Awards and racism

First of all, congrats to Andrew for his silver medal in the Associated Press' 2008-09 contest. He claimed the number two spot for blogging (a spankin'-new category) at dailies with a circulation of 25,000 or less.

The man deserves it. He's a reporting/blogging machine and sets a great example with his work ethic (everyone here does, really). I admit, too, I greatly appreciate the kind words directed my way during his acceptance speech.

Click here to read about our other winners.

This humble slice of the blogosphere continues trending toward the nondescript, so worry not tens of readers! The heft of no major awards will burden the slow but steady gait we set here. Onward.

— — — — — —

So last post, I promised my take on some of the nonsense that got stirred up thanks to (once again!) story comments. In true TiW fashion, I've yet to deliver.

Here it is though, plus a response to the comment by "demroc."

Personal opinion about what Ron Kim and his campaign did aside: I grew up a middle-class white kid. I'm congnizant enough to realize that I might not be as quick to recognize something as ethnically or racially offensive as someone else — especially when it could also be construed as political satire or hyperbole.

Could any rational, clear-thinking person (note the emphasis) be expected to take seriously comparisons of a local politician to a dictator overseas? In my mind, absolutely not. Are comments such as the ones Kim complained about in poor taste? Absolutely. No argument here. But from my perspective, they are also sarcastic hyperbole and fall under methods of political satire long established in this country.

That's just one man's opinion, however. That's why the onus falls on the community to police the comments. If you're offended by something, report it. I guarantee the editors that receive those abuse reports won't always agree with the reasons cited, and that some comments are going to stay up as a result, whether you like it or not. But we'll be quick to nix anything blatantly offensive.

But sometimes that's a fine line.

Ultimately, here's the thing you need to keep in mind: The comments left under articles should in NO WAY be considered editorial content from The Saratogian. It says as much when you go to read/leave your own. Should the newspaper be expected to guard against every dumb M-F'er that can't figure out the difference? Should author Dan Brown be expected to guard against every nut that can't comprehend the difference between fiction and reality?

The Catholic church sure thinks so, but when's the last time you took the Catholic church seriously?

Demroc: Yes, it's our duty to disemminate accurate information. And yes, the comments section is a forum in which inaccurate information is sometimes posted. I understand why some people would associate that with the newspaper. But some people, to put it bluntly, are stupid.

I think it's a microcosm of society at large. I believe in the market place of free ideas, and that's what I see the comments as. People will put out their ideas and opinions and, if you disagree, then you respond in kind. Yes, it becomes a forum to take political punches at each other, but that's part of the tradition in our national discourse. As long as it doesn't get too ridiculous (personal attacks, for example), then I'm happy to give it a certain amount of leeway.

As to the anonyminity of most commenters: That's part of our modern Internet culture. Is it good? Well, that's a topic for another post.

Story comments equal disolved stomach lining

Story comments are going to be the death of me.

As much as I want to put my fist through the wall (or my head in the path of a bus tire), though, part of me enjoys facing some of the unique challenges here at the forefront of the "new media" wave.

I doubt I will enjoy them as much when they develop into my first ulcer, though, which I feel is inevitable...

We all know the game is changing in the world of media; I can't compare it to the field 30 years ago, of course, but things are shaking out as the industry becomes more proactive in adjusting to the technological innovations that have been kicking it in the pants for some years.

I wonder, however: Given the pace of technological change, will things ever truly settle out, or will things in the media ALWAYS be in the process of shaking out? Or worse, playing catch up?

Just some venting/reflection on my part. More elaboration if it becomes an option.

Update: 4:19 p.m.

The TU's Dennis Yusko has the details over at the Saratoga Seen blog.

I had no idea I could count Mr. Yusko among my tens of readers, nor that the blog has linked here a couple times.

The Saratogian will offer its own take on the matter, I believe in tomorrow's edition. Stay tuned.

Update: 10:09 a.m., Friday, Aug. 14, 2009

As mentioned, here is the article we wrote on the matter: Kim targets racism in Internet postings

I'll offer up my thoughts on this matter at some point later today.

However, I will mention that one sentence in the article immediately struck a cord (emphasis is mine):

"Kim said he was disturbed Monday night when he was campaigning door-to-door in Geyser Crest and a man, unable to differentiate between news and opinion, told him the newspaper was calling him a dictator."

I refer you back to my February post on this very matter: Blog vs. article.

By the numbers - July 2009

Gracious, me.

I'm quite behind here.

Much, so much to blog about, including a two-week old Inside the Saratogian Dropbox, some thoughts on recent developments in the media world (both national and local) and probably some other stuff, too.

But for this post: The third edition of By the (Blog) Numbers. (Cue standardized intro...Now!):

One thing I like to do is keep track of our site analytics: page views, unique vistors and such. I especially like to track the numbers of our staff blogs.

Two months ago I introduced a new feature here at TiW to show off the number of page views those blogs receive each month. Click here to see the June 2009 stats.

I also introduced a little challenge to my blogging colleagues: Unseat city reporter Andrew J. Bernstein and get treated to lunch, by me. I'll spare you the manufactured suspense, though. Both Andrew and my paltry disposable income for the week are safe.

Here are the numbers for July 2009:

1) Andrew Bernstein's Saratoga City Desk: 5,722 (a 3.2% increase)
2) Stan Hudy's Diary of a Mad Sportswriter: 2,554 (a 16.9% decrease)
3) Mareesa Nicosia's In the Biz: 2,196 (a 15.6% increase)
4) Barb Lombardo's Fresh Ink: 897 (a 22.1% decrease)
5) TiW: 583 (an 8.2% increase!)
5) Saratogian Sports' Extra Points: 209 (a 40% decrease)

Overall positioning remained the same as last month; In the Biz saw a respectable increase in traffic. This humble blog has achieved its highest numbers in the three months we've been doing this little feature (I've had better though, I swear). Stan Hudy just let me down.

I'll leave a tack in his chair as retribution. We play for keeps.