HawaiiStories: SCR 18 (Patriot Act)

Comments

Posted by Nobody on May 2, 2003 6:33 PM:

Geez...get your panties out of a bunch, will you?

I just did a search for "Hawaii Patriot Act" on Starbulletin.com, and it turned up this:

April 30, 2003 Star-Bulletin Story

Yeah, it's a staff report and is probably worth a closer look - you should call the newsroom (or even e-mail them) and suggest it. But it was also in print and on the net well before Hawaiinews.com posted something. (And by the way, what's up with attributing a quote to a Star-Bulletin report without an accompanying link? Kinda half-ass if you ask me.)

Oh, and along those lines - if you're going to post something, provide us all with a link to the story, will ya?

You're welcome.

Posted by Nobody on May 2, 2003 6:39 PM:

Here's an Associated Press report that was printed in the Star-Bulletin a month ago.

And the Hawaiinews.com report. (The Hemmings quote attributed to a Star-Bulletin story comes from the above link, FYI.)

Posted by Sin on May 2, 2003 7:15 PM:

Yeah, I found that story too no problem at the bulletin website. I think maybe people are too quick to google something and then don't bother looking anywhere else if they can't find it. Looks like that's what happened in this case.

Posted by Ryan on May 2, 2003 8:08 PM:

Hmm. No question I'm not the only Star-Bulletin fan here.

The Google comment is apt. There was a time when I joked about how little journalists knew about it as a powerful resource. Now I've read about several pieces based entirely on Google searches that turned out to be incomplete or plain wrong (like the William Safire piece on Jack Dempsey in the New York Times).

Google News uses some funky algoritms, and in a smaller dataset like Hawaii-specific news, some things are confusingly over- or under-weighted. But the Star-Bulletin site itself has a damn good search engine. (The Advertiser has... a search engine too.)

And by the way, what's up with attributing a quote to a Star-Bulletin report without an accompanying link? Kinda half-ass if you ask me.

Yeah, it was. Usually HawaiiNews.com does link source pieces (not just source outlets) in true blog style - a practice unusual in most mainstream outlets 'cause of the need to not send readers away.

And before someone else's panties gets in a bunch, the Star-Bulletin deserves kudos for regularly including links in articles posted online. I don't know how many times I've had to Google something I read in that other paper to get more information.

Posted by Linkmeister on May 2, 2003 8:48 PM:

Well, I searched all over the Advertiser site, using the term Patriot Act; I got nothing. Maybe I didn't look hard enough at the S-B site, so I'll own up to that.

But I'd have thought there would have been several stories in both papers; that law is increasingly controversial, and while there've been something like 92 municipalities that have denounced it, we're the only state that has.

Posted by Sin on May 2, 2003 9:06 PM:

More than one story on it? Why? Did Hawaii reject the Patriot Act more than once? Otherwise there's nothing to update.

Posted by Sin on May 2, 2003 9:07 PM:

Oh yeah, dogpile.com is a good search engine too. For those of you who feel the need to expand beyond your googling.

Posted by Linkmeister on May 3, 2003 10:23 AM:

Sheesh! Do you two work for the S-B? What's with the defensiveness? I asked a simple question, that's all.

I'm still wondering why there wasn't more background published about this decision; it's a direct slap at Ashcroft/Bush and their policies; I'd even call it fairly courageous, given how dependent Hawai'i is on federal money. Being the only state to do this would seem to be an event which might merit some discussion of the causes for the legislature deciding this way.

Posted by Ryan on May 3, 2003 11:40 AM:

Do you two work for the S-B?

Hmm.

Being the only state to do this would seem to be an event which might merit some discussion of the causes for the legislature deciding this way.

Even if, to be fair, that brings us to, "Democrat-controlled." While there are a few surprises on the list of local governments passing these resolutions, I'm afraid most of them are somewhat fairly deemed "the usual suspects."

(A blog I read that wrote about it also quipped, "You can't get much further left than Hawaii." Yuk yuk.)

The Star-Bulletin ran that it passed, at least. I only noticed a pre-passage piece in the Honolulu Advertiser... though admittedly I wasn't looking that closely (who would?). I think it might be fair to say the debate over the resolution constituted the majority of coverage overall, versus its final approval.

Posted by Albert on May 3, 2003 1:39 PM:

Hey, stop all this talk about twisted underwear, makes me feel very uncomfortable. :)

This whole thing has been strangely underplayed by media here. I first heard about it from a friend in California.

As I see it, reason for Hawaii to feel proud.

Posted by JT on May 5, 2003 1:20 PM:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Apr/02/ln/ln33a.html

Just gotta put "patriot act" in quotes. Quotes are the best friends of the search-engine savvy ... but ...

If you search for "patriot act resolution" with or without quotes, it narrows things down to 2 articles. Even a simple search for "Hawaii patriot act" with no quotes turns up 2 pages of results, among which is the above-mentioned story. Did you look at all the results?

Posted by Ryan on May 5, 2003 2:12 PM:

Clearly, Link, you've touched a nerve!

My point, though, still stands. The Advertiser article linked above is one of the only ones referring to the resolution, and it does so as a resolution being debated — I didn't see anything about it actually passing.

The other results relate to Judith Krug's ALA presentation (which was noteworthy in the Patriot Act debate, and good to see) and opinion pieces.

To date, the Hawaii resolution has merited mention on a number of prominent sites (which refer to the Star-Bulletin, Hawaii IndyMedia, and HawaiiNews.com), and they're not all left-leaning liberal ones, either.

I think a fair conclusion would be that the resolution's passage is considered more significant to people outside Hawai`i (see this Denver Post editorial) than within. Interpret as you like.

A less definite conclusion might be that both daily papers here need better local search engines. (I find using Google with the "site:" switch to be quickest.)

Posted by Linkmeister on May 5, 2003 2:28 PM:

You know, the only reason I asked the question was that I occasionally contribute over here, and I wanted a couple of stories to link to when discussing it. I don't quite understand the depth of feeling in the tone of these responses. Oh well, I now have a couple of links, although the Advertiser one is, as Ryan says, not "the rest of the story."

Posted by Sin on May 7, 2003 3:49 PM:

Hey, I was only responding to the question, which was:

"Have I gone blind, or have our two major newspapers decided that our state legislature's decision not to comply with a major Federal statute is not newsworthy?"

The answer was "no" although I do have to agree that the stories in either paper could have used more background definitely.

Posted by Ryan on May 8, 2003 10:13 AM:

Hawaii is getting a lot of play (and kudos) on the oft-cited "Bill of Rights Defence Committee" website.

But a resolution is a resolution. I see the city council in Arcata, Calif. has actually passed an ordinance to actively protect residents from cooperation between the city and federal law enforcement under provisions of the Patriot Act that are not in accord with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

I wonder if any of our guys would even dare to bring it up for debate?

Posted by Linkmeister on May 8, 2003 5:13 PM:

Not unless they want to be bludgeoned by Djou, who appears to be running for Mayor after only, what, six months on the Council? Or maybe nattered at incessantly by Kobayashi, since it would just be a waste of council's time, and she's the demon waste-hater. ;)

Posted by Brent on June 16, 2004 11:43 AM:

Hey everyone,

Don't argue with each other based on who is left and who is right. The point here is that left or right, you have the constitutional right to have an opinion. You realize that you have been intentionally picked against each other so that you might never see the truth. The great country we live in has over 90 recognized political parties. We only get to choose from any given two (minus the rare independent) WHO DOESN'T COUNT!

You think its just some random freak occurance?

Well, keep fighting each other over what color your tie is. Me, i'm out here ducking bullets in the desert fighting for your right to even have an opinion.

And you all sit at home and play paper, rock, sissors.

We don't need big brother to keep us safe, Dont forget that every example in history where government has been given such supreme power has ended with much more suffering than we might protect ourselves from by handing our freedom over to a corperate puppet.

Bush or Kerry, if they're mainstream they are a corperate puppet, hand picked and raised to be so. Forget the two party system. We need reform, We need accountability, We need freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PP- question sleep...

April 2008
Sa	M	T	W	R	F	Su
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

SCR 18 (Patriot Act)

Comments

Post a Comment