The Olympian and the Olympia City Council blur the distinction between hate speech and civic dissent

author : Sandy Mayes topic : Media monopoly

by Sandy Mayes

[The following is an edited version of an article published in the print edition of WIP, originally entitled “The Olympian is outraged.”]

When a newspaper has a monopoly in a community, as the Olympian does in ours, it wields considerable power to frame the issues and control the story. The editorial board, in particular, can significantly impact public opinion.

But the editors do not always rely on fact and logic to make their case. When favored policies or politicians cannot be supported on their merits, they may focus instead on marginalizing, demonizing, and silencing opponents. Questioning the character or competence of politicians whose views are at odds with those of the paper, is a time tested tactic. When a politician's views line up perfectly with their own, local events may be spun in a manner designed to deflect criticism from that politician and any unpopular positions which both he and the newspaper champion.

Such is the case with the Olympian's treatment of the recent anonymous attacks on Councilmember Jeff Kingsbury. At a time when the Olympia City Council's popularity appears to be at an all-time low, for moving forward on the isthmus rezone and other unpopular measures promoted by the Olympian, the paper is framing the story in such a way as to stifle dissent. A few anonymous acts of vandalism and some defamatory messages are being exploited by the Olympian editors to draw an implied association between those anonymous tactics and any open expression of views similar to the ones ostensibly reflected in the tactics. The effect is to generalize the outrage over the attacks on Kingsbury, directing it at any person or group actively opposing not only Kingsbury's policies, but those of the City Council as a whole.

Anonymous acts of vandalism and defamation

In July, a person or group calling itself the Nihilist Assault Group (NAG) claimed credit for throwing paint-filled light bulbs at Kingsbury's place of business, the Capitol Playhouse. In a message posted on various indymedia sites, NAG cited Kingsbury's positions on Camp Quixote, the noise ordinance, and the proposed isthmus condo project as the motive behind the vandalism. The post was mostly a personal, ad hominem attack and leveled this menacing threat: “We will make sure you pay the price for meddling in things it is best to leave alone.”

On July 10, the Olympian quoted Kingsbury: “This is terrorism, and frankly, I will press charges to the highest extreme that the law allows."

Kingsbury also reported that the Capitol Playhouse locks had been filled with glue. Councilmember Joe Hyer's business was vandalized as well, but neither of these actions were mentioned by NAG.

Another message, this time credited to “Friends of NAG,” was widely posted on the internet in October, targeting both Kingsbury and the Olympian. The “communiqué” praised the vandalism on the Capitol Playhouse and claimed credit for an incident on Oct. 6 in which the tires of four Olympian vans were slashed. Again, the piece was an ad hominem rant which included this comment: “Jeff Kingsbury is a successful queer politician. But he is also a traitor and a despicable human being.”

On Nov. 21, the Olympian reported that once again Councilmember Kingsbury had been the target of an anonymous personal attack. This time it came in the form of a postcard falsely signed in his name, sent to several local churches and social service agencies. The text on the postcard opens with relatively benign satirical references to Kingsbury's role in local politics. From there, it quickly devolves into a repugnant application of double-entendres, implying that he is soliciting sex with “young boys” through his theater work ― playing on homophobic attitudes and stereotypes about gay sexuality.

In the Nov. 21 article, the Olympian quoted Kingsbury in reference to the postcard and other anonymous actions: “This is clearly an attempt to intimidate. ...I refuse to be part of a culture of fear. I will not do it. ...This is absolutely emotional terrorism.”

Creating a culture of fear: Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists

The postcard stunt met with swift, nearly universal condemnation throughout the community, on local blogs and elsewhere. On Olyblog, for instance, people who have differed strongly with Kingsbury for his policies and behaviors on the City Council, castigated the perpetrator and rallied around Kingsbury with expressions of support: “Like Jeff, or hate Jeff, the card campaign is bullshit. It spreads lies about his political ambitions and plays a homophobic card for motivations yet to [be] understood. I for one stand right beside Jeff and condemn this cowardly act.” ― Laurian.

Yet in an editorial on Nov. 25, the Olympian editors assume a tone of righteous indignation which seems to imply otherwise: “We as a community must stand up to this hate speech. ...If not, if this community doesn't stand up and say this type of behavior won't be tolerated, then we are on a downward spiral that is deplorable. ...It's time for this community to stand up. ”

And although the postcard and acts of vandalism against Kingsbury and Hyer were isolated acts, any of which could easily have been perpetrated by very few, or even one lone individual, the editorial seems to cast a much wider net in implicating views and behaviors worthy of the community's condemnation: “If the incendiary postcard was an isolated incident, that would be one thing. But the sad truth is in recent months we've seen an escalation of the personal attacks against members of the Olympia City Council. ...Councilwoman Rhenda Strub said she and other council members have faced 'constant abuse and bullying,' some of it from individuals once considered friends.”

So, the “downward spiral” which the community must “stand up” to includes not only the “personal attacks against members of the Olympia City Council” perpetrated by NAG and the postcard sender, but also the “constant abuse and bullying” from “individuals [which council members] once considered friends.”

The Nov. 21 article summarizes Kingsbury's speculations about who may have sent the postcard and why: “He said he has been targeted because he has taken a stand on controversial issues — supporting approval of a stricter noise ordinance, repeal of the city's Nuclear Free Zone Ordinance and passage of an ordinance restricting camping in recreational vehicles on city streets.

“Kingsbury also made the motion for the council to prepare legislation to raise building-height limits in an area between Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake, paving the way for proposed five and seven-story mixed-use condominium buildings. That proposal has drawn strong opposition from a few hundred residents, including some who have been vehement in their opposition.” (Emphasis added.)

When I wrote to the author of the article, Matt Batcheldor, questioning the reference to “a few hundred residents” who opposed the condo project, when in fact over 5,000 people in a little over one month signed a petition supporting a park instead, he replied that “the passage you question [I sent the entire paragraph] ...was added to the story during the editing process. I will pass along your concern to my editor.”

In other words, the editor added text which specifically implicated people working to oppose the isthmus rezone, and which contained blatant disinformation concealing what is clearly a groundswell of opposition to the rezone.

The Olympian has vigorously supported the isthmus rezone from the beginning. What now distinguishes the rezone from those other “controversial issues” cited by Kingsbury, is that those changes have already been passed into law by the Council. Since the expected final vote on the isthmus rezone is still pending (Dec. 16), there remains particular value for the Olympian editors (and rezone proponents on the City Council) in misrepresenting the facts related to the issue and marginalizing those who oppose it, a tactic they've employed with other “controversial issues” over the years.

Conditional treatment of principles and politicians

In the Nov. 25 editorial, the Olympian editors challenge Kingsbury's critics to “have the courage of their convictions and publicly argue for their cause with facts or logic.” This implies commitment to a standard which the editorial board itself only applies conditionally, depending on the issues or the politicians in question.

The isthmus rezone: Since, for instance, facts and logic inconveniently contradict the paper's position on the isthmus rezone, the editorial board resorts to obfuscation and disinformation to argue its case. Try to find fact or logic cited anywhere in a convoluted Nov. 18 editorial, defending the City Council's decision to move forward with finalizing the isthmus rezone in advance of the mandated park feasibility study. A preemptive vote to rezone the isthmus would sabotage the feasibility of a park by increasing the value of the property, thus subverting a good-faith democratic process, and likely inviting a well-grounded litigation against the City. The only “rationale” offered by the Olympian editors as to why such an irresponsible maneuver by the Council should occur is that, 1) the councilmembers “want to” do it, and 2) “this is not a perfect world.”

The editorial states, “The petition requires the city to complete the study within five months ― which makes the study due by mid-March. That's problematic for the council members because they want to vote on Tri Vo's rezone proposal in early December. Five of the seven council members have signaled their support for the increased building heights. In a perfect world, it would make sense to have the park feasibility study completed before the council takes action on the rezone request. After all the rezone and park are competing proposals for the same chunk of property. But this is not a perfect world and City Manager Steve Hall recognized that fact. He said the city was better off doing the study in one phase like the petitioners requested.”

The editors do not explain why doing the study “in one phase” in any way necessitates or rationalizes voting on the rezone before the study is completed.

Then consider the unabashed mendacity of this statement: “Critics, primarily focused on the mistaken notion that the development will block views, have rallied against the proposed development.” (Emphasis added. No rebuttal necessary.)

TJ Johnson: On Nov. 25, the Olympian editors stated: “No council member, no public servant, should be subjected to personal attack, vandalism or hate speech. ...It's time to end the hate speech and personal attacks on public servants.” Yet outrage from the Olympian regarding personal attack and hate speech against councilmembers is selectively applied.

Former Councilmember TJ Johnson is a perfect case in point. I asked Johnson to comment on the editorial about the attacks on Jeff Kingsbury. He told me about a communication he had with Editorial Page Editor, Mike Oakland, and Executive Editor Vicky Kilgore after receiving numerous threats by phone and e-mail at his home during his time on the Council. One caller told Johnson that he had a 30-06 gun and knew where he lived and where his child went to school. Johnson reported these threats to Olympia police, and contacted Oakland and Kilgore to express concern that such threats against him were commonplace on the Olympian website comment forum.

According to Johnson, the Olympian managers told him that essentially there was nothing much they could do about it. The online attacks were expressions of “free speech” and were a “reflection of the community's feelings.” Although the threats were reported to the police, and were well-known to the public since Johnson had discussed it at Council meetings, at no point did the Olympian publish an editorial expressing outrage; in fact in one editorial (cited below), they actually justified the threats: “What did Johnson expect ... ?” They never admonished forum participants for making similar threats and other personal attacks against Johnson. And they certainly did not attempt to discredit Johnson's opponents through implied association with such threats.

(When Works In Progress contacted Oakland by e-mail, asking to discuss the Olympian's editorial policy, he replied, “No thanks.”)

TJ Johnson, has often taken positions which have stood in direct contrast to those taken by the Olympian editorial board. The following are a few examples:

In May 2004, along with many individuals and peace groups opposed to nuclear weapons, Johnson opposed a visit to our city from the USS Olympia, a nuclear powered, nuclear armed submarine. The visit was essentially a military PR and recruitment stunt.

In Jan. 2005, Johnson voiced his objection to the fact that the Port of Olympia did not make known to the public a decision to make preparations for resuming military contracts after 17 years, thereby foregoing opportunity for public input.

In Aug. 2005, the Olympia City Council passed a Nuclear Free Zone Ordinance proposed by Johnson. He had been instrumental in organizing and rallying the community in support of the ordinance.

(The ordinance was repealed by the current City Council on Sept. 8 this year, largely at the behest of the Olympian. As reported in the Sitting Duck: “About 130 cities in the country have passed various nuclear free initiatives; Olympia is the first to have repealed one.”)

The Olympian claimed on Nov. 25 to embrace the kind of principled courage of conviction personified in Johnson. But in direct contradiction to that, and contrary to their professed disdain for personal attacks on public servants, Johnson has been a frequent target of personal attacks in Olympian editorials. Here are a few excerpts:

5/27/04: “They unnecessarily snubbed the USS Olympia and its crew and in the process slapped every military man and woman ― active and retired ― across the face.

“Olympia Councilman TJ Johnson's resolution to oppose a visit from the USS Olympia was mean-spirited and just plain rude. His characterization of the ship as a 'killing machine' naturally provoked an angry and heated response ― including irate calls to his home. What did Johnson expect when he used such an explosive phrase? ...There is no room to rebuke the men and women fighting to preserve freedom and democracy.”

1/30/05: “... Councilman Johnson is sticking his nose where it does not belong.”

8/28/05: “Olympia is now a nuclear-free zone. Big deal! When will the Olympia City Council stop wasting its time and the public's money on meaningless, unenforceable ordinances that have little direct impact on the lives of community residents?

“Oh, sure, Councilman TJ Johnson will tell you how he attended a national conference this year and returned all inspired about a few cities across the country that have adopted nuclear-free ordinances, how national movements grow from grassroots efforts and how each of us as a global citizen must work for peace and justice and on and on and on.”

Jeff Kingsbury: While the Olympian appears to have gone out of its way to disparage TJ Johnson, they have allowed Jeff Kingsbury to spin certain events to his own advantage. The postcard which was falsely mailed in Kingsbury's name included this statement: “Lately there has been a bit of an uproar about me calling people 'idiots', what's the big deal, most people are, I am just the guy that's man enough to say it.”

The passage references the following Facebook conversation Kingsbury participated in during the public comments period of a City Council meeting on Nov. 3:

Jeff, 7:13 pm: “Jeff is listening to an idiot at the moment.” [A “status update.”]

Eric, 7:23 pm: “who's the idiot?”

Jeff, 7:30 pm: “A citizen who doesn't like our policy. I'm in Council.”

Megan, 7:36 pm: “Facebook in Council ... nice!”

Jeff, 7:37 pm: “lol [laughing out loud] ... you should hear these folks, I can look directly at them and type at the same time!”

The conversation got posted on Olyblog, triggering an article in the Olympian. As reported on Nov. 5, Kingsbury told the Olympian that the “idiot” he referred to was Jim Reeve (aka Moses) who made a racist remark about Barack Obama. The Olympian did not press him to explain the “folks” he referred to in the “lol” comment made later.

The Olympian also reported that Kingsbury, “... acknowledged that he sometimes uses Facebook in council meetings, 'maybe a total of a minute.'” They did not include the time stamps of the Facebook comments, nor did they point out an apparent contradiction to Kingsbury's “one minute” claim: the conversation in question began with Kingsbury's post at 7:13 pm, and his last comment was at 7:37 pm, 24 minutes later.

The Olympian repeated Kingsbury's abbreviated, less than forthcoming, version of the Facebook incident in the Nov. 21 report about the postcard: it was merely an ill-mannered assertion of disapproval of someone making racist remarks.

Aside from the inappropriateness of a councilmember using Facebook to ridicule speakers during a council meeting, the point to consider here is how differently the story might have been treated had the councilmember in question not been one so highly favored by the Olympian editors.

The Council's chilling effect on public participation

In reference to the attacks on Kingsbury, the Olympian reported that Mayor Doug Mah “...said if these attacks escalate, they will have a chilling effect on public participation.” That may be, but if Mah and other councilmembers are concerned about public participation, they have a funny way of showing it.

In July, the Council changed the protocol regarding public comment by prohibiting any comment on an item for 180 days prior to a public hearing on the item, in addition to the previous restriction only limiting comment for 180 days following a public hearing, for a total of six months during which public comment is prohibited on a given topic, except during a single public forum.

Because there was a public hearing on the isthmus rezone on Sept. 16, public comment is currently closed to that issue. This presents a dilemma for the many people wishing to call on the Council to postpone a vote on the rezone until the park feasibility study is completed. Although the study is still open for comment, it is difficult to speak of it in any meaningful way without referencing the rezone.

Bonnie Jacobs, of Friends of the Waterfront, found a way. At the City Council meeting on Nov. 25, with an overflow crowd of supporters in attendance, she limited her 3 minutes of comment to simply listing many of the wonderful ideas coming out of a recent Citizen Action Forum to save the isthmus, where 170 people shared their ideas for better uses of the isthmus than condos.

But as compelling as Jacobs' testimony was, there was much more to be said on the matter and a few of us went ahead and did so, referencing the rezone in the process.

Although we don't know exactly what kinds of comments Councilmember Strub referred to when she told the Olympian that “she and other council members have faced 'constant abuse and bullying,'” the Council meeting on Nov. 25 may have been instructive.

This meeting occurred on the same day that the Olympian published its editorial expressing outrage over the attacks on Councilmember Kingsbury, and broadly generalized that outrage to other forms of “personal attacks” against the Council as a whole. As I was in attendance at the meeting that night, I noted then and later as I viewed it online, that public comments were, without exception, civil, well-spoken, and free of acrimony. Yet Councilmembers Joe Hyer and Craig Ottavelli found cause to complain.

Hyer couched his complaint in “positive” terms and addressed them to Bonnie Jacobs: “You've talked positively, not what we shouldn't do but what we should do, and I thank you for that because all too often we hear just too negative of things about stopping, and not doing, things.”

But every positive has a negative flip side and visa versa: if you are for a park on the isthmus, you are against the rezone; if you were against repealing the Nuclear Free Zone Ordinance, you were for keeping the ordinance. Hyer's admonition effectively limits what people might feel is permissible to say and how they may say it.

Ottavelli began his remarks by thanking people for the positive things that were said, but then added, in a grave tone reminiscent of that day's editorial, “Not all of the comments have been positive. I've heard my colleagues and myself accused of insensitivity and uncaring and the list goes on of all the derogatory, hurtful comments [which he declined to specifically cite]. ...to accuse any member of this body of not caring or being unethical... I don't believe that helps the dialogue... So I do hope that those sorts of accusations will come to an end.”

Just for the record, no one “accused” the Council of being “uncaring,” but one person did ask them if they “care” about public opinion. And no one “accused” the Council of being “unethical,” although I did state that finalizing the rezone in advance of the park feasibility study “would be not only unethical, and predictably very unpopular, possibly illegal, but also a supremely irresponsible thing for the Council to do.”

Ottavelli's characterization of public comments as being “derogatory” or “hurtful” personal “accusations," apparently applied to any position statement in disagreement with the Council's policies ― thus conflating issue-focused comment with personal attack (of which I heard none).

At no point did Ottavelli address the substance of any specific comment which he characterized in that way.

If the public comments at this meeting are examples of what either the Council or the Olympian editors consider to be “personal attacks” which must “come to an end,” then essentially they're saying they would prefer that we not speak at all.

Between them, the Olympian and the City Council wield a lot of power in this community. Unless openly and relentlessly challenged, they can lay claim, without evidence, to what constitutes mainstream opinion or what represents the interests of their constituents. Challenges to their agenda, however civil or well-substantiated, will always be dismissed as “negative,” “mean-spirited,” “anti-troop,” divisive,” and “fringe.” Through shame and intimidation, they will obfuscate the facts as they seek to marginalize their challengers.

But the truth has a way of shining through as long as there are enough people willing to stand up and openly speak it. And truth ―whether it be calling a nuclear-armed submarine a “killing machine” or an “unethical” policy decision for what it is― is the only measure of our words that should matter.

A follow-up to this article, focusing on the lack of accountability by both the Olympian and the City Council, will appear in the next month's Works In Progress.