Lunar Eclipse Part 2

This is where I need a real tripod, not my little table top tripod.   But this first shot - actually it was taken last - is relatively in focus.  But that's because I upped the shutter speed so I could use a faster opening.  And I lost resolution in doing that.  It looks fuzzy.




These are better, but the shutter speed is much slower and I couldn't keep the camera still enough to keep it sharp.

This post began with Shooting the Moon.
Then Lunar Eclipse Part 1.

Lunar Eclipse Part 1

Shooting the Moon

The full lunar eclipse begins in about 30 minutes.

The sky is clear here in LA.  The moon is hanging right off my mom's front porch.

And it was way past time for me to figure out how to use my no-longer-that-new Canon Rebel.  Well, I can do a number of things with it, but taking pictures of the moon was problematic.   On the last flight home I did go through the manual and learned how to do a lot of things, but I was still having trouble figuring out how to set all the features.

I took a couple of pictures.  Great white circle, totally washed out moon.

Opened the manual and tried some things.

Then I decided to do what I do with so many other things - google, "How to take picture of eclipse with Canon Rebel" and bingo, there were a number of websites.

http://www.ehow.com/how_12284202_use-canon-rebel-dslr-moon-eclipse.html was the one I needed to finally get this.  It's not hard.  I just needed someone to show me.  It was finding the A/V button and then spin the little dial on top.  So easy.  So hard to figure out.

I went back out and did some more tests.  I think I'm ready for the eclipse.  This is WAY beyond what I could do with old cameras and eclipses.

An it's warm enough to be outside in shorts and a t.  

Do You Put Your Kids' Pictures Up On Facebook? Should You?

Meeting My Granddaughter

On this blog, my policy is to not post pictures of family without permission or if I do, I try to alter the image.



Partly because I'm naturally an introvert.

Partly because my son, at a certain age, began objecting to having his picture taken, let alone shared.  It was a matter of respecting his wishes, even when I thought he was being a bit extreme.  But he did allow his grandmothers to take pictures, so I could see that he did recognize other people's needs.

Partly because my dissertation was on the concept of privacy.  My findings were that privacy was not so much a psychological need as it was an issue of power.  The power to a) prevent intrusions into your space and
b) control access to and distribution of your personal information.
Given that I saw a world where technology was making it more and more difficult, even impossible, to have control of your personal information, the next best option was that everyone's power to access information be equal throughout society so that everyone, being equally vulnerable, would have the same incentive to respect others' privacy.

That world is becoming more and more real.  No one is immune from cell phone video cameras - including people in positions of authority such as police, politicians, celebrities, teachers, CEO's.   Romney's 47% speech helped change the election when it showed up online.  Annonymous and Edward Snowden have put some of the most powerful and privileged figures of the world on notice that their information is also accessible.

So, with all this background, I've refrained from putting up pictures of family members without permission unless they are adequately altered so they are pretty much unidentifiable.

Part of me says that the new world we're in is making this sort of caution obsolete.  By exposing themselves - like women who began publicly saying they didn't want to live under the tyranny of being judged by how well they cleaned toilet bowls and coiffed their hair, or gays who came out of the closet - they removed the threat of someone else exposing them and gained a level of freedom to be themselves they hadn't had.

But part of me knows that if this exposure is uneven and unequal, these things can come back to haunt you.  But when it comes to my family members, I can't make that decision for them.

Your Kid On Youtube?

And one of my family members sent me a thank you for that yesterday along with this NYTimes article about a woman who put her son's picture on her Facebook page against his wishes - and her followup research and decision on that.

It was a great picture and one I wanted to share with my friends online.

My son, however, was opposed to the idea. “You’re not going to put that on Facebook, are you?” he demanded, flashing me the look my husband and I had long ago named his “dark and stormy.”

Yes, I told him: “You are my child, and I’m proud of you.”

“But it’s my picture,” he said. “And I don’t want it on your Facebook page.”

Read the rest of the article to hear what various so called experts had to say about it.  

What Creates A Good Child?

Synchronicity often gets me to do a post. Today two items came my way. I strongly urge you to watch the firt one - a heartwarming short Thai (with English subtitles, though they are barely needed) video about helping others. I can't figure out how to get the embed code for this video, so you have to go to this FB link.
[I've tried to go into the code to find the embed code, but it's not working.  I'm checking other websites that tell how to do this, but the FB code is different from their examples.   Just go to the FB link.  It's worth it, really.  I'll keep trying to figure this out.]






Then later, someone sent me a NYTimes article on Raising a Moral Child.   The video places doing good over doing well.  The article says that most people want that:

"although some parents live vicariously through their children’s accomplishments, success is not the No. 1 priority for most parents. We’re much more concerned about our children becoming kind, compassionate and helpful. Surveys reveal that in the United States, parents from European, Asian, Hispanic and African ethnic groups all place far greater importance on caring than achievement. These patterns hold around the world: When people in 50 countries were asked to report their guiding principles in life, the value that mattered most was not achievement, but caring."

Maybe that's why Romney* didn't win.  For him achieving seemed to be the main point of life.

The article goes on to look at how that gets accomplished and the studies find the right behavior appears to contradict what we are taught to tell children:

"Many parents believe it’s important to compliment the behavior, not the child — that way, the child learns to repeat the behavior. Indeed, I know one couple who are careful to say, “That was such a helpful thing to do,” instead of, “You’re a helpful person.”

But is that the right approach? In a clever experiment, the researchers Joan E. Grusec and Erica Redler set out to investigate what happens when we commend generous behavior versus generous character."

It goes on to describe an experiment where some (7 and 8 year old) kids were praised for their good sharing behavior and others for their good sharing character.  The latter group was more likely to share later on according to the study.

"Praise appears to be particularly influential in the critical periods when children develop a stronger sense of identity. When the researchers Joan E. Grusec and Erica Redler praised the character of 5-year-olds, any benefits that may have emerged didn’t have a lasting impact: They may have been too young to internalize moral character as part of a stable sense of self. And by the time children turned 10, the differences between praising character and praising actions vanished: Both were effective. Tying generosity to character appears to matter most around age 8, when children may be starting to crystallize notions of identity. "

A lot of conflict resolution folks tell us NOT to admonish the character, but to admonish the behavior - in adults as well as children - on the grounds that you can't change your character, but you can change your behavior.  But admonishing undesired behavior is the opposite of praising desired behavior.  And I suspect that a study of the opposite - admonishing undesired behavior - would still show that focusing on behavior was more effective than focusing on character.

*The Romney reference is not intended to be a dig, but simply a descriptive speculation. 

"Yes, but we're not Congress, aren't we?" Giessel Said

Wednesday I reported that Sen. Hollis French had sent a letter to Sen. Cathy Giessel requesting that the witnesses - oil company representatives - be asked to testify under oath.

For those who want just the summary, scroll down to:  It All Seems to Boil Down To


That afternoon, the committee met and the Anchorage Daily News reports that Giessel opened the meeting by saying they would not administer oaths and when French attempted to respond to her, she had his mic shut off and the televised portion when silent.

Obviously, the issue, as far as Giessel was concerned, was not open for debate.  I've tried to glean from the Daily News article by Rich Mauer   Giessel's main objections.  This snippet seems to get most of them which I've highlighted:

“It’s unfortunate we have to have this kind of duel on the floor,” she said. Acknowledging that the use of sworn testimony wasn’t quite without precedent, she said it was last used by the Legislature in 1997.     
“We are to conduct ourselves with some decorum, and to spring that on people who are coming to testify would simply be unprofessional of us,” Giessel said. “I’m not an attorney, as the previous speaker is, but it is my understanding that the preparation for testimony under oath is a different type of preparation than simply coming and providing information.”    
As the Senate broke, French said as he was leaving the chamber that his request was hardly extreme. “You can’t contest a traffic ticket without taking an oath,” he said.    
At her desk in the chamber, Giessel talked to Senate President Charlie Huggins, R-Wasilla.     
Doesn’t Congress swear in witnesses? a reporter asked.     
“Yes, but we’re not Congress, aren’t we?” Giessel said.     
“This is redneck Alaska,” Huggins said.    
“There was no criminal activity that was being investigated,” she said as Huggins called her away.

Additionally, Giesel is quoted as saying the request was:

• “unprecedented and inappropriate.”
• “Springing an under-oath requirement on invited citizens at the last minute is not only unfair but unprofessional,” Giessel said. The request by French, a former prosecutor, would bring a “criminal justice approach to this committee meeting,” she said. 

My reaction Wednesday, and the reaction of some others I talked to, was, "Gee, I thought it was expected that you told the truth."  But it turns out that unless you are sworn in, you can't be prosecuted for perjury.  So, if you lie, there are no legal consequences.

Let's look at the arguments one by one.  

• "to spring that on people who are coming to testify would simply be unprofessional of us,”
  There are two parts here.  1.  The timing and 2.  asking them to testify under oath. 
• Sen. French's letter is dated one day before the committee hearing.  I'm not sure when the witnesses were announced.
• Unprofessional is a word that many people use when they disagree with a practice.  Essentially it's a fancy word for 'bad.' For 'unprofessional' to have real meaning, one would have to cite a professional association (in this case relevant to legislative hearings) that has among its rules, regulations, or standards something about asking witnesses to testify under oath and/or related to a time limit.  
• "preparation for testimony under oath is a different type of preparation than simply coming and providing information."
• My sense of this, confirmed by an attorney friend, is that this isn't wrong, but it depends on the context and the experience of the people testifying.
• If under oath, it isn't hard to say, "I'm not sure of these numbers" or other qualifying comments.  In fact, the ConocoPhillips presentation even had a 200 word disclaimer (see below) on their forecasts. 
• These oil company representatives were not there to casually provide information.  These are well-paid professional spokespersons,  trained in presenting their corporations' views.  They had Power Point presentations (see below) that someone had clearly spent a lot of time preparing. 
  
• "we’re not Congress"
  I'm not quite sure how to interpret what she meant by this.  Obviously, the Alaska legislature is not the US Congress, but it is to the state of Alaska what Congress is to the United States.   Some possibilities:
• She may have meant that unlike Congress with all its intense security and many other restrictions, the Alaska legislature is much more casual.  And that is certainly true.  Anyone can walk into the capitol building and up to any legislator's office without going through security.  And being more casual, we don't have to administer oaths. 
• Or perhaps she meant we aren't gridlocked like Congress.  In Alaska the minority has no power to stop whatever the majority wants to do.
  
  However she meant it, it's more than clear that few other issues than SB 21 and its impact on oil companies will have greater impact on Alaska's future.  The oil companies are spending millions of dollars to defeat a proposition to overturn SB 21.  No one in Alaska has a greater financial vested interest in any legislation than the oil companies have in SB 21.  They have every incentive to make it appear that SB 21 has stimulated them to invest more in Alaska and to create more jobs in Alaska.  And that could include misleading testimony.
  
• There was no criminal activity that was being investigated  Note:  She didn't say there was no criminal activity, only that (if there were), it wasn't being investigated.  But we do know that battles over oil tax funding have, in the not too distant past, involved criminal activity that netted a dozen or so pleas and/or convictions.
   
• “unprecedented and inappropriate.”
• Sen. Giessel herself already corrected the unprecedented claim
• Inappropriate is like 'unprofessional' but even more vague.  It's a way of saying no in polite language but without giving a reason.
  
• "unfair but unprofessional" Unprofessional has already been addressed.  But we don't know what she meant by 'unfair.'  It's unfair to ask people to swear that what they are testifying is the truth?  

I checked with Sen. French's office to see if any reports were submitted to the committee.  Each oil company representative had a Power Point presentation (see below), but nothing too heavy with words.  My thinking was that if they had prepared reports that they knew were not quite truthful, it would be hard to withdraw them before the hearing.  But if you look at the presentations linked below, there's simply not that much content that could be faulted for perjury. It's mainly about plans, which can always be changed. There are claims about how much new money has been budgeted to be spent in Alaska this year and in the future.  Discussions about new projects and new work.  There is even language that talks about new investment in relation to SB 21:

Plans for over $2 billion gross in production adding investments announced since passage of SB21

Note that this only talks about timing, not about cause and effect.  Since the oil companies are in control of when they announce things, there's no reason to believe that this wouldn't have happened if SB 21 hadn't been passed.  Certainly these things take a long time to plan and cost out.  If the passage of SB 21 was the reason for this new investment, then surely they would have said so. But I didn't see that claim in their written documents, only that it happened after SB 21 was passed.

It All Seems To Boil Down To:

Essentially, from what I can tell, this was a show hearing.  SB 21 gave the oil companies a $2 billion a year tax break, which the governor said would increase oil production and state revenue and jobs.  Prop 1 on the Alaska ballot in August would repeal SB 21.  The oil companies were being given a platform to prove how the passage of SB 21 was making Alaska a better place.  French wanted to require them to be subject to perjury prosecution if they lied. Giessel didn't. 


The Reports 

The reports that are linked online through Basis - the legislative website - are essentially Power Points with some text.  I've highlighted the main text below.  The links should take you to the reports themselves.

• Respol - basically pictures
• ConocoPhillips - pictures and text
• $1.7 billion net 2014 Alaska capital budget - 1750 new jobs
• 2014 exploration update
• Plans for over $2 billion gross in production adding investments announced since passage of SB21
• ExxonMobile- mostly pictures with a bit of text, here's what appears to be the key text:
• More than 729 positions on the slope, many of which are rotational
• 1,200 positions statewide
• 85% Alaskans
• Out of 92 companies, 73 are Alaskan
• BP   - Pictures and fair amount of bulleted text, below is their Investments in Alaska Summary:
• Actively investing in the North Slope oil fields
• Acquiring new seismic data in Northern Prudhoe Bay – 190 sq. miles summer and 220 sq. miles winter season, 150 jobs, ~$78 million, 55 million barrels resource potential
• Adding 2 new rigs with 200 jobs, $1 billion over 5 years – currently 7 rigs • Testing new drilling completions technology for challenging oil fields.
  i.e.: Sag River potential resource 200 million barrels
•  Restarted development Milne Point drilling in 2014
• Appraise/Select stage engineering for West End Prudhoe Bay with potential startup in 2018, $3 billion, peak 2022 est. 40,000 bopd
• Major facility investments committed to safe & sustainable operations, for example $76 million in 2014 Turnarounds with over 700 people involved, including GC2 Module built at NANA’s Big Lake facility – 79 jobs, $13.5 million, potential 2,000 bopd.

Here's the ConocoPhillips disclaimer:

The following presentation includes forward-looking statements. These statements relate to future events, such as anticipated revenues, earnings, business strategies, competitive position or other aspects of our operations or operating results. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecast in such forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict such as oil and gas prices; operational hazards and drilling risks; potential failure to achieve, and potential delays in achieving expected reserves or production levels from existing and future oil and gas development projects; unsuccessful exploratory activities; unexpected cost increases or technical difficulties in constructing, maintaining or modifying company facilities; international monetary conditions and exchange controls; potential liability for remedial actions under existing or future environmental regulations or from pending or future litigation; limited access to capital or significantly higher cost of capital related to illiquidity or uncertainty in the domestic or international financial markets; general domestic and international economic and political conditions, as well as changes in tax, environmental and other laws applicable to ConocoPhillips’ business and other economic, business, competitive and/or regulatory factors affecting ConocoPhillips’ business generally as set forth in Item 1A of ConocoPhillips’ 2012 Form 10-K and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Other notes:

I also called Sen. Giessel's office to ask her about these statements and to see if I had missed anything.  I talked to an aide, who, after my first question - about what professional standards the Senator was referring to when she said it was 'unprofessional' said he'd have the Senator call me back and answer the questions.

That was Wednesday.  My cell phone did ring.  I got a call from "an inmate of Grayson County" that I could accept for $9.99. I assumed it was not Sen. Giessel so I hung up.
It's Saturday now and there have been no messages from her on my phone.

Title Note:  I didn't comment on Sen. Giessel's grammar because:
a.  it's not really relevant
b.  it's a quote and not necessarily accurate
c.  much of our spoken English wouldn't pass grammar tests when written down

Excessive Packaging

I bought a new beard trimmer the other day at Costco.  This is one of the biggest packaging wastes of space and material I recall. 

Everything I needed from this big box and all that cardboard fits in the little black bag. 

NY 1st Time Book Promotion With Foreigner Swearing In Thai - AIFF Winner's New Video Goes Viral

Thanachart in Anchorage Dec 2013

Thanachart Siripatracha's The Words I Love won honorable mention at the Anchorage International Film Festival for short documentary last December.  We had the pleasure of having Benz (as he's called) stay with us for part of the festival.  His winning film was charming as is he.  He currently lives in New York where he's been studying film making.  You can see a short video of Benz talking about his first time in Alaska at this post. 

A couple of weeks ago he sent me a link to a video he did to promote his book - related to the AIFF winning film.  His book,  New York 1st Time, is in Thai about his adventures in New York.  

 

The video was a spoof of his book by talking to a farang (foreigner) about his first time in Bangkok.  In this case it was his first time being cursed by a Thai.  That doesn't happen often (a foreigner being cursed by a Thai) unless the foreigner really deserves it, as he did in this case.









Here's the viral video (it's in English and Thai):





I was going to wait to post about this until I got the book, but Benz sent me a follow up - the Bangkok post has written about this video.  Here are a couple of excerpts:

A video clip of an American retired lecturer documenting his first experience of being sworn at in Thailand has attracted more than half a million views after one day after being uploaded to YouTube. . .

Thanachart Siripatrachai uploaded the video clip of 78-year-old Nelson Howe describing his first experience of being subjected to foul language after living in Bangkok for three years. .  .

The video was made to promote a book written by Mr Thanachart about his 'first time' experience of visiting New York. Mr Thanachart, an assistant film director, said on his Facebook page that Mr Howe was a former university lecturer who he met accidentally in New York.

Mr Thanachart initially just wanted to promote his book using the clip describing Mr Howe's 'first time' experience in Thailand. But the film-maker now plans to make several more videos based on the academic's...

 By the way, as I write this, the video has 2.5 million hits. 

Apparently Lying To The Alaska Legislature Is OK

[UPDATE April 12, 2014:  Follow up post here.]

I got a copy of a letter* that Sen. French sent to Sen. Giessel about this afternoon's Resource Committee hearing.  He asked her to swear in the witnesses from Repsol, BP, and ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, who, he expects:

". . . will be generally trying to establish that SB 21 is 'working' and that negative consequences would result if SB 21 were repealed by the voters in August. "

He goes on:

"There is no issue of greater importance to the economic future of the state than this one. Alaska has struggled since statehood to set a fair oil tax. Our obligation as elected representatives should be to elicit the most reliable and trustworthy information that exists on the topic and to make it available to our constituents. 

AS 24.25.060 gives you, as chair of the Resources Committee, the authority to administer an oath to witnesses appearing before your committee. While this power  is not normally invoked in the Legislature,  it is of course a matter of everyday routine  in the court system.  By this letter I am requesting that you use your authority under our laws to swear  in  the witnesses who appear before the committee at tomorrow’s hearing.

I believe that as citizens and as legislators we have an obligation to seek the truth and to promote it."

I didn't realize that witnesses before legislative committees weren't expected to tell the truth.  I called Sen. French's office and spoke with an aide, Alex, who said that if a witness does not testify under oath, they cannot be prosecuted for perjury.  And thus, if they aren't truthful, it has no legal consequences to the witness.

It seems Sen. Giessel's options are to say:

• "Sure, why not?  They have nothing to hide."
• "We don't swear in most people and swearing them in would be an insult to their integrity."

In Sen. French's press release, he notes:

"The investigation surrounding the grounding of Royal Dutch/Shell’s Arctic drilling rig, the Kulluk, had a role in French’s decision to make the request.    Through a series of problems the Kulluk went aground.  Questions arose about whether Shell took the risky move of a mid-winter tow to avoid paying millions in state property taxes.  A Shell executive told the press that tax considerations had nothing to do with the move.  The same executive later admitted under oath that Alaska tax laws influenced the move."

I covered the Kulluk press releases last year and remember them denying that the tax issue played a role.

In a fair world, Sen. Giessel would  have no choice but to agree to swear them in.  Is there a choice between risking insulting a witness by asking him to take responsibility for telling the truth or making sure the people of Alaska are guaranteed that if the witness lies, he could be prosecuted for perjury? 

In my mind, not swearing them in would be an insult to the people of Alaska. 



You can watch the meeting which starts now (1pm Alaska Time) here.
[UPDATE:  This is the House Resource committee.
The Senate committee starts at 3:30pm. You should be able to get it here.] *No special scoop, it was in a press release emailed to me and zillions of others.

Alaska Dispatch Is Buying The Anchorage Daily News For $34 million

Not sure if you still have time to offer McClatchy (the parent corporation) $35 million.  I suspect not.  


I just got this email from Strategies360 Alaska a firm with principles [principals] David Shurtleff (former KSKA news guy), Ethan Berkowitz (former Demomcratic state legislator and congressional and gubernatorial candidate), and Taylor Bickford (former executive director of the Alaska Redistricting Board).  Berkowitz wasn't on the communication, but a person I don't know, a fourth principle, Aileen Cole.  It's part of a national firm that does research, public relations, and advocacy.  (Bickford seems to be, for example, the spokesperson for the proposition to make marijuana legal in Alaska.)
[Update 5pm:  A close relative seemingly disagreeing with the Supreme Court's belief that corporations are people, suggested they couldn't have principles.  I'm not sure we can't say that a firm with principled leaders has good principles, but what I meant was principals.]

Since I don't know  more at the moment, I'll just give you their press release, it gives lots of the details:

Alaska Dispatch Publishing LLC to Purchase Anchorage Daily News

ANCHORAGE, AK—APRIL 8, 2014—Alaska Dispatch Publishing LLC, the owner and publisher of Alaska Dispatch, has reached an agreement to purchase the Anchorage Daily News from The McClatchy Company (NYSE: MNI).

Founded in 2008, Alaska Dispatch is an award-winning site at the forefront of the national movement toward independent online news. Alice Rogoff, a longtime supporter of journalism and a former chief financial officer of U.S. News and World Report, became the majority owner of Alaska Dispatch LLC in 2009. Since then, the operation has employed writers, editors, and a full-time sales staff. Rogoff is the publisher and chief executive while co-founder Tony Hopfinger is the executive editor and president.

"We founded Alaska Dispatch to ensure the future of quality journalism in Alaska," said Hopfinger. "We've established ourselves as a leader in investigative reporting, public service journalism, and in offering a variety of opinions and perspectives from around the state, and we've been recognized with regional and national awards. We're proud of what we have accomplished in the last five years, and we couldn't be more excited about this new venture."

The Anchorage Daily News, the largest newspaper in Alaska, has a long history of distinguished journalism, winning two Pulitzer Prizes for public service in 1976 and 1989. “We’re excited to add the many talented and accomplished employees of the Anchorage Daily News to our team,” said Rogoff.

“The Anchorage Daily News and Alaska Dispatch play vital roles in our great state,” said Rogoff. “By merging these operations, we can serve as a stronger, even more comprehensive resource for Alaskans for their news and information. Our mission is to offer a level of coverage never before seen in Alaska history, and to offer it to readers across the state through a variety of mediums.

"We expect to publish news and commentary for all Alaskans, from oil field workers on the North Slope to Southeast fishermen; from those whose roots go back thousands of years to newcomers fresh off the plane; from our biggest cities to our most remote villages and everywhere in between. We want to provide a true public forum where Alaskans from all walks of life can come together to help build our community.”

The purchase price is $34 million, payable at closing, which is anticipated to occur in May of 2014.

The transaction covers the Anchorage Daily News, their website adn.com, and the newspaper’s real property and operations in Anchorage. After the purchase is completed, the real estate assets of the Anchorage Daily News will be sold by Alaska Dispatch to a private local buyer. The Anchorage Daily News will continue operations as a tenant from its East Anchorage location.

###

Alaska Dispatch was co-founded by Tony Hopfinger, Amanda Coyne and Todd Hopfinger in 2008. In 2009, Alice Rogoff, a longtime supporter of journalism and a former chief financial officer of U.S. News and World Report, became the majority owner of Alaska Dispatch LLC, and the operation expanded to employ writers, editors, and a full-time sales staff. Rogoff is the publisher and chief executive while Hopfinger is the executive editor and president.

Pt Capital, based in Anchorage, serves as the buyer's financial adviser.

I do know that the ADN has been struggling and the Dispatch, which only has an online presence (to my knowledge) has been aggressive and covering Alaska news more comprehensively than the ADN.


[UPDATE 3:22pm:  From Reuters:

The sale of the newspaper to Alaska Dispatch Publishing marks the first time a local news upstart has purchased the local daily newspaper in its market.
Alice Rogoff, publisher of the online-only Alaska Dispatch, said the deal was meant to serve Alaskans, many of whom still read a print newspaper.
"Advertisers still view it as a useful medium," she said.
Rogoff, a former chief financial officer of U.S. News and World Report, said Alaska Dispatch plans to produce more news in print and online with the purchase of the newspaper.

Upstart?  Why not just say "online' publisher?  

The Reuters report also quotes McClatchy's president:

"We weren't looking to sell the Daily News, but after Alaska Dispatch Publishing approached us, we saw advantages to local ownership in this case and opportunities for consolidation that would strengthen both news organizations," Talamantes said.

Local ownership is a great goal, but the person who's been paying for the Dispatch, as I've understood it, Alice Rogoff, lives in New York.  But the co-founders and co-owners are Alaskans.  [UPDATE 4/9/ 2:30pm:  A reader with an Alaska Dispatch email account wrote me to say that Alice Rogoff has gradually moved to Alaska over the last ten years.  And has been a full time Alaskan for a while now. And she lived in DC, not New York (but then the East Coast is all the same thing, right?) Big mistake on my part - my apologies.  The Dispatch has a story about her today.]