Is the Sac Bee really this clueless?

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

The mighty MM points out an example of complete tone deafness by the Public Editor of the Sacramento Bee in publishing a pitiful rationalization for the actions of their tone deaf and brain dead reporter Bobby Calvan, who I battered here. Let's read the tap dancing of the Sac Bee's conscience, now remember he is covering the ass of his jackass reporter who had the wrong ID and then belittled the gate guard for doing his job.

Even the mainstream media got into the act. On Oct. 25 USA Today’s “On Deadline” Web site wrote about the controversy, including running an excerpt from Calvan’s blog.

It’s as if the armchair critics were pointing a big, fat finger and saying, “Aha, we caught you!”

Well no, actually the little punk fronted himself out and we shined a light on it. Isn't that what you jagoffs are supposed to do? There was absolutely no cause for that reporter to disrespect a kid serving his country. But he did and the idiot Public Editor could have let diseased dogs lie, but NOOOOOO! On freakin' Veteran's day this maroon decides that's a great time for a primer about pissing on the troop's heads and telling them it's raining.

They then proceeded to use Calvan’s blog to blame The Bee, the McClatchy Washington Bureau (which supervises foreign coverage) and the mainstream media for every perceived journalistic sin known to man in Iraq.

“It was used by people with a political agenda,” said Mark Seibel, managing editor in charge of foreign coverage for McClatchy’s Washington Bureau. “They were trying to discredit our reporting coming out of Iraq.”

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the dipstick Knight Rider reporter showing his ass might be the one discrediting your reporting? The American people have about a 60-70% favorable feeling about that kid pulling guard, and your arrogant dung beetle reporter just dropped the MSM down from it's previous rating of whale shite on the bottom of the ocean.

Your "reporting" on the war in Iraq is about as real as your "support" for the troops. You have no decency and no understanding of what the day you attempted to befoul is all about. Stay in Sacramento and disrespect your betters you smarmy pissant, you are not even worthy of any more than the disdain I just sent.

 

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/23256520

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is the Sac Bee really this clueless?:

» Iraq Memorial Cartoon from coinside.blogspot.com
I saw this at Blackfive but could not distinguish the details. Here it is in full view. [Read More]

Comments

[winemkr]

I am proud to say that I responded to your original post, and then scrambled over to the Mia Tia sipping pukes blog to help him adjust his attitude but he had just slipped away. I still remember seeing post number 198 before I pulled the trigger with my comment.

He was gone.

Now he's back with support. Ha! bring it on you morons.

[M. Simon]

I'm going to repeat something I just posted in the companion thread. My apologies.

Us real Maroons (U. Chicago alums) resent being lumped in with ordinary maroons.

BTW I was having a discussion with a lefty Maroon and he and I concluded that there were maybe 10 Maroons who were 'Nam War Veterans. A select group to be sure, one I am proud to be a member of. Funny thing is he was a vet too.

[Uncle Jimbo]

I do apologize for the linkage, my usage is pure Bugs Bunny.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Ken Mitchell]

The answer is, "Yes, the Sacramento Bee _is_ that clueless." As a Bee subscriber - it is, after all, the only rag in town - I get to read their brain-dead reportage on a regular basis. The "Public Editor", Armando Acuna, is at publiceditor@scabee.com, and you call telephone him at 916-321-1250.

An example of the Bee's cluelessness: Acuna says that Bobby Calvan's blog was "private". Excuse me? A "private" blog? How can a blog be "private"? Even password-protected blogs can be hacked, and the basic rule of on-line writing is never to say online anything that you don't want to see in the paper next month.

Acuna also apparently is ignorant of the fact that your identification credentials are less likely to be examined in detail when you are LEAVING a secure environment than when ENTERING one.

[Tracy]

I cannot believe he says that the soldier and Calvan were in a pissing contest. EXCUSE ME?! The soldier was doing his job. The only one pissing in the wind that day was Calvan.

I cannot believe how clueless this Acuna guy is.

[lgude]

A small tip form a therapist. When people accuse you of something that seems completely off or beside the point they are usually projecting. They are actually telling you EXACTLY what they are doing. In the Sac Bee's case - 'having a political agenda' and er...'trying to discredit' the bloggers who attacked them. Bushhitler? Could these people be totalitarians? Little Eichmanns?! Don't let your kids go to this guy's camp. General Betrayus! Says it all.

[Freedom Now]

Blackfive Lied, Sloppy Journalism Died!!!!!!!!

There's no doubt that at this very moment the Bee is preparing an article to point out that Clinton's asseration in which she claimed General Petraeus was a liar, was a lie in itself.

Its coming 'round the mountain because they are such unbiased journalists who adhere to a well balanced agenda.

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rick554]

You tell 'em UJ. They really ARE that clueless!!

[jordan]

They're proud of men and women in uniform? Let me borrow from Ann Coulter and say that media like Colvan love the troops like OJ loved Nicole.

Yes, I for one am "mindlessly sensitive" to wanton, gratuitous and condescending smears of soldiers who are risking life and limb in tough conditions. These was not a one-on-one, man against man, pissing contest. The guard had a legitimate authority to perform certain tasks. Colvan's job inside that military area was to recognize that authority.

[Arch]

I'm not a fan of the media, but I missed McClatchy (MNI). What a chart - it looks like the south side of Mount Everest! In the past year, their stock has gone from 43.8 to 15.39. This arrogant reporter had best update his resume now and don't worry about his editor.

If there had been a pissing contest, the guard would have simply said, "I'm sorry sir, this identification is not acceptable. Come back with your passport or another valid ID and I'll let you in." Then he would have turned around, smiled quietly and walked back to his post.

A piece of advice, if you're a reporter in a combat zone armed with a smart mouth and a dead cell phone, try to stay out of pissing contests with soldiers in body armor carrying automatic weapons. Never piss off security forces or dentists.

Arch

[Trainman95630]

I see the Bee has hired Melanie Sill as their new editor. She was the guilt presuming columnist at the Raleigh News and Observer who wrote the infamous "We know you know" column at the beginning of the Duke non rape, non assault - lets hang the white boys hoax. Her inflammatory writing was instrumental in igniting the racial firestorm and to hell with due process ethic with which DA Nifong was able to perpetuate this criminal conspiracy. Only in the MSM could such incometance be rewarded with a promotion.

[Chuck Ziegenfuss (TCOverride)]

Honestly,

Had this dipstick come through my checkpoint, and acted the way he did, I'd have locked him in his own trunk and had him driven to the local dump to spend the night with the flies and dogs. Of course, I'd make sure he had air holes in the trunk so he wouldn't suffocate (and to let flies in) and give him a bottle of water, too--just hope he doesn't have to pee later.

The next day, I'd make sure he was "rescued" by some Iraqi soldiers... who'd been told he was an Iranian insurgent, and should be "questioned" further.

IF he ever resurfaced again, odds are he'd not just be polite when going through a checkpoint, he'd be passing out blowjobs.

Chuck

[Uncle Jimbo]

Remind me to steer clear of your check points Chuck.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[MAVCON]

I think the kid apologized here.http://blog.calvan.net/?p=14

[Uncle Jimbo]

He did apologize, that is why it was so idiotic for this chump to bring it back up and blame everyone but his guy.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Pat Berry]

MAVCON, he posted an article that included the words "Consider this my apology." But there is nothing apologetic about it. His main points are "Sometimes I share too much", "I probably should have made the blog private", and "I'm new to blogging and wasn't familiar with the blogosphere's silly little arbitrary rules."

On October 26, I wrote a fairly long comment (887 words) in which I explained why I thought his response was inadequate and disingenuous. But apparently the WordPress software can't handle a comment of that length. The comments on Calvan's blog have been broken ever since -- if you try to view them, you see this message:

WordPress database error: [Table 'wp_comments' is marked as crashed and should be repaired]
SELECT * FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = '14' AND comment_approved = '1' ORDER BY comment_date

Calvan either hasn't noticed the problem or can't figure out how to correct it. (Or perhaps he's decided that he likes having comments disabled.)

I regret having accidentally broken that function of his blog, but I had no idea it was even possible to do so just by posting a long comment. I've seen longer comments on many other blogs.

[brainy435]

"Did it ever occur to you that maybe the dipstick Knight Rider reporter showing his ass might be the one discrediting your reporting?"

I just about choked on my lunch. You should warn a person before being so hilariously "disrespectful."

[Pat Berry]

The following is the comment that I tried to post to Calvan's blog. (Blackfive.net doesn't use WordPress, so I trust it will be able to handle an 887-word comment.)

--------

Mr. Calvan:

Putting your blog back up and restoring the original version of "Simply Simpatico" is a step in the right direction. But I'm afraid you still haven't really grasped the significance of what happened.

You didn't just make one mistake. You made a series of mistakes, each of which aggravated the seriousness of the original offense.

1. You were rude and arrogant to the soldier at the Green Zone checkpoint.
2. You boasted about this in your blog.
3. When your readers gave you feedback telling you this was offensive, you responded by modifying the post to hide what you originally wrote.
4. When that didn't stop the angry feedback, you attempted to silence your critics by disabling comments.
5. When the criticism continued on other sites, you hid your entire blog by taking it offline.

Actions 1 and 2 have been summed up by your critics as "behaving like a jerk", and I think you understand now why that was a mistake. But actions 3, 4, and 5 constitute a coverup, and you don't seem to have any understanding of why that is unacceptable.

You should. You are a journalist, and if there is any chapter of history that journalists are thoroughly familiar with, it is Watergate. What brought down Richard Nixon? It wasn't the petty burglary that he authorized. It was his attempt to cover it up. Go and look up "Cover-up" in Wikipedia. The first sentence of that article is this: "When a scandal breaks, the discovery of an attempt to cover up or conceal the evidence of wrongdoing is often regarded as even more scandalous than the original deeds." Every journalist understands this, but some journalists seem to think that it only applies to the people they write about. No, sir; it applies to you as well.

Are you completely unaware of the meltdown currently taking place at The New Republic? The problem there is not that TNR's "Baghdad Diarist" fabricated some stories that slandered his fellow soldiers, and that TNR published them without any attempt at fact-checking. That would have been an embarrassment for TNR, but one that the magazine could recover from. When critics pointed out that the Diarist's claims were implausible and could not be substantiated, the TNR editors could have salvaged the situation by immediately investigating the matter, retracting the story, and apologizing for their error. But the TNR editors chose to attempt a coverup by lying and stonewalling. As a result, the magazine's credibility is now nonexistent, and the editorial staff are probably going to lose their jobs.

It's not the initial mistake that gets you. It's the coverup. If you learn nothing else from this episode, you should at least learn that.

In the course of your apology, you make several statements like "I should have made this blog private" and "I shared too much". This is still the coverup mentality talking. Essentially, what you are saying is that if only you had managed to keep your bullying of the Green Zone soldier a secret, known only to your friends and family, then everything would have been OK. Your mistake was not that you acted like an arrogant jerk, but that you got caught. This is not correct. Reprehensible behavior is still reprehensible even if you succeed in concealing it from the world.

Regarding your coverup, you write: "Unfortunately, my actions were yet another faux pas, I was told; I should have left up the post and created a new one to share my reactions and issue an apology." The implication is that this is some quaint rule of "the blogosphere" that you were ignorant of because you are new to blogging. But that is disingenuous. Destroying evidence and falsifying records to hide the truth about your misdeeds is atrocious behavior in any context. Is it acceptable for corrupt corporate executives to shred documents in order to eliminate the paper trail of their crimes? For Stalinist governments to alter photographs and rewrite history books to conceal the truth about their past? For unethical prosecutors to destroy evidence that would prove a defendant's innocence? Trying to blot out the truth isn't a "faux pas"; it is dishonest. And your pretense that you are unfamiliar with this concept is not believable.

This isn't about some alien culture called "the blogosphere". The folks who objected to your behavior are the public. Your readers. The people whom you are supposed to be informing about the world. You can try to make your blog private if you want, but you still have to answer to the public that you allegedly serve. Blocking comments and ignoring e-mails will only ensure that you operate in a state of ignorance, not knowing or caring how your actions are perceived by the rest of us. How would you regard government officials or corporate executives who displayed that sort of attitude toward the public? Would your coverage of them be as forgiving as you are asking us to be?

You have a rare opportunity here. You can try to listen to your readers, learn from their feedback, and use what you learn to become a better journalist. Or you can put up a wall and hide behind it. The choice is up to you.

[The Wolf]

According to his entry, he's out on a new assignment...

Suppose he's giving 'handouts' at some Green Zone checkpoints??

Some guys will do ANYTHING to make a good story...

-Wolf

[MAVCON]

Everything you said is true Pat Berry, however all I care about is how he is treating the soldiers. I think there is plenty of contrition in his words and will never take that tone with soldiers again. He will always be a piece of shite journalist from a piece of shite newspaper that has a piece of shite editor that went to a piece of shite journalism school. How can we expect him to do anything different than what he did? Hopefully he is young enough to learn which in the end is all we can ask for.

[Tantor]

If we must have political enemies, like the liberal media, we should be glad that they are stupid and arrogant. However, it is sheer bliss that they don't learn from their mistakes. Like insane people, they keep putting their hands on the stove, thinking it won't burn this time. And that works for me.