The Newsroom

Try as I have, I still can't keep my dog from occasionally pooping on the carpet. My election season parallel are candidates who can't help themselves when it comes to last-minute manipulation of the media.

We'll start with Tim Prince, whose organization sent out a press release last night revealing and confirming through "multiple sources" that Jerry Lewis - his opponent - is illegally registered to vote because, gasp, he doesn't use his formal name, Charles Jeremy Lewis. "The revelation comes during a year when the Congressman exceeded the million dollar mark in legal fees defending against subpoenas related to an ongoing Justice Department and federal grand jury investigation into his use of earmarks to benefit contributors, lobbyists and defense contractors," the Prince campaign writes.

Hand out the pooper scoopers, too, to the Republican-dominated Fontana City Council, which used this week's meeting to slam Democrats, including Congressman Joe Baca. I can't even count how many rules of protocol and governance this violates, but how about the most obvious one - that councilman John Roberts is opposing Baca in Tuesday's election.

We got taken at our sister paper in Ontario by a bogus letter-writing campaign aimed at the incumbent mayor of Upland; someone else in Upland this week sent us a copy of an apparent anti-Obama mailer with racial overtones; and just today, one of our editors received a hit piece on David Dreier too silly to even go into.

At least my dog knows when he's been bad. Then, too, he does try to eat his own poop, for whatever that's worth.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Rolling Stone magazine lists its picks for the best and worst political commentators on cable TV:

The Best:
Anderson Cooper, CNN
Ketih Olberman, MSNBC
Roland Martin, CNN
David Gergen, CNN
Chris Matthews, MSNBC

The Worst
Lou Dobbs, CNN
Sean Hannity, Fox
Steve Doocy, Fox
Glenn Beck, CNN
Chris Matthews, MSNBC (yes, on both lists)

No surprise that the "best" sway left, the "worst" lean right, given the magazine's liberal editorial philosophy. What is a shock is the omission of Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 4:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

My Sunday column picks up where today's Sun editorial leaves off, urging an end to the ugliness that's dividing our communities this election season. A slice:

We've heard it all.
"Queers!" (Prop 8 opponents). "Kill him!" (Obama). "Nut case!" (McCain).
The passion may be understandable given the times. What's not is the mean spiritedness of the words themselves, belying what we are as a nation and capable of destroying us quicker than any financial crisis.
Make no mistake, our heaviest burden won't come Nov. 4, Election Day, but Nov. 5, when we begin the process of rebuilding ourselves politically, socially and economically.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 4:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'd been in the business 23 years by the time the 2000 New Hampshire presidential primary rolled around, but it's an experience that reawakened me to the power of civic engagement and the role a newspaper can play in promoting that.

At a time when we're hoping - hoping - that voter participation could reach 60 percent nationwide, New Hampshire considers it a bad year if fewer than 80 percent of registered voters turn out. They take their politics seriously in the live-free-or-die state, which is why Barack Obama and John McCain continue to pay their respects in the waning days of this election despite New Hampshire's four otherwise-insignificant electoral votes.

I'd been hired on as editor of the Lawrence, Mass., Eagle-Tribune the year before, and with our strong New Hampshire edition, we'd become an important stopping point for candidates from both parties seeking an endorsement.

That year, they all came by to visit our pre-primary endorsement board, which was made up of some members of the newspaper's regular editorial board and a number of our New Hampshire readers. We wound up endorsing the eventual winners - Al Gore, who narrowly defeated fellow Democrat Bill Bradley; and John McCain, who trounced George W. Bush.

Interestingly, McCain also wound up with more than 3,000 write in votes on the Democratic side. That's New Hampshire, a state where independence is No. 1, and expressing it on Election Day a close second.

The people of New Hampshire believe in the process. They're also fiercely loyal newspaper readers, and won't hesitate to pick up the phone and tell you what they think. They won't cancel a subscription if you write an editorial they don't like or endorse a candidate they don't approve of. They'll just make your life miserable for daring to do so.

It's civic engagement at its best - and the funnest place in America to cover politics.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 1:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A caller wonders why we haven't jumped all over Esquire magazine's ranking of Joe Baca among the 10 worst Congressmen in the country.

Easy ... timing. Not to mention that the facts the magazine cited weren't altogether true.

This newspaper's editorial pages have taken the Rialto Democrat to task on any number of things. We've also endorsed him. We've likewise taken Redlands Republican Jerry Lewis to task, and as recently as this past week endorsed him. We do try to look at things from all sides.

What we're not going to do is publish "hit" pieces on any candidate in the days leading up to an election. You may recall the furor over the L.A. Times' ill-timed piece on Arnold Schwarzenegger within a week of his first election.

Our thinking applies to letters to the editor as well. Like most newspapers, we have a blackout period for campaign-related endorsement letters, the last of which will appear in the paper on Nov. 2 (Sunday). Letters that take aim at another candidate (as opposed to endorsement letters) will not appear after Oct. 30.

Some have longer blackout periods. One newspaper I'm aware of posts no campaign-related letters within three weeks of an election. That's excessive, in my mind, especially at a time when we should be encouraging more community discussion and increased voter participation.

As for the Baca ranking, look for a mention in one of George Watson's upcoming political notebooks.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 1:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The debate over Sarah Palin's attire is one of the sillier sidebars to the presidential race, though it raises some serious self-reflection about sexism and how our society treats men and women far differently when it comes to appearance and style. Barack Obama's appearance on the cover of GQ went unnoticed by most. But Palin's $150,000 makeover ... hold the phones, what an outrage. And yet, many of those raising a fuss probably laughed their heads off when Alec Baldwin told her that "you're way hotter in person" on Saturday Night Live last weekend. Double standard? Absolutely. But if racism is alive and well on the campaign trail (and it is), I suppose sexism isn't off limits either.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

We're introducing a new local entertainment section beginning tomorrow. It's part of our Inland Living franchise and will publish every Thursday in the B-section. Tomorrow's debut features a cover story on the band Chicago, which appears tomorrow night at the San Manuel Casino.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You might have noticed that we combined the newspaper into two sections today (from the standard four). We're planning to do so on Mondays and Tuesdays moving forward.

This is in response to some of the complaints we'd received from readers about flimsy sections on Mondays and Tuesdays, when advertising and page counts tend to be lighter than the rest of the week. The current economic downturn has exacerbated that situation. Some newspapers, in fact, are suspending publication (or considering doing so) on Mondays altogether.

"Collapsing" sections isn't a perfect solution for couples or families who share parts of the newspaper. For others, though, we believe it's a handier format. To those who have asked, we've eliminated nothing from the paper; we've simply combined the sections.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 9:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Lots of interest in the I-215 fires, based on our web traffic this week. Louis Amestoy, our senior content editor, reports 153,936 page views and 20,674 unique visitors to sbsun.com on Tuesday - our busiest day of the year. That's on top of 123,722 page views and 17,598 unique visitors the day before. During those two days, our 24/7 blog was updated 171 times.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 5:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Blame me. As one commenter noted, the blog chatter on our site has slowed considerably since i posted my "new rules" last week.

So be it. In fact, as another commenter noted, it seemed the same seven posters were dominating our blogs and driving others away.

The point is this: We're going to do our best to promote a civil, constructive discussion on topics of the day, and keep it from falling into personal-attack mode. Hopefully, in time, this will encourage the community at large to participate.

In the meantime, I'm going to continue using this space to discuss the inner workings of the newspaper and answer questions from our readers. Hope you find it meaningful.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 4:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

At an AARP panel discussion I moderated today in Redlands, one of the discussion points was whether your vote counts. Simple answer: Yes, but only if you let it.

In February of 2006, fewer than 23 percent of registered voters in San Bernardino bothered to cast a ballot for mayor - this despite a public outcry to end escalating gang violence. Pat Morris won with just over 10,000 votes.

That November, oft-criticized Joe Baca won a landslide re-election to his 43rd District congressional seat. Fewer than 37 percent of registered voters participated.

During the 2000 presidential race, just over 2,000 votes separated George Bush from Al Gore in Florida, giving Bush the state's 25 electoral votes and the presidency.

If you're concerned about our elected leadership - or if you simply care - the only real way to act on it is to vote. It won't count if you don't vote.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

That it is, now that absentee balloting is as simple as a printer, a click of a button and a postage stamp. Here's a link for you. What you miss from voting by mail is the community energy of a polling place. I've taken my kids in elections past, as a way to show them, first hand, what election day is all about. I'll take the easier way out this year, as are a growing number of Americans. According to some projections, as many as one-third of all voters will cast ballots by mail this year.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's been suggested that newspapers reconsider endorsing candidates because we live in divided times.

My view couldn't be more different. The main reason to endorse is to help advance the discussion and encourage those who might be less inclined to weigh in to actually do so. What message does it send if newspapers, which historically have endorsed candidates, suddenly decided not to? I'd rather us lead by example than back down out of fears that we might offend one side or the other.

That said, I'm going to talk a lot in the coming days and weeks about voter participation, and why each one of us need to do our part in leading by example.

I'll start with Carolyn Goodman, a New York woman whose son, Andrew, was among three civil rights workers whose murders during 1964's Summer of Freedom helped awaken American to the need to end discrimination. The three were in Mississippi to help increase voter registration among blacks. They were hunted down by a posse, shot to death and buried in an earthen dam. The story became inspiration for several books, songs and movies, including "Mississippi Burning." Forty-one years later, Edgar Ray Killen, a Ku Klux Klan organizer, was convicted of manslaughter in the case.

I interviewed Mrs. Goodman several years back, and was struck by her determination not only to see justice take place during her lifetime, but to make sure Americans understood what her son and countless others have died for - the right and the need to vote. Andrew Goodman was 20. James Chaney was 21. Michael Schwerner was 24.

Much has changed since then. An African American is now running for president.

But engaging voters remains a problem. Not since 1900 have more than two-thirds of registered voters taken the time to cast a ballot in a presidential election, and as recently as 1996, fewer than half bothered to vote. Carolyn Goodman, who died in August 2007 at age 91, never lived to see the fulfillment of that part of her son's legacy.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 9:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Here's an excerpt from The Sun's endorsement of Barack Obama ...

Obama has the ability to restore America's confidence and get people excited about working our way back to prosperity. He inspires the younger generation like no political figure since President John F. Kennedy.

Obama would give the nation both.

... and my column on the subject of endorsements ...

Why do we do it? ... The soapbox answer: Because newspapers, as leadership voices in their communities, are uniquely positioned to offer broad, balanced perspective and insight on issues affecting our community.

Simpler answer: Because endorsements, and editorials generally, are at the core of who we are. The First Amendment was crafted not just to protect free speech, but to guarantee that it lives on generation after generation. The earliest newspapers in this country were less concerned about fairness and objectivity, in the way we've come to know those words, as they were in getting their point out and being a voice of their communities.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 7:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

My parents were babies of the Depression, and to me what stands out most about that generation is its understanding that things, in fact, can get worse.
They saw their parents struggle to put food on the table, heat their homes and wring every ounce of life out of well-worn hand-me-downs. It gave them a strong work ethic and an appreciation of things later generations took for granted - home ownership, a college education, a career track.
History may look back on today's youth the same way. The collapse of the stock market, layoffs and record foreclosures - all in an era of instant 24/7 media scrutiny - have created an economic and financial dynamic unrivaled since the Great Depression, and made us all more keenly aware of what a good thing we've had and how quickly it can all vanish.
It's a lesson we can't allow our kids to forget. If in fact we're committed to their living better lives than we have - the dream of practically every parent - then avoiding the mistakes we've made is critical.
It speaks, too, to the way we carry ourselves and the choices we make. How do we channel our fears into hope? How do we come up with pragmatic solutions to our very real problems?
As I wrote yesterday, our children are watching our every move. Let's give them the emotional tools they need to fulfill their dreams.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 3:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I pulled together this column for tomorrow's paper:

We can pretend our kids don't feel it, but they do.
They see it in our faces. They hear it in our voices. Just as they did during (gasp) 9/11.
The comparisons to that fateful day are increasingly inevitable as the nation, the world cope with what is fast materializing as the worst economic crisis of our time.
The relentless stock market plunge is only part of the problem. The real issue is the sense of loss we all feel right now. A loss of control. An inability to do anything about it.
It's a troubling message to our kids, who look to us for leadership.
Edna Herring, superintendent of the Rialto Unified School District, drove that home in a conversation with me yesterday. The fact is, children are smarter and much more perceptive that we often give them credit for.
So what do we do about it? How do we put this in the proper perspective for ourselves and our loved ones?
It starts with the long view. We've survived a depression and numerous recessions, and we will survive this.
Every decade or so, it seems, we get a major stock market meltdown - the Black Monday crash of Oct. 19, 1987, the post-9/11 sell off, and now the bloody October of 2008. In each of those previous downturns, we came back stronger than ever. Even now, you've only lost if you choose to sell.
That's little comfort to those who rely on their savings and investments for retirement income, but even there, the temptation to sell may be more likely to take you down a darker path.
And yet, with something as emotionally driven as the stock market, it's easy to get pulled into the frenzy. Here, too, the comparisons with 9/11 are apropos. As tragic as that day was, we managed over the course of the next several days and weeks and months to channel our emotions into something positive - a united front that we've sadly gotten away from.
Witness Tuesday's presidential debates. The fear and anger surrounding this most critical of elections is understandable, given the times. But when it comes from one or both candidates, we're in trouble.
They need to instill a greater sense of hope. That's what leaders do.
We need to do the same with our kids. That's what parents do.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 5:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The blogosphere is relatively new territory for newspapers, and over the past several months, we at The Sun have learned a lot about what drives legitimate discussion and what stands in its way. In that time, we've allowed comments that were, arguably, mean-spirited, groundless or just so off base that it ultimately compromised our own credibility.

We're in the process now of cleaning up and removing posts that don't meet the standard of a reasonable community discussion on a given topic, and, moving forward, will insist on the following:

- No name calling, character assassination or unfounded accusations. Posts that cross this line will be removed, and commenters that continue to engage in this kind of activity will be banned.
- Community policing. Because of volume, we're not going to screen comments before they're posted. We will review them during the day, but we ask that you help, by letting us know when posts cross the line. You can contact me directly at steve.lambert@inlandnewspapers.com, our senior content editor Louis Amestoy at louis.amestoy@inlandnewspapers.com or our City Desk at citydes@inlandnewspapers.com.
- No "comment trees." If it becomes apparent that a commenter is using his or her email network to flood our blogs, those posts will be removed.

Obviously, there's a great deal of discretion that needs to be exercised here. The line between a genuine expression of frustration and venomous commentary can be a gray one. We also don't want to discourage members of the community from weighing in on topics that touch them in one way or another.

In fact, we hope these rules have the opposite effect - encouraging you to engage in a discussion without fear of having your character attacked. For this reason, we will continue to allow anonymous posts, recognizing the sense of security that comes with that. However, we will review this and our discussion standards generally in the weeks and months ahead.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 8:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Here's an early version of my Newsroom column for tomorrow's paper, recapping some of the discussion in recent weeks regarding community comments and the newspaper's role in screening them:

Much has been said or written in recent weeks about the role of newspapers in controlling the tone of comments posted to blogs. The American Society of Newspaper Editors is among those taking a hard look at this evolving issue, and has asked editors from around the country to weigh in.
Last week, we found ourselves in the middle of it after we removed some offensive comments that were posted to a story from our 24/7 blog, and, then again, to our sbnow blog.
The latter sparked a firestorm from posters who felt the newspaper was playing the role of censor. Wrote "Linda:"
It's amazing how MURDERS get all the play in the paper but now we are censored about how we feel in the communities we live in.
And "Free Speech 4 All:"
I realize this is their site and that they are going to post "pro-(Mayor Pat) Morris" agenda; however it isn't right and I won't let it happen quietly.
On the other end of the spectrum was the reader who brought to our attention the comments from the 24/7 blog, and wondered why we don't screen them.
Let's look at these one at a time. First, the notion that we're censoring comments.
As I've written before, the internet is the purest mass medium out there when it comes to free speech, and if you're in the free-speech business, as we are, you want to be mindful of your responsibility to protect a free flow of ideas. But we also have a duty to protect our own credibility, and when it comes to commentary that is libelous, malicious or otherwise crosses all reasonable bounds of fairness or taste, we're not going to be a party to it.
It's a gray area, admittedly, and it doesn't mean we won't post unpopular opinions, or opinions we don't agree with. But we're not going to stand by and allow a commenter to accuse someone of a criminal act or unseemly behavior.
Inaccuracies and misstatements of fact are also major concerns. CNN ran into this problem last week when a "citizen journalist" posted an item on its iReport site that Apple computer chief Steve Jobs had had a heart attack.
Which begs the question: Do we, or should we, screen comments before they're posted.
The prevailing industry view is that we can't,because of the volume we receive, and that we need to rely on the community's help in policing them.
Then there's this approach, which another blogger shared with me last week:
I found your commentary on blogging very interesting. I have a blog but deactivated comments. Most of them were either offensive, either in a stalking type way or racist/sexist or homophobic or they were leaking confidential material from personnel investigations or criticizing the police department which led to an investigation of my site's comments after the police department found out about it. After all that, it just wasn't worth it.
It's a strange new world we're all navigating.

COMMENT
I think the main concern for most complaining bloggers was that only comments attacking one individual were removed. This is an assumption on my part, as I did not have the opportunity to see what was removed. The rest of the comments were left up. I expected everything to be taken down, but it stayed pretty one-sided.
If your reporter can infer that a member of the NAACP is a bigot, I think it's OK to call an aggressive person who admits to being on psychotropic medication crazy. Picking sides was where the blog caught all of its criticism.
It's your paper. It's your blog. However, if you want the public to enjoy your blog while keeping things under control, you might want to put rules up for everyone to see before they post and, if they break the rules, go ahead and remove their comments. Serenah's Angels

Posted by Steve Lambert at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I'm slowing coming out of hiding after by beloved hometown baseball team decided to torture me these past two days. It shouldn't surprise me. In fact, I sort of predicted it - not because of any so-called Cubs curse, but because it was a team capable of going into deep funks at various points in the season. Now we're faced with the nearly impossible task of taking the next three from your Dodgers.

It could happen, I suppose. In 1984, the Cubs first postseason appearance in like 387 years, they won the first two, only to be swept by the Padres and their ghastly yellow uniforms. And just a few years back, the Red Sox lost the first three to the Yankees in the League Championship Series before taking four in a row en route to their first modern-day World Series.

Why do we do this to ourselves, clinging to some desperate sense of hope?

Former deputy editor Jeff Keating, also an LFC (lifelong Cubs fan), sent me this email earlier today:

This is like watching the last five minutes of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" 50 times, praying they'll somehow survive the Bolivian shootout.

That, or the Zapruder film.

I'm not sure what would be better - winning the next game, or being put out of our misery now?

Posted by Steve Lambert at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Good give and take with a reader regarding this item in yesterday's Sun and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin:

Police officers cleared in fatal shooting
The killing of Robert Anthony Serrano, 32, by Ontario police officers Bryce Devey, Gabriel Gutierrez and Guillermo Rivera was legally justified, according to a review by the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office.
The officers used deadly force on March 20 in response to a threat of death or great bodily injury, the report said.
Witnesses confirmed the officers' testimonies.

Emailer:
Why would you put the officers names in the paper for this article? Is that just ignorant? Is the officers safety an interest to the Daily Bulletin? Could the article have just said 3 Ontario officers? Just Curious........ Thanks for taking the time to answer this?

Me:
Typically we would not put officers' names in the paper, but when the story elevates to this level - an officer involved shooting - it is such a matter of public interest that we do feel it necessary to publish. Bear in mind that when these kinds of stories originally develop (ie, at the time of the shooting), the officers' names are broadcast and published; we'd be remiss if we didn't make it clear that they were cleared. Thank you again. You raise an important point, and one that we do discuss.

Emailer:
Thank you for the response Steve. Have you taken a look at the first sentence of the article itself? "the KILLING of Anthony Serrano by Ontario PD"? Is that a fair statement or would it not be better to say something a little more politically correct? Those officers that protect you and I, did not KILL that man! Was it not the ramification of the crime he committed? This is why people and communities are getting angry with the press and media. Sympathizing with the criminal and their families instead of the officers who risk their lives each and every day! I really understand that it was an officer involved shooting, but to put the names in the paper and advertise to the names of the officers to the friends and relatives of the suspect is not only wrong (morally and ethically), it puts them at danger. Again thanks for your time communicating with me.

What say you?

Posted by Steve Lambert at 2:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Earlier today, we removed some offensive comments that were posted to a story from our 24/7 blog, after a reader brought them to our attention. He asked if we screen comments before posting them. Because of the volume we receive, we don't. They're posted automatically, and like countless web sites out there, we seek the community's help in policing them.

The trickier question, as we've discussed in recent days, is where to draw the line. The internet is the purest mass medium out there when it comes to free speech, and if you;'re in the free-speech business, you want to be mindful of your censorship role while balancing your own credibility.

Then there's this approach, which another blogger shared with me today:

I found your commentary on blogging very interesting. I have a blog but deactivated comments. Most of them were either offensive, either in a stalking type way or racist/sexist or homophobic or they were leaking confidential material from personnel investigations or criticizing the police department which led to an investigation of my site's comments after the police department found out about it. After all that, it just wasn't worth it.

It's a strange new world we're all navigating.

Posted by Steve Lambert at 2:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)