Camping Legislators Could Have Stayed at Baranof

A June 6, article by Wesley Loy in the Anchorage Daily News reports that a number of legislators are sleeping in their offices during the special session here in Juneau.

[Kevin]Meyer, who works for Conoco Phillips, gets his showers in the workout room in the Terry Miller Legislative Office Building just across the street from the Capitol.

Lawmakers receive a daily allowance of $218 to cover lodging, meals and other expenses, but a hotel room alone could easily chew up that amount, Meyer and other lawmakers said.

When I told Steve Hamilton, manager of the Baranof Hotel, about this story and asked why he hadn't saved some rooms for legislators, he said he did. He said he emailed all the legislators in April that he would guarantee them a room if they let him know by May 3 at $109/night. Of course, the legislators didn't quite know for sure when, if, and where the session would start until later than that. But they could have made a reservation just in case.

The Disappearing Anchorage Daily News

This is about the thinnest ADN I've ever seen. Will the print edition have disappeared by this time next year? I hope not.

Mauer and Kizzia's Story on Seward

Jetleg had me awake at 4am yesterday and as I tried to go back to sleep, Monday's ADN story on Seward's part in the FBI investigations by Rich Mauer and Tom Kizzia wandered back into my consciousness from when I had quickly read the story on line a couple days earlier.

I have a couple of observations and a couple more details on the story.

Summary:

1. Rich and Tom did a fine job of reporting.
2. In this case the City of Seward public administrators (the career bureaucrats) courageously fought the decisions of the politicians, even putting their jobs on the line.
3. The case of Tylan Schrock again shows the corrupting power of power.

1. Rich Mauer and Tom Kizzia's good journalism.

Rich and Tom have been holding this story for a long time. I know Rich was interviewing people in the Seward city government back in August. I have two former students in Seward and I talked to one of them about all this back then. Rich was trying to get interviews. Would the student's job be in jeopardy for speaking to the press? The prospect was strong. The student had been warned by the then City Manager not to raise issues (just in the office, let alone the press.) So I only mentioned the story obliquely not wanting risk my former student's job. So while Rich had much of this story back in August, he held onto it until he got all the corroborating evidence - the documents he requested from the city, the key interviews (while the ex-student was already talking to the FBI, the student did also agree to talk to Rich.) And Rich has been respectful of the people he interviewed recognizing that they were taking risks just talking to him. So, all in all, this is some outstanding journalism that the people of Anchorage should be appreciative of. And it's part of a growing collection of pieces that the ADN, Rich particularly, has been offering the public on these topics. (I don't mean to downplay Tom's part in this, but I have talked to Rich about this story, but not to Tom.)

2. Public Administrators vs. Politicians

This is a distinction that is often lost on most people when they complain about government. It's really a story for another post. But I would point out it is the career politicians who do the daily work of government, who carry out the laws that politicians pass. And in the Seward story, it was the public administrators who strongly opposed the City's purchase of the earmarked property. What isn't mentioned in the story is that the public administrators put together a powerpoint presentation for the City Council that showed point by point the contractual relationship between the City and the Sealife Center and why, if I remember the details correctly, they shouldn't even allow the Sealife Center to purchase the property. The hope was that while enough Council members had personal interests in the property, at least the public would see what was going on when the powerpoint was shown at the meeting. But the Council decided to show the powerpoint in a closed session. At least one of the public administrators had foreseen this possibility and had distributed CD's of the powerpoint to some key Seward citizens, and the city manager approved posting it on the city website. The council (or maybe just the mayor) had it removed soon after, and the city manager was removed as well. The good news is that the fired city manager was elected mayor of Seward in the November election as were some less conflicted council members and the jobs of the public administrators who fought this are now much more secure again.

3. Tylan Schrock and the power of power

Tylan was also one of my students. He was very bright, very competent, and eager to make the world a better place when he graduated. In the Mauer/Kizzia story, Tylan is portrayed as the evasive director of the SeaLife Center, who appears to have arranged for the SeaLife Center to buy the property when the City of Seward said 'no', and who has recently announced his upcoming resignation.

I know Tylan pretty well. I was one of the people who recommended him for the job as assistant to the city manager at Seward when he graduated. And it was the right thing to do. Tylan had everything right and going for him. And he did such a good job for the City that they moved him over to the SeaLife Center because it belongs to the City and was not doing well. And since he moved there it has been doing very well. But it is important to note this line from the article:

The Alaska SeaLife Center has long been a favorite of Stevens, who has steered more than $50 million in federal funds to the nonprofit facility since it opened in 1998, including more than $3.5 million in the most recent appropriations bills. Schrock has been executive director for more than seven of those years.

There's no question that the SeaLife Center would be nowhere without the initial funding and continuing support of Ted Stevens' earmarks. (But I would also add that even with money an organization can be poorly managed. In fact having lots of money can make people careless - just watch the legislature. So while the money made Tylan's job easier, it alone didn't guarantee the success of the Center.)

My point, though, is that the Center was overwhelmingly dependent on Ted Stevens' earmarks. And remember that this earmark for purchasing McCabe's building was made in 2005. That was still a time when most Alaskan's were willing to look the other way while Ted was passing them money. It is easy to jump in and criticize Tylan, but it is also easy to see how difficult it might be to say no to person whose continuing financial support has made your organization possible.

That was how you played the game back then. It would be interesting to get a list of the people who have said 'no' to Ted Stevens when he was giving out money. Tylan didn't know the unofficial rules of the game were about the change. Neither did Anderson, Kott, or Kohring.

Now, we only have Mauer's story on this, so I don't want to say that Tylan is guilty of anything at this point (though Mauer's story is consistent with what I have heard myself). I'm not sure that he actually broke any laws. But let's assume that Tylan did knowingly arrange to use the earmark to buy the property through the SeaLife Center. My discussion above is only to understand why it happened, not to condone it.

The employees at the City of Seward had, in fact, said 'no' to the deal. They knew it was a bad deal and politically motivated. While the City of Seward is nowhere as dependent on Stevens as was the SeaLife Center, the employees themselves were risking their jobs in this action. And the City Manager lost his job. And, now, three years later Tylan has tendered his resignation (apparently, from what I've heard, not under pressure from the board) anyway. Doing what is right pays off in the long term.

As I watched the three trials last year I couldn't help but think about Pleasure Island in the movie Pinocchio.

Pleasure Island serves as a haven for wayward boys, allowing them to drink, smoke, and vandalize without recrimination. One of those boys is Lampwick, a tough bully of a boy that Pinocchio befriends. He smokes, drinks, plays pool, and then gets turned into a donkey. (from Duckman)

Luckily for Pinocchio, Jiminy Cricket, his conscience, helps him escape that fate. (While googling on this I found an accounting ethics book that uses the story of Pinocchio to help talk about ethics.)

Juneau is a lot like Pleasure Island. It's full of temptations, and three of the wicked boys who were sent to Juneau have been turned into donkeys. If anyone has any weaknesses the lobbyists in Juneau, like Stromboli, the puppeteer on Pleasure Island, exploit them. So far, the people who have been tried and convicted have been among the exploited. Anderson and Kott and Kohring are not wicked people, though they all had issues that made them exploitable. Three of the exploiters - Bill Allen, Rick Smith, and Frank Prewitt (and to a lesser degree Bill Bobrick) - have all made deals with the FBI and the Prosecutors. Maybe that is why they were the exploiters and not the exploited. They were smart enough to see the writing on the wall. I keep hearing rumors that more indictments are due any day (and since I'm not getting the ADN at my doorstep here in Thailand, they may have already come - I better look online before I post this.) and am hopeful that the drug lords (in this case money and power were the drugs) will be among the indicted, and not just the addicts.

This whole culture of power and money, I think sucked Tylan into a situation where he didn't thnk he could say no to the people who had made the SeaLife Center, itself a worthy institution, possible.

Rural Sexual Abuse - Anchorage Daily News coverage v. Tony Hopfinger's Newsweek coverage

The Anchorage Daily News had a front page story today on sexual abuse in rural Alaska. It gives no context at all. If I were relatively new to Alaska, or just uninformed about rural Alaska, I might conclude, from this story, that Alaska Natives are nothing but sex abusers. We get statements, undoubtedly true, but without context, such as:

Ground zero is the Bethel region, where troopers investigated 17 percent of the cases, more than any other post in the state, TePas said.

"We have an epidemic," she said. "It's a statewide epidemic, but the epicenter, our data shows, is the Bethel region."

The early figures paint a disturbing picture of rapes and other sexual violence against adults and children in Western Alaska, where the population is largely Alaska Native and villages are often loose extensions of family.

In all the 989 cases, family members and friends sexually abuse or assault each other in more than 90 percent of the incidents, she said.

While the ADN chose to run a Tundra Drums piece which just gives statistics but no discussion of the context on today's first page, to my knowledge, they have not given any coverage to Alaska writer Tony Hopfinger's in depth Newsweek article mentioned last week by Alaskan Abroad on the multi-million dollar settlement of sexual abuse cases by the Roman Catholic Priests in the Yupik community of St. Michael. [January 23: They did run a good piece on the settlement in November by Lisa Demer.]

I can't give you a precise account of why the sexual abuse levels are so high in Western Alaska. There are probably multiple causes. Alaska Natives being inherently evil is NOT one of them. Tony's other article on Wales that I mentioned in two previous posts gives a lot of context into why a young man in that community might commit suicide. All the issues he raises in that article might help us understand what is happening in Western Alaska. Alcohol is clearly a factor. But the St. Michael's article also suggests that perhaps the church[es] helped cause some of the sexual abuse problems in these villages. In St. Michael's the abuse, according to the article, was extensive - one specific priest had about 60 victims. We know that people who were abused are more likely than others to become abusers, though, as this article from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service suggests, it is not inevitable and it is far more complex than a simple correlation.

It would be nice to see the ADN do a more careful job of reporting about rural Alaska. The Tundra Drums, according to the Alaska Newspapers, Inc website,

is an independent newspaper dedicated to being the definitive informational medium for the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and is published weekly by Alaska Newspapers, Inc.

Its audience is in rural Alaska. They have a better understanding of the context than people in Anchorage and other places in Alaska where the ADN is read. You can't just take such an article and drop it onto the front page without some background.

It is important that the problems of rural Alaska be covered by the ADN, but raw data without context may do more harm to urban-rural understanding than no coverage at all.

Anchorage Daily News Blogging Policy - 2

In an earlier post, I mentioned that the ADN is recruiting community bloggers. This resulted in a comment by a community council member who had received a copy of the terms of agreement that ADN was asking community bloggers to sign. I discussed the terms of agreement and posted them in the ADN Blogging Policy 1. Their terms of agreement suggest to me that they haven’t thought this out very carefully. So in this post I’m going to discuss

1. What's the difference between a blogger and the kind of contributor this Agreement was originally written for?
2. Why might a blogger sign the agreement?
   

I would first distinguish between 1) the reporters and staff who are working with the website and the blogs at the ADN. They obviously understand the potential and have done a great job in posting important and timely material, and 2) the higher ups who are responsible for the Terms of Agreement.

The Terms of Agreement document- and Kathleen McCoy, who’s coordinating this effort, and who appears to be in the “reporters and staff” group, corroborated this - is basically a version of the old agreement the ADN has used for independent contributors to the ADN with a few cosmetic changes to make it address blogs. (I should also say that this is McClatchy boiler plate rather than ADN, since it even leaves the name of the newspaper blank.) But bloggers are a far different animal than contributors of old.

Bloggers and traditional writers are significantly different

Writers needed a publisher, bloggers do not. The biggest difference by far, the difference that makes all the difference, is that before the web and blogs, writers were dependent on some medium to publish their writing. Websites (and blogs are a type of website) have changed this completely. Bloggers don’t need a publisher. They need access to the internet (most libraries provide this) and knowledge of how to set up a blog. They don’t even need to know how to read or write. My MacBook allows me to push a button and the computer’s built in webcam will record my picture and whatever I want to say.


This said, why would I, a blogger, sign up with the ADN? Here’s what the ADN says it offers to bloggers:

[When I went back to get the specifics of what the ADN would provide, I couldn’t find it in the Terms of Agreement. I guess I got that from the Key Terms in the email Kathleen McCoy sent the Federation of Community Councils, which I didn't post anywhere. I’ll post the whole list at the bottom of this post.]

• ADN wishes to host community bloggers on our site.*

Blogspot hosts my blog and everyone else's free already. This is no big deal.

• We will use our print and web platforms to inform readers of the online blogs we host and that they can participate in, to help grow audience. *

This is the only benefit I see from cooperating with the ADN. And it is important. When Kyle linked to my blog during the corruption trials, he did it because he felt the blog had something worthwhile to add to the coverage. With in-house blogs, will he be told he can't link to other local blogs that are better than the ones ADN carries? (Obviously I have a personal interest in this issue.)

• No money is involved*

I get the same great benefit from my Blogspot blog. Google (who owns Blogspot) pays me nada. But they have adsense if I want to sign up. They will put content related ads on my site and I would get some tiny amount of money from the hits on the ads. With ADN, any ad revenue goes only to ADN.

• Readers will be able to comment on blog entries, and subscribe to an rss feed from the blog.*

These features come with my Blogspot blog and I have more control over comments if I need to than the ADN seems to have.

• Blog writers will be able to link, post photos, and even post video on their blog if the spirit moves them.*

Yeah, yeah, yeah, every blog can do this too.

• Standing content on the righthand side of the blog page can be built in and stay on the blog for use by readers. This could be useful Websites, good books or articles you like your blog readers to know about, PDF documents you think they might want to read,etc.*

Again, standard on all the main blogsites.


[* the lines with * at the end were taken from the McCoy Key Points mentioned above and posted at the end of this post]

What does it cost bloggers?

1. More legal exposure than they probably would have as an independent blogger. From the Terms of Agreement:

You warrant and represent that all written entries and all other materials posted to the Blog is your original work, free from plagiarism, and that it has not been published anywhere else, that it has not been assigned, licensed or otherwise encumbered anywhere else, that it is not libelous or defamatory, that it will not violate or infringe the copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, right of privacy or publicity, or any other proprietary right of any third party. You also agree to refuse any compensation from any third party for placing any content on the Blog, to not use the Blog posts as a vehicle for advertising or promoting goods or services, and to not knowingly link to any downloadable applications or other content which may be harmful to a user’s computer.
[Did Dan Fagan sign one of these?]

Bloggers should avoid much of this anyway, except that

• by being on the ADN site, new bloggers have a larger audience. Upset readers are more likely to go after the ADN than a lone blogger. But then they will find out that the ADN has dumped all the liability onto the blogger. So the blogger, who would have been fine as an independent blogger, has attracted, because of the connection to the ADN, a legal action.
  
• now you can get in trouble from the ADN as well as someone reading your blog
  
• A private blogger might want to take payments from someone to post things. And may want to take ads.
  

You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless NEWSPAPER and its affiliates, employees, successors and assigns, against and from any and all third party claims, liabilities, damages, fines, penalties and/or costs of whatsoever nature arising out of or in any way connected to a breach of your representations and warranties under this agreement.

You open yourself up to all sorts of potential liability.

2. Loss of control over your blog

NEWSPAPER shall own all right, title, and interest in and to the ___________________.com web site, and all intellectual property rights relating thereto. All rights not expressly granted under this agreement are expressly reserved.

It isn’t clear what this means because it seems to be contradicted later in the Agreement, but if you get tired of the ADN you own the content, but here it says they own the blog.

...you grant NEWSPAPER an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, paid-up, transferable license, in perpetuity, to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, perform, and publish your Blog, including a license to redistribute, reproduce, republish, and to authorize republication, reproduction, and syndication of all or part of the Blog in any database, in any other media or platform or by any other method (computer, electronic, magnetic, online, optical, video, CD-ROM or otherwise), now or hereafter invented.

While most bloggers aren’t going to do any of these things, and while the ADN gives you the copyright, they also have taken the right to make money from your work with nothing in here that says you even get a share of any profit they make off your work.

NEWSPAPER shall have the right to modify the Blog content in order to make it compatible with the technical requirements and the “look and feel” of it’s web site. You grant us the right to use the Blog name, your name, likeness, photograph and biographical material to advertise, promote and publicize you and your Blog for the purposes of promoting and introducing new users to the Blog….NEWSPAPER shall have the right to remove any content from the Blog or it’s web site that NEWSPAPER believes, in its sole discretion may violate the rights of any third party, violates any law, or is otherwise objectionable.

WHAT?!!! You’re going to edit me without my having any say? Are you going to correct my possessive pronouns too? And reproduce it with my name on it? Even if I don’t like what you did to it? NFW. (Would that be found “otherwise objectionable” by the ADN?)

3. Banishment from the ADN's realm if you terminate your agreement.

in the event that this agreement ends, NEWSPAPER will stop within 30 days any advertising, promotion or publicizing of the Blog from any Web sites owned or affiliated with NEWSPAPER

.

If you change your mind and get out of the agreement, you get blackballed by the ADN. Even if this isn't what they intended, it doesn't sound very welcoming.


What should the ADN do?

Recognize that this is new and ever changing territory. The only certain old rule is “go with quality.” Quality, in the blog age, means authenticity, immediacy, transparency, and honesty. Good bloggers looking at the Terms of Agreement will see them as: inauthentic, warmed over old contracts, with the real meaning hidden in legalese.

The attorneys should lighten up. Go for quality and things will work out the best they can. There’s no guarantee. The Terms of Agreement are the kind of document you take to the other party’s attorney and you work out the details to both parties’ satisfaction. But in this case, the bloggers don’t have an attorney. It’s take it or leave it. So, if you want bloggers to believe in your good faith, you need to offer the kind of Agreement they would get if a) you really wanted the bloggers on your website, and b) they had an attorney to negotiate a contract that fairly met the bloggers' needs as well as newspaper's.

I’d recommend you consider what the ADN has to offer the bloggers. What do they want? I can’t speak for them all, but here are things I’d like:

• Recognition that you value my participation. The newspaper is going to bloggers as part of the ADN's survival strategy, but the Terms of Agreement makes it seem like the higher ups are doing this completely against their will. Show you appreciate the bloggers with
• a token honorarium,
• free tickets to events bloggers might cover or other in-kind benefits,
• a share in any future profits from syndication or whatever ways you might leverage a blog into future earnings (odds aren't high this will happen anyway)
  
• a payment for every 1000 page hits.
• awards for best blog, best blog stories, best blog coverage of a major event, most prolific blogger, etc.
• any combination of the above and this is just off the top of my head
  

• Very limited and transparent editorial guidelines with a blogger advisory board to ensure fair application of the guidelines. Yes, the ADN needs to protect itself from copyright violations, defamation, and bad journalism. And sometimes there may need to be format changes. But any changes in content or style should be made with the agreement of the blogger and the newspaper, and failing that, with an appeal to the advisory board. The advisory board could be used to work out a new Agreement after a year or two of testing the first one. And pay them. It doesn't have to be the $400/hour you pay your attorneys, but if you do it right, you'll save a lot of that money too.

• Balanced protection against legal action. This means that the newspaper shouldn’t abandon bloggers if a lawsuit arises that is not due to negligence or carelessness on the part of the blogger. The newspaper should help protect bloggers' press rights such as getting access to events and information as it helped its reporters get access to trial documents and tapes this year.

You should also check out the NYU study of the best blogging newspapers in the US. They came up with eight factors to evaluate newspapers' blogging quality:

• Ease-of-use and clear navigation.
• Currency
• Quality of writing, thinking and linking.
• Voice
• Comments and reader participation.
• Range and originality.
• Explain what blogging is on your blogs page.
• Show commitment!
  (Details for each factor at the best blogging link above.)
  

The ADN line staff is doing what it can to meet these standards, but the ADN management need to convince the corporate attorneys that business as usual, legally, will be just as fatal as business as usual, journalistically. [Note: the survey looked at the biggest 100 newspapers, so the ADN wasn't in the running, but I think now - after a great summer of improvements - the ADN would score high with its web coverage and inhouse blogs.[



***Kathleen McCoy's Key Points to Community Councils

Key points:

* ADN wishes to host community bloggers on our site.
* We will use our print and web platforms to inform readers of the online blogs we host and that they can participate in, to help grow audience.
* No money is involved on our end or the bloggers' end. This is a community service, aimed at turning the ADN website into a place for conversations and information sharing, beyond what our own reporters produce.
* Readers will be able to comment on blog entries, and subscribe to an rss feed from the blog.
* Blog writers will be able to link, post photos, and even post video on their blog if the spirit moves them.
* Standing content on the righthand side of the blog page can be built in and stay on the blog for use by readers. This could be useful Websites, good books or articles you like your blog readers to know about, PDF documents you think they might want to read,etc.
* The blogger (cor bloggers, one blog can be shared among a tightknit group of people) will get a unique username and password that will give them access to their blog. They can blog from home or work, or the coffee shop down the street.


* I am your resource here at the News for questions, standing content you need posted to the right side, help getting that video up.
* This is new for us. We'll all be learning together, but we are confident it can make a contribution to the public dialogue in Anchorage.
* If you have an idea for a blog you'd like to see, call me and I'll follow up.
* I've enclosed the blogger agreement and the terms of use to this email

So, let's talk. I'm working on setting up as many community blogs as I can. I have three I am working on now -- and will be happy to start working on community council blogs if members so choose.

My best!/ Kathleen]

Anchorage Daily News Blogging Policy - 1

I'm calling this ADN Blogging Policy 1 even though I mentioned this in a previous post. There will be a Part II and there I will talk about how the ADN might address blogging. Here I will focus on the Agreement the ADN has sent to the community council seeking bloggers.

CCSecretary from a community council left a comment in my previous post objecting to the legal documents that the ADN wants these community bloggers to sign. Kathleen McCoy, the ADN person in charge of all this, from whom I first learned about this, called me about the post and the comments and has also posted a comment there.

CCSecretary later sent me a copy of the material the community council folks were sent and asked to sign. I’m posting them at the bottom of this post.

My abbreviated thoughts

• The whole newspaper industry is dealing with the changing news landscape and trying to figure out what the newspaper of tomorrow is going to look like and if they can even survive at all. The prevailing wisdom seems to be: get on line. Some understand what this means better than others.

• The ADN staffers, well some of them, have embraced this and are running with it. The management and owners, if they understand concept, don’t seem to understand how to implement it.

• The agreement shows that whoever wrote it up, either doesn't understand this at all, or simply just didn't spend any time on it. It is essentially the agreement that was used for independent writers with a couple of word changes.
  
  
• But no one has thought out the difference between independent writers and bloggers and how that changes what you would want in an agreement. I'll address that in a separate post.
  

Some Highlights of the Agreement

• Pay - while there is a blank where pay can be filled in, Kathleen told me over the phone, that for bloggers, she fills in $0.
• Bloggers get all the rights to the posts, while the ADN keeps the rights to the blog itself. (I'm not sure how that works, and another part implies the blog goes when the blogger goes.)
  
• The newspaper will stop advertising, promoting, publicizing blogs that terminate their agreement. Does that mean they won't link to them either? What about independent blogs? Is this the ADN trying to take over the blog space of Anchorage? Even if that isn't their intention, might it be the result?
  

Quick Overview of the Agreement

Below are a few highlights of the agreement that caught my eye. I’m not an attorney, so if I’m misreading something, or missing something, any attorney reading this, please is invited to point it out in the comments. I would also add that Kathleen says that she’s asked for feedback on this and they are willing to make changes. I could just send this to her rather than posting it. But I told her, that since this is an evolving idea, in the interest of people in Anchorage and elsewhere being able to see how the process unfolds, that I would make my comments online. Afterall, others may offer much more productive comments than mine.

Section 1 says the blogger isn’t supposed to steal his material or reveal trade secrets etc. That is reasonable, though I wonder if the blogger does this unintentionally whether this shifts all the liability away from the newspaper and onto the blogger. (Again, for actual language, see the whole agreement below.)

2. Ownership. As an author of the Blog, you own and will continue to own all rights, titles and interest in and to your Blog posts, including all copyrights and other intellectual property rights therein and all renewals and extensions thereof, in all formats and media, whether not known or hereafter developed, throughout the world in perpetuity. NEWSPAPER shall own all right, title, and interest in and to the ___________________.com web site, and all intellectual property rights relating thereto. All rights not expressly granted under this agreement are expressly reserved.

This seems to say that the blogger will own all the rights to the content, but the newspaper owns all the rights to the blog name. But what does “and all intellectual property rights relating thereto” mean? OK, there’s the blog name and the site itself, but if the blogger owns all the posts, is the ADN claiming some overlapping rights? Plus, this seems to contradict language below where it says if the agreement is terminated, the ADN won't publicize the blog anymore.

3. Licenses. For the duration of this agreement you grant NEWSPAPER an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, paid-up, transferable license, in perpetuity, to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, perform, and publish your Blog, including a license to redistribute, reproduce, republish, and to authorize republication, reproduction, and syndication of all or part of the Blog in any database, in any other media or platform or by any other method (computer, electronic, magnetic, online, optical, video, CD-ROM or otherwise), now or hereafter invented. NEWSPAPER shall have the right to modify the Blog content in order to make it compatible with the technical requirements and the “look and feel” of it’s web site. You grant us the right to use the Blog name, your name, likeness, photograph and biographical material to advertise, promote and publicize you and your Blog for the purposes of promoting and introducing new users to the Blog. You also grant us the right to link to the Blog from one or more Web sites owned or managed by NEWSPAPER. NEWSPAPER shall have the right to remove any content from the Blog or it’s [sic] web site that NEWSPAPER believes, in its sole discretion may violate the rights of any third party, violates any law, or is otherwise objectionable.

Here’s where the legalese gets silly. “For the duration of this agreement you grant NEWSPAPER an irrevocable….license in perpetuity…” Does that mean in perpetuity for the duration of the agreement? If it does, what does that mean? Or did someone forget to drop the in perpetuity when they copied it from another agreement?

And then, either for the duration of the agreement or in perpetuity, the newspaper can use the blog to make money in all sorts of different ways. And the newspaper can change the content of the blog anyway it wants if it decides - I assume that in its sole discretion means the blogger has no say - if it deems it, among more reasonable reasons, “otherwise objectionable.” Is there any chance a blogger who makes lots of money for the ADN would share in that?

4. Fees. NEWSPAPER will pay you a fee of $__________ per week to support your blogging and will host, maintain and operate your Blog service free of charge.

Kathleen says she will fill these in with $0. She also says that eliminates the need to ask for the social security number (which CCsecretary objected to also).

5. Term and termination. This agreement begins on _______________, 2007 and shall continue in effect until ___________________, 2008 (the “Term”). Either party may terminate this agreement for any reason upon thirty (30) days prior written notice. Upon expiration or termination of this agreement for any reason, you shall promptly remove any of NEWSPAPER’S brands or trademarks from the Blog. Also, in the event that this agreement ends, NEWSPAPER will stop within 30 days any advertising, promotion or publicizing of the Blog from any Web sites owned or affiliated with NEWSPAPER. NEWSPAPER will then make a final remittance to you of any outstanding fee payments.

If the newspaper owns the title of the blog and the blog itself, why would it require the blogger to stop using ADN brands or trademarks? and why would the ADN stop advertising the blog? They just need to get another blogger to do the work. But maybe this means the earlier stuff about the newspaper owning the blog title was a mistake. It’s confusing.

This section also raises a concern for non-ADN blogs. Does this mean that once ADN has its own affiliated blogs it will stop linking to blogs like mine? The ADN links to my blog during the trials this year, significantly increased my blog traffic. Those links brought my blog to the attention of many people who otherwise would not have seen it. This policy seems to says, “if you leave us, we’re never going to link to you and no one affiliated with us will link to you.” But maybe I'm reading too much into "publicize." Since it is talking about blogs that terminate their agreement, that leaves room for them to link to blogs like mine that have never had a written agreement, but will they? Are they now trying to corner the blog market in Anchorage? I strongly doubt that is Kathleen’s intention, but is it corporate’s intention?


The Whole Agreement (this is a draft as I understand it, but they did send it out to Community Councils)

[The Agreement itself is posted in its entirety. They also sent along the Terms of Use for people commenting on the ADN Blogs. Click on the link to see those.]


Date: ________________

Dear __________:

This letter confirms the agreement between you and ____________________ (“NEWSPAPER”) concerning the Blog that you will write titled _____________________, which will be published and promoted by NEWSPAPER on its web site ____________________.com in accordance with the terms hereof.

This letter is effective during the Term (as defined in Section 5 below) or until it is terminated by either of us in writing, and is applicable to all blogging during the Term. Our agreement includes the following:

Description of contribution. You are the author of the Blog, which focuses on __________________________________________________________________, as well as other topics of your choosing. The general focus of your Blog will continue as described above unless you provide NEWSPAPER with thirty (30) days prior notice that it is substantially changing. During the Term of this Agreement, you shall update your Blog with new posts a minimum of ____________ times per week. You agree that you will not, during the Term, publish another Blog relating to the above referenced focus, and that this will be your only blog on the topic.

You warrant and represent that all written entries and all other materials posted to the Blog is your original work, free from plagiarism, and that it has not been published anywhere else, that it has not been assigned, licensed or otherwise encumbered anywhere else, that it is not libelous or defamatory, that it will not violate or infringe the copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, right of privacy or publicity, or any other proprietary right of any third party. You also agree to refuse any compensation from any third party for placing any content on the Blog, to not use the Blog posts as a vehicle for advertising or promoting goods or services, and to not knowingly link to any downloadable applications or other content which may be harmful to a user’s computer.

Ownership. As an author of the Blog, you own and will continue to own all rights, titles and interest in and to your Blog posts, including all copyrights and other intellectual property rights therein and all renewals and extensions thereof, in all formats and media, whether not known or hereafter developed, throughout the world in perpetuity. NEWSPAPER shall own all right, title, and interest in and to the ___________________.com web site, and all intellectual property rights relating thereto. All rights not expressly granted under this agreement are expressly reserved.

Licenses. For the duration of this agreement you grant NEWSPAPER an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, paid-up, transferable license, in perpetuity, to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, perform, and publish your Blog, including a license to redistribute, reproduce, republish, and to authorize republication, reproduction, and syndication of all or part of the Blog in any database, in any other media or platform or by any other method (computer, electronic, magnetic, online, optical, video, CD-ROM or otherwise), now or hereafter invented. NEWSPAPER shall have the right to modify the Blog content in order to make it compatible with the technical requirements and the “look and feel” of it’s web site. You grant us the right to use the Blog name, your name, likeness, photograph and biographical material to advertise, promote and publicize you and your Blog for the purposes of promoting and introducing new users to the Blog. You also grant us the right to link to the Blog from one or more Web sites owned or managed by NEWSPAPER. NEWSPAPER shall have the right to remove any content from the Blog or it’s web site that NEWSPAPER believes, in its sole discretion may violate the rights of any third party, violates any law, or is otherwise objectionable.

Fees. NEWSPAPER will pay you a fee of $__________ per week to support your blogging and will host, maintain and operate your Blog service free of charge. You are providing your works to NEWSPAPER as an independent contributor and will therefore be responsible for the payment of all federal, state and/or local taxes with respect to this fee. NEWSPAPER will not treat you as an employee for any purpose.

Term and termination. This agreement begins on _______________, 2007 and shall continue in effect until ___________________, 2008 (the “Term”). Either party may terminate this agreement for any reason upon thirty (30) days prior written notice. Upon expiration or termination of this agreement for any reason, you shall promptly remove any of NEWSPAPER’S brands or trademarks from the Blog. Also, in the event that this agreement ends, NEWSPAPER will stop within 30 days any advertising, promotion or publicizing of the Blog from any Web sites owned or affiliated with NEWSPAPER. NEWSPAPER will then make a final remittance to you of any outstanding fee payments.

Indemnification. You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless NEWSPAPER and its affiliates, employees, successors and assigns, against and from any and all third party claims, liabilities, damages, fines, penalties and/or costs of whatsoever nature arising out of or in any way connected to a breach of your representations and warranties under this agreement.

Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of _________________. No waiver, amendment or modification of any provision hereof or of any right or remedy hereunder will be effective unless made in writing and signed by the party against whom such waiver, amendment or modification is sought to be enforced. Neither this Agreement nor any right or obligation hereunder may be assigned by you, and any attempted assignment will be void. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or understandings, written or oral, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event that any provision of this letter shall be held to be unenforceable by a court of law, the remaining provisions of this letter shall be enforceable to the maximum extent permitted by law consistent with the expressed intent of this letter.

If this agreement is acceptable, please sign and date the enclosed copy of this letter, provide your social security number, and return the signed copy to me.
We look forward to working with you!

Sincerely,



Agreed to by: ________________
__________________________ ______________________________
Signature
__________________________ ______________________________
Printed Name and Social Security No.
__________________________ ______________________________
Date

Blog, Blog, Blog

Blogging stuff keeps piling up in my life. Here's two posts in one, first on ADN blogs and then on Quarterlife and Marshall Herskovitz.

Anchorage Daily News (ADN) wants bloggers
At the Alaska Apple Users Group meeting last night, Kathleen McCoy from the Anchorage Daily News announced the paper was soliciting local bloggers who cover a specialized topic - community council news, local horse news, etc. They already have 13 blogs that I counted here tonight from gardening and barhopping to hockey. I got to talk to her a little during the break. Seems as the print version - and the employee base - shrinks, the ADN is trying to fill the void by using the free labor of local bloggers. On the one hand, that's good in a number of ways. It means

• ordinary people are writing about what they're passionate about
• we'll get coverage with different perspectives
• there won't be anyone to force a certain look or perspective
• there will be more room for comments - and maybe individual bloggers can do a better job of monitoring the nastiness of some of the current ADN blogs
• featured blogs will get more attention than they might otherwise
  

But on the negative side it means:

• the inconsistent quality we see online in general
• corporate exploitation of community public citizens - they aren't likely to share any ad revenue and they are cutting staff and replacing it with unpaid bloggers
• hit and miss coverage as unpaid bloggers have to earn a living and miss their posts, decide they don't need to subsidize the ADN with their blogs, and otherwise skip posts and/or drop out

I think the ADN has no choice but to figure out ways to create an electronic presence. Kathleen has been around the ADN many years and I think she's trying to make this work. So far their stance on monitoring the nastiness of some of the regular blog posters seems short sighted to me. I can't find the posts I was looking for, but here is a little after Andrew Halcro quit his ADN blog.I'll hold judgment, though I'm on the wrong side of neutral in my expectations at this point.


Quarterlife

One of the best television programs I ever saw was "My So-Called Life." One of the producers, Marshall Herskovitz, was on Fresh Air this morning, talking about the television industry (the effects of corporate consolitdation and the end of the ban on networks owning the programing) and his new effort - an internet tv program called Quarterlife that has been bought by NBC. Quarterlife has been on the periphery of my consciousness, but the interview brought it front and center. I watched the first two shows today. (You can watch it online at Quarterlife.com- there are 11 episodes so far, all available.)

The show is about a young woman who... you guessed it, has a blog named....did you figure it out yet? Quarterlife. It is very real, very unlike most television. And no commercials. And you won't have any late fees.

I suspect blogs are a transitional genre, and maybe corporate World will end up buying up or otherwise coopting the best - or at least most profitable - but something is happening here. Stay tuned.

[More recent posts at ADN Blogging Policy - 1 and ADN Blogging Policy - 2.]

Journalism, Blogging, and Perspective

I've got several posts that I'm working on, but they aren't quite ready. One is my reflections on the ethics of undercover investigations - some of the pros and cons that have arisen as I've watched the impact of the surveillance tapes on the three political trials. There are a number of issues that make me - and apparently others - uncomfortable about trading reductions in sentencing for cooperation with the prosecutors, as well as with the idea of video cameras in one's room recording what's going on without one's knowledge. But I don't know how else the evidence for these cases could have been collected. I've got the basics down, but I'm trying to integrate examples from the trials.

Another stems from my belief in the need for journalistic disclosure of one's relationships with the people or events one covers. As the trials progressed I went from writing a blog that my mother and a few others read to someone whose blog was being read by people I was covering. I began to think about how journalists are not simply reporters of what is happening to the public. They can affect the events they are covering. The judge was constantly reminding the jury not to read or watch any news accounts of the trial for example. At one point Kohring defense attorney Browne noticed that witness Bill Allen had a folded piece of paper in his hand and asked what it was. He was told it was a crib sheet with names because of his memory problems. Browne asked to see it and took it to his table. At the next break, he shared it with reporters. The next day prosecutor Bottini complained about this - an account of the crib sheet had shown up in the Anchorage Daily News - and Browne was admonished not to share the witnesses private documents with anyone.
As journalists gather material they develop relationships. In this case, there was six weeks of trial over several months, and the prosecution team was pretty much the same. How does the personal relationship you develop with sources affect how you report the case? Do they begin to use you to get their points across? Do you use them to get stories? Well, of course all that happens, so what information do you give the readers so they can better evaluate what you are writing?

Anyway, that's why I've been quiet. I hope US readers have a great Thanksgiving. And the rest of you also consider all you have to be thankful for. I'm missing my kids far away on this holiday weekend but I'm thankful they are well and pursuing things that interest them.

Trial Leftovers - Access to Courts and Credentialing Bloggers

There's a lot of material that I haven't had the time or energy to report, mostly issues that came up during the trials and needed some thought time and some research. One of those topics - one of these days - is the role of wire tapping and other surveillance techniques. But not today. Today I want to talk about a) media access to court rooms and b) the issue of press credentials for bloggers.

Media access to the courtroom in the big picture was not the issue this. Everyone could get into the court room. However, you have to go through more stringent and separate security from the regular security for the federal building. At the Anderson trial, this security meant no cell phones, cameras (still or video), audio recording, or computers past security. Attorney John McKay, hired by the Anchorage Daily News and KTUU jointly, was able to get the Judge and I guess also the US Marshals to allow the press to take cell phones and computers past security. Cell phones had to be completely off inside the court room. McKay was also responsible for getting access for the press to the government's surveillance tapes as soon as they had been used as evidence. The trial coverage significantly changed when they began posting the tapes online during the Kohring trial.

But this sort of access was only a temporary waiver of the rules by Judge Sedwick for the Kott and then the Kohring trials. This doesn't change the rules for the US District Court in Anchorage. John McKay said the Marshals had a number of security issues. Googling didn't really add any other issues.

Issues raised to restrict press (including video/still cameras, audio ) access to courts:
a. space in the courtroom
b. privacy and security of jurors, witnesses (particularly undercover agents and rape victims), defendants (children)
c. disturbance of the court proceedings - basic goal for the judge is a fair trial

Reading the ADN during the trial, I marveled at the photographs of the Linehan trial. Our State Courts have different rules. And some other states allow live audio and video feeds from the courtroom. California has particularly detailed rules for press access including getting permission to bring in video and audio equipment.

Apparently the fact that many laptops phones have video and audio recording capabilities and was discussed in the negotiations, but I guess they decided to look the other way. I certainly assumed that if any video or even a photo of the courtroom showed up in the media, that the computer and cell phone privileges would be gone.

Why press passes may be needed, including for bloggers.

• Determining who gets In
  The courtroom was never so crowded that anyone was turned away. Apparently during the Exxon Valdez trial, this was not the case. So, in the event that a courtroom is too small to hold spectators and press, there is a need to determine a) who is media and b) which members of the media get in. Again, at the Exxon Valdez trial I was told it was first come, first served and that a video room was set up for those who couldn't get into the actual courtroom.
• Determining who doesn't have to leave the cell phone and laptop with security
  This did become an issue for the Kott and Kohring trials. For some journalists, it was not an issue. They simply used their notepads and pencils. But I couldn't have covered the cases the way I did without my laptop. As I think I've related before, the established media folks gave me advice on creating a press pass and wished me luck. I never had any serious trouble getting in. Security knew me from the Anderson trial and let me through. Though once or twice they asked who I was with and I showed my pass and they let me through.
  On the second day of the Kohring trial, one of the guards asked for my url and my email address and said he'd get back to me. And he let me through with the computer. The next day I had no trouble. The next day, when he was back, he told me that they didn't have a policy for bloggers, but the judge said, since I'd covered the previous two trials, I could take my laptop in.

So, if media get special privileges how do you determine who qualifies as media?

In general, your employer, a traditional media outlet - newspaper, radio or television station - gave you a pass. In some cases these had to be approved by the organization you were covering - particularly where there was limited space (White House Press Corps) or special access given to the press. So, what about credentials for bloggers?

In the perfect world, there would be room for everyone. Is there a fair way to determine who is a 'legitimate' blogger and who is not? One could say that people who cover 'news' on a regular basis are different from people who simply post pictures of family or mushrooms. But before the Anderson trial, I had never done any sort of thorough reporting of anything, and who's to say which family blogger won't suddenly get serious about some community issue and want media privileges to bring a computer or camera in?

Googling, I learned that this question about press credentials for bloggers is being dealt with in all sorts of venues. Sports bloggers post a lot on this with different outcomes that seem totally idiosyncratic. One sports franchise rejects bloggers, while another grants them passes, but not access to locker rooms, and a third gives them press passes. The Washington Capitals asked a blogger to come up with a blogging policy. Some other bloggers chronicle their somewhat successful attempts to get AFL press credentials.. The Ladies Professional Golf Association said no. The Latin Grammys also said no to a blogger.

The American Bar Association allows bloggers into their meetings and events, conditionally

“New media” journalists, such as bloggers, must authenticate their status as reporters by supplying links to and/or samples of their blogs or media outlets. Credentials will be granted at the discretion of the Director.

The CIA apparently changed their definition of media to make it inclusive of bloggers.

GovernmentExecutive.com is reporting that the CIA has adopted a new definition of "news media" that could significantly reduce the fees and costs for citizen journalists who request documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

And then there is the Media Bloggers Association that is credentialing bloggers.

Up here in Alaska, I'm not sure there's that great a benefit to the credentials generally, but having my laptop in court sure was a big deal. Reviewing what's out there, it seems there are a few existing standards that have been used by various institutions.

• how long and frequently you blog
• do you cover 'news' in the particular area rather than just post family pictures
  
• % of your income that comes from media work (California legislature)
• affiliation with established media
• do we like what you write about us? This was not listed anywhere, but I assume it is a factor
• links to your post and ratings from blog rating sites like technorati

Coincidentally, The Next Hurrah, a great blog that focuses on the Federal Courts and the Department of Justice among other topics, discussed blogger press passes today because of a New York City case

New York journalist Rafael Martinez-Alequin and his lawyer Norm Siegel are challenging the New York City police department's policies for issuing press credentials. (For somewhat arcane reasons having to do with access to crime scenes, the NYPD issues all City media credentials.)

Marci Wheeler, posting as emptywheel on the Next Hurrah, doesn't think the percentage of income criterion is constitutional. I hope not because it would cause me serious problems. She also emphasized the criterion of links.

I suggested that rather than judging on readership (since really focused blogs tend to spike when their expertise becomes relevant), a Court ought to judge on links. Since linking is a sign of reliability, you'd want to show links to show that you're considered reliable (and, preferably, knowledgeable on the subject) by your peers.

While my blog isn't highly specialized normally, it certainly did spike when I was covering the trials.

A hockey blogger even questioned the whole need for press passes,

What is there to gain by doing it? Really. The key selling point of the blogging community is that we're not the media. We have a hell of a lot more freedom to post a certain angle or perspective that many in the mainstream media cannot get away with. The more bloggers try to "gain respect" within the framework of the mainstream media, the more they have to adhere by certain guidelines and behaviors, and the closer the bloggers are to becoming incorporated to that mainstream.

I did think some of the Media Bloggers Association requirements seemed focused on aggregating power for the head of the organizations:

* Members must be intimately familiar with the MBA Mission Statement and Statement of Principles and support both without reservation.
* Members must be subscribed to the MBA Broadcast e-mail list (MBA-Announce) at all times.
* An MBA event or activity is any event or activity so designated by the President of the MBA.
* Members are expected to promote the organization and portray the organization in a positive light in both word and deed at all times.
* Members are expected to identify and recruit potential members.
(emphasis mine)

I also think that there may be times - like covering Federal cases in Anchorage - where getting accepted as media would be important for my blogging.

And finally, there is the problem of having the agency itself decide who can cover it. It's ok for privately owned sports teams to limit access perhaps, but for government there are additional problems. While I think Judge Sedwick has been scrupulously fair and respectful to everyone in the courtroom [no, this is not sucking up now that I realize he might be reading my blog, I'm still calling them the way I see them] not every judge will be so fair. There is no question that media who are highly critical are not as welcome and may not get their press pass renewed.

Perhaps a committee that has diverse representation could work with the agency. Even this can be hijacked as the history of US regulatory agencies has shown over and over again. But it's more transparent better than just a judge or administrator. And publishing criteria used is also critical.

The Trials - Why are we doing this?

I first went to the Anderson trial to see for myself and not have to rely on the Anchorage Daily News. I wanted to know what actually happened, and if Tom was guilty, how did he get there? Everything was pretty new to me. I don't think I'd ever been to a Federal trial before. What was the protocol? Not just for the attorneys, but for the spectators, the witnesses, the press. But beyond the courtroom, what does this tell us about how our state business gets done? Why do some legislators get caught up in private side deals and sell out the public interest? How many more are doing similar or worse things, but just didn't happen to have their numbers in the address book of a tapped phone? I have no illusions that we can stop it altogether, but we can establish and maintain rules and institutions that keep it to a minimum.

These are serious questions. I know that corruption has been part of US government from the beginning, but what factors make it more or less likely to happen? Are we in a new age where our national appetite for consumption and our shorter and shorter attention spans makes us more vulnerable?

How much is this whole investigation costing? How did Alaska get high enough on the federal priority list to become active? Particularly with a Justice Department that has been excessively partisan in favor of Republicans and in an administration that is so closely tied to big oil? I suspect there's a story there.

I'm still sorting this out, but here are some thoughts so far:

The first three defendants have been people who appear to have a strong need to please. They were easy targets for anyone who wanted some pull in the legislature. Allen was an inspiring figure for Kott and for Kohring. Bobrick and to some extent Prewitt played that role for Anderson. All three were always asking, "How can I help you?" "Just let me know what you need." None of them seems to have been consciously criminal. At most they thought they were bending the rules. Anderson was most actively involved by his complicity in laundering the money he got. Kohring tended to say things like, "I want to do this right" or "I could check with the Ethics Office" and chanting those mantras seemed all the thought he needed to do to stay ethical. None got very much money and it would be unfair if they end up serving more time than Allen and Smith. But rich criminals tend to do better than poor ones.

Anderson and Kohring both needed money and could be lured by people who could help them out. Kott had $30,000 in cash in his closet, so he didn't need the money. He may have had some deep insecurity about money and thus kept such a large amount in cash at home. Who knows? I think he and Kohring both liked being in the reflected glory of Allen's power and influence.

They all believed that the people who eventually sold them out were their friends. Anderson and Bobrick just hit it off and were planning joint business ventures when Tom got out of the legislature. Kott called Allen, Uncle Bill. He spent a lot of time at Uncle Bill's house. He admired this guy who'd moved up from poverty to great wealth. Kohring also believed that Allen was his friend. And it appears that they did have close relationships and they were friends. But the real question is whether those friendships would have existed if the three hadn't been state representatives. I doubt it.

It's easy to get caught up in the day to day of the courtroom and I'm still trying to figure out an appropriate role and focus. Since I'm in the courtroom and taking notes, it seems reasonable to share what I see with others who don't have the time to be there. And I don't need to worry about how large my audience is - I'm not selling advertisements. I'm concerned though that I'm slipping into areas that aren't that relevant. I'm still trying to figure out, for example, whether my speculation about the defense attorney shed light on anything important. I'm not interested in saying anything that pops into my head, simply because I can. I have no interest in idle chit chat, just in things that help explain what is happening. I'm not as concerned about what the jury eventually decides as I am with the structure and mechanics of government and how to minimize the likelihood that politicians serve special interests instead of the public at large.

Several of us who have been at the trials will be talking on this subject Thursday at noon in the federal building cafeteria. The event is sponsored by the local chapter of the American Society for Public Administration. So some of these thoughts are warm up for that session.

Pete Kott Trial - Underlying Stories - The Press

Ropinator asked in a comment a few posts ago, "are you a court journalist or something like that?" Ropi is a Hungarian high school student with a thoughtful blog that I read. His question gives me a chance to talk about some of the media stories underlying this case, including mine.

Well, am I a trial journalist? Something like that. At least for the last two weeks I've been. While I haven't hidden my identity from people, I haven't given much detail in my blog profile. I'd rather people evaluate the blog based on what I post than they jump to conclusions from labels in the profile. But the Anchorage Daily News has 'outed' me in their Alaska News Reader link this week.

Many of the outlets focused on the prosecution’s cross examination of former House speaker Pete Kott. Retired UAA professor Steve Aufrecht, in his What Do I Know? blog, says prosecutors scored base hits but no home runs, with their most significant gain questioning Kott’s honesty.

So this is a good time to talk about being a 'journalist' at the courtroom.

I went to the Tom Anderson trial because he was a former student of mine and I wanted to hear what happened first hand. Since I was there I started taking notes to help keep focused. Since I had the notes, I decided to start putting them on my blog. I started talking to Michael Carey (from the Anchorage Daily News) one day and we ended up going to lunch. He introduced me to others such as Lisa Demer. I knew Steve Heimel already from the old days when I did stuff with KSKA. Then one day my blog starting getting lots of hits. It turned out that the Anchorage Daily News (ADN) had linked to my site. The most daily hits my blog had gotten before that was about 22. Now I got 40, then 53, then 101, then 150. And after the trial they tapered off just as fast, though I'd picked up a few more regular viewers and was averaging 15-20 a day.

So when the Kott trial was coming up, it seemed like blogging was the right thing to do. Not just to get my hits up, but because I had taught public administration at the university and have published articles and book chapters on accountability and ethics and corruption. This was the second trial to come out of an FBI investigation that has several other Alaskan politicians implicated, including the US Senator, Ted Stevens, who is the senior Republican senator in the United States Senate.

First, I'd like to say that the other journalists - Lisa Demer and Michael Carey from the ADN - have been very supportive of my blogging. John McKay, the ADN and KTUU attorney who has opened media access to the courtroom, has also been very supportive as have Steve Heimel and David Shurtleff from APRN.

As that previous paragraph might suggest, the media people know each other and help each other out. When the ADN and KTUU got permission to bring their cell phones past the security (but they must be turned off in the courtroom) and to bring their laptops into the courtroom, that was extended to all media. My status as an independent blogger was untested, but they told me to make up a press pass, and by the time I was ready to bring my computer into the courtroom, the security guards knew me as a regular and I had no problems. The other media folks are the camera people - both video and still - who wait outside the courtroom security for attorneys, the defendant and his party, witnesses - to get pictures.
And there are also a couple of artists.
When I talk about media stories, I realize now that there are stories about the media and how they cover things and there are the different kinds of ways they cover stories. I think I have that all mixed together here.

1. The sound bites and surprises are irresistible, especially if they break open something important. Everyone's waiting for the good quotable lines or the juicy event such as when Bill Allen said he paid for the workmen who remodeled Senator Ted Stevens' Girdwood house. Some recent examples:

• The box of red CBC (Corrupt Bastard Club) baseball caps embroidered by Pete Kott's girlfriend.
  
• Kott's Chief of Staff: "I had two different bosses. When Pete was drunk he started talking hillbilly..." In fact,Steve Heimel opened his country music show on KNBA this afternoon, with "Today is National Talk Hillbilly Day" and that Kott trial jurors shouldn't listen to the show because he might slip in some trial comments. (I didn't hear any after that.)
  
• Kott: "If I have a choice between compromising my principles or lying to my friends, then lying to my friends will take a back seat."
  

2. The tension between getting the story in quickly and getting it accurate and meaningful. It's not that easy to objectively summarize 6 hours of testimony - covering all the key points and letting the reader know what it all means without skewing things. Lisa Demer, as I've written before, has done a great job. Going into enough depth without losing the overall sense of what happened is hard. The newspaper people have limited space and an editor to get past so that something is up early on the website and then in the morning paper. The radio and tv people have even less air time to get a sense of the day to their listeners. The sound bite is especially helpful for them. And they are dependent on the court clerk's office to get them the audio cd of the court each day in time to get their stories taped by air time. And sometimes they don't get the tape. I have the easiest task. I can blog as much or as little as I want. I can focus on a small point without worrying about getting the big picture across, leaving the ADN with the responsibility of giving the whole picture.

3. Competition among media. This is something I haven't particularly noticed. Everyone is sharing. If I get to the court late, another journalist will let me know what's happened. As soon as the ADN got all the audio and video tapes from the Prosecutors they emailed the media who are covering the trial, including me, to give us a link to download everything. And it was all very easy to download.
The only competition I've sensed was between local media and Outside media. Rich Mauer from the ADN was not happy that it was an NPR reporter who followed the governor out of court Thursday and broke the story that she felt Sen. Stevens needed to tell Alaskans what is happening with his investigation. And some of the other reporters were irked at Outside media asking them to get on the Stevens case for them, feeling they're too focused on that instead other important stories. And they make remarks about the Parachute Journalists who write stories from Alaska but don't understand the context because they are only here a short time. There's a skepticism about whether the FBI will actually get the quid pro quo smoking gun on Stevens. On the other hand, another reporter said he was sure Stevens won't run in 2008.


4. Adjusting to the new technological realities. The ADN website is evolving quickly and well. Sean slips out of the courtroom regularly and down to the cafeteria wi-fi to send in his reports. And the Alaska Report is an electronic news digest with links and comment area. In addition there are various blogs. It's much, much more than the print published on line. The stories in the print version have little boxes referring readers to the web.

5. I'm still figuring out my role in all this. Unlike the regular media, I'm shy about asking the attorneys questions or calling people up to get more information. I don't want to stick my camera in people's faces. Though I have less guilt doing that to journalists - figuring that if they can dish it out, they should be able to take it. Regulars in the court room go from nodding to saying hi to introducing themselves and talking. Thus I've been talking a little the last few days with Sen. Fred Dyson whose been there regularly and has been discussed in the trial in different ways - mainly as the person who drove Allen to meet the FBI investigators for the first time. The regular reporters have to talk to these people, but it also means their objectivity gets changed as those relationships get better. The extreme version seems to be the White House press who get used by the administration for strategic leaks. And if they don't treat the administration well, they lose their sources. Like with the lobbyists, I guess people have to realize that reporters like them for their stories, not for who they are. But obviously the professional and personal relationships get mixed up.

6. As I'm creating my journalistic identity, I think my role model is Tom Wolfe . Given his bigger than life image, I should clarify how. Certainly not sartorially and not in flamboyance. But in trying to bring meaning to the story by looking at the context beyond the story in the spotlight. I find myself looking at all the actors, not just those on the stage in the spotlight. I've done this with pictures that give a sense of the background of the trial - the clerk's office where I can use the computer to download documents; the cafeteria where the Kott party eats in one section and various journalists in other sections. Filling in the less obvious facts. And I also enjoy a freedom to speculate about possible interpretations of what we're seeing. Since the press is such a critical part of all this, they really should be subjects for the media as well.

Of course, if I were a better journalists, I'd have more information about my photos. In this post, at the top are camera folks waiting for photo subjects to walk out of court. Another one of the artists with her sketch book as she was walking into the Federal Building. Finally, three journalists during a break, with Rich Mauer in the center.

Kott Trial - Three Cheers for the Press

The Anchorage Daily News got copies of all the government's tapes used in the trial - the wire taps and the video from the Baranof Suite 604 - and has emailed the local media how to download them.

Hello news directors/news organizations. This is David Hulen, I'm the assistant managing editor for news at the Anchorage Daily News. After several weeks of trying -- with huge help from John McKay -- we were able today to get from the government all of the exhibits that have been introduced by the prosecution in the Kott trial.

We are the pool for this material and we're making it available via FTP server as we did with similar material during the Anderson trial. Instructions on how to download are below.

A couple notes: The quality of the material is a huge improvement from what you hear in the courtroom or what some of us have been grabbing off the official courtroom recordings. The quality of the video recordings inside Suite 604 is pretty good, too. Here's the hitch: There are no dates on the audio files. I think they're listed by exhibit number, although I havent had time to check that for sure, and I'm not sure the exhibit numbers, if that's what they are, are in sync with what actually was entered into evidence. So you're on your own to figure out what's what. The videos at least have a time stamp.

If I've missed media that would be interested in this material, please let me know and I'll get in touch.

Ray Metcalfe, who was in court today, has been accusing Ben Stevens of ethics violations for years, but no one wanted to listen. This is a giant civics lesson for Alaska. But it's important that we not walk away thinking all politicians are crooks. Rather, that we learn to listen carefully and to distinguish those who are honest and dedicated from those who would sell their office for their own gain. And we need to ask more about the corporations that sprinkle our non-profits with donations. Are they doing the same with our politicians? The testimony in the trial is raising the issue that the big oil companies let Veco do their dirty work here, while ostensibly keeping their hands clean. If it wasn't clear before, it's clear from this trial, that Metcalfe's tenacity is likely to see Stevens' indictment before long.

I'll be checking through some of this material that is now available, but I'm not sure if I have the time to post all or even any of it. But I'm sure it will be widely available soon through other media websites. The Daily News has already been posting portions of the daily audio from the trial. If you haven't heard it, go listen. They've picked some of the highlights.

High school and university teachers!!!! Are you listening? This, and the cd's of the trial itself are great materials for Alaska history, for government, and other classes.

This really is a chance for people to get a real understanding of the facades some politicians put on. People really do hold important bills up if other legislators don't vote their way.

And this is must listening for all legislators. Sitting in court would have been a better way to go, but this is second best.

This is all due to the fact that the Daily News and KTUU hired attorney John McKay to represent them as interested parties in this case to get access to the materials in the case. Thanks for this public service! You can find some of the audio here - in the middle of the page.

You Can't Tell The Players Without a Program - Baseball Cards for Politicians

I lamented recently that we have better stats for baseball players than politicians. Well, the Anchorage Daily News published the beginnings of a program in today's edition. We can make our very own baseball cards for Alaskan politicians. I feel a little sheepish using so much from the ADN, but I've changed it a little. There are no names on the pictures. You have to guess which picture goes with which description. And I've added a picture they didn't have. You'll have to go to the ADN link to get the answers of who's who.

Tried and convicted, awaiting sentencing

- Former Anchorage state Rep. Tom Anderson. In December, he became the first person charged. On July 9, a federal jury convicted him of all counts of bribery, conspiracy and other charges connected with taking payoffs from Bill Bobrick, a lobbyist for a private prison company. Anderson worked as a consultant for Veco, the oilfield services and engineering company at the center of the broader investigation, although none of the charges against him concerned Veco. It was revealed during his trial that federal agents were investigating corruption in the Alaska Legislature as far back as early 2004. He’s awaiting sentencing.

Pleaded guilty

- Longtime Veco CEO Bill Allen pleaded guilty in May to charges of bribery, extortion and conspiracy for his dealings with four legislators: former Reps. Pete Kott, Bruce Weyhrauch and Vic Kohring, and former Senate President Ben Stevens (described in the plea as “State Senator B.”) The first three were charged; Stevens has not been. In addition, Allen admitted to paying a “bonus” in company funds to executives to illegally make campaign contributions in 2005 and 2006 to state and federal candidates. For more than two decades, Allen was a major political fundraiser for Alaska politicians. Resigned from Veco after his guilty plea.

- Veco Vice President Rick Smith, who ran the company’s government affairs operations and worked for part of the year out of a suite in Juneau’s Baranof Hotel that was being secretly monitored by the FBI. In May he pleaded guilty to the same charges as Allen. He admitted, with Allen, to making payoffs to elected officials and campaigns totaling more than $400,000. Resigned after plea.

- Lobbyist Bill Bobrick. A longtime lobbyist at the city level and one-time head of the Alaska Democratic Party, he pleaded guilty in May to conspiracy for bribing Anderson while working for a private prison company, Cornell Cos., and setting up a sham company to funnel him the money. He testified extensively against Anderson.

Charged and awaiting trial

- Former Alaska House Speaker Pete Kott of Eagle River. Indicted in May on bribery, extortion and conspiracy charges. Accused of taking payoffs and a promise of a job from Veco for helping steer an oil-production tax favored by the industry through the legislature in 2006. Aside from cash, he’s accused of being paid a “fraudulently inflated” fee by Veco for flooring work. Pleaded not guilty, trial scheduled for September.

- Former state Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch of Juneau. Charged in the same indictment as Kott, accused of switching his vote on the oil tax after receiving instructions from Kott and Bill Allen. An attorney, he’s accused of soliciting legal business from Veco in exchange for his vote. Pleaded not guilty, trial scheduled for September.

- Former Rep. Vic Kohring of Wasilla. Chairman of the Special Committee on Oil and Gas, indicted in May on bribery, extortion and conspiracy charges. Accused of taking cash and a loan from Veco executives and the promise of a job for a relative in exchange for supporting the company’s position on the oil tax. Was a member of the Legislature when indicted in May, and later resigned under pressure from constituents and Republican House leaders. Pleaded not guilty, trial scheduled for October.

Others connected with the investigations

- U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens. Has represented Alaska since 1968, making him the most senior Senate Republican in history. Stevens has come under political attack recently from fiscal conservatives and others for his use of earmarks to direct programs and money to Alaska. Some of the earmarks benefited his son Ben and a former aide, Trevor McCabe. Veco’s Allen oversaw a construction project in 2000 that doubled the size of Stevens’ home in Girdwood, and investigators have been trying to learn if at least some of that work was an improper gift.

- Former state Sen. Ben Stevens. In his plea agreement, Allen admitted making improper payments of $243,250 to “State Senator B” — an unmistakable reference to Ben Stevens, the former state Senate president. Ben Stevens had has office searched in the August 2006 raid and was later visited again by FBI agents seeking information about his fishery interests and benefits he may have received from legislation written by his father. He was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars as a consultant for various commercial fishing companies and groups, and chaired a federally funded panel that awarded grants to some of those entities.

- U.S. Rep. Don Young. Alaska’s sole U.S. Representative since 1973, Young has been widely reported to be under investigation over his own ties to Veco and use of earmarks, although details of what is being examined are unclear. Since 1989, he received more than $212,000 in campaign donations from Allen, Smith and other Veco executives, making the company by far his top contributor. One of Young’s aides has pleaded guilty in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and Young himself has ties to the lobbyist. Young has come under political attack for adding earmarks to transportation legislation that would benefit a Wisconsin trucking company and a Florida real estate mogul, both of whom contributed to his political campaign. Young recently reported spending $262,000 in campaign funds on unspecified legal fees during the first six months of 2007.

- Trevor McCabe. Seward native and former legislative director to Ted Stevens, he became partner in a consulting business with Ben Stevens, and lobbied Congress on behalf of a Southeast salmon group that obtained federal funds from Ted Stevens. An attorney and lobbyist, McCabe has represented other seafood interests as well. With two partners, McCabe sold property to the Alaska SeaLife Center in Seward at a price substantially above its appraisal after Ted Stevens provided the money in an earmark.

- Frank Prewitt. Former state corrections commissioner who became a consultant to Cornell Cos., a private prison company that wanted to build a large prison in Alaska (at one time teaming with Veco). Prewitt was being investigated by the FBI in 2004 when he agreed to work for the government to root out corrupt legislators and lobbyists. He passed out money and recorded conversations, providing the foundation for the Anderson case.

- Sens. John Cowdery, R-Anchorage, and Donald Olson, D-Nome, also had their offices searched in August 2006, but have not been charged.

Beyond the Headline

When most people read the headlines next week - "Anderson [--------]" - they'll maybe make a comment or two and by the time they read the celebrity gossip on page two of the Anchorage Daily News they will have forgotten all about Anderson. Well, for this trial there's a little more widespread interest, but still for most, it's print on the page that will be in the garbage or recycling bin before long.

But as I sat in the trial I realized how many people's lives were directly affected by this case. Some changed forever, others impacted for the two weeks of the trial or less. This isn't just a story in the newspaper - real people lived this story.

Tom Anderson - For Bobrick's 'rising star' nothing will ever be the same. No matter the outcome, his name will be linked to Alaska scandal for a long time. If he has a felony conviction, his work prospects will be severely restricted. This doesn't mean that he can't learn from all this and redeem himself some way, but life has suddenly gotten much more difficult than it has been. No one, not even the prosecutors suggested that he wasn't the enthusiastic politician who wanted to help people. Or that we wasn't a likable guy.

Lesil McGuire[Anderson's wife and a state senator] - What was she thinking through all this? I would imagine that up to now things have been pretty one sided for the family. Probably the attorney, their friends, mostly said supportive things. "You were framed by Prewitt and the FBI" and "you didn't do anything wrong, everyone does this, you were just Prewitt's ticket to avoid prison." I would guess that sitting in the courtroom was the first time she heard the whole case against Tom spelled out. What could she be thinking in there? Especially at the end when the Prosecutors ended both the Closing Argument and the rebuttal* to the Defense Attorney's closing argument with, "Why didn't he tell Lesil? Because he knew she would say, "You can't do this; this stinks." Can she disagree with this positive characterization of herself - in her heart of hearts? Especially knowing that it led to this whole trial? Or maybe she's still unconvinced by what the Prosecutors presented. It isn't unreasonable to believe that Tom was entrapped. Without Prewitt, there would be no money funneled to Pacific Publications. Without Prewitt, there would be no tapes.
[*In a previous post I questioned why the Prosecutor got to rebut the Defense Attorney's closing argument, but the Defense Attorney didn't get the same chance. An attorney told me that it was because the burden to prove guilt is on the Prosecutor, so he gets a chance to rebut.]

The rest of Anderson's family. His mother and mother-in-law were there. Other relatives and friends were there, though I don't know who was who. Lisa Demer in her ADN article today wrote, "Anderson said his dad is busy building a home in Wasilla but wanted to come." I'll leave that one alone.

FBI Agent Mary Beth Kepner has been working on this and presumably other related cases since at least 2003 and this is just the first trial. This is her job so it isn't something out of the ordinary the way it is for the Andersons or the jurors. But this is a very intensive, and I would imagine, high stress job. The outcome of this and other trials will surely affect how well her career progresses. The same can be said for the Prosecuting Attorneys Marsh and Bottini. While the outcome of this trial could have some effect on their careers, especially if the outcome is seen as particularly good or particularly bad by their bosses, they do work in a bureaucracy, and there will be plenty of other work ahead. Possibly a brilliant 'win' could mean a lucrative job in the private sector if that was something they wanted. For Defense Attorney Stockler, a private attorney, the outcome of this case could have a much larger impact on his law practice and income. A result of not guilty on all charges could raise his rates quickly.

The witnesses: Bobrick potentially could have his sentence reduced based on how he 'performed' as a witness and the outcome of the trial. But it was clear that testifying was close to the bottom of the list of things he wanted to do this week. I think being abducted by aliens would have been higher. His time on the witness stand was humiliating and the best one could wish for was that maybe it was cathartic to just get it all out and over with. Things can only get better for him the way he described his life. Prison might be worse, but he seemed to already be in a kind of personal hell already. It isn't clear from the testimony whether Prewitt faces any charges or not. He claimed to be confident that he didn't, not because he'd made a deal with the FBI, but because any charges against him were either too old or too minor. But it appears that for the last couple of years Prewitt has begun a new career as an unpaid undercover agent, though after this trial, wearing a wire probably won't be too productive. But he's got all the trials of the other people he's gathered information on.

The jurors are suddenly drawn into some fictional newspaper world they've read about, or not. They are the focus of scrutiny at the beginning. Those not dismissed then have a special status. Everyone has to rise when they enter and leave the court. On some things they are left in the dark while the attorneys and the judge work out procedurally details. But when they come into court they get the best seats. The are first observers and then participants. If this jury is anything like the juries I've been on, most will take this job very seriously, as they weigh the evidence that will so drastically affect Tom Anderson's future. And it will also affect the futures of the family and the attorneys, though to a much lesser degree. Now the jury is the center of attention. Once they give their verdict there will be a short time when they will be sought to give the attorneys and the public an understanding of how they reached their conclusions. Then, they'll slip back into their normal lives. Presumably when they read about future trials, they will have much greater understanding.

As with the attorneys, this is part of the reporters' job. It's the normal job, just two weeks of different scenery. And it adds to the collection of facts about people and politics and justice in Alaska, and ideally some of the 'missing pieces' help them make more sense of the bigger picture.

I also talked to one of the artists who was in the courtroom using some sort of felt pen that created waterpainting-like images of the judge, attorneys, and witnesses. There is something satisfying about how the ban on recording equipment and cameras creates an opening for an artist to get paid some extra money. And there is something about having to study the people carefully so that you can capture their essence in your painting. Sure, a great photographer does the same, but it is so much easier to point the camera and shoot the picture. The artist has to take her time, get a sense of the person and has to 'see' each detail. There was something in her paintings that was very different from what you see in the coldly real photos.

And then there are the other people - the bailiffs, clerks, security guards, transcriber, technicians, etc. - without whom the trial, as we know it, couldn't function.

For all of these people, the trial is part of their real lives, not just ink on the newsprint in the orange plastic bag on the doorstep each morning.


An interesting final point on this case. Unlike many sorts of crimes where the victim is an individual human being who, like the accused, would have friends and family in court with him, we didn't have that dynamic here.