Dave-- Cool down. I didn't attack your ethics as you seem to think. But your choice of words and your blatant electioneering (I'd say a near-constant stream of anti-Bush messages is electioneering even if you didn't urge readers to vote for Kerry, Nader or Bob Ball) really need to be qualified.

As far as going private, I wanted to give you a chance to think about what I'm going to say. However, since you want to wash laundry in public, here is my take on your original post.

The quote from the NY Times wasn't the entire article, or at least not what I read in the Seattle Times this morning. You changed the first graph at least-- there you, not the article, identified the lawyer, not a "timberman", as a fellow with the last name Rudnick. You did that twice. Later you identify him as Rutzick. That tells me that you weren't carefully transcribing or proofreading the post you made. Did you make other errors as well? I won't know until I compare the two. I'm not saying you did, so relax even though you're probably even hotter under the collar now, BUT I am saying that it's apparent to me that you could have done so because you did in this instance.

That last graph was pretty shaky as well-- was that in the original article or was that from Dave Vedder?

Another case in point came up somewhere in one of the similar threads I've been contrbuting to or reading. If it becomes important, I'll find it, but since it illustrates a point of bad writing and fuzzy thinking, I'll use it . A reporter from the Washington Post (not sure on these details or I would give it exactly) wrote that the Bush administration was equating wild salmon with farm-raised salmon. Farm raised salmon and hatchery salmon are different animals as I'm sure you'll agree. But the writer/reporter so badly confused the details that the rest of his information was useless to the reader.

On to fact checking: Where did I suggest that you fact-check the piece? I missed that on my second read. But as you know, biased reporters can spin an article anyway they want by what they leave in and leave out. On top of that, newspapers make errors all the time, not intentionally but because reporters have to get their stories in on deadline and sometimes don't have the time to do a thorough job, hoping that they can repair any errors on re-write the next day.

I don't see where I questioned the ethics of Dave Vedder, but I did say that I think journalists have a responsibility to hold themselves to a higher standard of truth and conduct than the average person. If you feel this attacks (your word) your ethics personally, that's your own read. I will not apologize for saying that journalists should adhere to higher standards. I would imagine you'll find that somewhere in the creed of NOWA, but not being a member, I wouldn't know.

Yes, I did offer to give you my view on ethics in journalism, but in reality, I would parrot a lot of what I learned in journalism school, from a couple of editors, plus an added portion of my own philosophy in regards to outdoor writing.

And you're right on the Boldt screw up: I did say that it hadn't been heard in court because that was the way I recalled it. I wasn't quoting from something I'd read.

As far a reporting back on errors in the NYT/Seattle Time article, I've been busy. It's Mother's Day, you know, AND the grass won't mow itself.

So that's my spin: you pulled a quote from an article that illustrated a point you wanted to make and presented it, I think, poorly. You still haven't addressed the questions I asked about how the NOAA Fisheries draft policy attacks wild fish, and that's where this started. How does it do that when it recognizes the need to preserve wild stock?

My $.02,

Keith