FONT SIZE
Email this
Print this
POST A COMMENT
BlEEP poll: Negativity blackout?
Attention Bloggers Excellent Ethics Prompts (“BlEEP the Website!”).
Should there be a “blackout” on negativity in posts/comments:
a) From Dec. 21-26
b) From Dec. 22-26
c) Never
d) What? You mean I get frequent flier miles for being on this dumb site? I’m confused (but I’d like an aisle seat)
This entry was posted
on Saturday, December 19th, 2009 at 3:52 pm and is filed under North Coast News.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
The entire grass-root citizen residents and part year residents in OS are able to read about and discuss what the city does now.
How long can incompetency and overspending continue? Just patting themselves on the back and constantly giving themselves compliments is not going to be possible anymore.
The people now have the tools to see the big picture. Dwelling only on the positive and and ignoring the negative is not going to fool taxpayers anymore. The citizen electronic social network sees and analyzes all. The city has cried wolf so many times and spent so much tax cleaning up messes they are going to have to seriously consider rebuilding credibility if that is even possible. We don’t have to go through the looking glass anymore people.
The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright–
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.
The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done–
“It’s very rude of him,” she said,
“To come and spoil the fun!”
The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead–
There were no birds to fly.
The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
“If this were only cleared away,”
They said, “it would be grand!”
“If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose,” the Walrus said,
“That they could get it clear?”
“I doubt it,” said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.
“O Oysters, come and walk with us!”
The Walrus did beseech.
“A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each.”
The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head–
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.
But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat–
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn’t any feet.
Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more–
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.
The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
Of cabbages–and kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot–
And whether pigs have wings.”
“But wait a bit,” the Oysters cried,
“Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!”
“No hurry!” said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.
“A loaf of bread,” the Walrus said,
“Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed–
Now if you’re ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed.”
“But not on us!” the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
“After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!”
“The night is fine,” the Walrus said.
“Do you admire the view?
“It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!”
The Carpenter said nothing but
“Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf–
I’ve had to ask you twice!”
“It seems a shame,” the Walrus said,
“To play them such a trick,
After we’ve brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!”
The Carpenter said nothing but
“The butter’s spread too thick!”
“I weep for you,” the Walrus said:
“I deeply sympathize.”
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
“O Oysters,” said the Carpenter,
“You’ve had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?’
But answer came there none–
And this was scarcely odd, because
They’d eaten every one.
The Walrus and The Carpenter
Lewis Carroll
(from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, 1872)
Aw, let’s keep up the dialog. That’s how problems are solved…. eventually.
The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
Of cabbages–and kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot–
And whether pigs have wings.”
the actual problem is that too many folks over estimate their importance and are way too serious. if it is important enough to comment on, take it to the council meetings and be heard. tusk tusk
It seems some people would rather have the “North Coast Enquirer” rather than the “The North Coast News”. Entertainment is fine, bias is not!!!!
Tom Hyde, how I’ve missed you my friend.
i believe we should blackout the positive thinkers and dogooders. bah………..you know the rest.
Yes! TouriststavedOS. Right on!
There is news and then there is entertainment. News is just the facts. Entertainment is everything else in a paper. We have a great mix here. It is fun, thought provoking and informative. We are not AP. If we wanted AP, we would just look at what they give us on the wire. There is more going on and more points of view than the AP Wire. That is what makes the world go around. If we only had the single sanitized point of view here, we would have the old BBC 1, BBC 2 and nothing more. That is why they have different papers in towns and cities. That is why there is FOX and CNBC and CNN. Even HLN now is different from CNN. We are not looking for oatmeal or cream of wheat news. We want some spice, some satire, and some spunk in the news.
Food for thought. The Associated Press Statement of News Values has some directives that may be useful here! “In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before….we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news. That means we abhor inaccuracies, bias or distortions. Quotations must be accurate and precise. It means we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action. It means we must be fair. ” Reporting facts without context or reasonable explanation may border on unethical behavior.
Hey that’s great news on the flag. I was always partial to a windswept shore pine but could never find exactly what I wanted, or find the time to do it properly myself.
Works for me anyway. I’ll be voting. Just remember pelicans are not a pretty sight if they are disturbed or angry or? They let loose from both ends.
Good point Tom(as in Hyde)
Let’s start that flag/masthead/logo contest by mid-January. (And, if I forget, please remind me!)
And yes, What Were They Thinking: one option will be “keep the wave.”
Great idea Bruce. Let people submit suggestions that could be published and then voted on. Either by e-mail or snipping it out of the paper and mailing or droping off at the office. Make it like the Clam Digger’s Festival logo. They have a contest. maybe the paper corporation could provide some prize money for the artist. Maybe someone’s photo converted to some artform?
Well – a new/old masthead contest is a great New Year contest.
Tom, let’s open it up….
Bruce
Welcome, Mr. Hyde! (Assuming you really are Tom Hyde, and not some Tom Jekyll . . .) Since you presented what you term rhetorical questions, I’ll simply say “hmmmm,” rather than giving my opinion.
But I will say this, re the masthead: bring back the pelican!
(Thanks for the reminder, I’d like to let the readers vote on this one at some point.)
i would like to see a new masthead. perhaps some geese across the top with some elmer fudd types along the bottom.
I really like the masthead with the big wave. It’s simple, colorful and reminds us we are living on the edge in more ways than one.
A Christmas Wish …
Please, please, please change the art on the newspaper’s flag (what some would call the masthead). I really shouldn’t say anything but it has grated on me for years now. Change is good and fine, and I was never satisfied with my own previous designs, but change should be an improvement and an evolution. I strangle back further comment. Thank you for the opportunity to speak my peace here, I hope it is not perceived as too negative
)
over and out …
Does freedom of speech take a holiday? How would you define or arbitrate “negativity”? Is this a newspapers’ role? If this is a discussion of “excellent ethics” then what other holiday seasons would be appropriate to blackout negativity, however you may define it? Non-christian, secular, pagan? To me these are obviously rhetorical questions but perhaps to others they are not.
a)
And Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
What is considered a negative comment? Someone questioning authority or decisions made by council? Most posters are just stating their point of view based on facts that have been presented. This is a place to exchange ideas, whatever the point of view, but one must be willing to support their comments with facts. I find postings on this site to be thought provoking and an exchange of ideas just may spark a creative solution to a dilemma. If one just wants to gripe, with no suggestion for cure, then it’s just a bitch session and nothing comes of it but dissatisfaction and rabble rousing. Let’s all try to counter any negative comment we make with a creative solution.
Do negatives attract positives . . . or vice versa?
C. Never
Most of the people who comment are simply exchanging their points of view and some are doing so in a way that offers the rest of us an opportunity to educate ourselves to another point of view. I spent my formative years in a religion (with the rest of my family) that encouraged only one point of view. I find it refreshing as an adult to ponder many instead. Also, just as a side note to the person in another columns comments said that only a couple of people sign their own name to their comments, hiding behind anonymity, I don’t find that to be the case here, I’ve read many comments signed with what I assume to be real names….my own included. I don’t assume, however, that the anon. comments are necessarily because they are ashamed of their opinions, but possibly they are in a vulnerable position in the community.
Tom:
Not that I’m not aware of the abnormal unconstructiveness normally and naturally abounding. But, I am not necessarily mindful of my not being negative, nor do I negate anyone else’s negative comments, neither do I not wish to negate these negativities. Not that negative is not beautiful, nor that negativity has not brought this town some normalcy. Therefore, negative is not abnormal nor new here, but neither does it not negate denial.
I agree that it may be not so much fun for the person the negativity is directed at. However I have to wonder why they are exchanging words in a site where a free range of ideas abound. If as a writer I take a hit(as I often have) I know that we are exchanging viewpoints both negative and positive and we may reach a compromise that is agreeable to all.
Tom,
C. Leave it alone.
If one looks at political messages, which everyone sees or hears all the time, they are supported by “groups” with nice sounding names. “Friends of”, “Save our”, “Citizens for”, etc.
These names hide the individual from public ridicule. Sometimes the message is more important than the messenger.
Many people focus on the messenger and not the message. That focus is misdirected. Each message, by either a named or unnamed person, is the important thing here.
It can be civil. It can be without the personal attacks.
Just saying that someone else’s opinion is “biased, misinterpreted, unverifiable negative facts or comments” shows that that person has possibly their own “biased, misinterpreted, unverifiable negative facts or comments.” The key word here is “negative”. Does that make the person saying this the “positive”? Maybe the poles change based upon point of view.
That being said, each person has the duty to check out the facts themselves. Read the available material. Ask for the source of those facts. Many times the proponent of one point of view is the provider of the facts. Balance the values, and reach their own conclusion.
That is how we rationally assess opinions. In every assessment in life, be you a scientist, lawyer, or businessman, you use tools to reach conclusions. Lawyers use IRAC, Issue, Rule, Analysis and Conclusion. A scientist will State the hypotheses, Formulate an analysis plan, Analyze sample data, Interpret results. Businessmen do the same thing through ESTLE:
Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Legal, and Environmental. Other use MOST: Mission, Objectives, Strategies,
and Tactics. Others use SWOT: Srengths, Weaknesses, Oportunities, and Threats. Some use CATWOE: Customers, Actors,
Transformation Process, World View, Owner, and Environmental Constraints.
There are others, but I just want to make the point that no matter how you get to the endpoint, in general all want to Reduce waste, Create solutions, Complete projects on time, Improve efficiency, and Document the right requirements.
Even doing these exercises, different conclusions will come forward. Being adults requires us to seek out why two or more conclusions came about. It can be errors in which hypothesis is accepted. Only through review by many can the error be flushed out.
Nicky, it may not be such fun for the person(s) the negativity is directed at.
If a person disagrees with a point, an action, an opinion, there is always a way to disagree without turning it into an attack on someone else.
In my opinion, those who feel a need to hide behind a pseudonym must not have the strength of conviction in what they are saying to own up to it. I don’t always agree with what Al Lizakowski says, but I respect him for signing his real name to it.
Should “negative” posts be squashed? No, I don’t think so. Any discussion should have equal opportunity for both sides. Only those posts which are not fit for an open forum which anyone can read should be barred, as Tom now does.
All posters, remember, it’s not hard to be civil in what you say. A civil discussion which prompts thought and open sharing of ideas and opinions is always more productive than something that lowers to the level of name calling, questioning of ancestry, and other acts of “uncivility.”
Signing my real name….
As long as you allow pseudonyms, any moron can say any moronic thing they wish. Whether I agree or disagree with Lillian or Nicky (besides myself, about the only ones who use their real names on this blog), I respect their opinions more than someone who won’t sign with their own name. You can’t “Hold Them Accountable” if you don’t know who to hold accountable.
Without negativity there can be no positivity and vice versa.
When the world is always seen through rose colored glasses nothing gets corrected even the glasses.
Accurately accessing the problem that is causing the negativity and then taking on a positive attitude to find the correct solution is the way to go.
Attacking people with biased, misinterpreted, unverifiable negative facts or comments is stupid and a waste of time and energy. It tags the attacker as an uneducated fool. Let the uneducated fool display the depths of ignorance so all can learn how not to present an argument.
Light illuminates darkness and just as the sun rises the darkness will become less and less.
Oh come on Tom let us have our fun
Awww….just one more person off the Ocean Shores pay roll and we all know who I mean,then I will be the sweetest person you ever saw. Never a negative word but until then I have to go with C.
are negative and cautiously constructive the same?
C. Never, Ooops! I think that was a negative statement :>