September 03, 2004
(Updated) Tim Hibbitts Requests 'Retraction' And/Or 'Clarification'
'Communique' Arrives On The Media Scene?
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Very early this morning, Jack Bogdanski posted about a milestone for his weblog: Receiving a letter from an attorney for a local public figure. "Fortunately, the lawyer was mistaken," Jack wrote. "The comments he was complaining about were posted on somebody else's blog."
Welcome to "somebody else's blog." Received via email this morning was a letter from an attorney for Tim Hibbitts (pdf), local pollster and political commentator for KATU. We've removed from the pdf information identifying the attorney and firm in question.
Readers here know that we've recently been slamming Hibbitts for something he said on KATU regarding his opinion of the Portland Police Association's retraction of its endorsement of Mayoral candidate Jim Francesconi, and what Portland's liberals may or may not think of the Portland Police Bureau. It is our characterization of Hibbitts' comments which prompted the letter we received today.
In this past Wednesday's Willamette Week, they relate their own dispute with Hibbitts over such characterizations (and we linked to this in an update to an earlier item here this week), in which they argue "Hibbitts doth protest too much" and then present what they originally said about him, and then what Hibbitts actually said on the air.
Sounds like a good format for this sort of thing, so that's what we'll do here. But to be nice, we'll first offer up Hibbitts' quote from the relevant KATU broadcast:
They [the Francesconi campaign] may be thinking that the endorsement of the police union is not such a good thing to have anyway because a lot of liberal and leftwing Portland voters, of which there are large number, are not terribly enthusiastic about the police.
And so it seems we should re-present all of the ways in which we have characterized Hibbitts' comments and, like Willamette Week, let our readers decide for themselves, beginning with our first reference, in the comments to an item from August 19:
Then there was KATU's coverage, which included pollster Tim Hibbits arguing that losing the police union endorsement might be good for Francesconi because Portland liberals don't like the police.
Then on August 20, we referred again to Hibbitts' remarks this way:
One other item regarding the media element here. Over on KATU, allegedly independent and non-partisan Tim Hibbits commented that Francesconi's loss of the police union's endorsement might be good for him because many of Portland's liberals hate the police.
On August 27, we referred to Willamette Week and its first mention of Hibbitts' comments:
(Parenthetically, the paper also joined the Hibbitts-bashing that readers have been witnessing here and on other local weblogs lately, including our favorite bit about liberals as police-haters, and suggests it might be "signs of vitamin deficiency.")
Finally, in an update posted yesterday to an item from August 31, we said this:
Well, this week, the Week had an update in which they report that "Hibbitts chewed out one of the Nose's colleagues, saying he'd been misquoted." The paper goes on to show what it said, and what Hibbitts himself had said. We're not sure what to think about the fact that we aren't on Hibbitt's radar and so didn't get chewed out ourselves despite having made the criticisms first. Oh, well.
That last bit now is fairly ironic, of course.
At any rate, there you have it: Hibbitts' original remarks and the way we've characterized them since he made them. Perhaps we should have spelled out in big block letters that we were characterizing what Hibbitts' said, not quoting him directly -- we suppose we assumed, rightly so or wrongly so, it would be clear.
To be fair, the letter from Hibbitts' attorney (which, incidentally, indicates a belief that Willamette Week got the bit about police-hating from us, although we have no idea if this is true) only asks for his actual quote to be published here, and goes on to say this:
Mr. Hibbitts is not asking that you revise your opinion about whether he is independent and non-partisan, whether he is trying to influence the mayoral election, or whether he intended to smear liberals by his comments. You are entitled to your views no matter how ill-informed they may be. Mr. Hibbitts only asks that you correct your factual mischaracterization so that your readers will be able to make their own informed judgments about Mr. Hibbitts.
So consider their request fulfilled. You have his quote, and you have all of our characterizations of it. Feel free to weigh-in on the controversy in the comments here. While, as we stated above, it's conceivable that we erred in not explicitly labeling our characterizations as characterizations, we nonetheless stand by those characterizations, and believe that Hibbitts' intent was to label Portland's liberals as police-haters, even if the term he actually used was "not terribly enthusiastic about the police."
All of that said, we eagerly await the receipt of the paper copy of the letter in question, so that we can have it suitably framed for hanging on the wall at PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE headquarters.
Update
A further thought on this situation as it pertains to media literacy should be made here.
We respectfully suggest to Mr. Hibbitts and any other public figure who may appear as the subject of an item here, that in the future they take advantage of this particular medium and simply post a reader comment to the allegedly-offending post. Other public figures have done so (and continue to do so) and when we remember to do it, we normally post an update to the allegedly-offending item specifically directing readers to the comments to see so-and-so's response.
Disclaimer, just so there's no more saber-rattling: What follows is our own personal and subjective characterization.
In the end, it seems to us that in the 21st century world of a medium in which immediate, public, and un-moderated response is made possible by the technology in question, hiding behind one's attorney is, shall we say, less than courageous.
Posted at 01:21 PM | PermalinkComments (47) | TrackBacks (1)
More In 2004 Mayoral Campaign, Media, Meta-Communique
Trackbacks (1)
-
Portland blogger-journalist arouses politician's ire on 07 Sep 2004
During the RNC, b!X sent me a link to this entry on his Portland Communique blog: Tim Hibbitts Requests 'Retraction' And/Or 'Clarification': So consider their request fulfilled. You have his quote, and you have all of our characterizations of it....
Comments (47)
Dave Lister on 03 Sep 2004
Well b!X, at least you know you are being widely read!
Betsy on 03 Sep 2004
Hmmmmm....(she says as she scrambles back over the comments to her own Hibbitts-referencing blog entry a few weeks back. Although the only thing I think I did was to spell his name incorrectly, picking it up from the error Slate had already inserted in their article)
Scott_in_Japan on 03 Sep 2004
Nicely done!
Is Hibbitts doing this to get some publicity? Or is he really dense enough to believe that a retraction is in order?
I didn't see the KATU broadcast, but I assume his tone during the phrase-in-question made it clear how he really felt. Do you have a video clip to review?
The One True b!X on 03 Sep 2004
I know I had the VCR ready that night and was capturing some of the KOIN coverage. I'm not sure if I grabbed the KATU coverage, but I should check to see (if only to verify that Hibbitts' attorney's quote from the broadcast indeed is accurate).
JS on 03 Sep 2004
Hibbits must like you. Maybe if you keep writing about him, he'll give you a shout-out on KATU...
Lynn on 03 Sep 2004
So, Tim, still waiting for you to take me up on my offer of dinner. I'm cookin' and we're not vegans despite being liberals.
Spine on 03 Sep 2004
Let's see: Hibbits was saying that many liberal Portland voters might choose to support Francesconi once they see that the PPA has rescinded its endorsement of him. I guess Hibbits was trying to say that any liberal who would do that must be only slightly enthusiastic about the police. No wonder he's crying libel.
The One True b!X on 03 Sep 2004
To be fair, he didn't cry libel, and there were no explicit legal threats in the letter I received.
But I do want to make one other comment here. If a Republican were to say, "John Kerry is less than enthusiastic about defending America," it would be clear that the meaning is, "John Kerry will not defend America."
By a similar token, given that we're tlaking about political speech here, Hibbitts saying that Portland liberals are "less than enthusiastic about the police" is the same as saying Portland liberals "don't like the police, period."
The problem as far as my coverage, I would guess, is that I too often used the word "said" (or similar words) rather than, say, "insinuated" when referring to Hibbitts' remarks.
Justin M on 03 Sep 2004
I think that the phrase "not terribly enthusiastic about the police" is a far cry from suggesting that liberals 'hate' the police.
I believe Hibbits was speaking about how little/much influence the police's opinions have with liberal and left-wing voters, which may very well be true.
Additionally, it sounds as if Hibbits is, himself, characterizing the likely thoughts of the Francessconi campaign, rather than his own thoughts or beliefs about liberal or left-wing voters.
I'm waiting for the Francessconi campaign to get its lawyers to write to Hibbits demanding that Hibbits go back on-air and quote the campaign materials verbatim.
aero(fwwpenguin) on 03 Sep 2004
It is unfortunate that a public figure, and his "legal team" cannot distinguish the difference between a direct quote, and a characterization of a statement. Even if the characterizations had been intentionaly passed off as Hibbitts' direct quotes by the Communique, his lawyers must know that they cannot make you publish anything you do not feel like publishing, or for that matter, force you to retract anything... While this blog is in my opinion, most of the time, a better source of relevant local news information than any other local news source, it is, in the end, a forum of opinion... quite sad that this individual and his goonsquad cannot grasp these concepts.
The One True b!X on 03 Sep 2004
I think that the phrase "not terribly enthusiastic about the police" is a far cry from suggesting that liberals 'hate' the police.
Well, then we disagree over how political rhetoric works.
I believe Hibbits was speaking about how little/much influence the police's opinions have with liberal and left-wing voters, which may very well be true.
That makes no sense. If the opinions of police have little influence over liberal voters, then the union's retraction of their endorsement would have no effect on liberals' views of Francesconi. But that's not what Hibbitts was suggesting -- he was suggesting that the retraction would benefit the way liberals see Francesconi, which (if true) would inherently mean that the opinions of the police do matter to liberals.
Additionally, it sounds as if Hibbits is, himself, characterizing the likely thoughts of the Francessconi campaign, rather than his own thoughts or beliefs about liberal or left-wing voters.
Yes, it sounds that way. But as has been covered repeatedly here and elsewhere already, Hibbetts appears to have a rather dim and disparaging view of Portland liberals, and it was within that context that I (and others) took his remarks in this case.
M on 03 Sep 2004
Was there some reason why Hibbits couldn't have posted a comment like everyone else? Was b!X's embellished characterization, or whatever it was, so extraordinary that it required a lawyer?
The One True b!X on 03 Sep 2004
No one will believe me when I say this, but: The update I just posted which says much the same thing about comments versus lawyers? I actually posted it before reading the above comment.
Catullus on 03 Sep 2004
I'm curious as to what law firm was representing Hibbitts. The letter was so baseless -- b!X's description of Hibbitts' comments are clearly within the ambit of the First Amendment's protections -- that it's hard to believe the letter was even sent.
And to what purpose was the letter sent? Surely not to demand a retraction. And if not for that purpose, what was the aim?
Isaac Laquedem on 03 Sep 2004
In response to Justin M (comment 9) and b!X (comment 11), I inferred from Mr. Hibbitts' quotation that he believes two things:
1. Portland liberals would take a police endorsement of a candidate as a negative: they would be not merely indifferent to it but would be more likely to vote against that candidate, because of that endorsement; and
2. Maybe some people in the Francesconi campaign think that also.
I don't think the attorney's letter is baseless, given that he recognizes that b!X is free to post what he wants -- he's not asking b!X to remove anything but simply to post Mr. Hibbitts' exact words in addition. He isn't making any threats. (And if the attorney is who I think he is, he's a fairly reasonable guy.)
Mark on 03 Sep 2004
so what is your theory of political rhetoric b!x? are you suggesting that anyone in the political realm is incapable of actually meaning a measured statement that he utters?
'hate' is a big jump from 'not terribly enthusiastic.' i am not terribly enthusiastic about the beavers or starbucks or cadillacs. that doesn't suggest i hate any of them.
that said i'm sure that your mischaracterisation wasn't worthy of such a pompous letter.
The One True b!X on 03 Sep 2004
I don't think the attorney's letter is baseless, given that he recognizes that b!X is free to post what he wants -- he's not asking b!X to remove anything but simply to post Mr. Hibbitts' exact words in addition. He isn't making any threats.
And indeed, the attorney says as much in the bit I quoted near the end of the item.
At the same time, however, Hibbitts' use of an attorney arguably is meant to be a threatening type of maneuver, since many people will take any letter from a lawyer as a legal warning of possible action to come, whether or not the attorney actually makes such a threat of action.
So, I agree: The attorney themselves was fairly reasonable in their handling of Hibbitts' request. But I still thinks Hibbitts' should have had the balls to show up here himself and comment on the matter instead.
The One True b!X on 03 Sep 2004
Re: Political rhetoric.
In this case, part of my characterization of Hibbitts' remarks arose from the ways in which he had spoken before of Portland's liberals, ways which indicate that he appears to have a rather negative view of them (and perhaps of liberalism in general, it's not clear).
Combining that with the standard use of political rhetoric (as in my hypothetical about a Republican's comments on Kerry and defending America), and I happen to believe rather firmly that saying "less than enthusiastic about" is at the very least the same as saying "dislikes" and potentially the same as soemthing more severe.
There's probably an actual term for that use of language, but for our purposes let's call it anti-hyperbole. By using specifically-constructed seemingly-unoffensive terms, political speakers often are actually doing so with a wink and a nudge in order to communciate a more blatant slur against a group or person.
It's standard operating procedure in politics, and I'm confused about why people seem to think that it doesn't happen on the local scene.
Isaac Laquedem on 03 Sep 2004
It's possible that the conversation went something like this:
Hibbitts: Portland Communique misquoted me. Can I get heavy damages?
Attorney: No. The First Amendment protects his comments as well as yours.
H: Can I shut down his site?
A: No. Same reason.
H: Can I call him really bad names?
A: Yes, but why?
H: Well, what can I do about this?
A: Look, if it will make you feel any better, I'll write him a letter and tell him to quote you accurately. That'll be $150, please; your speech may be free, but mine isn't.
The One True b!X on 03 Sep 2004
Yes. That would please me.
tomhiggins on 03 Sep 2004
What a laugh riot the Hibbitzers are. Are they Hibbitualy this cowardly in the face of citic or is this just a case of uninHibbitied anger at being caught with rational trou down by b!x?
When a politcal rhetoric spewer starts getting jumpy about blog posts, you know you have hit the mark not just well but true.
And lest we not forget the gestalt of this fellas other remarks on liberals, the make up of Portland and his views on how its all going to Sf in a handbasket...its part and parcel tothe phrase that has paid off for our intrepid journalist.
Carry on B!x, keep them on thier toes.
-tomhiggins
Mark on 04 Sep 2004
so how does one go about distinguishing anti-hyperbole from legitimate non-hyperbole? apparently it's all down to your judgement and therefore a matter of your opinion of the speaker.
somehow you need to make clear that the change from anti-hyperbole to hyperbole was your doing. otherwise you have granted yourself a license to "paraphrase" almost any mundane statement into hyperbole.
The One True b!X on 04 Sep 2004
apparently it's all down to your judgement and therefore a matter of your opinion of the speaker.
Hello? That's what having an opinion means, almost by definition.
I've provided the context within which I've characterized Hibbitts' remark -- you can either buy it or not.
That's also what having an opinion means.
Why are people so unclear on this?
ron on 04 Sep 2004
I do not understand why the attorney’s name is hush hush. They, attorneys, can travel in the realm of free speech as well as within the more restrictive realm of professionalism amongst themselves. Their word, or rather the credibility of their words, are very much a matter public importance. If one of them acts like a peacock, being bigger than they really are, then surely this is not something that warrants secrecy. Are you afraid? Spit out their name and I will feel free to express my own informed judgment on their credibility. The issue here is only tangentially related to Hibbitts . . . lets get to the meat . . . the lawyer’s action itself is the issue. I hate the silence.
Withholding the name of the attorney would be analogous to attributing Hibbitts’ comments to some anonymous political pollster who’s credibility is the same as any other political pollster as a class. Attorneys have the power to offer politicians immunity, if they ultimately obtain elected office, so they have a reason to butter their bread, so to speak, during the election process. I would say that a journalist has a duty to report the attorney’s name (of the complainant) in like fashion to a public official’s duty to name the outside counsel upon whom they rely upon to obtain good faith immunity on legal issues.
Otherwise, your post was clear and reasonable. But it lacks fire due to fear of peacocks.
I wish I could get a retraction from The Oregonian on their political support for the unlawful borrowing and spending of billions for the PERS UAL conspiracy. The lawyers, pretty much every public attorney PERS member, hide behind their status rather than their argument. I am gung hoe, obviously, for stickin’ it to attorneys when they inject themselves into politics – because they become public figures in the process.
The One True b!X on 04 Sep 2004
I don't see the attorney's name as relevant (although, for what it's worth, there are readers who have already figured out who it is), since they're simply an agent behind which Hibbitts can hide. Removing the name had nothing to do with fear, it had to do with focus.
Andy Hundt on 04 Sep 2004
B!X:
This has been handled most gracefully. I'll be sending you a gift certificate for the frame. Keep up the good writing.
ron on 04 Sep 2004
"hiding behind one's attorney is, shall we say, less than courageous."
I agree with your original post. Tim could have uneventfully posted a comment. That, however, should have been the advice of the attorney. Which was your point as well. It is a very good defense of the medium itself. I poor whiny slob like might even feel compelled to contribute.
Randy Leonard on 04 Sep 2004
"Hibbitts' should have had the balls to show up here himself and comment on the matter instead."
Certainly I do not want to open old wounds, but I did find that comment by you, B!X, to be somewhat disingenuous.
As one who has attempted to have the, ah, to use your term, "balls" to confront mischaracterizations by you of comments and observations I have made, I would observe that that is an exercise in futility. I would advise anyone so inclined to respond to just live with it and stay away from arguing with you.
I have engaged in spirited debates over positions I have taken or statements I have made. I enjoy and often learn from those debates.
I cannot say that has always been the case when disagreeing with you.
The One True b!X on 04 Sep 2004
As you yourself have often been fond of pointing out in front of community and neighborhood groups, Commissioner: Having one's voice heard does not necessarily mean getting one's way or being agreed with.
If the criteria for people to contribute their own comments here is that doing so will somehow inherently guarantee the result of me changing my opinion of a given situation, then you're quite right -- people shouldn't comment here.
Sometimes engagement results in a coming to terms or the changing of opinion on one side or another. Sometimes it does not. The inability to always get ones way should hardly be an opportunity to claim there's no point in the process.
This particular Hibbitts incident is an especially good example of why simply posting a comment rather than hiding behind attorneys would have been a perfectly sensible thing to do. All Hibbitts wanted, in the end, was to have the direct quote published on this site. He could have done that himself in about two minutes flat.
Randy Leonard on 04 Sep 2004
Not to beat a dead horse to death, But:
I do agree that it is legitimate to take differing view points on a topic and debate them at will.
I do not agree that it is appropriate for you to argue what somebody's words REALLY meant when they disagree.
For an example, had Tim Hibbit's done exactly what you recommended and posted his actual quote here, my experience is you would have subsequently posted what it is his words ACTUALLY meant, notwithstanding Tim's disagreement. He would have disagreed, you two would have posted back and forth ad nauseum, and he would end up more pissed off than if he would just have ignored the whole thing.
That leads me to the point I made that "I would advise anyone so inclined to respond to just live with it and stay away from arguing with you."
The One True b!X on 04 Sep 2004
I do not agree that it is appropriate for you to argue what somebody's words REALLY meant when they disagree.
And I happen to believe that the words of public and political figures receive more scrutiny and skepticism than those one hears in random everyday conversation. It's supposed to be that way, because their words have greater reach and more impact.
I dont deconstruct the words of public and political figures just for sport, or just because there's a disagreement. I do it when nothing anyone says to backtrack is convincing enough to me.
Cycling back around to things that have arisen here before, I'm simply not going to disclaim every sentence I write with, "Note: This is how I see it. You may see it differently." I trust that people are capable of making such distinctions on their own without having to constantly be reminded of it.
(Notwithstanding my previously-mentioned remark in this thread that there were moments in the Hibbitts discussion where I likely should have used more words like "insinuates" and fewer words like "said," which gave the impression I was using direct quotes.)
Randy Leonard on 06 Sep 2004
"And I happen to believe that the words of public and political figures receive more scrutiny and skepticism than those one hears in random everyday conversation."
I could not agree more.
If you want to probe and ask what it is a public figure really meant, not only is that important and appropriate, it makes for good reading.
Where I jump off is when you begin debating with someone what you think they really meant. I have a difficult time understanding how you rationalize imputing meaning and motive to someone by saying essentially that "I know those aren't the exact words you used, but that is what I believe you meant". (not your words...mine)
If a public official is full of it, your questions will reveal that. However, telling your readers what Tim Hibbits really meant when he said liberals are
"not terribly ethusiastic about the police" was that liberals "hated the police" serves no one well.
Each of us in the public eye say and do enough that provides more than enough fodder for having our collective asses kicked quite regularly. It is unnecessary, unfair and, in my opinion, a mistake to go beyond asking someone what they meant to telling them what they meant.
If your point is that it is your site and you get to say what ever you want, fine. I don't have a quarrel with that.
However, I would guess that most readers of this site appreciate and expect the thoughtful observations you offer of the local scene. If that is true, I offer my perspective as one who would like to improve this medium as a forum for reasoned discourse.
The One True b!X on 06 Sep 2004
I'm not yet entirely convinced here, but I take your point.
Randy on 06 Sep 2004
I'm back.
Mark on 06 Sep 2004
Hello.
You don't need to take the precaution you suggest is unnecessary in 31). That makes for awful writing.
All you need to do is divorce opinion from quotes. If you don't then you must abandon the notion that this is serious journalism.
I had a more in depth reply but your website swallowed it.
Suffice it to say that I can't buy any justification which gives you license to misquote people on what amounts to a whim.
'Its essence is a discipline of verification.'
The One True b!X on 06 Sep 2004
Suffice it to say that I can't buy any justification which gives you license to misquote people on what amounts to a whim.
That's why I offered that part of the issue probably arose because I was using straight descriptins like "said" rather than more discriminatory words like "insinuated."
tomhiggins on 06 Sep 2004
"However, I would guess that most readers of this site appreciate and expect the thoughtful observations you offer of the local scene."
The point that Im taking away here is this..Hibbits has hibbitualy pointed the "liberal" stick down the issues, and in some cases does more than insinuated, while often not as far as actualy "saying" what he is meaning.
If a public voice relies on that sort of "fill in the blank" activity from thier listeners/readers then it becomes part and parcel of the message, the media used and the observation...you dont even have to delve into interpetation..its built into the eqho aution by the speaker/writter.
Its all this "wink wink nudge nudge you know what I mean" crud that is the cloud in the crystal clear water that makes for just such ballyhoo and detracts from the real issues.
So the guy thinks Portland is going the way of SF, that the town will be run by left bleeding heart Fresh Air listening fair trade coffe drinking wishy washing pinko commies...he wont come out and say this of course, thats all done in the winkwinknudgenudgeism level.
And why is it done there...becuase of Plausable Deniability..."I did not say that I thought you were a liefty pinko commie ..no no I would never...." and meanwhile back to the gestalt of the speaker and the spoken all roads lead to Rome anyway.
Call it the fine art of culling through the polticospeak, call it being media savy in an age when the news media treats its audience like sheeple...call it what ever you will but lets be honest about things folks...semantics and poltico hemingandhawing aside....
Would a rosecity by any other name be as pinkocommie?...er I mean red and cooperateive...er what I really mean is Vibrant and Alive...yeah thats what I mean...yeah.
-tomhiggins
M on 06 Sep 2004
And if Hibbitts didn't want a public discussion in the comments, he could have just emailed b!X.
Randy Leonard on 06 Sep 2004
And if Hibbitts didn't want a public discussion in the comments, he could have just emailed b!X.
Well, I did just that during a particularly heated discussion in this comment section a few months back, and B!X posted my email to him in the comment section.
The One True b!X on 07 Sep 2004
If not intended for use, that would be why the term "off the record" was invented. As near as I've understood it, it's not the reporter's responsibility to ask if something is meant to be off the record, it's the source's responsibiltiy to request it.
Alan on 07 Sep 2004
So who was the person that made the mistake of sending the letter to Bojack? The "legal team" or Hibbetts? That would be telling.
Noah Brimhall on 07 Sep 2004
b!X said:
"If not intended for use, that would be why the term "off the record" was invented. As near as I've understood it, it's not the reporter's responsibility to ask if something is meant to be off the record, it's the source's responsibility to request it."
In fact, it is generally excepted that a source and reporter agree that a conversation if "off the record" before the conversation begins. For example it wouldn't be fair for a source to say, "I know that the city manager has been stealing money and here's the evidence. Oh, yeah, by the way, this has to be off the record." I'm not sure how this would apply to e-mail, perhaps reporters e-mail boxes are implicitly part of the record and sources should ask that the e-mail they send be off the record before sending the actual e-mail.
mph on 07 Sep 2004
"If not intended for use, that would be why the term 'off the record' was invented. As near as I've understood it, it's not the reporter's responsibility to ask if something is meant to be off the record, it's the source's responsibility to request it."
That's true, but it's half the picture.
The core issue is whether a journalist/editor wants to continue to maintain a dialog with sources and correspondents. I was taught by both journalism professors and experienced editors in the field that if you have any reasonable question, you check back even if it means losing something juicy. That's how you keep the source from feeling like you capitalized on an unguarded moment without regard for their own standing or reputation. It's how you cultivate sources for the long run instead of winning a string of short-term scoops and drying up all your contacts.
That's same approach informs phrases like "Unless otherwise stated by the author, letters to the editor will be considered submissions and may be published or quoted" turns up on a healthy number of editorial pages and in submission forms: It serves as both a courtesy and fair warning.
I think b!X should consider adding such a disclaimer.
I also think any public official who makes the mistake of sending e-mail without adding "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" at the top and bottom of the mail is being naive.
The Prof on 08 Sep 2004
Sorry, B!x, I agree with Leonard, and also find your replies less than helpful.
You say it's just politics to interpret and reinterpret dialogue, but then you cry foul when someone chooses to play politics with tools that you disapprove of.
A letter from a lawyer? Many of us have had to resort to that route, when a landlord won't do repairs, when an auto shop botched a repair, etc. It's an idle threat, used to convey the seriousness with which you take a situation. Don't get your panties in a twist. There's nothing particularly courageous or cowardly about it. It's just another form of communication.
You seem to believe that anyone who does not choose to engage you on your own personal turf is not following the proper rules of political combat. That's absurd. Hibbitts in choosing his venue and you are choosing yours.
As to the nature of your reinterpretation, you made it clear in the comments at the time and in the responses here that you have a particularly thin skin with respect to Hibbitts's comments. You've said before that he treats Portland and especially Portland liberals unfairly.
I think Hibbitts does not believe he'd be treated fairly here; previous comments have made that clear.
Hate is a very strong word. It was chosen poorly, and in my opinion does not represent fairly Hibbitt's words.
The One True b!X on 08 Sep 2004
You say it's just politics to interpret and reinterpret dialogue, but then you cry foul when someone chooses to play politics with tools that you disapprove of.
I didn't cry foul, per se. I simply said that in the realm of public discourse, hiding behind lawyers is lame and normally intended to be a tool of intimidation.
M on 09 Sep 2004
Prof says: "A letter from a lawyer? Many of us have had to resort to that route, when a landlord won't do repairs, when an auto shop botched a repair, etc."
But Hibbitts didn't resort to using a lawyer, he started by using a lawyer. What would have been wrong with asking b!X for the clarification personally? Something like:
"Hey, b!X, I just wanted to point out that I didn't actually say liberals hate cops. Would you be so kind as to quote my actual statement, because I think people might be getting the wrong impression. Thanks!"
allehseya on 14 Feb 2005
The problem as far as my coverage, I would guess, is that I too often used the word "said" (or similar words) rather than, say, "insinuated" when referring to Hibbitts' remarks.
Agreed.
For the sake of maintaining media standards, such clarity is critical (excuse the pun).
While the route chosen to ensure such clarity may speak volumes regarding the character of the person in question (be it a legal route or through direct interaction)-- in the end, what matters most is that media forums uphold the standard.