The Ojai Post

wow, you guys are clearly rattled by Sarah Palin!

Yes, her -22 favorability plunge in eight days is indeed harrowing!

source your comments Tyler !

http://www.dailykos.com/dailypoll/2008/09/19

The tracking poll has a baseline of 1100 likely voters nationwide.
Results are based on a three day rolling average.
The margin for error is 3% for the overall tracking.
The margin for error is 5.1% for individual day tracking.

"The Daily Kos tracking poll is conducted by the experienced and professional pollsters at Research 2000, and like all media polls, are not influenced by the sponsor. It’s not a liberal poll or a conservative poll, it’s a poll – a snapshot over a three-day period."

bc: Who's your Daddy?

Ha! Ha! Ha! I didn't get it at first but then I got it...ha! ha! can't stop laughing....even though it is not funny!!!

I hate to say anything remotely favorable to Sarah Pain, i mean Palin....

However, I looked at that daily kos poll and I interpret it slightly differently....

I think it's not her favorability rating per se that dropped 22 points in eight days, but rather the difference between favorable and unfavorable.

If she had been at 60/40 and dropped down to 50/50, that would be a twenty point drop in the difference but only a ten point drop in the favorability rating per se.

Even so, it's quite a change in eight days.... let's hope the next eight days continues the same trend!

She went from +17 to -5 in eight days.
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/failtrackingpoll_3.gif

Favorability is the difference between the positive and the negative, isn't it? Either way, its a precipitous decline once America gets to know her...

Hi Tyler,

No, favorability is not the difference between positive and negative.

We take a poll and ask, how many have a positive impression of Sarah? How many have a negative impression of Sarah? The percentage who have a positive impression might be 60 percent. That number is her favorability rating. The percentage who have a negative impression might be 40 percent. That number is her unfavorable rating. The DIFFERENCE between favorable and unfavorable in that case is 20 points.

Next week the favorable percentage is down from 60 to 50, while the unfavorable percentage is up from 40 to 50. So the DIFFERENCE has gone from twenty points (60/40) to zero points (50/50). But the favorability rating itself has only gone down ten.

If I remember correctly, Sarah Palin's current favorability rating is 41 % and her unfavorable is 46 %. That accounts for the minus five you are referring to. If it was previously plus 17, that would be something like 52 favorable, 35 unfavorable. So the favorability rating dropped from 52 to 41, which is eleven points, not 22.

The way the daily kos presents the information is a little bit confusing and has led to your misunderstanding. But if you look at all the polling information they present and think it through I think you will see what I am saying.

You must be a math teacher!

Don't mean to belabor the matter, but the distinction here is not just technical or semantic. If we use Tyler's interpretation of the data, it sounds like 22 % of the people changed their mind about Palin. But in fact only 11 % changed their mind. In Tyler's "difference" statistic, those same people get counted twice -- once when they step OUT of the favorable category, and again when they step INTO the unfavorable category.

(Note to #10: You must be Nancy Drew!)

I am!

OK, great discussion, and thanks for pushing back on this. I've done some research, and there is a term for what I was referring to. It's called "net favorability". This is the difference between a candidate's favorable and unfavorable rating.

So 52-35 would be a net favorability of +17. 41-46 would be a net favorability of -5. The change in net favorability of these two points in time would be -22, correct?

Therefore, I believe my original statement should have been: "Yes, her -22 net favorability plunge in eight days is indeed harrowing!"

I'm not suggesting 22% changed their mind. A rating is different than a percentage. The net favorability would be more akin to a magic number in baseball.

Here are some articles to take a look at:
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/84620/How-Palin-&-Biden\\s-Favorability-Numbers-Compare-To-Past-VP-Picks.htm
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/palin-biden-less-popular-than-cheney.html
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=06aa1b0b-5912-4d62-9a21-19cf3318a1c0
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/18/more-on-palin-s-declining-favorability-rating.aspx

You got it, Tyler! Now you're not only saying it correctly, but improving upon my explanation! A+.

p.s.... it just goes to show that those little words like "net" can make a big difference.... kind of like the difference between gross income and net income....

or like the word "if"... can make all the difference in the world...

I will remember that when I'm mayor!

Great, david, and either way, not so great for McCain/Palin. Or is it Palin/McCain?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dysEy5O1dn4

Check out this latest ad on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJtVnkNdNl4

A daily kos poll? Tyler, come on...you people are the FRINGE in this country. You are going to be awfully disappointed the morning of November 5th.

"The Daily Kos tracking poll is conducted by the experienced and professional pollsters at Research 2000, and like all media polls, are not influenced by the sponsor. It’s not a liberal poll or a conservative poll, it’s a poll – a snapshot over a three-day period."

And with Bush at 19% approval (American Research Group), who's on the fringe?
http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

The way things are going for "you" republicans, it may want be time to start watching out for pitchforks, torches and molotov cocktails on Wall Street. Fringe my ass.

Note to Todd Miller,

Are you the same Todd as the commenter who posted under the "Rockefeller Reveals" article?

That Todd's name is a live link to Chris Wilson's Pink Minute. That connection in turn indicates that Todd is a manufacturer or distributor of nipple coverings (Pastease).

Todd Prather is the fine proprietor of Pastease here in Ojai. Todd Miller recently sold his company Webfeat for a tidy sum, and is on to his next startup.

Dear "Note to Todd Miller"

I am afraid I cannot claim a relationship to either Chris Wilson's Pink Minute or to nipple coverings. I have worked for the past quarter century in the high tech and information technology fields. Remarkably, there are many Todds in the world. I appreciate your interest in the name "Todd" as well as nipple coverings.

Say, Tyler,

The Ojai Post has a good and comprehensive and conspicuous set of standards regulating the contributions of commenters.

But do you have any corresponding set of standards for Post Authors? What level of journalistic integrity do you expect from Post Authors? Do you tolerate Authors who post articles that are demonstrably false and misleading?

If you have standards for Authors, have you committed them to writing, as you have for commenters?

david - my author discussions are behind the scenes. I'm always evaluating this, and appreciate feedback ongoing. I tend to lean (obviously in some cases) more towards standing back and letting the community provide feedback or pushback, just like I do with commenters.

Thanks, Tyler, for the clarification. I can understand you preferring to deal with your authors behind the scenes.

At the same time, however, you might at some point want to consider having some explicitly stated standards. As a reader and commenter on the Post, I would find it helpful to understand the general standards that guide your behind-the-scenes discussions.

Also, if it ever comes to the point where you have to cut somebody loose, it might be helpful for you to be able to point to something spelled out in writing in advance.

To stimulate your thinking, I would like to suggest some such language as the following for you to consider:

Ojai Post Authors are free to post articles on a wide variety of topics. They are permitted great latitude in expressing their personal opinions. However, they are not entitled to post articles that are demonstrably false or misleading at a factual level. Repeated violations of this policy will not be tolerated.

david - that's a good thought and a great start, thanks much.

Tyler-
I agree with David.
I have previously expressed my position that i suggest you cut Jock loose and perhaps Millenium as well.
There are plenty of other websites where they can spew their venom and crap.
The ojaipost does not need to get any kind of reputation that there are crackpots posting there.
This is not a matter of "free speech".
This is a matter of you maintaining an intelligent, articulate website where there is civil and honest dialogue.

Well, it depends whether MT, Jock and the big long space-eating press releases crowd out all other discussion and comment to the point where the Post loses its oomph.

In my experience, I'd call this phenomenon we're seeing now a transitory one, likely to pass soon, and not worth making rules over. We really don't need more rules. Shutting voices off is, at best, very rarely the right answer. I for one trust Tyler's judgment. He's got both the tact and good sense to know when and how to let MT, Jock and anyone else know its time to let some other topics have a say. For now, those posts are attracting comments. So long as David has the time to debunk, seems to me its a useful exercise. And of course, its pretty easy to just skip posts that aren't your cup of tea. (Also remember, history is full of people who were "demonstrably wrong" and silenced, but in reality were right. Do you really want to see the Ojai Post go down that road?)

Meanwhile, its a larger commentary on what's going on well beyond the Post. Its not just on the Ojai Post where the wingnuts are ascendant. The triumphal tone of the whacked can be heard all over the blogosphere and MSM. I attribute it to one more aspect of the damage done to this country in the last eight years - the competent, intelligent, and reasonable people have been neutered and shut out, and are not now in place to be part of the solution. Now that things are falling apart, the mass of people who let it happen are searching for a narrative; the competent and intelligent are already long gone and moved on; and the only ones ready and willing to bring a version of sense to the scene are the varieties of whack that have been waiting for the sign of armageddon, in this or another form.

Also, common sense aside, if Tyler were to adopt a standard like you advocate, it would not be hard for a malicious SLAPPER to drag him into court when some author posts something that just might be terribly important, and threatening to powers that be. Its one thing for an author to risk a SLAPP, but if I were in charge of the Post, I would want to make clear that what authors post is their own, and not in any way subject to editorial standards that i could be accused of breaching. That way the entire Post (not to mention Tyler's well being and peace of mind) is not held hostage to each author, or any malicious SLAPPer with a vendetta and the willingness to file a lawsuit.

#30-
I think you speak out of both sides of your mouth.
this "phenomenon" is not "transitory".
these "offensive" and 'crackpot" posts have been going on for several years.
I also trust Tyler on this one, as there is no one else to trust.
And he "appreciate"(s) reader feedback.
I'm for "muzzling" propaganda of all kinds.
There are very impressionable minds out there.

Of late I have taken umbrage with MT, however, I do not think he should be censored. He has his point of view, and it represents a segment of society both here in Ojai and in the country at large. That it might be "demonstrably false", is no reason to exclude him. David, your battles with Jock are more than adequate to the task of highlighting whatever falsehoods you think he posts. When I look at one of Jock's or MT's articles, I see a tremendous amount of push back from a lot of other participants here on the post. This post is not a static medium like good old print. Because of the comments, each article is molded, debated and evolved by the readers. Quit a lot of those readers have no problem hopping on and pointing out that they think something is pure bullshit. This input from people makes the post a self correcting mechanism. There are plenty of people who disagree with what I post and they are free to debate it, but I am free to defend. Looking at a lot of the posts that seem to so offend you David, I see some people agreeing, some people asking questions and several people, mostly led by yourself, destroying the "facts" as Jock sees them.
Mosesk, if by "impressionable minds" you are referring to children, I would say that those impressionable minds are the province of parents. The mere fact of their existence in not a justification for censorship. I disagree that there should be any muzzling of any kind.

"Freedom to speak... can be maintained only by promoting debate." - Walter LIPPMANN 1955 American journalist (1889-1974)

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - Eric Arthur Blair or George ORWELL British novelist and essayist (1903-1950)

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." - Francois Marie Arouet VOLTAIRE The Friends of Voltaire, 1907 French philosopher and writer (1694-1778)

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~ Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire

A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad. ~ Albert Camus

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government." ~Lenny Bruce

Thanks spk for calling it like it is.

I think mosesk also is having a reading comprehension problem, which is very bad, but not unusual, in a would-be censor. The reference to "transitory phenomenon" is not describing the history of participation on the Post by any particular authors. I would suggest it is describing the Post homepage of yesterday, which was wholly taken up at the time of the anon-mosesk exchange with "MT, Jock and the big long space-eating press releases crowd[ing] out all other discussion and comment." That strikes me as a legitimate management concern for Tyler if it became a constant.

But as we can already see this morning, it isn't.

spk,

I share your concerns about free speech. What I have a little trouble understanding is why the Post has explicit standards for commenters, but not for Authors. Since being a Post Author confers a certain degree of legitimacy, one would think the bar would be higher for Authors than for commenters, rather than the other way around...

However, in the absence of stated standards, and since Tyler prefers for the "pushback" to come from commenters, I would like to propose a system of Davy's Demerits. Here's the way it would work.

Demerits will be awarded for Material and Demonstrable Misstatements of Fact (MDMF), as follows:

-- an ordinary, garden variety MDMF will be given a Ding -- one demerit

-- a big, fat, ugly MDMF will be awarded a Whopper -- two demerits

-- an especially eggregious and outrageous misstatement of fact will be awarded a Double Whopper -- four demerits

Here's an example. A recent article posted here was entitled "Rockefeller Reveals 9/11 Fraud." This headline would earn demerits as follows:

The name Rockefeller, unless otherwise qualified or explained, obviously suggests a member of "the" Rockefeller family. The person interviewed in the video clip talks about receiving inside information about an international banking conspiracy "straight from Rockefeller" and from "one of the Rockefellers."

Since the individual in question, Nicholas Rockefeller, is a California attorney with no actual connection with "the" Rockefellers, this MDMF qualifies as a Whopper -- two demerits.

The video clip does not indicate that Nick Rockefeller "reveals" anything. It is the deceased filmmaker Russo who is "revealing" that six years previously he had a conversation in which Nick Rockefeller made a vague prediction, not revealing anything. So this earns a Ding -- one demerit.

What Rockefeller vaguely predicted had nothing to do with "9/11", i.e. with hijacked planes crashing into prominent buildings. It was just a vague "something" that would someday lead to war in the Mideast. So that's another Ding.

Even taking Russo at his word, which is not easy, this Rockefeller revealed nothing about any "fraud" -- another Ding.

So in that one four-word headline, the Author of that article would earn five demerits -- three Dings and a Whopper.

I don't plan to apply these demerits to that article, because this system was not yet announced. But (unless Tyler objects) Ojai Post Authors are now On Notice and subject to Davy's Demerits in the future.

At the end of the year, the Author with the most accumulated demerits will be given some form of special recognition, yet to be determined.

have at it, david.

gonggggggggggggg!

Congrats to wavy davy gravy!!!

You are the first recipient of the gonggggggg. Thanks for coming on the show. Please try again real soon.

David, if you have the interest in doing that, I'll have the interest in reading your conclusions. I've always appreciated your "pushback" on articles of questionable veracity, though I'm proud I've not often been the target of same.

Tyler
Jump in.
You're allowing the post to rot.
Be a manager, not a follower.
and #34, a "reading comprehension problem". a "would-be censor"?
oh my...

mosesk - what exactly is it *you* want me to do? I think the Post is chugging along fine. I'm personally not a big fan of at least one of the major topics of late, but as I've said, I'm willing to let the community respond and engage.

Tyler-
I want you to stop the propaganda and foster true discourse.
Discourse founded upon propaganda is bullshit and lowers the quality of this fine product.
Use your brain, not your latent desire to foster controversy, just for the sake of controversy.
Offer a bulwark against Fox, Rush.
Don't allow even an iota of OBVIOUS insanity, rabble rousing crap to grace these pages.
Be/become a beacon, Tyler.
You go boy.
You CAN do it.

moseske,

Just what kind of a troll are you exactly?

spk-
i don't know
perhaps you can help me figger it out.
maybe i'm just 2 detached for u

mosesk is an anagram for smokes. mosesk actually is probably one of the many monikers that moses kravitz has chosen. Hey moses, why not you be the beacon that Tyler already is? Methinks you've become jealous of him - enough already. Get a life. Get off the computer once in a while. Go outside and become reaquainted with your five senses. Try to be more generous and caring in your dealings with other lifeforms. ^This^ will help you feel better.

i'm tryin smokes, i'm tryin...

smokes-
what's a "moniker"
isn't it sumthin you put around your "i"?

I think Senator McCain has secured two votes, one from Joe the Plumber and one from Joe SixPack.
The rest of us who care about the economy, who prioritize energy independence, health care reform and education and who feel a physical sense of ailment and sickness at the memory of the last eight years need to cast our votes in favor of an intelligent, eloquent, caring and compassionate man, the "cool hand at the tiller" who even McCain feels we need. That "cool hand" is certainly not Senator McCain.
http://www.penmaiden.com/