OPUBCO / Oklahoman Business Practices

[Urbanized]

I think it's an important discussion for the betterment of Oklahoma journalism and in turn the OKC community. I have done my best to get objective viewpoints from experts and try and hold myself accountable and raise the bar locally when it comes to proper and best journalistic practices.

l will add that you have repeatedly defended this particular writer on this forum yet I have never seen you do the same when that same person has used his loud megaphone provided by his powerful employer to trash this site, me personally and directly lift our content without providing due credit.

That's your prerogative but you're involvement in all of this has been in no way objective or equal.

1. Produce examples of me "repeatedly defending" the reporter in question. I have stayed away from doing so with purpose, especially in recent years. You may find a few, but very few. You are perhaps confusing postings here with private conversations you and I have had.

2. You are 100% and CATEGORICALLY incorrect that I do not defend you or this site. I have stuck my neck out privately (and continue to) on your behalf and on the behalf of the site for years, and to people who matter. It would probably be advisable for me not to do so, considering pervasive negative views and lack of understanding that many people have regarding OKCTalk. As you know I believe it is a valuable tool and I believe you are a valuable and well-intentioned voice in our community.

4. Regarding this particular individual, I strongly encouraged him years ago to stay away from any negative talk of this site, and for the most part in recent years he has done so, to my knowledge. All I know is I am personally exposed to near-constant discussion on this site disparaging and discrediting that publication and that reporter - which I almost never respond to - and these days I rarely if ever hear disparagement from the other party. Also - as I have told you personally - some of the most difficult discussions and heated disagreements I have had with him have been in defense of you and this site, which as I just stated are essentially coming after him at every turn and trashing him and his publication daily. This is not at all difficult to document. Scroll through any thread; it is an obsession of this site. To suggest I haven't is simply not true, and honestly insulting, considering how vigorously I defend you to anyone. Like I have said in this post and have told you personally many times before, I stick my neck out for this site, its value, and for Pete himself on a very regular basis. I've expended personal and (I'm sure) political capital on your behalf, and will continue to do so, and I'd thank you to acknowledge this. I know for a fact that you're aware of it.

3. Finally, regarding me being involved in the discussion, I will once again say that it is only to point out that Steve is a columnist in addition to being a reporter. Some people seem to be unaware of this. This isn't a defense of him. It is only clarification.

[baralheia]

[...] considering pervasive negative views and lack of understanding that many people have regarding OKCTalk.

Please forgive my ignorance, but.... why? I personally find OKCTalk to be an incredible resource for learning about new projects and the inner workings of what's happening in OKC. What negative views of the site do you hear?

[catcherinthewry]

Please forgive my ignorance, but.... why? I personally find OKCTalk to be an incredible resource for learning about new projects and the inner workings of what's happening in OKC. What negative views of the site do you hear?

This was news to me as well. I've never heard one negative thing about this website.

[Urbanized]

Please forgive my ignorance, but.... why? I personally find OKCTalk to be an incredible resource for learning about new projects and the inner workings of what's happening in OKC. What negative views of the site do you hear?

Most of it comes from persons who only casually/occasionally read the the site, or have a lack of understanding of how discussion forums work. Consider that for many in business and leadership in OKC their first interaction with this site is/was when someone directs them to a thread where their business/design/development/effort is being critiqued/criticized. In fact this is how I originally came to post regularly on the site a decade ago; I was responding to my business being denigrated here. Others arrived here in the same manner, for instance, Jeepnokc who came here because of critiques of the office he was building. Instead of taking it personally or rejecting the site as a bunch of haters as some do, he tried to better understand the criticism and also to politely engage, plus correct imperfect information where warranted. I took the same approach myself. Today that approach of course is social media 101, and extends to consumer sites like Yelp, Tripadvisor, Facebook business listings, etc...but all of these sites are variously seen as hater sites by many people whose only interactions are when they go there to see their own negative reviews.

A casual user would also not understand that when someone puts forward incorrect information on this site (as will naturally happen in any open forum) it is almost always quickly corrected by someone with access to more accurate info. This is an important and valuable feature of this site; there are knowledgeable contributors who can and usually do correct misinformation. You and I are regulars here and understand that it exists, but if you are not a regular reader you would NOT understand this. Their (wrong) perception is that anyone can say anything without consequence or correction.

Good use of the FORUM function of OKCTalk really demands that a reader invest time and effort into knowing who is credible, knowing and understanding various biases people may have, etc.. An example of this is in the convention center discussion. Most anyone who follows that discussion knows that Pete and I regularly go back and forth (generally with much respect for the other's opinion). I get many messages both online and in person from people who appreciate industry insight that I bring. But a seasoned reader is also perfectly justified in remembering that I am still from within the visitor industry (as Pete often reminds people) and therefore they're entitled to take my opinion with a grain of salt or to dismiss me as merely a booster. Just as they must also remember that Pete has routinely expressed considerable questioning (I'll stop short of saying bias) toward most current uses of TIF and other public funding in general, plus a disdain for certain personalities and processes (or lack thereof ). It is completely fair to consider all of these things when analyzing our conversations, and often the truth is somewhere in the middle, anyway.

But a casual user of the site (most still are) doesn't have the benefit of knowing our various angles. They also don't know when someone commenting on a project has - for instance - a background in urban planning vs - again for instance - a simple and general disdain for anything and everything OKC (I'm sure you can think of one or two volume posters over the years who fit this description). The problem is for a casual consumer of information, the latter comes off so shockingly negative (and in the past, high-volume) that it unfairly colors their opinion of the entire site. I will pause to point out that Pete has actually BANNED a few of the people who were so pervasively negative, and much to the benefit of the discourse here in my opinion. I know personally that he struggled with these decisions but ultimately decided that honest, civil discourse and the site's overall reputation outweighed unrestricted speech or any value they brought. And those of us who are regulars here know that the comments on the site are overwhelmingly positive and constructive, in reality.

But the reputation of those negative posters still remains, especially among people who rejected the site years ago over those types of comments, and this is most unfair in my opinion. This is where I often stick my neck out; I ALWAYS defend Pete, this site and its general population of posters to people who try to paint the site with one brush, as often happens in my experience. If you've never heard a bad word we definitely move in different circles; I find myself defending the site several times a month, minimum. Some of this probably also happens because I'm open about my identity here; people know I post on this site and often ask me why I bother. If a person completely hides their identity on here they probably don't have near the number of people spontaneously asking them about the site. If you think this doesn't happen or does not exist in the community, just ask Pete directly, as he is very aware of those comments and is justifiably offended by them. It 100% does happen - often among people who very much matter - and it is surely maddening for him as OKCTalk's owner as I know it is frustrating for me as someone who uses and appreciates the site.

Also, many casual consumers don't recognize the difference between the discussion forum and Pete's news gathering for the site. I know he has worked diligently to provide some separation between the two, which I think is very appropriate.

Finally, the other things that I think have a bearing are occasional, very personal comments made on OKCTalk towards persons who aren't here to defend themselves but who usually are otherwise well-regarded in the community. Those without question turn off not only those specific people (when the comments get back around to them) but also the people who know them personally, work with them, respect them. This is a small town in many ways. Again I will point out that Pete has done a very good job over the years of squelching much of this type of talk and reminding posters that these are still individuals living and working in OKC and that we should keep things civil, even as we air differences of opinion.

I say NONE of these things as criticisms of the site - which in my own opinion is excellent and very well-moderated by Pete - I only say them to answer your question as to what negative comments exist in the community and why. I obviously greatly value the site myself or I wouldn't spend my time here trying to add to the conversation or, often, learning new information myself. But at the end of the day a certain portion of the population will view what we do here as not much different than the comment sections at the bottom of online news stories from TV and newspaper sites, although you and I know it is a thousand times more valuable and informative.

OK, enough about all of this. You asked, I answered. Hopefully that counts as me defending OKCTalk in a public forum. Feel free to go back to bashing the newspaper...

[baralheia]

Most of it comes from persons who only casually/occasionally read the the site, or have a lack of understanding of how discussion forums work.
[...]
OK, enough about all of this. You asked, I answered. Hopefully that counts as me defending OKCTalk in a public forum. Feel free to go back to bashing the newspaper...

I shortened the quote for sake of the flow of the forum, but thank you - that was an incredibly thorough and thoughtful response. By trade I'm an IT nerd, so I understand how forums can be - and it simply hadn't occurred to me that some people would have the sorts of reactions you've described. That's disappointing that some think this way, but - upon reflection - understandable, for all of the reasons you've mentioned. I really appreciate your insights and contributions to OKCTalk, both online and off!

[Pete]

1. Produce examples of me "repeatedly defending" the reporter in question. I have stayed away from doing so with purpose, especially in recent years. You may find a few, but very few. You are perhaps confusing postings here with private conversations you and I have had.

2. You are 100% and CATEGORICALLY incorrect that I do not defend you or this site. I have stuck my neck out privately (and continue to) on your behalf and on the behalf of the site for years, and to people who matter. It would probably be advisable for me not to do so, considering pervasive negative views and lack of understanding that many people have regarding OKCTalk. As you know I believe it is a valuable tool and I believe you are a valuable and well-intentioned voice in our community.

4. Regarding this particular individual, I strongly encouraged him years ago to stay away from any negative talk of this site, and for the most part in recent years he has done so, to my knowledge. All I know is I am personally exposed to near-constant discussion on this site disparaging and discrediting that publication and that reporter - which I almost never respond to - and these days I rarely if ever hear disparagement from the other party. Also - as I have told you personally - some of the most difficult discussions and heated disagreements I have had with him have been in defense of you and this site, which as I just stated are essentially coming after him at every turn and trashing him and his publication daily. This is not at all difficult to document. Scroll through any thread; it is an obsession of this site. To suggest I haven't is simply not true, and honestly insulting, considering how vigorously I defend you to anyone. Like I have said in this post and have told you personally many times before, I stick my neck out for this site, its value, and for Pete himself on a very regular basis. I've expended personal and (I'm sure) political capital on your behalf, and will continue to do so, and I'd thank you to acknowledge this. I know for a fact that you're aware of it.

3. Finally, regarding me being involved in the discussion, I will once again say that it is only to point out that Steve is a columnist in addition to being a reporter. Some people seem to be unaware of this. This isn't a defense of him. It is only clarification.

I am speaking exclusively to your public comments, which matter greatly and are the only thing that would be apparent to people who read this site.

I do appreciate your kind words and introductions which have definitely opened some doors and helped mend fences. As to why those fences needed mending in the first place, I think that has been made obvious by my previous comments.