tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post6117435731431916003..comments2023-10-17T04:51:08.765-10:00Comments on KauaiEclectic: Musings: A Common EnemyJoan Conrowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-55756538506826962522008-06-02T14:09:00.000-10:002008-06-02T14:09:00.000-10:00...because if your source isn't saying it was a sp......because if your source isn't saying it was a specific plan, then I don't understand what there is to get excited about. And I gather from your previous comment that you are not saying your source says it was a specific plan. <BR/><BR/>Your source did not say it was a specific plan. Got it. <BR/><BR/>So, then, Andy is incorrect when he says "the letters were intentionally written and submitted to the paper to lift morale and unite the police force against Juan Wilson..." <BR/><BR/>Your source never said the letters were intentionally written and submitted to untite the police against Juan, and so we should not take from what you've written that you meant to imply that they were.<BR/><BR/>I guess that's what you're telling me. That is what I take from this exchange. <BR/><BR/>But then you and I were saying exactly the same thing all along.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-74948302685328113042008-06-02T12:46:00.000-10:002008-06-02T12:46:00.000-10:00Here's what I'm asking: Is your source in a positi...Here's what I'm asking: Is your source in a position to know whether the letters were a specific plan to unite the force against Juan? If so, is your source saying that it was in fact a plan to unite the force against Juan?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-12341995768712271442008-06-02T12:40:00.000-10:002008-06-02T12:40:00.000-10:00Charley, To use your words, no, my source never us...Charley, <BR/><BR/>To use your words, no, my source never used the terms "conspiracy" or "specific plan," which is why I didn't report that and why I wouldn't confirm it when you phrased it as such. <BR/><BR/>But my source did speak to intention, which is what I thought I conveyed in the post. <BR/><BR/>Will this satisfy you, finally? Otherwise, I'm going to have to ask my attorney to object on the grounds of badgering the witness or question asked and answered.Joan Conrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-87249911319828980212008-06-02T12:22:00.000-10:002008-06-02T12:22:00.000-10:00I appreciate you words, Katy. I do, however, disag...I appreciate you words, Katy. I do, however, disagree (haha. Of course). When these things are discussed - when an important community conversation takes place, a narrative is constructed. And the narrative is built up with the different bits and pieces and claims and posts and comments, etc. In my opinion, it IS important to challenge or clarify the bits and pieces as they come into the narrative. The narrative is made up of the minutae. I'm not challenging or otherwise commenting on the quality of Joan's journalism. I'm challenging, or questioning, the bit that she is trying to build into the narrative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-42033718779517454262008-06-02T11:51:00.000-10:002008-06-02T11:51:00.000-10:00Charlie, your questions have a place, but right no...Charlie, your questions have a place, but right now they are just serving as a distraction to an important community conversation about policing.<BR/><BR/>Are you ready to let go of this now, or maybe go real deep with it over on your blog?<BR/><BR/>As for the rest of us, I think it's important not to let these kinds of discussions slide so far into the minutae that we forget where we're headed. <BR/><BR/>Again, let's get back to the important topic here, which is NOT the quality of Joan's journalism, but is in fact the question on policing on Kaua'i and elsewhere.Katyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09145011324294730195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-65558259084978505552008-06-02T11:42:00.000-10:002008-06-02T11:42:00.000-10:00Charley, First, it's disdain, not distain. And tho...Charley, First, it's disdain, not distain. And those feelings stem not from your asking questions, but a number of factors. <BR/><BR/>That aside, I wrote the post carefully, to convey what was told to me without revealing the source. If I go deeper, it could jeopardize the source.<BR/><BR/>If it doesn't add up to you, well, I guess then it doesn't add up for you. You have my permission to interpret it any way you want, disregard it totally or attempt on your own to confirm or deny the information that was presented.Joan Conrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-29874220009959526682008-06-02T11:21:00.000-10:002008-06-02T11:21:00.000-10:00"Distain." Wow. Seems a little harsh for asking fo..."Distain." Wow. Seems a little harsh for asking for a clarification, but okay. I'm not actually demanding you answer in any particular way. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't follow from what your source says that there was some sort of plot. I just asked if there was any information that bridges that gap. I don't see asking questions as a sign of disrespect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-26740142685906368122008-06-02T11:09:00.000-10:002008-06-02T11:09:00.000-10:00Andy, That's a fascinating take - the journalist's...Andy, <BR/><BR/>That's a fascinating take - the journalist's factual claims can no more be questioned than the poet's poem or the songwriter's song or the abstract painter's painting. It is what it is. <BR/><BR/>Are you saying then that the piece is open to whatever interpretation the reader brings to it? That would explain how you get from it that "the letters were intentionally written and submitted to the paper to lift morale and unite the police force against Juan Wilson" - because neither Joan nor her source said that.<BR/><BR/>Would it be just as valid for another reader to say as Katy did that the source had water cooler privvy and was reporting a sort of gossip that while it might or might not be literally true reveals a certain psychology?<BR/><BR/>And would it be valid for yet another reader to assert that there is no source and the whole thing is made up from scratch? <BR/><BR/>Are all interpretations equally valid? Is yours more valid than Katy's or a reader who dismisses the whole tale out of hand?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-16296350712534444982008-06-02T11:05:00.000-10:002008-06-02T11:05:00.000-10:00Thank you, Katy. Let's please do recall the gist o...Thank you, Katy. Let's please do recall the gist of this post, which is what are our police priorities as a community, and how do they jibe with the priorities at KPD?<BR/><BR/>As for Charley, it's fascinating how you keep commenting on the impact this is having on other readers. No one but you has asked questions about the post, in which I thought it was quite clear that the source was someone with actual access to first-hand information, as opposed to someone like, say, you, who is speculating from the outside.<BR/><BR/>My unwillingness to address your questions in the way you demand to have them answered is revealing only of my disdain for you, as I made clear on your Planet Snipe.Joan Conrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-59663357973347621782008-06-02T10:48:00.000-10:002008-06-02T10:48:00.000-10:00Alright then.Let's get back to the important discu...Alright then.<BR/><BR/>Let's get back to the important discussion: what do WE as community members think the police department should or shouldn't do?Katyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09145011324294730195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-62730578061644902422008-06-02T10:44:00.000-10:002008-06-02T10:44:00.000-10:00I don't mind if you rub it in, Joan. I certainly d...I don't mind if you rub it in, Joan. I certainly don't it personally. But not answering questions about how reasonable it is to go along with your thesis has an impact on readers other than just me. The questions are left hanging out there and other readers are left to contemplate them on their own. And that's fine with me if it's fine with you. I think being unwilling or unable to address the questions is itself somewhat revealing. <BR/><BR/>Katy, I couldn't tell from the piece whether the source was privvy to the water-cooler gossip, or was an outsider with a grudge but no actual knowledge who "wouldn't be surprised" or "wouldn't put it past" the cops IF that's what they were up to, or someone who was a fly on the wall or even participated as the nefarious plan was hatched. How do you decide what amount of "expertise" or "in the know" to ascribe to the source? It seems any assumption at all is necessarily arbitrary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-66766590946388861882008-06-02T10:37:00.000-10:002008-06-02T10:37:00.000-10:00Charley- I’ll bet you’d love to get Bob Dylan on y...Charley- I’ll bet you’d love to get Bob Dylan on your little witness stand to ask him if he was advocating dancing beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free or describing it or recounting an experience- and what exactly were you doing with the other hand Mr. Dylan... or should I say Mr. ZIMMERMAN.<BR/><BR/>A report is what it is, characterized as it is. If you want more information do some of your own leg work. Or wait for us to do it for you tomorrow or the next day. It’s quite possible that a report is the best information available, reported in a way that there are no mis- characterizations. That might not satisfy you but when there’s eggs in the fridge it’s eggs for breakfast unless you go out and get your Wheaties.Andy Parxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15398587036690312685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-24683930367375072142008-06-02T07:39:00.000-10:002008-06-02T07:39:00.000-10:00I had to delete the last post because it was a dup...I had to delete the last post because it was a duplicate and I didn't want you to think I was rubbing it in, Charley.Joan Conrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-83193431539966321982008-06-02T06:35:00.000-10:002008-06-02T06:35:00.000-10:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joan Conrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-70516418707507067762008-06-02T06:33:00.000-10:002008-06-02T06:33:00.000-10:00It's not "readers" I'm toying with, Charley, but y...It's not "readers" I'm toying with, Charley, but you.Joan Conrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-52445155836339820842008-06-02T06:29:00.000-10:002008-06-02T06:29:00.000-10:00When I read Joan's post, I came to the conclusion ...When I read Joan's post, I came to the conclusion that her source is someone who is close to the department, privvy to the water-cooler gossip and the history of department squabbles, and was making a fairly educated guess about the underlying motives of recent public statements issuing from the department.<BR/><BR/>This person's analysis, whether or not it is based on incontrovertible evidence, gives us an insider's glimpse, albeit opinionated, into the psychology of the KPD which most of us otherwise wouldn't have.<BR/><BR/>I took Joan's post at face value. I assumed that it was a report of one person's thoughts - not something on the scale of the 9/11 commission report.<BR/><BR/>As such, it helps me understand the whole picture better, just as Perry's and Ianucci's statements to the press do. <BR/><BR/>Not all "theories" are "conspiracy theories" in the pejorative sense.Katyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09145011324294730195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-29507011694393631712008-06-01T21:21:00.000-10:002008-06-01T21:21:00.000-10:00I guess because I am working from the assumption t...I guess because I am working from the assumption that a writer wants to be clear and understood, and I don't understand why a writer would play cat and mouse and hide the ball with readers. Besides, the question of what you mean for the reader to take from your writing is a question that only you can answer. <BR/><BR/>Your source doesn't say anything that indicates the source knows or has reason to believe the letters were a concerted plot to focus departmental ire on Juan. <BR/><BR/>Maybe my mistake is thinking you want the reader to think the source means to indicate it was a concerted plan. I can't tell from your post and from your dancing around questions about your meaning what you want us to believe. I guess the logical conclusion at this point is there's no reason to think it was a plan because nobody so far has said it was.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-62060627593984948112008-06-01T20:15:00.000-10:002008-06-01T20:15:00.000-10:00Wait, aren't you the self-described "intrepid citi...Wait, aren't you the self-described "intrepid citizen journalist chasing down empty rumors?" Then why, pray tell, do you keep coming back to me? Shouldn't you be broadening your investigation a little?Joan Conrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-76029297438345556942008-06-01T19:24:00.000-10:002008-06-01T19:24:00.000-10:00Forgive my denseness, but I'm more confused now th...Forgive my denseness, but I'm more confused now than I was before about what you intend the reader to take away from your piece. You seem to want us to come away with the knowledge that the letters were planned and intended to allign internal department opinion against Juan. But the facts you present don't lead to that conclusion. Of course you are free to tell your readers to lump it if they are not willing to take the leap of faith with you, but if I see a logical disconnect in need of some gap-filling, maybe other of your readers do also.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-42280260855517148512008-06-01T14:23:00.000-10:002008-06-01T14:23:00.000-10:00I love seeing you work yourself into a tizzy, Char...I love seeing you work yourself into a tizzy, Charley.Joan Conrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-43191091419050136712008-06-01T12:21:00.000-10:002008-06-01T12:21:00.000-10:00If by "linear thinking" you mean asking for clarif...If by "linear thinking" you mean asking for clarification then, yes, I would call myself guilty. It seems a reckless leap for a journalist to go from what you report your source actually said to the assumption that the source means that the letters were in fact a concerted effort to unite the force against Juan. One would generally expect to see a journalist dig a little deeper and ask maybe, like, "so, do you mean to say you know for a fact this is what happened?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-78539034906775293142008-06-01T12:06:00.000-10:002008-06-01T12:06:00.000-10:00So you are saying your source meant that he or she...So you are saying your source meant that he or she does know for a fact that the letters were a concerted effort specifically to unite the KPD against Juan Wilson? I don't understand why you don't just be clear about it. If you have some reason to leap from what your source actually says to your conclusion, why not spell it out for us?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-46865143021621797372008-06-01T09:53:00.000-10:002008-06-01T09:53:00.000-10:00No, I'm not taking any liberties with my source's ...No, I'm not taking any liberties with my source's claims, nor am I jumping to any conclusions. <BR/><BR/>I am amused, however, by your very linear way of thinking.Joan Conrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-10325329434236970992008-06-01T09:37:00.000-10:002008-06-01T09:37:00.000-10:00So your source never did actually tell you that he...So your source never did actually tell you that he/she knew this was a specific plan to unite the force against a common enemy. <BR/><BR/>You seem to be taking liberties with the source's claims when you say, "there was a reason why that particular approach was taken." It sounds like you're leaping to a conclusion.<BR/><BR/>It would be warranted if your source said, "here's what happened. These guys got together and decided to unite the force against a common enemy." But your source apparently never said that. <BR/><BR/>Now people are saying that you've uncovered an actual plot by the police to unify internal opinion against Juan Wilson. But nothing you've written actually supports that conclusion - not in a journalistic sense anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-76135490524302997672008-06-01T09:28:00.000-10:002008-06-01T09:28:00.000-10:00I'm not insinuating anything. The post is very cle...I'm not insinuating anything. The post is very clear. I reported exactly what my source said.Joan Conrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.com