Thanks for reading, Tim! In defense of our compatriots in the local media, "viewpoints" such as ours do not belong in the news columns. One of the most disturbing trends in journalism is the increased intertwining of the subjective with the objective. So, instead of citizens preferring a news source they can trust, they are increasingly having to evaluate sources on whether or not the content suits their personal outlook. The old-school journalism we practiced was far from perfect. But it was a product convenient for the consumer and the industry took its core watchdog function very seriously. We made a conscious effort to expose our readers to varied opinions, even to the point of voicing minority viewpoints in our editorials just to make sure they were out there for our readers to evaluate.
The media criticism in this week's post had to do with commitment to finish what an outlet starts (ITD), not just drop it because the publisher got bored or otherwise occupied. We also repeated our recurring complaint on the declining watchdog role of the press. None of the several open meeting violations and other procedural flubs boards have had to walk back recently have been spotted by local media—even though many times reporters were sitting in the meetings when they happened. When the citizens' watchdog loses its bark, it leaves what it is protecting unsecured. That's what we were getting at. Citizens today have a much more varied menu of information sources to choose from. That's wonderful. But it also takes 2-3 more times the time investment for a citizen to get a reasonably representative overlook. Are citizens better off with more journalism outlets doing shallower general interest reporting? We wonder.
A board should be accountable, transparent, and act in the public trust. I proudly served on the McCall Library Board of Trustees, not because I had an agenda. I served to give back the gifts I have received from librarians and libraries my whole life. The board I served on never rubber-stamped anything. In fact, when we didn't have the information or data to make a decision, we would table an action item until we did. We asked the city council and city attorney questions and worked for a year on a new library policy that protects all patrons.
I think you give the group that stepped forward too much credit, because the underlying members of some of the most vocal in this group posted nefarious attacks that began with a state representative (who removed her post after the backlash) and unfounded comments by three other members of the group about the library director displaying pornographic books. My experience with the members of this group is that they are the few who are anti-library, narrow-minded, hateful people with a personal agenda, who want to impose their beliefs on others, take over the board, and remove the library director. So, while I agree with raising the issue about the Donnelly board, there may be more to the story about who knew what, when, and why the public didn't say anything for a year. Board meetings are open to the public. I believe the Donnelly board will make a statement soon.
I don't applaud the ill-mannered behavior this group has displayed in their social media posts, which made it clear it was all about books and politics for them.
I agree with your comments on #5 and hope the courts will overturn the state law.
I will always support the basic aim of any library: a place that provides free, equitable access to information, and I will challenge those who would try to take that right away from the public. As always, thanks for your comments.
Thank you for reading and for your always well worded comments. In the post, we reacted to only the documentation presented in the Valley Lookout news story on the library forum. We rarely do independent reporting anymore, so we rely on the public record. Since the Substack post published, readers have told us about the accusations you referred to that are floating around regarding the library director. Looks like we innocently stepped on a land mine from a social media war that has been going on for a while. We don't deal in unsubstantiated claims. We directed our criticism to the library board's apparent violation of public process. We agree with the group on that claim and only that claim, based on the evidence we could find. There was nothing in the news report that hinted of a hidden agenda (and we warned that if there was one, we would expose it).
We applaud any individual or group who submits a reasonably substantiated complaint to the public process, as happened in this case. It doesn't matter if we agree with their overall viewpoint. Our political agnosticism too often gets lost, because so many make a snap judgment of our commentary based on whether or not it reinforces their broad political beliefs, apart from what we actually say. Public process isn't political. It's structural. The back-fence allegations we have learned about since the post published are certainly serious. Those who suspect wrongdoing should document their complaint and place it in front of the library board, just as they did their process objection. If they do that, we will applaud that too. If they don't, then their objective isn't altruistic, it's back-fence character assassination. Whether they can ultimately win their argument or not is irrelevant to us. Public process, not social media, is the civilized means our laws use to manage disputes.
We defend our observations about board ideological homogeneity with the record. The fact that you served on a library board because you love libraries is exactly our point. You joined a body of like-minded people. There is a growing perspective that, in a rapidly advancing digital age, conventional, brick-and-morter library expansions are an outdated means to advance literacy. I recall a few letters to the editor to that effect prior to the library bond election. So this is hardly a fringe idea. There was a huge fight in Boise a few years ago that turned on that very argument. Yet, I bet I could go through McLibrary's minutes at the time the building was in development and not see much voice given to that point of view. If the Donnelly library citizens group wants to take over the library board, as you assert, it is because they have a beef and don't feel they have a voice. But whether they get that voice on the board isn't up to them. They won't "impose their beliefs on others." Only the library's patrons have the power to impose beliefs on themselves. What's wrong with that?
Thanks!...lots of great information and fresh viewpoints that "somehow" just never make it into the "news".
Looking forward to the the next bouquet!
Thanks for reading, Tim! In defense of our compatriots in the local media, "viewpoints" such as ours do not belong in the news columns. One of the most disturbing trends in journalism is the increased intertwining of the subjective with the objective. So, instead of citizens preferring a news source they can trust, they are increasingly having to evaluate sources on whether or not the content suits their personal outlook. The old-school journalism we practiced was far from perfect. But it was a product convenient for the consumer and the industry took its core watchdog function very seriously. We made a conscious effort to expose our readers to varied opinions, even to the point of voicing minority viewpoints in our editorials just to make sure they were out there for our readers to evaluate.
The media criticism in this week's post had to do with commitment to finish what an outlet starts (ITD), not just drop it because the publisher got bored or otherwise occupied. We also repeated our recurring complaint on the declining watchdog role of the press. None of the several open meeting violations and other procedural flubs boards have had to walk back recently have been spotted by local media—even though many times reporters were sitting in the meetings when they happened. When the citizens' watchdog loses its bark, it leaves what it is protecting unsecured. That's what we were getting at. Citizens today have a much more varied menu of information sources to choose from. That's wonderful. But it also takes 2-3 more times the time investment for a citizen to get a reasonably representative overlook. Are citizens better off with more journalism outlets doing shallower general interest reporting? We wonder.
A board should be accountable, transparent, and act in the public trust. I proudly served on the McCall Library Board of Trustees, not because I had an agenda. I served to give back the gifts I have received from librarians and libraries my whole life. The board I served on never rubber-stamped anything. In fact, when we didn't have the information or data to make a decision, we would table an action item until we did. We asked the city council and city attorney questions and worked for a year on a new library policy that protects all patrons.
I think you give the group that stepped forward too much credit, because the underlying members of some of the most vocal in this group posted nefarious attacks that began with a state representative (who removed her post after the backlash) and unfounded comments by three other members of the group about the library director displaying pornographic books. My experience with the members of this group is that they are the few who are anti-library, narrow-minded, hateful people with a personal agenda, who want to impose their beliefs on others, take over the board, and remove the library director. So, while I agree with raising the issue about the Donnelly board, there may be more to the story about who knew what, when, and why the public didn't say anything for a year. Board meetings are open to the public. I believe the Donnelly board will make a statement soon.
I don't applaud the ill-mannered behavior this group has displayed in their social media posts, which made it clear it was all about books and politics for them.
I agree with your comments on #5 and hope the courts will overturn the state law.
I will always support the basic aim of any library: a place that provides free, equitable access to information, and I will challenge those who would try to take that right away from the public. As always, thanks for your comments.
Thank you for reading and for your always well worded comments. In the post, we reacted to only the documentation presented in the Valley Lookout news story on the library forum. We rarely do independent reporting anymore, so we rely on the public record. Since the Substack post published, readers have told us about the accusations you referred to that are floating around regarding the library director. Looks like we innocently stepped on a land mine from a social media war that has been going on for a while. We don't deal in unsubstantiated claims. We directed our criticism to the library board's apparent violation of public process. We agree with the group on that claim and only that claim, based on the evidence we could find. There was nothing in the news report that hinted of a hidden agenda (and we warned that if there was one, we would expose it).
We applaud any individual or group who submits a reasonably substantiated complaint to the public process, as happened in this case. It doesn't matter if we agree with their overall viewpoint. Our political agnosticism too often gets lost, because so many make a snap judgment of our commentary based on whether or not it reinforces their broad political beliefs, apart from what we actually say. Public process isn't political. It's structural. The back-fence allegations we have learned about since the post published are certainly serious. Those who suspect wrongdoing should document their complaint and place it in front of the library board, just as they did their process objection. If they do that, we will applaud that too. If they don't, then their objective isn't altruistic, it's back-fence character assassination. Whether they can ultimately win their argument or not is irrelevant to us. Public process, not social media, is the civilized means our laws use to manage disputes.
We defend our observations about board ideological homogeneity with the record. The fact that you served on a library board because you love libraries is exactly our point. You joined a body of like-minded people. There is a growing perspective that, in a rapidly advancing digital age, conventional, brick-and-morter library expansions are an outdated means to advance literacy. I recall a few letters to the editor to that effect prior to the library bond election. So this is hardly a fringe idea. There was a huge fight in Boise a few years ago that turned on that very argument. Yet, I bet I could go through McLibrary's minutes at the time the building was in development and not see much voice given to that point of view. If the Donnelly library citizens group wants to take over the library board, as you assert, it is because they have a beef and don't feel they have a voice. But whether they get that voice on the board isn't up to them. They won't "impose their beliefs on others." Only the library's patrons have the power to impose beliefs on themselves. What's wrong with that?