Claremont blog still howling like a wounded dog

Reading the latest rant against the Weekly by that primer of syllogistic fallacies known as the Claremont Insider, I’m reminded of an old newsroom saying: “You know you hit ‘em in the sweet spot when they howl high and long.”

“High and long” is really the best way to describe the anonymous blog’s apoplectic squealing over the August 7 article, “Anonymity Sucks: What really happened with the Claremont Cookie Monster” [issue 18, August 7-13] in which I examined—among other things—the Insider’s peculiar brand of pseudo-journalism. Within days of the article’s publication, Insider blogger Claremont Buzz posted not one but two flailing retorts, accusing me of everything from factual errors and “conspiracy” to bad grammar. 

We at the Weekly knew the article would produce a virulent reaction from the blog: Virulently reacting is what anonymous bullies do. 

Not that the Insider’s two rants don’t hold a measure of value: far from it. They’re an education. Taken as a whole, they contain the essence—the distilled stank—of just about everything that’s wrong with the blog, particularly its penchant for getting things wrong. 

“Not to pick nits, but the Inland Empire Weekly article by David Silva about the fight between Claremont Mayor Ellen Taylor and a local Girl Scout troop had a number of errors, as we pointed out a couple days ago,” Buzz wrote August 11. 

Well, no, not really. My article wasn’t really about “the fight” between Taylor and the Scouts—wouldn’t you agree, Buzz? The notion of Taylor being engaged in a fight with Girl Scouts is your construct, not mine. No, my article was about how the L.A. Times missed the real story behind the Scout issue. And that the real story was how you, Claremont Buzz of the Claremont Insider, seized upon a brief, minor dispute between your arch-nemesis and a group of young girls and shamelessly exploited it to serve your own ends. Isn’t that closer to the truth, Buzz? 

And, no, your post from a couple days earlier did not “point out” a “number of errors” in the IE Weekly article. In fact, it “pointed out” exactly zero errors, from which I’m happy to conclude that you found the article factually accurate. What your August 8 post did do was whine on and on about all the stuff you tried your damnedest to get me to write about, but didn’t. 

For instance, you really, really tried to get me chasing after that red herring when you suggested, in your emailed response to my questions, that I look into previous allegations of Taylor’s “pridefulness” (say what you want about my grammar, Buzz, but at least I don’t invent words) and “snobbery.” Sorry, but spreading rumors and innuendo is your bailiwick, not mine.

You also complained that I didn’t “include any quote from any of the Girl Scouts’ parents,” and that I seemed “content to take Taylor’s version of events . . . at face value without any apparent attempt at interviewing the other parties.” Oh, there you go again. Come on, Buzz:  Don’t you think it’s time to quit dragging the Girl Scouts into your own silly game? No, obviously you don’t.  

Well, since you stated in your email that Insider bloggers “aren’t set up to be journalists, we just went by what the (Claremont) Courier reported,” let me see if I can put this in words you might understand:  We real journalists do a lot of “behind-the-scenes” stuff—like call witnesses and interview police officers and such—that never shows up in print. It’s called “investigative journalism.” You wouldn’t know any of this, because, as you’ve said, you’re not a real journalist, and write everything and anything you think and feel and assume, regardless. But that’s OK: you go on writing your Insider posts and don’t worry your anonymous head about it.

The Insider’s August 8 post goes on in this vein, howling high and long while saying nothing of relevance to anything. The August 11 post is a little better—it manages to make exactly one relevant point. That point isn’t, of course, Buzz’s main point, which is that I somehow erred when I stated Claremont’s solicitation ordinance doesn’t contain a single mention of the Girl Scouts. Buzz flatly admits the statement is correct—nowhere in the ordinance’s 19 pages can the name “Girl Scouts” be found. But then, for reasons you’ll just have to chalk up to apoplexy, he goes on to make the big reveal that the city’s online summary of the ordinance mentions Girl Scouts in its definitions of charitable organizations excluded from certain provisions of the ordinance. 

Uh . . . okay . . . so we’re right, but...huh? I keep trying to figure out what Buzz was trying to say there, and all I get is random data, like “the capital of North Carolina is Raleigh.” A fact, to be sure, but what does it have to do with anything?

No, the only legitimate complaint Buzz manages to voice in two separate tirades is I didn’t interview Claremont Mayor Pro Tem Corey Calaycay for my story. That’s significant, because—as Buzz notes—Calaycay’s profile in the article was raised when we ran a photo of him with it. While I never intended that photo to run with the article (unlike the Insider, the Weekly is a larger operation than just an Apple computer and a DSL cable), the fact it did obligates me to say, for the record, that I’ve heard and read nothing to suggest Calaycay has anything to do with the Insider, or had anything to do with the blog’s exploitation of the Scout issue. 

Boy, Buzz, talk about taking the long way to making a point! Good job. Your blog is still crap, though. 

–David Silva