METHodology debate

Get it? Meth? Odology?

It’s funny. I know it for a fact.

Okay, so in my KMUD interview aired last week I mentioned methamphetamine use as a serious local issue concern of mine, and said that I didn’t really have any answers for it. Well, Dr. Ken Miller contacted me and informed me of his proposals, published in a recent Times-Standard Op-ed piece. Dr. Miller has been a vocal critic of the Eureka Police Department with regard to the Cheri Moore killing, which has earned him wrath from some of the anonymous bloggers around here, some of whom are convinced that Dr. Miller is Heraldo’s secret identity. He addresses the inadequacy of a purely punitive approach and stresses more preventive and treatment options and suggests seeking grant funding for some existing model programs.

His column generated a response from former Fortuna Schools Superindent Dennis J. Hanson who was a bit indignant as he has been involved in speed eradication efforts for some time now. He asks “where have you been?”

However, what Mr. Hanson fails to address is Dr. Miller’s concern that the EPD is inadequately trained for the task at hand. Dr. Miller states:

Of course we expect you to raise the standards in EPD, requiring a broader education for officers and offering better pay, improving your collaborative crisis response capability, and stressing non-lethal strategies for apprehending non-dangerous fugitives, especially the mentally ill (including intoxication).

Is the EPD adequately trained? How about the other law enforcement agencies? I have no idea, but that’s the question being asked.

Somerville and the bloggers – what we do and why we’re here

Heraldo’s post brought to my attention the Times-Standard editorial by their own Richard Somerville in which expresses something less than enthusiasm for the local blogosphere. He makes some general references, but mostly takes on Captain Buhne for some recent rips. Somerville writes:

As for the Humboldt County blogs, I cruise through every now and then to see what’s on peoples’ minds. Sometimes, to no surprise, I find references to the Times-Standard and to me personally. The stories may have an authoritative resonance, but often are so misinformed that one can assume the blogger isn’t making his living as a journalist. Also, some of them are anonymous, which would seem to diminish their credibility. Certainly, it doesn’t add to it.

Well, we may often be misinformed despite our “authoritive resonance,” but he’s asking the wrong question. While blogs may be a valuable source of information due to the instantaneous character of the medium, most bloggers don’t pretend to be a news operation. We’re mostly just individuals with a computer. We have limited resources to fact check, and most of us don’t make a living at this. We have “day jobs.” Any information you take from a blog, whether from the main poster or from anonymous comments in the thread, should be used simply as leads and not conclusive authority. Obviously, we should avoid coming off with “authoritive resonance” unless we have a solid source for whatever it is we’re discussing. But even then, a blog is not a news services. It’s an interactive medium for the exchange of thoughts, ideas, and opinions. The news is raw material. The exchange is the product. The value is in the substance of the debate; the aesthetic value of the writing; and the ultra-democracy of access.

This last aspect of the medium is a problem, perhaps almost as much as it’s a virtue. Anybody can do it. Anybody can say anything s/he wants, unless of course s/he’s sued (for what s/he says, not what is posted by others). But absent that, we have little by way of regulation. We don’t risk losing licenses. We may lose an account with a blog provider, but that’s easily remedied. If we’re anonymous, they don’t risk a loss of reputation (unless the blog itself has earned a reputation valued by the blogger). Essentially, the responsibility is with the individual. And not all individuals are up for it. So then the responsibility falls onto the reader to be discerning and critical. It doesn’t come naturally, but at this point the technology has reached the point where the species is simply going to have to be self-regulating when it comes to access to information, because Pandora’s Box is open.

It’s a new medium and “the industry,” such as it is, is still working out protocols. Frameworks have been proposed, but obviously where there is no authoritative oversight and you have 50 million bloggers with a new one every couple of seconds, it’s going to be difficult to reach consensus. Some have spent a great deal of time and effort in developing protocols and I’ve received some e-mails on the subject in light of recent events. But the protocols I adopt are probably not going to be acceptable to the next blogger.

Somerville raises some good points, but he’s not in competition with bloggers. If anything he makes money from them. And Captain Buhne is a humorist Mr. Somerville. You may not like his humor, but he doesn’t really pretend to be anything else. To my knowledge, none of the local bloggers pretend to be doing anything other than providing a forum for discussion and having some fun.

ISF/PALCO redux

The Redwood Times covers it in this week’s edition.

Meanwhile, the comments to my previous post on the ISF statement is heating up just as it’s about to slide off the front page. You guys might want to move the conversation up here.