Glorious Morning

Here's what I saw this morning when a friend dropped her 3 month old off.  This isn't a regular gig, but they needed some back up and when we're far from our grandkids, we're more than happy to help out now and then.

Today would also be my step-father's 100th birthday.  And it's the anniversary of my father's death.  So having new life around is wonderful.  We raked some leaves this morning and now she's napping so I have a moment to post something, but nothing too long.

I'd note that Yom Kippur begins at sunset tonight as well and from sunset today until sunset tomorrow we fast.  It will be time to ask forgiveness for all the wrongs we've done to others over the year and to forgive those who have wronged us.  Even if one doesn't believe in God, one can take part in these important acts.  From ReformJudaism:

"Yom Kippur means "Day of Atonement" and refers to the annual Jewish observance of fasting, prayer and repentance. Part of the High Holidays, which also includes Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur is considered the holiest day on the Jewish calendar. In three separate passages in the Torah, the Jewish people are told, "the tenth day of the seventh month is the Day of Atonement. It shall be a sacred occasion for you: You shall practice self-denial."(Leviticus 23:27). Fasting is seen as fulfilling this biblical commandment. The Yom Kippur fast also enables us to put aside our physical desires to concentrate on our spiritual needs through prayer, repentance and self-improvement. 

Yom Kippur is the moment in Jewish time when we dedicate our mind, body, and soul to reconciliation with God, our fellow human beings, and ourselves. We are commanded to turn to those whom we have wronged first, acknowledging our sins and the pain we might have caused. At the same time, we must be willing to forgive and to let go of certain offenses and the feelings of resentment they provoked in us. On this journey we are both seekers and givers of pardon. Only then can we turn to God and ask for forgiveness: 'And for all these, God of forgiveness, forgive us, pardon us, and grant us atonement.'”

Principles And Verification Tasks For Journalists And Their Readers

I've mentioned I'm taking an online class called Journalism Skills for Engaged Citizens from the University of Melbourne.  Last week I got one of the optional books they recommend - Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel's The Elements of Journalism.  The copy I got from the library is a 2007 edition and given the changes in electronic journalism since then, I'm sure the newer version has been updated quite a bit.  Nevertheless the chapter on verification is still worth thinking about - both for journalists AND for readers (listeners, viewers, etc.)

Much of this stems from, according to the authors, a 1997 meeting of journalists concerned about the future of journalism in the age of digital and commodified journalism.  The meeting led to a group called the Committee of Concerned Journalists.  (I chose this link because it lists their principles of good journalism.)

In Chapter 4, they talk about verification being central in defining good journalism.  I'm going to offer several of the guidelines for journalists including techniques for verification.

Note:  I've done some editing because the authors have written quite a bit about each point and the one and two word titles don't necessarily capture the gist.  I've tried to give a slight bit more to aim the reader in the right direction.  I've added some links at the bottom* for a little more depth.

Let's start with "Intellectual principles of a science of reporting"

1. Do Not Add.  Never add anything that wasn’t there (don't make anything up)
2. Do Not Deceive.  Never deceive your audience
3. Transparency.  Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives (more on transparency below.)
4. Originality.  Rely on your own original reporting (get the facts yourself, don't just rely on others, a particular issue in the age of 24/7 news and online rumors)
5. Humility.  Exercise humility 

 Transparency Questions

1. What does my audience need to know to evaluate this information for itself?
2. Is there anything in our treatment of this that requires explanation, including any controversial decisions made about leaving something in or taking something out?
3. Journalists should acknowledge the questions their stories are not answering. a. Misleading sources: Corollary to transparency. Truth goes both ways. Sources need to be truthful. Some say a misleading source should be revealed. Part of the bargain for anonymity is truthfulness.
4. Masquerading (getting stories with deception) - ok if you follow principles: Three Step Test:
1. Information must be sufficiently vital to public to justify deception
2. There is no other way to get the story
3. Journalist should reveal to audience whenever they mislead sources to get info, and should explain reasons, including 1. why the story justifies deception and 2. why there was no other way to get story.

I'd like to think that I've incorporated most of this in my blogging.  Some comes from having to verify in academic writing, some comes from my personal values of keeping the public interest in mind.  I know that I have often, for example, spoken to readers directly about how I've gotten a story, why I'm writing it a certain way, what cautions they should take interpreting what I've written.  The most typical warning I'd guess, has been reporting meetings when my fingers couldn't keep up with what was being said.  For example, from a redistricting board meeting:

"Below are my very rough notes.  Use with caution, until the official transcripts are available."

And finally I get to the list specifically addressing Verification.   There's a fair bit of discussion on the definition of 'objectivity' and whether a journalist can achieve it.  The authors say that the original use of 'objectivity' coming from Walter Lippmann and others, acknowledged bias in the writer, and offered 'objectivity' as a method that focused on techniques of verification that would unite journalists regardless of their bias.  (I would argue that even those techniques have their built in biases to be aware of, but that's for a different day and post.)


Techniques of Verification

1. Edit with skepticism - check line by line - how do I know this? Why should a reader believe it? what is the assumption behind this sentence? If the story says events may raise questions, who suggested that? Reporter? Source? Citizen?
2. Keep an accuracy checklist (See below - this is particularly useful for readers as well as journalists.)
3. Assume nothing.  (See Protess Method below)
4. Tom French’s red pencil - he made a check after each sentence if he’d double checked it.
5. Be careful of your sources  

Accuracy Checklist (useful for readers to think about when reading/hearing news stories)

• Is the lead of the story sufficiently supported?
• Is the background material, required to understand the story, complete?
• Are all the stakeholders in the story identified and have representatives from that side been contacted and given a chance to talk?
• Does the story pixies [pick sides] or make subtle value judgments?  Will some people like this story more than they should?
• Have you attributed and/or documented all the information in your story to make sure it is correct?
• Do those facts back up the premise of your story?  Do you have multiple sources for controversial facts?
• Did you double-check the quotes make sure they are accurate and in context?  

This is all good stuff for me (and other bloggers) to be thinking about.  I even put a note about originality in a story I posted recently about a Superior Court decision.  I was quoting the Alaska Dispatch's report, but couldn't figure out how to get the decision online.  I noted the journalist's need for originality and my attempt to get the judge's decision in my post.  Yesterday an attorney told me you can't get them online, you have to go to the courthouse and buy it.  I called the court just now trying to see if there was a way, but they haven't been able to point out a link to get the decision.  They connected me to the judge's assistant and I've left a voice mail message.


*Short of getting the book itself, ideally the most recent edition, there are websites you can check on to get a little more depth on each of these points than I'm giving.

On Verification - Transparency, Humility, Originality

Informing the News - an essay based on a book by that title also stems from the Committee of Concerned Journalists' work that overlaps a bit with the lists here.

Protess Method of Verification - a way of thinking about verification by the head of the Chicago Innocence Project.  It's the method he uses with students to determine which prisoners to work with on their appeals.

[I've made some typo corrections, some of which look like auto correct errors.  Others are mine.]

What's Wrong With Judge Guidi's Decision That Ben Nageak Should Be The District 40 Democratic Candidate?

In Friday's ADN a Nathaniel Herz article reports that Judge Guidi overturned the house district 40 election, deciding that Ben Nageak should have won.  Based on that article* I have some problems with the decision.

Map of house district 40 from elections website, I added Shungnak

Let's look at the key points I have issues with.

"But in the small Northwest Alaska village of Shungnak, which went 47-3 for Westlake, Guidi found poll workers acted with 'reckless disregard of the requirements of law. . .'

. . . And Randy Ruedrich, the former chairman of the Alaska Republican Party, testified on Nageak's behalf as an expert witness during the trial. 

Guidi's decision, in fact, hinged on an analysis by Ruedrich of how the double voting in Shungnak affected the outcome of the election. . ."

Note, we have a long-time Republican Party chair working on behalf of one of the Democratic candidates.  That's because while Nageak is a Democrat, he caucuses with the Republicans, which is why the Democratic party supported his opponent, Dean Westlake, in the primary.

"Westlake had his own witness — his campaign manager, John-Henry Heckendorn — but Guidi wrote that Ruedrich's testimony was more "authoritative and reliable." And in his decision, Guidi calculated 12 "contaminated votes" in Shungnak should be thrown out — 11 for Westlake and one for Nageak, based on the existing split in votes between the two candidates."

I would grant that Ruedrich is more knowledgable about voting in Alaska.  He's a very bright man and has spent many years studying districts and precincts around the state.  He was very much involved with the redistricting process in the most recent redistricting and in past ones.  Few people know Alaska elections like Ruedrich.

However, I would argue that Ruedrich isn't acting as a political scientists here, studying the facts and coming up with the most reasonable interpretation and solution.  Rather he was acting as a strong political partisan, finding a scheme that would sound reasonable to the judge, that would result in his favored candidate winning the election.

In fact, were the vote counts switched, and Westlake had challenged Nageak using the same argument Ruedrich used, Ruedrich would have argued against that reasoning, because Ruedrich's goal is to find an argument that will get his candidate elected, not one that is most reasonable.  (And as a party operative, that's what he ought to be doing and it's the judge's job to decide.)

Citing Ruedrich's testimony, Guidi ruled those dozen voters would have picked the Republican ballot — on which Nageak and Westlake didn't appear — based on historical averages."

Here's the part I have the most heartburn with.  Perhaps there were a dozen Republican voters in Shungnak.  But there were no house candidates on the Republican ballot.  The most contested election in the primary, the only one on which the voters of Shungnak might make a difference, was the Democratic** primary. It was the only race where voters in Shungnak could make a difference.

Republicans in Alaska are allowed to vote on the Democratic ballot.  The 'historical' 12 Shungnak Republicans knew they would have no impact on any of the statewide Republican primary contests.  The odds are that they all would have picked Democratic ballots so they could vote in the district 40 house primary.  But, Ruedrich would point out, there was no Republican ballot in 2014 or 2013 and still about a dozen people voted Republican.

I would counter that this was NOT like other 'historical' elections.  In 2012 there were four candidates on the Democratic ballot and Nageak won by four percentage points over the runner up.  In 2014, he beat Westlake by nearly 7% of the vote.  While these aren't landslides, they're comfortable margins.

What was significantly different this year was that the Republicans were backing Nageak and the Democrats were backing Westlake in the primary.  A lot of money was spent on this election.  It had a lot more publicity than in the past.  There was a candidate who was nominally a Democrat, but was had been caucusing with the Republicans and would in the future.  His opponent was going to caucus with the Democrats.  This was NOT by any stretch a typical election where 'historical average' ought to be used.

From what I can gather from the article, Judge Guidi has disenfranchised those 12 Republican voters in Shungnak.  Maybe they would have taken a Republican ballot.  But maybe not.

• They had the right to vote in the Democratic primary
• They chose their preferred candidate
• Any votes on mistakenly given out Republican ballots would have had no effect on any of the state wide primary races

 Since they had the right to vote in the Democratic primary why should their votes be taken away?

Why would Guidi choose to invalidate the Democratic ballots rather than the Republican ballots which Shungnak's Democratic voters had no right to use?

Furthermore, the reasoning Ruedrich used, if I read Herz' article correctly, and he reported correctly, was that we should look at how they voted in the past.  

By that logic, we could skip elections altogether, and just go by what voters did in the last election.  

I understand Judge Guidi's concern about election workers giving everyone both ballots.  That's totally unacceptable.  But so is Guidi's decision.

Essentially, Guidi disenfranchised 12 Shungnak voters.  

If he truly believes the results were tainted by giving out both ballots to all voters, the only fair option is to let both candidates run against each other once more in the general election where more voters are likely to vote.  Since there were no Republican primary candidates, or any other party candidates, this would pit Nageak against Westlake against each other once again.  One could argue that's unfair to the original winner Westlake, but it's a lot fairer than Ruedrich and Guidi second guessing the voters of Shungnak.  

If there had been a Republican candidate, this would have been a messy solution.  But there isn't so this would be the cleanest option if you truly believe that the primary was tainted.  

Now it's up to the Alaska Supreme Court to decide how this election will go.  

[UPDATE October 13:  Yesterday the Supreme Court threw out Judge Guidi's decision and Westlake will go to Juneau representing District 40.]

*Since I'm taking an online class called Journalism Skills For Engaged Citizens, I'm acutely aware that this post would have been stronger had I gotten a copy of the judge's decision and not just relied on the article.  I tried.  I did get to the case online, but couldn't figure out how to get a copy of the decision.  And it's after hours so I can't get help.  Next time I'll do better.

**I use Democratic primary, but technically it's called the ADL primary.

From The Air

I've got a million posts in my head and not much time, but I suspect most folks would rather look at a few decent pictures than read a long post.  We walked our grandson to day care this morning, then left San Francisco at 1pm for Seattle.

Seattle had been  clouded when we landed, but the clouds seemed to have gathered over by Mt. Rainer as we took off, leaving downtown Seattle in bright sunshine. (Click the pics to see them sharper.)

Then we veered over Puget Sound.

Then I got some work done, read my book, and before I knew it we were over Prince William Sound with Denali and Foraker silhouetted in the sunset glow.

Minutes later we were passing Anchorage from the south so we could loop around over Cook Inlet to land.

(Sorry about the stray light coming in as they turned on the cabin lights.)

We spent a good amount of time at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art yesterday and I have so many pictures I have no idea how I'm going to tackle posting about that.  I do like modern art museums because I see work that lots if not most people would dismiss, that I love.  And I don't feel as all alone in my weird tastes. Which reminds me I still have a follow up post from the Musée du Quai Branly in Paris.

Who Is Ed Ruscha (And Why Is He So Damn Cool?)

There's an exhibit of Edward Ruscha's works at the DeYoung Museum here in San Francisco (for a few more days.)  We didn't see it, but I checked out the video that goes with it.

And since it only has 850 hits on Youtube so far, I know I'm not posting something that's been seen 50,000 times already.




You can see more of his artwork here.

Moses At Yosemite

We walked over to Temple Sherith Israel for Rosh Hashanah services today with my son and his family.  This is a large and beautiful old synagogue.

While I looked at the stained glass window of Moses and the ten commandments, my brain blinked as it seemed to recognize Half Dome and El Capitan.

It wasn't appropriate to take pictures during the services, 

so this image is from the temple's website.  It's only part of the window.

Later I read more about the window on the Temple Sherith Israel website:

"West window: This dramatic work, "Moses Presented the Ten Commandments to the Children of Israel," was designed by Paris-trained artist Emile Pissis, brother of architect Albert Pissis. Emile created a movie-star handsome Moses, red robe flowing, surrounded by vibrant tribal flags and the Hebrew people. But instead of standing at Sinai, the Jewish people are gathered on granite rocks at the gateway to Yosemite, Half Dome and El Capitan in the distance. This is a modern Moses, and California is the Promised Land. . .

The identity of the glass artist/s was unknown until congregants Joan Libman and Ian Berke discovered an invoice for $1,100 made out to Emile Pissis. Emile, who frequently painted scenes of Yosemite, designed the Moses window on the west wall and seven other windows in the sanctuary."

The building was consecrated on September 24, 1905, and for those who know their history, the big San Francisco earthquake hit seven months later on April 18,1906.  But the building sustained only slight damage, and none in the 1989 earthquake.  But it's recently been undergoing architectural strengthening required by the City of San Francisco.

Frozen Cliches

We visited friends yesterday and they had what appeared to be a fascinating book on the human body.  Very scientific yet a bit irreverent.

Then I got to the page that looked at the different climates humans lived in.  There were little domes for 'hot and humid' and other types of climates.  And this one.

Describing the Arctic as a 'frozen wasteland' is a best a hoary cliche created and perpetuated by people who have never been to the Arctic or whose interest in the Arctic is merely to exploit its natural resources.

Even apparently otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people like the authors of Open Me Up fall prey to ignorant stereotypes.

What exactly is a wasteland?  From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

1 : barren or uncultivated land
2 : an ugly often devastated or barely inhabitable place or area
3 : something (as a way of life) that is spiritually and emotionally arid and unsatisfying

Anyone who has been to the Arctic and isn't spiritually and aesthetically deaf and blind knows the Arctic is NOT barren, is NOT ugly or devastated.  It's incredibly rich with life in the summer, but also still full of life and exquisite beauty in the winter.  Even the picture in the 'frozen wasteland' dome belies the description.  But then cliches are those terms we fall back on without thinking.

Linda Buller and your co-authors and all those editors, are you listening?

Gramping at Academy of Sciences Museum San Francisco

Friday morning was at the museum, a big glitzy, pricey place to visit with lots of things to keep the attention of anyone from 6 months to nearly dead.

Many of the exhibits are truly spectacular, like this replicated banyan swamp with big rays floating by.

Animals have been a big attraction since I was a little kid.  I spent a lot of time studying the dioramas at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History as a kid.  And as good as these dioramas were, I've since seen Zebras in the national parks in East Africa and these just aren't the same.  But there were lots of kids on school trips getting the magic.



A pair of oryx.

And we didn't even see this leopard until a museum volunteer waved his hand over a sensor sending a load roar down to us.

So, yeah, these animals were all stuffed.  (Though there were live penguins.)  But the fish were real.

This is looking down into a living coral reef.


I had to wonder how much harder it is for humans to recreate and maintain the conditions for reefs and keep them going, than for nature.

This one was in a large tank full of many kinds of fish and I didn't get its business card.




These anemone like critters were in the tank too.

This jelly fish was about a foot in diameter.

And I thought this was a good sign of the times as machines replace humans.  They used to publish these futuristic articles with titles like "What will people do with all their leisure time?"  They thought that when we went down to 30 hour weeks because of automation, that people would make the same money with fewer hours.  They forgot that in a capitalistic system, the owners take the savings as profits,  layoff workers they don't need, and keep the others at 40 and 50 hour jobs with no retirement and fewer and fewer benefits.

Flying Over Chugach Mountains Never Gets Old

On good days, which really is any day you can see the mountains, the views flying in and out of Anchorage are breathtaking.  Even after almost 40 years.  And even with a scratchy window that caught the morning sun, some of the pictures came out ok.  Just click on the pictures to see them sharper.  Here's downtown Anchorage in the middle with Government Hill on the bottom and Westchester Lagoon on the top right.

Quickly we're up over the mountains.

And then suddenly, we're over Prince William Sound.

And eventually, I'm watching the clouds preparing for an invasion of San Francisco.

And we get to have dinner with family.

Right To Life Starts "40 Days For Life" Demonstration Outside Planned Parenthood

We walked home from dinner by the Planned Parenthood clinic on Lake Otis and ran into a contingent of demonstrators with black signs with white and blue lettering.

I got a flyer from Jared and he explained this was the first of forty days of demonstrations and referred me to 40daysforlife.com where I found this explanation:

TAKE A STAND FOR LIFE
From September 28 to November 6, our community will take part in 40 Days for Life … a groundbreaking, coordinated international mobilization. We pray that, with God’s help, this will mark the beginning of the end of abortion in our city – and beyond.

So they're planning to be there until the Sunday before election day.  Plenty of time for me to revisit and find out what motivates them on this issue.