Holm-Cisneros fight raises questions about boxing safety, oversight

Whoa. Very lively in here. Folks: please try to keep this conversation civil and on the subject at hand. No profanity, no personal attacks, no off-subject comments. This is our Web site and it is not a democracy. We will delete comments without warning if that's what it takes to ensure a civil conversation.

I take it that also applies to personal attacks on the writer embedded into long-winded, quasi-intellectual diatribes whereas the writer is constantly accused of furthering some hidden agenda and consciously trying to hoodwink her audience?

And I think you're ignoring your own stated call for "no off-subject comments." Please reread these comments again... pretty obvious that someone is getting a pass.

Here's a thought: why don't they just give Aliandra some space as a commentator in whatever the new and improved way NMI is going to incorporate commentary into their site, as per the editor's note at http://newmexicoindependent.com/42288/change-is...

Thanks for the offer, Harold, but my interest is more toward the news and editorial side. Had the CIM/NMI an interest in using my skills there, they would have sought me out already, because, guess what -- they know what I'm about. If the dialogue I promote here were already going on inside their newsroom, I wouldn't find occassion to offer analysis of their journalism here.

My analysis wouldn't fit their partisan this-side-vs-that-side format very well, either, because my analysis tends to be more toward the cultural impact of journalism, about the overall quality of discourse and with little interest in whether the Reptilian Republicans, Communistic Democrats or Indifferent Independents come out on top. (political parody intended not toward the subjects, but toward those who call those parties by those monikers.)

Here's what I would recommend-- either Childress drops her job as SWOP, or she loses her job at NMI. G Doland either enforces the ethical guidelines as their written and as generations of professional journalists have followed them, or she goes back to the smarmy Alt-weekly press. Whatever the outcome, the smarmy tone in NMI content disappears. Absent smarmy analysis styled as news, I would need to adopt a much less snarky tone or I owuld seem so out of place here. As it is, my tone is a good reflection of the smarmy robes.

what to do with those vacant chairs? They have to be filled by women, to maintain balance. So -- after the CIM/NMI make a solid commitment to real non-partisan journalism, they start cherry-picking the partisan press. Let's replace G Doland with Kate Nash. Now Kate's reports tends to be a bit condescending and to play Gotcha a bit more than is probably best for the New Mexico community, but she has sharp teeth and legislative experience. That would leave the New Mexi with only S Terrel, who seems as interested in playing left-wing music on KSFR than being a real capital reporter. On one week leg, the New Mexican's capital coverage would be unsustainable, especially since AP has lost a capital reporter. That would make NMI the voice of capital reporting in New Mexico.

But how to fill Marjorie's chair? Sorry, picking through the New Mexi staff, I find nobody else, male or female, qualified for genuine explanatory citizen journalism, unless you believe there are really 80-foot stacks of refrigerators at the dump in Santa Fe (an error one of their local gov reporters made, among others) or you think stories about photography rights on trains crossing tribal lands can be printed without a survey of legal minds who know the nuance of the law (as another SFNM reporter has done.)

I'd look to the Journal for the other professional reporter.

And me? Uh.... I wouldn't want to replace Trip - he's usually doing a fine job, especially considering the editorial environment. Heath? He'll do fine once hte partisan editorial staff is cleaned up and he's encouraged to stick to the business of reporting and leave the political advocacy to political advocates. Reichbach? I'll need to study his hsitory a bit more before commenting, but he's been a bit opaque in his advocacy. Still, I think he could learn the job under the right leadership.

What this org really needs is someone with technical skills commensurate to the context in which it publishes and someone who knows how to chew up and spit out a report for tone, balance and explanatory clarity before the report is published.

Clean up those things, and I'd have nothing to comment on, because I coudl care less about partisanship.

Unless I'm mistaken what you're suggesting is a pressing need for the presence of a real editor, which is to say somebody with enough experience, power and responsibility to spike anything that doesn't meet the fundamental requirements of what used to be known as journalism. This seems more then reasonable unless this site has no interest in being anything more then a clubhouse where the members get to comfortably spout their personal opinions.

Bulls Eye. Took the conversation a long way to get to the point where useful suggestions are reflected back, which affirms the value of tedious discussion. Thanks to the fighters, those women whose courage to step into the ring set the stage for our discussion.

By way of review, the emerging strategy is:

1. Clean up the act so the service adheres to recognized professional standards.
2. Begin providing content to traditional media sources.
3. Create a viable infrastructure to absorb long-time local media sources when they fail.

Want to target the bottom brick in the stack?
4. Demonstrate the viability of cooperative local ownership in media so it can be applied to other industries.

Or, as you say, the project could continue to be a cheerleader for partisan politics.

As tiresome as the bickering over 'The Truth' and the inevitable personal attacks that result from these emotional quarrels can be, having access to the unrestrained expression of the NMI audience's personal opinions, beliefs, views, convictions, sentiments and persuasions is at times more interesting and useful then the content of the articles which stimulate these dialogues. While of course a private institution such as yours doesn't have any obligation to provide an unfettered public forum and also retains a right to exclude any commentary it deems to be unsuitable, something important is lost when free expression is constrained or censored, no matter what justification is applied.

I suppose the question here has to do with the extent to which NMI feels it needs to curtail expressive activity in order to protect its readers from something that amounts to little more then possibly being annoyed, and whether or not your readers prefer having access to a rough and tumble exchange of ideas and opinions or being spoon fed whatever screened and sanitized material an unseen hand regards as being acceptable for their consumption - which one suspects might end up resembling the affirmations of the doubleplusgood duckspeakers in "1984".

Of course this has nothing to do with "the subject at hand" (presumably events surrounding the Holm-Cisneros fight) so it runs the risk of being shoved down the memory hole by NMI, but with regard to your mentioning Orwell it's worth noting the underlying theory of Newspeak is that if something can't be said, then it's more difficult to think it because most humans process information by carrying on a dialogue in their heads and tend to subvocalize their thoughts as they form and manipulate them; which is to say that most thought is actually a dialogue with oneself. That being the case shrinking the available vocabulary would have the effect of substantially reducing the symbols available to manipulate during this thinking/vocalizing process.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir%25E2%2580%25...

I get it. You paid for this microphone and you'll turn it off when you don't like what you hear. No matter how arbitrary, indistinct, poorly defined, or capricious, no matter how vague your definition of 'civil' or 'personal' might be, it's your policy and if anyone doesn't like it, they're free to look for another forum, start their own, or find real people with real names to play with.

Obviously it doesn't apply here but the whole point of the First Amendment is to protect the discussions of things people don't agree on. So where do you recommend those of us who don't appreciate this kind of treatment should meet?

I do not know. I suppose we'll just have to see how all of this settles out, while keeping our eyes open for other places where particular, broadminded people can congregate.

Roger that, in the meantime I suppose it's a matter of laying low and staying tuned for any sign of changes in the Politburo.

I suppose it could be worse, for instance if they were redacting whatever didn't meet their particular requirements - perhaps those of us who are concerned about this trend need to be prepared to use some sort of code.

Les carottes sont cuites et les dés sont jetés.

Posting my reply to the unsigned comment by Center for Independent Media after derekbill's out of courtesy to him...

Thank you for the reminder about personal attacks. More on that in a bit.

But first. "Whoa, Lively.,.." and you are off on the wrong foot already. "Go lively" is a better charge for progressive public discourse, it is the one required by your ethical guidelines and I suggest you follow it.

As a reminder, I am here under the following invitation and in keeping with what I believe to be at least NMI/CIM's nominal commitment to the following posted standards:

New Journalist Fellows should:

* Keep an open dialogue with the public in an effort to maintain and improve standards.
* Encourage the public to use the information they have to question and analyze news stories on their own, and voice grievances when they feel stories are wrong.
* Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
* Expose unethical practices among each other and wherever they are found to maintain professional standards.
* Keep the same high standards to which they hold others.


Center for independent media ethics
http://newjournalist.org/ethics/

So, editor or whomever didn't sign their comment, that means we are going to land a rhetorical glove on your face from time to time and you not only must be prepared to take it, you have to be prepared to intelligently defend yourself or get out of the ring. And If you aren't prepared to play by the rules you set forth, don't walk in here pretending to be the Peoples advocates for the Rule of Law. Got it?

Now, with regard to personal attacks, it would be a better way to officiate if you would not just tell the fighters to fight fair, but to identify the specific infraction in the specific context where the infraction occurs. It does no good to wait until the end of the round and tell both fighters "fight fair" when one fighter has consistently hit below the belt. Understand?

You stop the fight when the infraction occurs, speak to the offending fighter and instruct him or her as to the specific infraction. That tends to educate the fighters, whereas the other vague approach tends to encourage continued infraction, either from misunderstanding or basic lack of respect in response to poor officiating of the contest.

So hopefully my instruction will contribute to improvement of your behavior. Civil public discourse does not preclude lively debate. Civil discourse does dictate that when a group invites comments on a particular topic - especially on that groups ethical performance of a controversial public service, that group not attempt to redefine the topic or arbitrarily interfere with debate when there is no room to close, no chairs to put away, no next meeting to start and no limit to the amount of text that can be processed on the Web. if the discourse gets unweildy, deploy technology to facilitate the conversation you invited us to join. That might mean collapsible text under thread headines in comments.

I will not tolerate vague accusations that my replies are off-topic if it turns out you lack the skills to explain exactly how they are off topic and I can explain exactly how the topic and discussion reached the point where it is at any particular point. Which is to say, I will not tolerate new media becoming an assault on public discourse and I am prepared first to discuss the problem with you and then, if you don't responsibly engage readers in discussion as your ethics guidelines require, to take effective action.

Effective action means, either you engage us and at minimum allow us to discuss our perception of your ethics as required by your published ethical standards, or we go after the funding. That means I have a detailed list of your funding sources locked and loaded, ready to publish anywhere I find expedient, including contact names, addresses, sample letters and examples of your infractions against your ethical standards.

But hey, there's no need to go there. Those standards are published because they are reasonable and within the scope of what a responsible news organization can follow. And you're liberal, active progressive people who can learn, mature, develop and take criticism. Let's hope so.

Replying to own comment...okay, I see the personal attacks about which I complained were removed - not sure when, in relation to management's top-posted general "Be Nice" warning. Fair enough. I think my reply to the vague "everybody play nice" "Whoa, too lively" warning stands, and I'll definitely stand by my effort to defend my foes' participation, as long as they play by the rules and management plays by the rules.

Small detail, but the ABC rules require the pregnancy test results be provided to the "supervising boxing commission" prior to the fight, not to the "presiding official" at the fight, as the Southwest Organizing Project employee who wrote this report claims. ABC regs include no mention or definition of a "presiding official."

Small detail, but it undermines confidence in the reporter, which more or less takes all the steam out of the punch she tried to throw.

You are giving brains a bad name. People read this stuff and assume that intelligence is a huge waste of time. It's like, "Look what I can do" and everyone's like, "Yeah, that's pretty remarkable, but it's useless".

But my real question is, may I call you "Pedant" without being pedantic myself?

Oh goody, the Bickersons are back...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzoXQKumgCw&feat...

Derekbill, I recall that management at NMI has specifically asked you and I to refrain from mutual personal attacks. I plan to honor my agreement to refrain from such, though I don't believe I have made a practice of criticizing the character of any guest commentator, and restrict my critiques of NMI staff to their professional performance, albeit I do exercise the prerogitive NMI ethical guidelines demand NMI to afford in that I respond to errors, bias and other sub-par practices sold as "journalism".

What about you?

No, you may not call me Pedant without appearing to be attacking me personally. I may suggest, if you don't find in your own quiver the fine rhetorical arrows such as I possess, you may judiciously opine that my writing on this comment section appears to you to be "pedantic" -- thereby referring to a specific subject that is not me.

A better description of me would be one who can type in excess of 100wpm and who is not afraid to write as fast as I might converse F2F. I'm not sure what an opinion that my writing is pedantic contributes to the discussion, however. I would opine that a better topic for your response would be the subject and content of New Mexico Independent articles.

In the event your flirtation with ad hominem grows from frustration at not quite being able to figure out how to process my information, I can offer a summary, with a practical explanation so that my generous verbage can be of better use, which seems to me might be the general source of discomfort you attribute to "everyone" -- not knowing how to use the knowledge and insight I so generously share.

New Mexico Independent is a new media project. It lacks at least the effective pinch of checks and balances that emerge after several fiscal cycles of having to account for resources aquired and expended. In its early days, it has repeatedly failed to adhere to ethical guidelines established by its parent organization.

If new media is to succeed in New Mexico, it needs to advance the profession of journalism, not further taint it with yellow journalism, partisanship and politically slanted sophistry. The methods need to take advantage of the latest technology - not just radio'/TV on the Web, but deep data mining and data processing. It needs to embrace methods that can be taught in journalism schools across the nation, not methods that will be used in J-Schools as examples of why new journalism is a threat to the traditions established through sweat, blood and loss of life among generations of journalists before. What's more, it needs to advance a form of journalism so righteous, it can stride boldly into any legislative chamber in the world and demand full access, resting its demands on solid proof that it served neither the left, the right, nor the center, but instead serves the process of facilitating dialogue among the many leaning supports that fall against each other to keep our society upright.

Does my pedantry still unnerve you? I assure you, the same energy and poetic rationale spilt into love notes a moment before and a moment after this post likewise strike nerves, but of a much different chord than that which you report.

I do this because, one, I have experience. I've shaped new media in another era with great effect, at a time when Citizen journalists did not have wire networks on which to "blog."

And, two, I have seen results when I demand improvement. Not always, but often enough to know that a few complaints from sympathizers of subjects I critique in no way divert the substance of my critiques.

And three, if I did not respond to each and every diversion from journalistic standards I witness on this new site, and if nobody else did, NMI and CIM could go to funders and say "nobody complains,. they must all appreciate our partisan, advocacy approach in which we employ paid advocates in contravention of our published ethical guidelines."

And four, there is a battle going on for the future of media. If others are content to sit on the sidelines and watch, that's fine. If they are motivated to hold back those of us eager to make new media work for society rather than just a small portion of society, they are free to attack us, but they run the risk of becoming entangled in the rope they intended to use to restrain me (i.e. ad hominem attacks diminish the cause of the attacker). My soul does not require that I sit on the sidelines while partisan advocates take over my profession and my soul encourages me toward another purpose, as described in one, two and three.

Finally, I encourage you to consider that your impression that I am a Pedant is informed only by your impressions of me in a single context, which is a formal commission of the Fundamental Attribution Error. Part of the context that might contribute to a pedantic tone in my written work here, and which you construe as informing the conclustion that I am a pedant, is that this comment section edit box only allows us to review six lines of our written responses at a time. I could, I suppose, compile my responses in a document editor then paste them into the edit window here, but that's just not a habit I've formed, in part because other sites have been so courteous to provide technology that allows me to use a WYSIWYG client-side text editor, like TinyMCE or FCKeditor, which can be popped out or expanded to a size sufficient to let me review in one eye-space the entire, or significant portions of my response. You might be aware that having the text on screen makes it easier to recall while writing a paragraph what was in a paragraph two or three graphs above. Without those visual aids, the quality of my prose suffers somewhat. But, hey, you get what you pay for, and sometimes quite a bit more. Count your self lucky. you have no idea how much more service I provide you and your community for which you never have an opportunity to say thank you.

Seriously?

I'm not fakin you.

Aliandra,

In all your long-winded blathering, you provide not one hard instance where Ms. Childress' reporting is faulty or biased. Instead you weave a conspiracy whereas every "advocate" is a marionette puppet of George Soros. I take it your simply taking a break from exposing the implicit conflict of interest of corporate media.

You play hard ball? Where's your examples champ?

The SPJ Code of Ethics have been around for 100 years, did that stop the transformation of principled journalism into a corporate monopoly?

"I'm inclined to believe she's only playing gotcha because her camp generally disapproves of most competitive sports and especially competitive martial sports."

Wow, no wonder you live your journalistic aspirations through comment boards... those are some pretty big assumptions about a mythical "camp" that most likely resides near the evils of socialized medicine in the far corners of your brain.

Sorry to interrupt the conspiratorial climax your panting towards but there's no evil magician behind this sports story.

I'm a boxing fan as well as a person who would label himself as "progressive", I hope your brain didn't explode. I know, its hard to understand because I'm from "that camp" but bear with me. If you followed any of the news stories about this fight, there were many, many people who had a lot of questions about the circumstances surrounding this fight, from it being a setup to the safety questions Marjorie posed. After much research, I don't think it was a setup but I do think the way the night unfolded brought up many safety violations as well as put another black eye on an already suspect sport. Cisneros was not tested for alcohol or for being pregnant... regardless of what a sanctioning body or a commission requires, that's a huge oversight and a huge mistake.

Your point about Marjorie's affiliation with SWOP could have been made in one short sentence. It would really strengthen, or rather add any semblance of weight to your claims, if you could back it up with examples... we'll be waiting.

Oh yeah, blogging software is free if you ever want to put your bitter, conspiratorial ravings behind a real name.

The Southwest Organizing Project employee's reporting is faulty in that she claims papers must be showing to a "presiding official" when in fact they must be presented to a "supervising boxing commission."

Her lack of knowledge of fight rules undermines her effort to establish herself as an arbiter of fight rules.

Her longwinded-blathering, to apply the disparaging label you affix to the mere act of public discourse, weaves a tale of conspiracy, as you call the journalistic analysis of fiduciary interests, wherein male fight officials put at risk a female fighter - and oh-for all the focus on "other drama" she fails to tell us who or what is the actual risk - by not having in hand a pregnancy test. So there is no real question whether the papers existed - unless our reporter is publicly calling her sources liars, wherein they may sue her for libel. The question is whether she showed them to the right officials at the right time. So her "conspiracy theory" (as you label journalistic analysis of motives and fiduciary motivation) has male promoters offending against a woman's safety or maybe the safety of an theoretical unborn child which doesn't get mentioned in the article. Then she goes after tribal officials, asserting that "failure to show papers" to a tribal official who might be a bit uncertain about details of rules in what appears to be a fighter qualified to fight in one venue moving into another where, golly gee, it's tribal so she has to start all over with the paper showing. Frickin Indians, she infers.

And then, New Mexico Independent adds to the ethics violations by styling their reporter's analysis as news. "...raises questions of safety, oversight."

Except one thing - the actual question of safety was not raised in the story. not by the reporter. Not by any source. Not until I got generous with my prose and began to discuss safety issues related to fetal injuries. Since I have to do her job for her, if there were any real question the fighter might be pregnant, there might also be additional risks of uterine bleeding associated with pugilism while pregnant.


But there is no inference -- beyond Childress' vague accusations that the letter of the fight rules were not followed to a tee -- the fighter was pregnant. It's a vacuous a conspiratorial charge as those of employers who say they can't hire women because they might become pregnant and miss work. And the question of safety was raised only by New Mexico Independent -- in the headline that raised the question without supporting evidence in the story.

If as you claim "many people who had a lot of questions about the circumstances surrounding this fight, from it being a setup to the safety questions Marjorie posed, where is the reporter's evidence - there must've been "many people" she could interview about safety, but she didn't pose those questions -- not in the article and apparently not to "many people."

The only real safety question raised in the body of the story, except that safety questions might be inferred if poor oversight were in fact putting fighters at risk, was that the fight technically appeared to be a mismatch -- according to a political activist with no apparent experience reporting anything for any legitimate news organization, ever, much less sports, much less boxing, much less boxing in a state where there are also tribal jurisdictions.

So, instead of telling her nuance as an addendum to the real story - Victoria Cisneros, an apparent underdog, went 10 good rounds with Melissa Hernandez -- she turned the whole affair into a story about violence against women by brute Indians.

Now, it's no surprise Soros' money is eroding confidence in tribal authority. He used his currency trading to undermine the economies of South Asia, extending loans in local currency under new Reagan-era IMF rules to mom-and-pops throuought south Asia, then pulling his money from those nations' money markets, undermining their currencies and making his debtors unable to pay. His "open society" means closing traditional local economies. And the Asian press tore him to shreds. Called him the devil -- and not just the state run press of the People's Republic of China. He was indeed the Darth Vader of the Asian Economic Crisis of the early 90s.



Now we're deep into conspiracy country, if that's what you call overt advocacy journalism. We could go as far as to say responses that dismiss traditional analysis of news through assessing outside employment affiliations of reporters, patterns in funding interests of benefactors, and persistent slant in the news are in fact conspiracy theories that presume someone has some motive other than standard academic analysis of news content.

Speeders and drunken drivers pose more of a threat to the public than does one fight where rules regarding who sees what papers when were not followed to a tee. Childress attempts to distort our otherwise reasonable sense of risk analysis. Why? could be to A. establish herself as a progressive advocate for women and a real-life, superMAN style investigative reporter, B. to disparage tribal officials who operate outside the global economy and political machine Soros is trying to buy with his ill-gotten money-trader's income C. to disparage the sport of boxing or D. all of the above.

Now, on to my Web skills. I know how to sign up at blogger.com, how to download and install WordPress or other blogging software, and gee whiz, how to write original blogging software from open source coding - complete with input filtering to prevent cross site scripting, integration into the OpenID system and... what other features would you like? Further I can and have processed public data sets and rendered them in easily read, interactive charts using open-source charting software. But using "blogging" software won't have anything to do with me using a real name. That has to do with whether a new-media outlet has the courage to take my dare and continue allowing anonymous comments from readers that name the reporters who make errors and appear biased. That is somethign so-called corporate media in this state otherwise don't do. But by the way, Center for Indendent Media is a 501C3 CORPORATION. Oops, there goes all the hot air that was supposed to lift the "corporate media conspiracy theory" high into the sky for all to see.

Still waiting for examples... tick, tick, tick.

Hope that's not going to be interpreted as an assault on your character.

No, you're doing fine on that count. We're we in court, I would raise an asked-and-answered objection, which could lead to a badgering the witness admonishment, but for your purposes, I can offer that I did respond to your earlier request with one verifiable error in particular - there is no such thing to be found in any of the supporting evidence offered with this story about a "presiding official" -- fight rules refer to a "supervising boxing commission."

So we aren't just discussing the factual accuracy -- we're discussing the merit and propriety of analysis as journalism. I understand that's a bit more esoteric and cerebral than right-or-wrong judgements of a report, but it's a necessary part of analyzing news content. Thus, my other concerns have to do with weight given to the facts, and the commingling of news with analysis -- Childress reported this in the tone of a grand expose, when in fact, nobody was injured and an undercurrent of disdain for pugilistic sports seems to show. Whether that is an actual conflict of interests or a perceived conflict is irrelevant according to ethical standards of CMI, which like SPJ ethics guidelines discourage outside employment that can create the appearance of conflict. To make her complaint she poses as an arbiter of rules when she can't find any independent source to confirm or reflect her analysis. The problem is that her style appeals to the choir, but has little persuasive impact outside a set of political allies, and thus tends to polarize my neighbors against each other rather than to help us resolve problems related to gray area in tribal jurisdictions.

That's the simplest way to make my case - by erring on describing the basic identification of fight administration -- presiding official for supervising boxing commission, she loses the confidence of anyone close to the sport who might know the difference. From there, her disconcern for that detail degrades into what, to a boxing club member and maybe to a tribal member could feel like a general complaint that boxing exists at all,and that tribes are reckless in their administration of the fight. Okay, she got the run-around between the casino admin and the tribal government. Sorry. Welcome to reporting on governments of nations comprising populations of less than 1,000. Insensitivity to the particular nuances that arise from the culture of those communities and the sheer logistics of recovering from genocide in a now-rapidly changing economy begs some insight, compassion and sensitivity. We can save our Rolling-Stones style exposes, laced with F-words and disdain for the president to powers big enough to pose a real threat. If the writer considers tribal governments a threat, tribal casinos a threat or tribal sporting events a threat, the writer and her organization is the real threat.

Short and sweet -- more explanatory journalism, more compassion and understanding tone, more attention to detail if she wants to be an arbiter of fight rules, more sourcing on someone other than herself who agrees with her analysis and less Gotcha, and much less "darned indians at it again" tone.

Those are subjective interpretations and requests, not clear-cut examples of anything.

"Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."

~William Strunk, Jr.

Tick, tick, tick.

I've said what I will say and will say no more on this.

There is another story of more solemn import that unfolded tragically 34 years ago today. We often told the story wrong, to serve a political purpose and with little thought for the surviving family. Let us pray for truth, understanding, forgiveness and compassion. Let Dec. 12 be truth in journalism day.

In memory of a brave spirit and true woman warrior, who cared for truth at the cost of her own life.

And let us take a moment to remember logical reasoning, which died a solemn death at the beginning of this comment section...

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-11-2006-9593...

Oh, I get it. You're lonely. I'm sure there's someone out there that buys your intellectual sleight of hands and constant rambling need for affirmation...

I respectfully request that you address your comments to the subject and presentation of content by New Mexico Independent and that you refrain from publishing disparaging guesses about my personal character. -- especially since there is nothing in my commentary to inform an opinion about my feelings of solitude or inclusion, except for those that follow here in response to your disparaging inference.



I further request of NMI and CIM staff that they do not allow personal attacks against me, and that they do not let such attacks continue with the possible result that something in my replies focused on performance of NMI and staff as NMI is required by ethical obligations to encourage be construed as some form of attack in a reply to a fellow anonymous commentator who impugned my personal intergrity. I hope my recent experience does not become a pattern, in which personal attacks against me are allowed, until I respond the least bit in kind to a person who attacks me by suggesting the personal attacks are in indication of weak argument, which then management uses as a pretext to threaten to interference with my criticisms of the accuracy, balance and ethics of their work, as they are required by CIM ethical guidelines to encourage.

However, it is certainty correct, the statement about support for my intellectual contributions on this site, though those who have published their strong support here have not referred to it as "sleight of hand." Yet those supportive comments do not inform a personal need for affirmation, as I am prepared to go 10 rounds with nobody in my corner, having developed skills to function in an austere intellectual context that other's might find lonely should they attempt to bring such focus into their daily experience. Think "Army of One" -- can operate unsupported or can integrate with a regional strategic effort.

Took the words right out of my mouth Benito. Thanks.

I think its pretty sloppy for the man in charge to not insist on seeing those documents. It's called the Muhammed Ali Boxing Reform Act for a reason. Kudos to this author for calling him on it--when all the other news stories have been happy to pass it by.

At least you gave us a link to a report filed by a real journalist (i.e. not an advocate employed by Southwest Organizing Project as is M Childress) more interested in sports than politics:

http://newmexicoboxing.com/?p=2545

quote:
"Because Cisneros had been booked to fight that night – in Philadelphia – she had all the proper medicals done the previous week. What she did not have – because she was in attendance as a spectator and not as someone who might get a last-minute opportunity to fight – was the actual, physical paperwork.

'We had it, though,' says Cisneros’ manager, Robert Padilla. 'It was in my travel bag.' And the travel bag, says Padilla, was in his car. 'But it was all good,” assures Padilla. “Cisneros was set to go.'

The actual paperwork is not necessary, says Supervisor Montano."

and that photo by "Only Alice" (who is that?) is not photojournalism and is not related to the event (*hint - boxers don't wear stylish jeans in the ring). It's iconography, pure and simple.

I see your still on a tear. Have you commented on every single post of this site? Have a lot of time on your hands?

I've only commented on the "posts" of this site where I can find reasonable grounds to criticize the journalistic approach. Yes, I'm batting much closer to 1000 than to 500, because this site leaves plenty of room to compose astute criticisms of poor journalism.

Is there a problem with me devoting my time to public service? Am I less of a civilian journalist because I don't get a paycheck?

I believe my time here to be better spent than it would be watching Beverly Hillbillies reruns, or playing online poker, as hundreds of thousands of my peers spend their spare time.

If Soros, Ford Foundation and other patrons contribute to NMI, is it not honorable of me to match their contribution with my well-informed efforts to get the journalism profession on some sort of reasonable and ethical track?

My criticisms here have either yielded results or at least paralleled NMI actions that would appear responsive to my criticisms. Commentary no longer appears with ostensible "news" in the RSS feeds. NMI is not so transparent as to tell us who they pay for commentary, but A. Alpert seems to indicate they've slashed the overt commentators from the payroll. Now let's get the paid professional political activists off of the payroll and we can start weeding the partisan activism out of news content.

My time is better spent here than it would be driving an armed Humvee around Afghanistan shooting at civilians. Your tax dollars would pay me to do the later. Do you support generous public participation in public discourse? Your tax dollars don't pay for that so much, so I contribute my time and talent for free.

What is your interest in how I spend my time? If you don't have a legitimate public interest in how I spend my time, I respectfully request that you address your comments to the subject and delivery of news and commentary by New Mexico Independent. I'm not of the belief that these comment sections *(with their six-line comment box) were created to address Web users' concerns about my personal values.

My interest is that you do very little serious critique of the message on this site. Instead, you throw firebombs at the messengers, it's one rant after the next against the authors themselves, as though they are evil people, and it's directed primarily at the one woman writer. I guess my interest starts there. I know a particular dynamic when I see it.

This story is a good example. Instead of appreciating that she got the official on the record saying he didn't know the very safety rules that his employer supposedly follows, you are so intent on your objective of tearing down the messenger that you desperately latch onto a sports writer who clearly would never want to alienate Isleta or Lenny Fresquez. He shrugged off the actual violations that happened last Friday night as though they were nothing. That's par for the course in NM journalism, but something rarely seen here at the NMI.

As to ethics, I've been reading this site since its inception and know a bit about journalism myself. The standards call for disclosure, and the people who write for this site have always provided full disclosure about who they are, on this website. Unlike the Albuquerque Journal, which is a Republican rag that like most papers fronts some notion of objectivity through supposedly independent journalists. As though registering to vote as an Independent and keeping a tight lip somehow changes the perspectives that shine through an institution.

Like I said before to you, maybe you ought to provide us with the crystal ball we need to see how newspaper are to make it through this economic restructuring they are going through. Otherwise, I appreciate these non-profits who are providing news to us through a blogging format. And this particular author has proven to be remarkably good at it given she didn't have a background in it before.

AnneBell505 wrote:
He (the former ABQTrib sports writer) shrugged off the actual violations that happened last Friday night as though they were nothing. That's par for the course in NM journalism, but something rarely seen here at the NMI."

Rarely seen?

What about Keith Hausemen's politically motivated effort to put the lid on misuse of stimulous money to support campaign activites, published as New Mexico "Independent" commentary between his NMI reports filed as news on the same subject, all the while political press releases remain on the Web sites of the Lt. Gov and Gov Bill Richardson, in obvious violation of state law against diverting public resources for political purposes?

NMI's staff opinion? "Denish's Stimulous Spending -- What's the Big Deal?"

http://newmexicoindependent.com/41418/denish%E2...

To the contrary, I only critique the message of the site, because the site has a message. It's a political message, and that is why it is so open to criticism.

If the Southwest Organizing Project employee who was paid to write this article showed some ongoing interest in martial sports, or in the nuance of emerging rule of law in tribal communities rebuilding after years nay centuries of genocidal oppression, I might think it matters somewhat that a fight official could not immediately narrate details of rules he is charged to enforce. But from an professional advocate, I'm inclined to believe she's only playing gotcha because her camp generally disapproves of most competitive sports and especially competitive martial sports. With no faith in the journalist, the story loses all impact outside the narrow group of mostly public employees who visit this site. That makes this site of little use to New Mexico constituents in general and it makes it an obstacle to those of us who walked away from failing media organizations with only the scant hope that some fair-minded patrons would support genuine civic and investigative journalism.

Childress and Doland flout the rules of professional journalism, to the extent that they are proud to have a paid activist working as a journalist in contravention of the standards established by professional journalists. A fighter who gets in the ring pregnant will hurt only one person -- at least according to the likely views of beginning of life held by most people in the camp Childress comes from. In fact, we could conclude that reproductive rights include the right to abort a child by getting in a boxing match, or getting on a horse. A rogue journalist using the profession as a political soapbox does damage to an entire community.

Seriously though, pugilism while carrying a fetus to term can result in lifelong injuries to an unborn human, including brain injuries that can lead to lifelong episodic violence. Yes, a pregnant female fighter can double the risk that brain injuries suffered in the ring can lead to violence elsewhere in the community later because she carries two brains into the ring. I would think a journalist truly concerned about the risk would explain that, instead of stopping for a very pregnant pause after playing Gotcha with an interview subject.

If I read an expose of a fight official's naivete from a reporter I could trust, I would stand and applaud. But Childress delivers the expose from the mouth of a person absolutely unreliable according to standards of professional journalists, making a mockery of those who would live their lives by those narrow standards so the public can invest trust in their written words. So if some female fighter carries to term a fetus that was injured in a fight overseen by an ill-informed official after an advocacy journalist used the story to build sympathy for her political faction instead of to honestly inform the public about risks, and that fetal injury leads to a less-than-could be life or a life of episodic violence, I blame the politically motivated journalist as well as the fighter, the official and the fight promoters.

What's worse, in using patrons money to support political advocacy and to convince naive sectors of the public that comprises real journalism, NMI diverts resources that could be used to salvage the train wreck of journalism in New Mexico, which is not limited to the right-leaning but generally more in-depth Albuquerque Journal.

A real move to salvage journalism in New Mexico would create non-profit infrastructure that could absorb the infrastructure of the state's failed partisan press, including the Democrat advocates Albuquerque Tribune and Santa Fe New Mexican. The New Mexican is likely most in need of a parachute, and the newsroom there is not likely to survive the now-annual round of layoffs next August.

Check out this assessment: http://www.slate.com/id/2175942/

Jack Shafer writes:
"ProPublica's Web site claims that the business crisis in publishing has put a crimp in investigative units across the land, and philanthropy is needed to fill the gap. Other nonprofits muckrake, of course. The Center for Investigative Reporting has been doing so for 30 years and the Center for Public Integrity for more than 15. Nonprofits already publish investigative magazines such as Mother Jones. Some newspaper owners have given their properties to nonprofits to maintain independence and quality (the St. Petersburg Times, the Anniston Star, and the Union Leader; see Alicia C. Shepard's article). In the United Kingdom, a trust exists whose mission is to preserve the Guardian's financial and editorial independence "in perpetuity."

The point being that infrastructure already exists and those trying to develop new media are not always interested in salvaging the valuable infrastructure professional journalists invested careers to build. I would say propublica is a better example than Center for Independent Media because ProPublica has at least cooperated with established media outlets to copublish stories with NewYork Times, USA Today and Chicago Tribune.

Copublishing with exisitng media outlets brings ProPublica under the ethical umbrella of the journalism profession and assures readers the journalist is not on the payroll of an advocacy group such as Childress is paid by Southwest Organizing Project to advocate political ideology.

We can be certain of one thing - Robin McKinney will never sign over the deed to 202 Marcy St. to the Center for Independent Journalism. Not unless the center dramatically departs from the overt pattern of advocacy it has set in it's early years. And I do want Ms. McKinney to surrender title to a media organization to which she is spectacularly unqualified to lead anywhere else but into the ground, which is the only direction it has gone under her control.

And I doubt we will ever gain public control of the Albuquerque Journal without the resources of a major daily paper to underwrite purchase of remaining value in the state's only viable newspaper.

So yes, AnneBell, I am very much interested in real plans to salvage journalism in New Mexico. I've probably have spent hundreds more hours than others, and far more than most readers-commentators, staff commentators and journalists on this site to deliver fair, non-partisan journalism to several communities. I bring professional experience to the table where I am demanding surrender of media resources to the employees, communities and readers who are the rightful heirs of the media franchise. If that effort means camping out on the doorstep of a partisan new-media front squandering philanthropist's resources that could be used to salvage journalism, you can expect to become well acquainted with my fighting style until CIM and NMI change their tune.

Ready to play ball? I play hardball.

wow, I think I've heard it all now.

mnn hhhhn.

???

Your contribution?

AnneBell wrote
"it's directed primarily at the one woman writer. I guess my interest starts there. I know a particular dynamic when I see it. "

nice try to play the gender card. Didn't work. I have taken big bites out of Hauseman, who is heralded as the leading blog journalist in the state and out of A. Alpert, who disappeared from the site after I tore into his advocacy that was comingled with news headlines so it always appeared on top of RSS feed updates.

And Childress -- I guess "Marjoree" is a female name, huh? - But my attacks have been entirely related to her employment by Southwest Organizing Group, and I in a very liberal and gender-sensitive way don't pull rhetorical punches because she publishes under a female byline.

By the way, are you the one who said I'm Aliandro and not Aliandra? I wonder what was the basis for commentary on my gender? If I were a transsexual or cross-dresser who preferred to be called by a female pronoun, would a liberal-minded person insult my gender preferences?

Right, a writer for NMBoxing is NOT an advocate.
"The actual paperwork is not necessary...." Ever tried that one out on a cop?

Yes. I've often driven away from traffic stops with no registration papers, and with no current insurance card. On occasion I've been asked to show a court papers later. And yes, that includes driving away from traffic stops by tribal cops and I've gone to tribal court to show insurance papers the next day. Only difference was, the tribal judge had the courtesy to open his court when I walked in whereas other jurisdictions have required me to appear on a certain date. And I often file extensions for showing the paper work for my taxes.

There is a difference between a paid political advocate masquerading as a journalist to advance political ideology, and a professional journalist working to cover a field in which he also has avocational expertise. Would you call CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta an advocate? He uses his professional medical expertise to inform his medical reporting. Same happens in trade journals around the world -- professionals in a field can also be non-partisan journalists in the same field, if their employment interests in their area of expertise don't create an appearance of a conflict of interests. If Gupta were also paid by the AMA as a lobbiest, he would not be a legitimate journalist, or at least would be offending against the ethical standards of the Society of Professional Journalists, which NMI's editor has specifically disavowed in these very comment sections.

If NMBoxing were an organ of a boxing organization, we need to note that and consider it when we weigh their reporting. From what I see, there is no overt connection to a boxing organization. They do apparently get ad revenue for promoting fights.

http://newmexicoboxing.com/?page_id=2

This we can consider indirect advocacy. NMI can take money from Soros/Ford Foundation and, in the best of worlds, still provide non-partisan reporting, including reporting issues primarily of interest to supporters of George Soros and Ford Foundations globalization goals.

Likewise, real estate reporters or sports reporters -- such as the NMBoxing publisher did when he worked for Albuquerque Tribune -- can publish their reportage alongside advertisements for related products, services and events without necessarily being tainted by the close fiscal relationship.

The next level of advocacy is when a reporter is on the payroll of an advocacy group, with a contractual obligation and perhaps a personal interest in advancing the goals of that advocacy organization. That is what SPJ prohibits in it's ethical guidelines, that is what Childress does and that is the ethical guideline NMI editor Gwenyth Doland has formally disavowed in this comment section.

And by the way, I notice this particular New Mexico Independent article is financed by an ad for clothing featuring Randy Couture - a renowned mixed martial arts fighter. That puts NMI on the same funding platform as NMBoxing.com -- it's stories about martial sports are supported by ads featuring martial sports products.

Yes, they are program ads. I've seen this site supported by ads for Sarah Palin's books too. Those are program ads. So taking money from advertisers who want to reach audiences attracted to stories about particular topic matter does not mean a site is an advocacy site. Hiring a "journalist" who is also on the payroll of a political advocacy group such as Childress is on the payroll of Southwest Organizing Project is another matter...


http://newjournalist.org/ethics/
"New Journalist Fellows should:
* Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived, and disclose unavoidable conflicts.

... shun employment or engagement in organizations that would compromise professional integrity.""