WATCH OUT WHAT YOU ASK FOR

WATCH OUT WHAT YOU ASK FOR: It seems a week doesn’t go by when we don’t hear words to the effect that Kaua`i needs a new newspaper.

And although it might not be exactly what they are talking about it’s nonetheless nice to learn from Joan Conrow- one of the reporters- that

there’s a brand new newspaper in town, called For Kauai. It has a print edition that initially will come out monthly, as well as an online version that will be updated regularly. The paper is still taking shape, in terms of content, but with reporting veterans like Anne O’Malley, Jan TenBruggencate and me contributing the articles, it promises to be a bit more solid than the competition.

And make no mistake, For Kauai is definitely out to compete with both TGI and MidWeek. It’s a freshened up, newsier, less fluffy reincarnation of Kauai People, the hugely successful weekly newspaper that made a lot of money for its previous owner, The Honolulu Advertiser.

There’s still no word from Joan on distribution but we must assume that it will be a “TMC” type publication- the acronym for “total market circulation,”

The concept, devised in the later part of the 20th century, is that since advertisers make up the bulk of revenue for a newspaper and they want their ads in the hands of as many people as possible, the price of the paper is a deterrent to doing that.

Though the actual price of a newspaper has become a more important revenue source in the past decade or so, it’s traditionally been a “nuisance fee” designed to give the illusion of value to make sure that people didn’t just pick one up and throw it away without reading it.

But the TCM concept was that the cost of the newsprint and the lack of purchase price can be made up because if advertisers were convinced you could put more eyeballs on their ads they would flock to you. Not only do you get more advertisers with bigger circulation but you can charge more for each ad.

The TCM wars on Kaua`i started with The Kaua`i Times (TKT) which actually tried to compete with the local newspaper of record with news, albeit slanted- originally to reverse the Nukoli`i vote that first banned the resort that sits all alone between Hanama`ulu and the golf course and later to support the “north shore boaters.”

Though in big cities the distribution usually takes place via “free” news racks, in smaller more rural areas there are two preferred methods- by mail or by physical distribution to people’s driveways.

The downside of mail is two fold and both have to do with cost. First of all there is a postal definition of a newspaper that says that it must have a certain percentage of actual news versus advertising. But since cheap content has always been out there the big one is that a certain percentage of the people receiving it must actually request it.

Some kama`aina will remember when TKT hired a clipboard bearing army who invaded post offices trying to get people to sign up for the paper. And few on-line readers of local publications can miss those banner ads asking for you to sign up so you can “continue to receive” Mid-Week, which has gobbled up the ads from the now defunct Kaua`i People and stolen two advertisers- Times Supermarket and Foodland- from the local newspaper-sponsored, driveway-delivered “Island Shopper”- although Foodland has been going with both since KP’s demise.

And make no mistake- those “ad supplements” are where the big bucks are. They pay for the lion’s share of production costs with the smaller ads providing the rest... and the profit.

So far an examination of their “on-line” edition shows “For Kaua`i” to be just more fluff- albeit the kind that apparently lots of people seem to like, with profiles of local artists and businesses.

The one newsy entry- if you scroll down past the fluff- is Conrow’s “overview” of the county council, although a read reveals simply each one’s broad “priorities” rather than anything earth-shaking.

We wish them luck- we’re not out to break anyone’s rice bowl. But with the Chamber of Commerce on the war path lately we’ll have to wait to see the “guts” of the new guy on the block.

... SAME AS THE OLD BOSS

... SAME AS THE OLD BOSS: When we last reported on “pay-raise-gate”- the scandal regarding the illegal pay raise that County Clerk Peter Nakamura received via a brief memo written by former Kaua`i County Council Chair Kaipo Asing, rather than following the evaluation and reporting process proscribed by the rules of the Salary Commission- we relied on a confusing local newspaper account that seemed to say that the confidential personnel memo was released by mayoral assistant Beth Tokioka.

But now we are finally in possession of a key document in the saga- a so-called “Media Statement” written and distributed by current Council Chair Jay Furfaro to various media outlets.

Although the article states that:

(i)n a “media statement” last week, Furfaro said Bynum voted in favor of measures concerning Nakamura’s pay raise twice, once when receiving the commission’s communication and again when approving the FY11 budget

it never made clear whether this was merely a verbal statement or the detailed one page manuscript attached to 21 pages of supporting documents Furfaro provided, including the memo from Asing.

The article also said that:

A memo from the council chair to the personnel director seems to back up (Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura’s) claim (that a the Salary Commission mandated process was not followed) ... The memo does not indicate that there was any attachment that could contain the evaluation required by the rules. County spokeswoman Beth Tokioka confirmed Wednesday that there was no evaluation attached to the memo.

Although many interpreted that to mean that Tokioka revealed the memo- which was part of Nakamura’s confidential personnel file- it was in fact the last document provided in Furfaro’s “Media Statement” packet.

The Statement provides the basis for the contention that the council’s acceptance of the original Salary Commission Resolution (2009-2) was sufficient to serve as the formal process for the evaluation of Nakamura saying:

Under Section 29.03 of the Kaua`i County Charter, the Salary Commission adopts a resolution setting forth the salaries of various elected and non-elected County officers and employees. The resolution is then forwarded to the Mayor and the Council. The Council may, by a vote of not less than five members, reject all and any selected portion of the resolution. (Section 29.03 is attached hereto).

On August 25, 2009, the Salary Commission transmitted the Resolution No. 2002-2 to the County Council. (Transmittal and Resolution No. 2009-2 are attached hereto). The Resolution was placed on the September 23, 2009 Council agenda. Councilmember Tim Bynum seconded the motion to receive the Resolution, meaning that the Council would not be rejecting any portion of the Resolution, including the line item that set the County Clerk’s salary. (Relevant portions of the minutes of the September 23, 2009 Council meeting are attached hereto).

The Statement doesn’t however even mention the Salary Commission mandated, formal evaluation process to actually set the exact amount of the salary (within a proscribed “range”) and effectuate the raise, which the council must follow as the “appointing authority” for the county clerk- separate from its function regarding the Salary Commission Resolution as provided in the county charter.

According to the resolution- and the Salary Commission rules- that process includes providing the Director of Personnel with:

- A memo from the officer’s or employee’s appointing authority at least 30 days prior to the increase certifying that appointee’s performance has been evaluated pursuant to procedures established by the personnel director.

- A copy of the officer’s or employee’s completed performance evaluation evidencing that the appointee has met or exceeded job requirements.

- Based on the evaluation, the appointing authority’s recommendation on whether a proposed increase should be granted.

The mention of Bynum’s “second” is apparently designed to question why Bynum has been one of the two council voices- along with Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura- to question the process, by making it personal- apparently trying to say that, if you buy the false premise that accepting the Salary Commission’s recommendation is enough to effectuate Nakamura’s raise, Bynum’s second would make his raising of issues with the process duplicitous.

It ignores of course that many times people second a motion for discussion purposes and that a second in no way requires one to vote for the motion according to Roberts Rule of Order.

The statement goes on to describe the process that Asing did use in supplanting the correct procedure saying.

The Council Chair Kaipo Asing circulated evaluations forms prepared by the Director of Personnel. I filled out the evaluation and I know that Mr. Nakamura was also evaluated by Councilmember Derek Kawakami and Mr. Bynum. While I cannot disclose the contents of the evaluation because it is a personnel matter, I am confident that Mr. Nakamura met the requirements for his raise. Council Chair Asing sent a memorandum to the Director of Personnel indicating that Mr. Nakamura met the criteria and was entitled to his salary. (A copy of the memorandum is attached hereto).

The Statement further states that:

On April 1, 2010, Mr. Bynum submitted written testimony to the Salary Commission. In the testimony, he stated that, “Currently, the County Clerk, County Auditor and Prosecutor all have salaries greater that the Mayor” and asked the Salary Commission to adjust the salaries. (A copy of the testimony is attached hereto). Mr. Bynum appeared before the Salary Commission and testified that the salaries should be adjusted not because of any concern about the Clerk’s performance, but because it was improper for the clerk, auditor and persecutor to have higher salaries than the mayor (a copy of the minutes are attached hereto).

It’s not clear what the relevance of this might be other than to again try to use the false premise to personally discredit Bynum.

Finally Furfaro makes one more reach, this time with a paragraph saying

On May 26, 2010, the County Council unanimously approved Bill No. 2356, Draft 1, which again included a line item that set the County Clerk’s salary. (Relevant portions of Bill No 2356 are attached hereto). As you can see from the record of the votes cast, Mr. Bynum voted for approval of this bill.

That one is particularly silly considering that the council negotiates line items in the budget for weeks on end and, although no one supports every single line, in the end the “compromise” package is usually passed unanimously- as Furfaro has himself stated publicly on occasion.

The 21 pages of documents in the packet include:

- Article XXIX of the County Charter regarding the Salary commission

- The memorandum communicating the resolution from the Salary Commission

- The Resolution itself (five pages)

- Minutes of the September 23, 2009 council meeting regarding the resolution including a conversation with County Attorney Al Castillo regarding the process for “receiving” the resolution so as to make it effective or for rejecting it by the vote of at east five councilmembers, as provided in County Charter Article XXIX (seven pages)

- The FY 2010-11 Budget Ordinance with a county clerk salary line item and certification page (three pages)

-Bynum’s testimony, with cover letter, to the Salary Commission (two pages)

-Asing’s one paragraph memo to Director of Personnel Malcolm Fernandez, in violation of both the rules for effectuating the county clerk’s raise and the County Code of Ethics (as discussed in our coverage linked above)

What is most distressing in all this is that rather than coming forward and recommending that the proper process be followed and declaring that Asing’s memo was done in violation of the law or at least “done in error,” he chose to defend Asing’s actions and declare that it was “close enough for government work” as the expression goes, supplanting fully extraneous material- which included an invasion of privacy in releasing the contents of Nakamura’s personnel file- and attempting to personally discredit one of the two councilmembers who acted as “whistleblowers.”

This is not the type of leadership the people of Kaua`i want or deserve.

We call on Furfaro to either rectify this by complying with the law and scheduling the proper agenda items to conduct the proper evaluation - even though the timeframe violation cannot be overcome- or, if he continues to stonewall and obfuscate, to resign his post as Chair.

And, if he will not resign as chair we ask the other six councilmembers to remove him.

We also call on the county prosecutor and the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) to investigate this matter.

MEMO FROM TURNER

MEMO FROM TURNER: As we break out the new calendar we want to take this day to thank our many readers for their support- those who visit daily, those that drop in from time to time and those on our extensive email list.

If you’d like to receive Parx News Daily via email just let us know at gotwindmills (at) gmail (dot) com.

And more importantly we’d like to thank those who provide us with tips, stories and assorted leads. We couldn’t do this without you. If you have any information that you think is being squelched by local government or business interests or ignored by local media please let us know about it

But be prepared to answer the all important question- “how do you know that?” Don’t write (or call, we’re listed) and say “I heard that blah blah blah” and then tell us you can’t say any more or that “lots of people say” whatever it is.

If, as people have said, it feels like we’re giving you the third degree, it’s not that we don’t believe you but that we are digging through the speculation for the core. As the old reporters’ credo goes “I love my mother but I’m still going to check out her story.”

Although when people are willing to attach their names to their statements it always makes for a better story- and sometimes determines whether there is a story at all- we will always protect your identity if it’s appropriate. And please- if the situation calls for it come to us with documentation-o-plenty for your claim. If someone else is the real “source” of the story, please contact them first and ask them if they’d be willing to talk to us.

Finally we don’t take advertising and don’t ask for money from our readers. However our old 2001 Pentium II 256 processor and minuscule hard drive is driving us crazy and just opening large PDFs will slow it to a crawl or lock it down. If you are looking for a place to donate that old 1 or 2-gig processor PC look no further.

Finally a word about what we do. Many say that our coverage is biased or lacks the “objectivity” of the mainstream press. They are right and we are proud of it.

The so called objectivity of the corporate press is anything but. It’s a modern contrivance that assumes that people are not just entitled to their own opinions but their own facts.

And it is an outright lie. There is no one alive who has no biases and all that hiding one’s bias does is make it harder to find the real news being reported because the screen through which reporters and editors put the news is unknown to the reader.

We have our biases and, we hope, you will never be confused as to what they are. We also try hard to separate what we report as factual from our opinions or characterizations by making the latter blunt and obvious, without using weasel-words or “he said she said” reporting without context. We make the assumption that, if we put in the effort to separate reporting from opinion our readers are capable of the critical reading it takes to tell the difference between the two.

Again, thanks for all the support and know that, as we approach our fourth year of daily news, commentary and analysis in January, we will to continue to serve the Kaua`i community for the foreseeable future.

In service,

Andy

YOU’VE GOTTA BE KIDDING

YOU’VE GOTTA BE KIDDING: The departure of local newspaper “reporter” Paul Curtis- apparently for plagiarism- is a two-edged sword. While Curtis manipulated his reports to protect friends and go after enemies- and do so in the laziest manner possible- now we’re stuck with the oft unintelligible Leo Azambuja on the cops and courts beat.

Today’s attempt to clarify the facts surrounding the recent alleged murder of Aureo Arick Moore did anything but, demonstrating that our student Leo is ready for lesson two in his on the job j-school.

After you’ve learned the 5 W’s and determining and writing a “lead”- or lede as it’s spelled on the inside- you need to be able to, as editors across the world ask their reporters to do, “tell me a story.”

But instead, today’s hodge-podge of fact and fiction was more like a spaghetti cooking contest with a pasta-splattered wall attesting to the “toss it all and see what sticks” methodology of journalism Azambuja prefers.

One thing that beginners fail to recognize is that sometimes, when your hunch turns out to lead nowhere you don’t need to tell the story of how hard you tried to track down the immaterial facts.

Seems that, according to the article,

On Dec. 19, Carrie Ann Robson, 39, of Kilauea, was arrested and charged at 11:30 p.m. with second-degree attempted murder. Her bail was set at $100,000.

But when Azambuja finally clarified with Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri Carvalho that the case had nothing to do with the Moore murder, rather than moving on he insisted on including a lengthy explanation of how much work he did to find out that it was irrelevant to the story.

He also seemed compelled to lay out his confusion over the dribs and drabs of information released by the county. But rather than clarify it all in a narrative it’s simply laid out in a chronology with little or no explanation of the relevancy.

But the inability to tell a story- combined with the inability to “find the lede”- make for an exercise in incomprehensibility.

Toward the end of the article he tries to delve into the relationship between the alleged October robbery of Moore where a shot or shots were allegedly fired and the upcoming trial of Kyle Akau, 24, of Anahola who is accused of firing the shot(s) and robbing Moore of cash and drugs.

Way down at the bottom- 2184 words into the 2660 word piece- we finally get some information on why alleged killer Vicente "Vinnie" Hilario might have murdered Moore.

After discussing the various charges and reports on the Safeway robbery of Moore we read:

The coconut wireless over the latest murder case on Kaua`i has inundated blogs and Internet discussion forums with many rumors.

Some have claimed Moore was set up by an unidentified woman. Others allege he was murdered because he was dating Hilario’s mother. There were drug connections spread all over the Internet. Moore was also said to have been killed for being a witness in a court case.

While most of these are purely rumors, the prosecution was able to add the more serious first-degree murder charge because the crime involved the killing of an officer or a witness related to a crime.

Iseri-Carvalho said the prosecution added the first-degree murder because Moore was a witness to a court case pending against Hilario.

Huh? What “court case pending against Hilario”? Charges were in fact dropped against Hilario after he was arrested with Akau in the Safeway robbery of Moore.

As we speculated the day Hilario’s name was released it appeared Hilario might have killed Moore because he was a witness in Akau’s trial which had been scheduled for Dec 27 at the time of the murder.

Our conjecture was based on past newspaper reports that said that Hilario was one of the two who were released after being arrested in connection with the robbery.

But while for some reason Azambuja was reluctant to report that two plus two equals four- instead telling us that it equaled a number somewhere between three and five- the Honolulu Start Advertiser didn’t mince any words.

In a “corrections” in today’s edition they write:

Prosecutors charged Vicente "Vinnie" Hilario with first-degree murder involving the shooting death of Aureo Arick Moore. Prosecutors allege the fatal shooting was related to Moore's status as a witness against Hilario and another man involving a robbery case. Prosecutors had amended their complaint to add the first-degree murder charge. A B2 story that ran on Friday reported Hilario was charged with second-degree murder.

That is the story today- not the thousands of words about what KPD, the prosecutor and the public information officer put Azambuja through in trying to track down the facts.

Not only was the lede buried toward the end of the article it wasn’t even written in a plain straightforward manner but rather, like we’re playing a game of 20 Questions where we’ve used up 19 and have to guess what the news is with our 20th.

SAY WHAT?

SAY WHAT?: As readers well might surmise we spend our early mornings perusing the local newspapers and it doesn’t seem a day goes by without one of those “that can’t possibly be true” moments that, more often than not, turn out to be anything but erroneous.

One subset generally reserved for county governments is the “what did you think would happen” story typified in a story picked up by both the local and Honolulu papers from a Kaua`i Department of Public Works’ press release.

The release began unremarkably saying

(t)o prevent flooding from occurring in the Waimea area, the Kikiaola irrigation ditch was opened this morning allowing storm water mixed with treated wastewater also known as effluent to flow into Kikiaola Small Boat Harbor.

Now we can understand sewage spills in heavy rains. The storage areas- usually concrete “ponds” become deluged and an intentional release, if required to make sure it doesn’t just spill all over the place, is common. And it would be reasonable to directed the spill into the ditch.

But then, if you read further you find out that

(o)fficials estimate that up to 2.25 million gallons of treated wastewater had been stored in the irrigation ditch (emphasis added).

That of course means that, as a matter of practice the Waimea Wastewater Treatment Plant stores its effluent in an ditch that naturally leads to the ocean.

We’re not sure of the legality of that practice but can certainly challenge the wisdom.

Another subset is the “how could they really not know?” which is also usually also related to a government function.

Hard to say why we actually read the article in Sunday’s Honolulu paper headlined “No legal aid for officer accused in HPD scandal” regarding the overtime abuse among DIU checkpoint officers on O`ahu.

But we did- and even got through a six paragraphs before reading:

The seven officers work for the Selective Enforcement Unit, part of the Traffic Division that organizes roadblock checkpoints to catch motorists under the influence of alcohol or drugs (emphasis added).

Do they really not know what the term “selective enforcement” means?

According to Wikipedia

Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to arbitrarily select choice individuals as being outside of the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, it almost inevitably must lead to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those they desire favors from.

As a matter of fact when the use of DUI checkpoints first began they were set up using “selective enforcement” tactics, picking those who appeared drunk at the checkpoints for further scrutiny. But the courts told them they couldn't do that specifically because it was a form of illegal selective enforcement.

That begat the practice of stopping every “X” number of cars and assessing the driver for alcohol and/or drug use- which the courts okayed.

Although the loophole allows the checkpoints, many civil liberties groups still think it reeks of selective enforcement- a term which, along with “selective prosecution” is used pejoratively to denote an illegal practice of favoritism in the administration of justice.

We can understand maybe the guy who named the unit didn’t know but the fact that apparently this didn’t raise any eyebrows among the rest of HPD is kind of unfathomable.

THE OLD MAN IS REALLY SNORING

THE OLD MAN IS REALLY SNORING: The scene yesterday morning was no doubt repeated across the island.

The thunder woke both of you up early and now it’s raining so hard the noise won’t let you fall back asleep. But that’s okay because it’s been flooding for two days and it’s gonna take longer to get to work.

So she in the shower and he’s sitting on the throne... and the phone rings.

“Who could be calling at 7 a.m.- must be important” she thinks, grabbing a towel and dashing half-naked, dripping wet to the phone.

“WHO IS IT” he yells to be heard over the rain pounding on the roof.

“I CAN’T HEAR YOU” she says, “IT’S THE COUNTY- THEY’RE CALLING TO SAY IT’S RAINING REALLY HARD”

“WHAT- I CAN’T HEAR YOU- IT’S RAINING TOO HARD”

Yes we heard from many yesterday who acted out that or a similar little drama as the county’s Emergency Notification System made damn sure that if you were deaf and blind to what was going on out your window you would still to find out it was raining really hard outside... assuming, being deaf and blind, you knew the phone was ringing.

And each asked the same questions- “how do I make them stop calling me?”

This isn’t the first time the county has decided that people have a tough time observing the obvious and the worst part is that most of us didn’t even “sign up” for the calls.

When the system was initiated people were asked to register their phone numbers if they wanted to get a call. But then all of a sudden that mental midgets in the administration decided that we were all to stupid to do that on our own so they signed up the whole phone book.

So as a public service we went to the county web site to tell them to shove their... er, well, find out how we- ahem- “opt out.”

We should be so lucky.

If you go to the county’s home web page and scroll down you’ll see a little doo-dad that says

Sign up now
Notification Services by
Connect- CTY

Ah- that must be it. Sign in, sign out, right?

When you click it you get a page that says

Welcome to the Blackboard Connect® website for the County of KAUAI. Please enter your contact information here so local leadership may contact you with important messages in the public interest.

Underneath there’s a choice. The first says

Register as a Resident
I would like to register my contact information
Add My Contact Info

No, we want out, not in.

The second seemed appropriate:

Already Registered as a Resident
I would like to edit or delete my contact information
Edit or delete my info

Got it!

At that page you’re asked for your 10 digit phone number and your email address although you can check “I don’t have an email address.”

Getting closer.

When you do that and “sign in” if you’ve checked the “no email” box you’re asked for your house number and last name.

And when you do that try to “sign in” an ‘exclamation point box” come up and says “Your sign in information does not match with our records, please retry again.”

Although we should have known that those who didn’t voluntarily sign up wouldn’t be able to voluntarily sign out, it appears they’ve anticipated the futility of dealing with the county because, you’ll note, it doesn’t say “try again” it says “retry again” assuming that you’ve been trying over and over to no avail.

Kind of like “lather, rinse repeat,” in that it presumes you’re smart enough to know when to stop.

So next time your house is floating down the street or being blown away in a hurricane and the phone rings make sure you answer it. It’ll be Auntie Bernard’s weather report calling to remind you to wear your goulashes.

And just like with your real-life auntie, there’s no way to get out of hearing it.

MY OH MY WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY

MY OH MY WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY: The oldest trick in the shyster book is the standard “cease and desist” letter.

So when Big Island blogger Damon Tucker emailed us over the weekend that he’d gotten one from Midland, Texas attorney Robert K. Whitt after he posted a story on December 8 quoting two co-owners of a “zip-line” company- replete with pictures of rusty cables- there saying that,

the (other) owner of The Umauma Experience (Cleo Carlile) installed substandard cable on the course and it started to fail…It has worn down from round to flat and then the tension broke the cable as it became too thin. I immediately closed down lines 1, 2, and 4. The owner will replace the cable that guests ride on, but has refused to replace the guy wires which hold the whole thing up, platforms etc.

We suggested that he

tell him to go f**k himself and take it up with the people who said it. All you did was quote them. These kinds of letters are bluffs. They don't want a lawsuit- all that would do is put the guy's quote in the mainstream media.

suggesting he send a reply to the effect that he would

"welcome a lawsuit where we can air the issue of the safety of your ziplines before the community and in the mainstream press."

The letter demanded that Damon essentially put the toothpaste back in the tube with retractions and deletions.

But while the mainstream press hasn’t picked up the story yet this morning journalist and blogger Ian Lind went to town on the story saying

Attorney Whitt also provided an official-looking “Certificate of Inspection” issued by “Zipline Canopy Creations” and signed by “Julianne Lester”, apparently certifying that the ziplines have recently passed a “safety inspection”.

According to state business registration records, Lester is the registered agent for Kauai-based Zipline Canopy Creations, which was registered to do business in August 2010, and the president of Just Live, Inc., a recreation company also based on Kauai.

Apparently safety of the unregulated zip line business is sort of like getting a “deal” at a car dealership with rotating salespersons playing the part “manager” for the others to give the illusion of a discount- in this case zipline companies signing “Certificates of Inspection" for each other.

Ian also noted that

(a) quick search yesterday left me with the impression that zipline engineering and safety are largely unregulated by the state or counties, beyond the need to get routine building permits, so the status of this “certificate of inspection” is seems questionable.

And it didn’t end there.

After Ian’s post Disappeared News’ Larry Geller picked up the ball and ran with it regarding how these ziplines

cry out for regulatory control. Anything with allegedly rusty cables that could be described by Wikipedia as a “death slide” ought to catch the interest of state or local government you’d think.

Larry also noted that

Damon and Ian have provided a public service by posting information on their findings. At least those who Google for information on ziplines in Hawaii will possibly hit one of the articles.

But more important than those who google “ziplines in Hawai`i” might be those who google “The Umauma Experience” or “Midland, Texas attorney Robert K. Whitt.”

Now they’ll get at least four “hits.”

With the advent of “bloggers” the question is whether, when they engage in the act of reporting, they are de facto journalists. While many of the more stogy practitioners may argue for all sorts of self-serving and exclusionary rules for what a journalist is or isn’t, there’s still “no license required. ”

In fact, after much debate our own Hawai`i state reporters’ “shield law” essentially defines a reporter by the act of reporting- something bloggers do every day whether, like Ian they consider themselves journalists or, like Damon and Larry, not.

In this case Damon simply reported on the situation, citing and naming his source. Whether or not “The Umauma Experience” is actually safe or not his report is true in that the story is that two co-owners are alleging they are not safe.

And in libel cases, truth is the ultimate defense.

But to compound the report, rather than try to show that his operation is safe, Carlile chose to try to put the Genie back into the bottle and squelch the information, leading people to believe that, despite the industry’s claims, safety may not be their primary concern.

Not only that but, should they proceed with the lawsuit it will the become open season for the corporate press whose lawyers normally have their hair on fire over reporting anything of this nature unless and until a suit is filed.

The two-fold lesson here is that 1) the best way to make sure that information you wish would just “go away” gets out to a wider audience than the original report could is to try to squelch it and 2) if you file a lawsuit, even more people will know of the claim and even of you win, all people will remember is the allegation.

The other lesson may be that, even if you’re from Texas, don’t mess with Hawai`i bloggers.