By Curmudgeon
Interesting Op Ed piece in Sunday morning's Standard Examiner by Don Porter, headlined "Ogden’s slow, consistent move upward can continue if we’re civil."
Porter reports that:
in the 1980s, an editor who has long since left the Standard-Examiner was fond of describing Ogden as “the meanest town in the West” — referring to the city’s feral brand of politics and penchant for personal attack.Porter says that as the gondola/gondola/park sale matter heated up, he:
had anti- and pro-gondola/golf course sale/resort development people calling my office, constantly, and making the most outrageous allegations that you can imagine — often of a personal and criminal nature. The various personalities involved in this debate — again, on both sides — were subjected to some of the most corrosive venom conceivable.Lest anyone conclude that Porter has no stomach for a good political fight, or is [in a word much applied to those who recommend some civility in discussing, yes, even the gondola/gondola "plan" or the park sale or even the Mayor] a "pantywaist," Porter notes that he has
no trouble appreciating hostility. If I find myself in the right mood, I actually relish using a rhetorical blowtorch. But the trick is choosing the right time and place to load up the flame thrower. I know well it had better be rare. If all you do is holler, your words lose their effectiveness in no time — and then that powerful weapon is rendered ineffective.Exactly right. The most common term on the national level for the "feral politics" [nice phrase that; due notice, Mr. Porter: I intend to steal it shamelessly in the future] is "the politics of personal destruction." Once it begins, compromise and cooperation for the common good become more and more difficult to arrange, and end the end, can become impossible. Which, as Mr. Porter argues, will not serve Ogden --- or, I'd add, any municipality, any state, any nation --- well.
Porter ends his piece this way:
A quibble: we do not need to "turn down the volume," Mr. Porter. It's important that the discussion of Ogden's future, what it ought to be and how best to achieve it, remain visible, even noisy [squeaky wheel theory]. What we need to do is keep the volume cranked up but turn the heat down. Way down.Operating on the theory that if someone is not with you they are against you is no recipe for success in making a city prosper. Godfrey describes his decision to reject the golf course sale as a “compromise” with persistent critics. I hope he’s serious, and that the people who approve of his new position on the golf course will now engage him in a productive discussion on where to go from here regarding Ogden redevelopment and transit.
But the only way that’s going to happen successfully is if the people who have been shouting the loudest consent to turn down the volume.
Well, okay. Two quibbles. While Mr. Porter is careful to qualify his condemnation of the nastiness that has, I agree, been too often visible in Ogden politics of late, as applying to many or most, rather than all involved in it, I'd just add here that Smart Growth Ogden [full disclosure: I am an active supporter of SGO] has, I think, never descended to the feral politics he describes, but has focused its mailings, press releases, letters, public meetings and website content on issues, not personalities, on civil discussion, not venom. That some supporters of SGO have I wouldn't contest. But the organization has been careful, I think, not to. For evidence, see the SGO website here.
21 comments:
I'm so sorry Mr. Porter is offended by allegations that our Mayor has not acted with the highest degree of honesty and ethics. I didn't realize we were supposed to just lay back and enjoy it.
Og Lover:
That is not what Porter said, or anything close to it. Take on Porter if you think he's wrong, but you ought to take on what he said, or something within shouting distance of it. And he did not say allegations that the Mayor had not acted with "the highest degree of honesty and ethics" were what he was opposed to, not did he even hint that citizens were to be quiescent and docile and "just lay back and enjoy it" with respect to the Mayor's policies or conduct in office.
It's real easy to set up and knock over straw men, Og. But it doesn't accomplish much by way of challenging what Mr. Porter actually said and argued. Setting up and knocking down straw men is generally a sign that the person doing it doesn't have much of convincing argument to make and so retreats to straw man bashing instead.
I don't see why Porter (and to some extent Curm) thinks Ogden's progress depends on civil discussion - by which Porter) seems to have in mind the phone calls he gets at his office at the Standard. It seems to me that this has nothing to do with any progress Ogden will make. First of all, there does not need to be civil discussion and secondly there does not need to be unity. Lest we forget, there was neither back in 1787 and 1788 when the free men of this country(the vast majority of whom were white) agreed to switch from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Not only was the volume high, so was the heat Curm.
I think it is called democracy.
Cato:
You're mixing up I think apples and oranges when you write there does not need to be unity." I didn't find anything in Porter's piece demanding unity in Ogden on all matters of public discussion, a homogenization of public opinion and discourse that would be impossible to achieve and unhealthy if it could be achieved.
However, looking back over the course of most public history in the US, very often compromise is necessary to achieve anything. [I remind you that the Constitution you offer as an example was the product of compromise in every line, dot and comma, and that no member of the Convention, so far as I know, liked all of it.]
Staying with the transition from Confederation to Constitution, for a moment, if you go back and read say Hamilton, Madison's and Jay's Federalist Papers and the comparable anti-Federalist tracts [like Patrick Henry's speech opposing the constitution delivered to the Virgina ratification convention], you'll find that they argue ideas, they argue the content of the proposed document --- vigorously, on both sides. They did not go around accusing each other of being thieves, liars, traitors and such like. At least not in public.
Porter, I think, made two points, both of them good. First, screeching constantly that your opponent is a liar, a thief, and kicks small dogs and children and is mean to his momma is counterproductive; it is ineffective at best and hurts the point you are arguing at worst. And second, that once public debate [politely so called] sinks to that level, people on both sides are so angry at what they've been called, so determined to revenge themselves upon the opposition, that viable compromise becomes nearly impossible. Even when it may be not only the best solution to a particular city problem, but the only one.
So, we disagree on this, you and I. I think there does need to be civil discussion, because there needs to be public discussion for a democracy to work. A lot of it and often. And the more vitriolic the discussion gets, the more venomous the language, the more feral the debate, the fewer people will be willing to take part in it, or to listen to it seriously.
Notice, Porter did not argue that over the top vitriolic language should be banned... if he'd argued that, I'd be standing with you against him. But he didn't.
Well, I suppose where I disagreed with Mr. Porter was his characterization of some anti-gondolists:
Ogden Mayor Matthew Godfrey wasn’t just wrong to support the proposal, some critics said, he was a liar and dishonest and corrupt.
Still, as far as I'm aware, in the course of his support for the gondola, Mayor Godfrey did tell lies and he was dishonest and there was ample evidence that his actions were, in many cases, corrupt.
I would hasten to add that I don't think Mayor Godfrey is, as a person, a liar and dishonest and corrupt. Maybe that's a fine distinction. But I do think it's fair to characterize his actions in the gondola matter for what they are.
As I was not on the receiving end of Mr. Porter's phone calls, I have no idea what was said to him. I imagine he heard some pretty rough stuff.
I would hope that in this debate (as in almost any other), we can continue to call public figures on their mendacities when we see them. That doesn't mean I (necessarily) dislike the person, but I do think it's up to us as citizens to hold public figures to a level of accountability, and that means saying, "That's a lie," when, in fact, the person is lying.
I hope Mr. Porter isn't against that.
Curm,
a couple of things. First of all, as you suggest while the Constitutional convention debates were rarely publically venomous (at least by our standards today), they were often so privately. And what Porter is talking about mostly in his editorial is really private discourse - phone calls to his office, or he might have added some of the posts on this forum. I guess I just find it hard to believe that calling people names on Porter's voice mail or even on the WCF really impacts decision making in Ogden. I do think you drew an important distinction between volume and heat, by the way - one which Porter seemed to miss. I guess my problem with his editorial is just that calls for quietude typically favor those in power / those defending the status quo.
On a slightly different note, how is Godfrey's decision not to sell the golf course in any way shape or form a compromise? By calling it a compromise he seems to be trying to give himself some political cover. When it fact, as you Curm noted several days ago, he lost. Big time. In order for there to be a compromise don't both sides usually have to give something up? What have those opposed to the sale of the golf course and surrounding park land had to give up? Fact is Godfrey finally came to realize that he has been fighting a losing battle for two years and he finally quit. But its hard to run for re-election and admit that perhaps the most important thing you've been working on for the past two years in office was a bad idea. So "I compromised" makes it sound so much better.
Curm,
Here is what I objected to in Don Porter's article:
"Trigger-happy people on both sides of the issue were way too quick to start grabbing for their guns. For example:
* Ogden Mayor Matthew Godfrey wasn't just wrong to support the proposal, some critics said, he was a liar and dishonest and corrupt."
OK,I was more polite in rephrasing this as "our Mayor has not acted with the highest degree of honesty and ethics." I don't consider it trigger-happy to ask the following questions, all of which have appeared here in the past and none of which have been adequately answered.
How much city money was used to support the gondola proposal?
Why was the urban gondola promoted to the exclusion of honestly considering other means of public transportation?
Does Godfrey stand to gain personally (financially) if the urban gondola were built?
Why do FOM's seem to have an inside track to purchasing valuable city property?
Cool heads (SGO, Dan Schroeder to name a few) have been providing evidence for years now that the urban gondola was a non-starter. Godfrey refused to listen but suddenly has an epiphany just as the election season is starting.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
It's all a joke anyway! There are fewer people reading Porter's editorial page than there are this blog!!
The Standard is losing its relavancy on a daily basis. A lot of that has to do with Porter's overblown sense of importance and the paper's policy of forgiving the Mayor and his henchmen of their frequent lies and crimes.
That could have something to do with the Standard benifitting from highly questionable doings at the BDO wherein the paper has million dollar digs for pennies on the dollar.
Most people that benefit from the actions of criminals seem to be their main apologists.
Cato:
You wrote: On a slightly different note, how is Godfrey's decision not to sell the golf course in any way shape or form a compromise?
No argument there. It was not a compromise. On this issue, the Mayor lost. He was fully, loudly committed to one side and that side did not prevail. I suspect Mr. Porter was so eager to support the general idea of compromise that he over-reached in attempting to provide a little cover, a rhetorical fig-leaf, for the Mayor, the presence of which might ease his passage to a more compromising stand in the future. That was diplomatic of Mr. Porter, but not accurate. As you noted.
Og:
You wrote:
I don't consider it trigger-happy to ask the following questions, all of which have appeared here in the past and none of which have been adequately answered.
How much city money was used to support the gondola proposal?
Why was the urban gondola promoted to the exclusion of honestly considering other means of public transportation?
Does Godfrey stand to gain personally (financially) if the urban gondola were built?
Why do FOM's seem to have an inside track to purchasing valuable city property?
I agree absolutely. All of those are perfectly appropriate questions. None of them involve trigger happy accusations. The point is, Og, that they are questions.
Any public official's conduct in office is subject to question and as much scrutiny as the public wants to give it. And if as a result of that scrutiny, it turns out the guy engaged in unethical conduct, or even criminal conduct, it's not being trigger happy to say so. But those judgments have to come after the questions have been asked and evidence turned up, and in the case of criminal conduct, after charges have been brought and convictions won. Porter says... and I believe him on this... that he was getting charges of criminal conduct straight out of the gate, charges of lying, corruption and crime pretty much from the git-go. Or without supporting evidence.
[E.g. note the charge from Marv above that the SE pulls its punches because it benefits from "the actions of criminals." ]
I don't think we're very far apart, if at all, on this Og.
What Mr. Porter is really trying to say is that now that his cause and position is disadvantaged, he wants us to cut him some slack, i.e. forgive and forget. Notice though that I said disadvantaged not dead; as I’m sure the mayor if reelected will revive this project. He’s got too much fame and fortune at stake.
The Standard, i.e. Mr. Porter, has been supporting the gondola/malan resort idea since it first came to fruition. He, from the get go, has shown his bias in what he has printed, how he has headlined stories and what he has not printed or when he has let something be printed. He has also taken the liberty to edit articles submitted by those against his point of view, editing those submissions to the paper to the point that he has marginalized the argument that the submitter was trying to make. Porter has used almost every trick in the book and at his abilities to manipulate the press to support this project and has, in my opinion, been a major reason why this blog has gained so much readership.
It’s not just his bias reporting that has bothered me but it is also his lack of any in depth reporting of the project. The Standard has the people, the resources and the ability to do the research on just about any subject, topic or project. If the editor is going to take a position on an issue he should write from an educated position especially if that position is going to significantly affect this town. The least he should have done before adopting his position on this project was to put a few of his people to work to validate that the whole project worked. The editor of the paper should assume the responsibility of that position and realize that he or she is viewed in the same way as someone in government office, that of a fiduciary person. Porter let us down terribly in that regard. The paper, for the most part, accepted the mayor and developers plan for face value. The paper accepted the benefit of the project and NEVER raised any questions as to whether this project was financially viable even when credible challenges were made; the paper refused to challenge the proponents to the project to qualify their exaggerated numbers and/or assumptions that seemed pulled from the thin air; and the paper never even questioned if this was the direction that the people of Ogden really wanted to take the development of their community. He blindly and subjectively took his que from the administration.
Don Porter’s support of this project based on simple blind faith just shows his lack of qualification to hold the position of Editor within the Standard organization. He showed a total lack of fiduciary responsibility to his readers within the community by not applying the paper’s resources to determine what was best position to assume for the community betterment and by not allowing all aspects of the discussions about the project to be presented thus allowing the paper’s reader to draw their own conclusions from a more informed position. His lack of objectiveness as I mentioned earlier, is probably the main reason that this blog has taken off.
Interesting now that all of efforts to sell a sow’s ear as a silk purse to the public hasn’t worked, that the mayor and now Don Porter are asking us all to cut then some slack; tone it down; be open minded; and lets work together for the betterment of Ogden. I have just two things to say to Don Porter, shame on you and you’re no worthy of the position that you hold.
I am not about to tone it down until this whole project is addressed in an open manner (or behind us), in an unbiased way, with all of the facts and figures available to all those that want to see them and then when a decisions is made based on those conditions and based on a decision that reflects what the community wants not just a few select individuals in a position to benefit form the project. Additionally, I would suggest that the mayor is only shelving this project until after the election, as he knows his continued support of it will cost him the election, which it should. In the coming election, any vote for Godfrey is a vote the project.
In my option, Don Porter doesn’t deserve any more forgiveness than our mayor. In the mayor’s case at least we can vote him out, in your case, it will be the upper management of the paper to decide how much damage you have done to the paper reputation and what long term effects that may have on readership and profitability of the paper.
Tone it down, not a chance until after November!
Porter is a jackass, of the highest order. I would have said ostrich, but that don't carry enough emphasis. This piece never should have been written, it's nothing but a sad attempt at covering lying little matty(gondola) godfreys' ass. And the position he's(porter) taking is reminisent of how dumb and gullable lying little matty assumed the general public would be.
" let me emphasize: I was not unimpressed with the $500 million-plus proposal, but with the public debate that has accompanied it."
Need we remind Porter of two very important facts surrounding his statement. What proposal? To date no one has seen or heard of a formal, or even informal proposal from the squirrrel phobic, vest wearing, unavailable for comment, Peterson. $ 500 million? Has Peterson, lying little matty or even potato nose ever shown any thing on paper as to how this number came into exsitance? Did Porter or the paper ever even press lying little matty as to the reality of that $$$ figure, or were the paper and the over fed Tom Moore the only ones so stupid as to swallow, hook line and sinker?
Cumbaya Mr. Porter, kiss make up, shouldn't you be questioning lying little matty as to why he was the number one promoter of this thing,spending unaccounted thousands of $$$$$ to enable the theft of what he now values as much as the vocal potential voter?
Promoting,lying and spending for 2 years, prior to even doing any homework, on behalf of the people he's supposed to represent.
Porter, take off those rose collored re-elect lying little matty issue, sunglasses, he's just what you heard him accused of being, a liar, dishonest and corrupt, with a lot of immaturity and ego on the side.
And a warm WCF welcome to NOT UNTIL NOVEMBER. I must have been trying to type, great post.
Well, Mr. Porter is not THE editor of the Standard. He is the editorial page editor. He probably doesn't have much to do with how the News Editor handles the news. It seems a bit unfair to lay all of ones complaints about the Standard on his shoulders.
He is a hold over from the old glory days of the Standard, or so I have heard. One of the very few left? Rumour has it he is a survivor and one of the only ink bleeders left in the modern news paper world.
I think the Editorials that Mr. Porter and his staff at the Standard put out are pretty good on the norm. Sometimes they even do a world class one. Sometimes, when they lay praise on Godfrey, they lay a real egg! But on balance I think they are every bit as good and consistant as the Tribune or DNews.
I think any greviance you have with the Standard, and boy don't we all have em, should be directed to the Suits of Sandusky and the bean counters they employ locally. The "deciders" at the Standard.
Ozboy,
That is where you and I disagree.
I attacked his words, past and present, not the paper. How the paper deals with him is between him and the paper. My issue is with how he deals with the residents of the city and what quality of communication his paper put out or what he suppresses while claiming to be non biased and specking as though he is informed.
On Porter:
I think Oz pretty much has it right. I don't think it can be established on the evidence that Mr. Porter [who edits the letters column and the op-ed page] has been a partisan advocate of the gondola/gondola/land sale scheme. [The editorial position of the paper, which appears in the editorials, is decided by, as I understand it, the paper's Editorial Board, of which Mr. Porter is a member, but only one of several.] The letters columns and op ed pages have carried pieces for and against the gondola/gondola and park sale schemes, for and against the administration on a variety of issues.
It is an occupational hazard of publishing a newspaper that people on each side of a volitile issue tend to see every letter, every op ed piece, favoring the other side as a sign that the paper has sold out to the opposition. And any news story that does not report things exactly as one side or the other would wish to have them reported is taken as more evidence that the paper has become a shameless advocate of one side or the other. I've heard people say that "so-and-so [vocal advocate of the gondola/gondola/land sale scheme] is such a lying sycophant of the mayor that the paper should refuse to print anything he submits." Any paper that did ban all comment on one side of a public controversy would, truly, not be worth reading.
Being accused of bias comes with the territory of being a publisher or an editor. And I doubt anyone can establish, on the evidence, that Mr. Porter's letters columns or op-ed page has tilted noticeably in one direction or the other on the gondola/gondola/park sale matters, or on the administration more generally. You might be able to make a case, especially early along in the controversy, that the editorials did... but then, that's what editorials do: take stands of public issues. I don't think you could establish that, even for the editorials over the past year.
What I strongly suspect is that what some of the loudest complainers about the SE's alleged bias are really annoyed about is that the paper is not biased in favor of their point of view. For example, I notice "Not Till November" above says that he " attacked his [Mr. Porter's] words, past and present, not the paper. " And yet, in his long post, he managed to include none of Porter's words at all. Imagine that....
[Full disclosure: I do not know Mr. Porter though I think I may have met him once amid a gaggle of other SE staff. Not sure about that. But he did accept from me and print an Op Ed piece in reply to a pro-administration letter to the editor regarding several Council members in the coming election. Other than that, besides emailing him occasionally about a piece he wrote with which I disagreed or about an editorial policy... like silently editing letters to the editor... that I thought was ill-advised, I've had no contact with him.]
Cumbaya Curm, shame on you. What Porter may or may not have thought,written or done in the past ain't what's got us bunched up. It's this particular piece. Unadulterated bullshit.. This is an election season and given the 2 years wasted time and money, Porters running some temperance campain, not asking lying little matty what could possibly have been so enlightening to cause him to do a complete 180 turn around. Not feasable from the get-go, thats what lying little matty said himself, to the paper. If it was truely hard data, shouldn't the paper have asked him to share it with the public? Why hadn't lying little matty sought out this data before his complete endorsement and commitment of still anaccounted tax dollars.
Porters position seems to be nothing more than ignorance is bliss, and he's encouraging his whole readership to embrace his intentionally unimformed posture.
Lying little matty (gondola) godfrey will not get his pass on this one, it's up to all of us to see he doesn't.(this will include you, fair Curmudgen) The Standard Examiner has an obligation to this community, to atleast make a half-assed effort to report truth and seek the facts. Compromize, who's word was that? I'm supprised Porter didn't choke to death on that one.
As I see this standard exam. is that most of the time they are making the news and not reporting the news. They want to control the city but not take any accountability of responsibility for what the say. so what if the they buy ink by the barrel and paper by the truck load, they should be responsible for what they are doing to people.
so good for you wait.
Porter thinks HE doesn't play dirty?
He had the police contact M Moyes as "threatening " him when all Moyes said to Porter was, "Well, what goes around comes around". That was in the context of treating people badly and unfairly, and when Moyes made his comment, Porter said, "Are you threatening me?"
Unbelievable! Then Porter called the cops.
Really civil, eh?
Porter said he rarely reads the WCF, but he has his dtr look at it and report to him. LOL. What's the diff?
Oh, I get it. Like Paris Hilton didn't know she had a suspended license, "I have people to take care of those things".
Is that how it is, Don?
Curm, you lost your sense of humor.
In Og Lover's first post, he said he didn't know we were supposed to lie back and enjoy it.
That was funny!! Try laughing.
Witty remarks don't require humorless scoldings.
Lighten up, all you long faces.
I'm amused with this entire debate over the merits of the SE. I subscribe to the Trib, always have, always will. Why? Because it's readable. The SE is just, just horrible. Schwebke, Porter, and some of the others there are mediocre at best. Trentleman is the rare gem in that entire organization.
And with wcforum, I have no reason to even consider the SE. It's sad.
Native:
I don't think the SLT is materially better written than the SE, but that's a matter of taste, I guess.
The problem with being an SLT only reader [I read both] is that the SLT does not cover Ogden consistently and in any depth. It occasionally does a very good story about Ogden government, but it does not cover the city consistently. If you read only the SL Trib, you'll miss a good deal of what is happening in Ogden government, day by day. A great deal, in fact.
Ogden has no TV stations of its own. It lives in the electronic shadow of Salt Lake City. Given that, the SE is the best consistent source for Ogden public affairs... because [if for no other reason] it's the only consistent more-or-less comprehensive source for Ogden public affairs.
WCF highlights particular issues for fuller discussion, but it does not provide, nor does it pretend to so far as I can see, the comprehensive coverage the paper does across a wide range of public matters.
Post a Comment