and emphatically as we can.
GREAT!! A very sensible and well-considered position.
Your approach to dispute is reasonable,but politics is not reasonable these days so I kind of miss having the insane as well as sane comments.
Congratulations!!!!! I applaud your leadership in this area. Too many of your peers have denigrated themselves into the muck. Democracy was founded on the principle of honest public debate of the issues and perspectives. Unfortunately, I have already disengaged in disgust. I hope you can change my mind.
Thank you for your professional journalism!
Bob Myhr
Former San Juan County Commissioner/Council Member
Margie–I think you’ve set yourself an impossible task. First, determining what is “factually true” before publication could be very time-consuming, as any lawyer will tell you, and the decision itself often open to debate. I for one am surely guilty of “repeat-commenting,” but find that the back-and-forth in comments tends to clarify issues and correct facts organically in the process, and will miss that feature of your blog, which seems to attract more participants than most of the media for that reason alone.
I’m not sure what a “tone of a personal vendetta and inconsiderate domination” means, frankly. The only “personal” pieces I’ve seen have been related to candidates, who have put themselves in the public arena for evaluation. None has any elements of “vendetta” and none has gone off into “you’re stupid” or “you’re ugly” or “you’re un-American” silliness. On the other hand, questions about political and economic philosophy are at the heart of political campaigns.
As for politeness and “consideration,” I’m not sure that you’ll find many who agree what speech satisfies those standards, particularly in heated political campaigns.
At the same time, I notice that when certain political sacred cows are challenged, we often hear demands for “civility” rather than straight answers addressing the actual issues. I do not agree that pointing out problems or inconsistencies or even downright hypocrisy is “uncivil.”
With our traditional media focusing on everything BUT important County issues, such as the budget and the elections, it would be sad to see Orcas Issues limited to coverage of cookie sales and blood drives (which is not to say that that community news isn’t important).
I am quite pleased to see Orcas Issues make this decision and pursue these policies.
Margie: I do believe there is a way to responsibly handle inappropriate letters and applaud you for being proactive. I might suggest also that for those letters that include gross inaccuracies or misstate the truth, you could print a note from the editor correcting the “fact,” rather than deleting it. I think your readers would appreciate knowing where the facts have been twisted to support one side or the other. This will create an extra burden for you, but the result would cause us all to be more careful about the statements we make in print.
And so that you don’t get accused of slanting your site with your own personal political positions (a danger for all of our local email news sites), perhaps you could put together a small but diverse and respected editorial board to fact-check and otherwise make decisions about submitted content. When it comes to local politics, I think San Juan County, and especially those of us who vote, would benefit from such due diligence.
Thank you for creating this site and helping us to communicate with each other regardless of where we live.
I think an editorial board is a fantastic idea! We need more diverse and respected committees in this county deciding what the “facts” really are. Perhaps the Board can consist of Sandy Stehlou, Bob Myhr, Bill Watson, Terrel Kaplan, and Eleanor Hoague?
Margi,
I agree with Peg Manning that more dialogue not less the answer. Often “one-liners” and very short vague posts are left here. Usually they contribute nothing to further the dialogue and more often than not nearly attack a person rather than the issue. Frequently, especially in political campaigns, statements supporting a particular candidate are injected into the string of comments which have nothing to do with the theme of the original post.
Recently attempts were made by several individuals to further a very specific dialogue originated by a candidate. Neither the candidate nor candidate’s supporters stayed on topic. Therefore, each time one of them injected a new line of thought into the debate new issues had to be discussed are refuted. This is dialogue.
It does not seem to make sense that when a person, either posting an original letter or in their response to another’s post, be restricted in not being able to defend, clarify or correct comments being presented by another. Where is the sense in a policy that states that once you have made your comment you cannot respond to comments made by others that very well may not be accurate or even true? I’m not sure why anyone would post something with the knowledge that they could get politely or not “hammered” by someone for their comment and not be able to respond.
If by this policy it is meant that we are not going to present all of the facts on all of the issues and the candidates and those only nice positive things about a candidate may be introduced or posted, then this will be no more than a popularity contest.
All candidates should be challenged on all of their positions, backgrounds and track records to be included.
Have you ever thought of setting up a system for each candidate adopting the current system of “User Reviews” by Internet vendors and do a running tally reporting number of reviews, number with 5 stars, number with 4 stars and so on including the running average like “As of today March 8, candidate XX has 378 reviews with a rating of 3.8 stars” and offer to furnish all the reviews for reading if anyone wanted to do that. Whether you like it or not, it is a very effective marketing tool and a totally unbiased method of reporting evaluation.
Bravo on the high road – and I second the great suggestion by Ms. Strehlou – leave the false statement – but insert a researched, informed editor’s correction if need be. This will not only expose those untruths that are getting published all over the media – so easy to do on a blog or personal website – and be very informative – not only with the true fact – but perhaps in revealing some evident patterns of people posting misinformation! A back and forth between two sides is not productive – it is equivalent to “pissing in the wind” – which most sober people choose not to do.
Marta Nielson
well done, Margie. civil discourse is something far different than attack, and recognizably so.