Omgili, forum search, forums search, search forums, discussion search,discussions search, search discussions, board search, boards search, search boards
  Advanced Search

Re: USCF Blames Budget Cuts on Board Members

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:30:36 -0700 (PDT), Rob <...@gmail.com

On Jun 4, 2:19 pm, MrVidmar <...@nowhere.com
Brian,

It may in fact be accurate that these lawsuits are costing the USCF
money. I do not doubt that. However the article fails to meet most
journalistic standards on non bias and accurate reporting.

The Rules

Conflict of Interest:

The injunction to avoid conflicts of interest means that a reporter
must maintain independence from sources. In reality, however, news-
gathering involves an inextricable inter-dependence between reporters
and sources. Reporters must cultivate sources and are keenly aware
that future access to information depends on how they handle today's
story. Sources, in turn, cultivate reporters. The most valuable gifts
that reporters and sources can exchange - scoops and favorable
coverage - simply aren't recognized as gifts. And somehow, the rules
about conflict of interest seem to apply only to journalists, never to
publishers or parent corporations.

Accuracy:

Journalists are supposed to strive for accuracy, but accuracy has an
ambiguous relationship to truth. For example, a report quoting a
Pentagon spokesperson on the number of casualties in an invasion can
simultaneously be an accurate report of what the spokesperson said,
but an inaccurate representation of what actually happened.

Objectivity:

Objectivity supposedly eliminates personal prejudice and separates
fact from value and interpretation. This assumes that only facts
remain; it doesn't acknowledge unconscious, cultural or institutional
biases, or sources' biases.

Fairness:

Is it fair to report the arrest or indictment of a person accused but
not yet found guilty of a crime? That is illegal in some countries
because it may damage an innocent person wrongly accused. Does
fairness require treating all competing viewpoints as equally valid?
Does fairness extend to all? In practice it stops at the U.S. border.
The right of Castro or Ghadafi or Hussein to a balanced airing of
their perspectives is rarely acknowledged, except, perhaps, in a token
paragraph whose credibility suffers from the context within which it
appears.

Sensationalism:

Journalists are supposed to avoid sensationalism, but sensationalism
is built into the concept of news. Events are seen as newsworthy
because they deviate from the ordinary, and good reporting is seen as
presenting events in an emotionally compelling way.

Given these fundamental conflicts and ambiguities within the core
concepts of ethics codes, how the rules get applied to particular
cases often depends upon whose interests are at stake. The USCF has an
interest in the outcome. (Conflict of Interest) The USCF is the
publisher of the magazine. The USCF has used it's position as a
publisher to attack and influence opinions against parties they are
undertaking legal proceedings against.

The lack of the equal airings of all sides of this debate in the
article is therefore biased in it's presentation. The overt lack of
fairness could be seen as proof that the USCF and/or many of it's
officers are undertaking an organized attempt to destroy
professionally and/or personally the reputations of Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar.

By publishing this article the USCF could have made the case against
themselves stronger. I don't know. As a judge how would you view a
personal attack in a magazine? If say John Doe claimed had a
reputation for being a great scoker player and had the record to prove
it. And people paid him lots of money because of his skills and his
reputation. Then The soccer organization began to discredit him for
political reasons. John sues them and says they are attempting to
destroy my ability to make a living by ruining my reputation. The the
Soccer Association prints a magazine and says "John Doe is suing us
and we are losing money because of the suit." How would you view that?

The reality of the report was that the Soccer Association did not
operationally have positive cash flow and the lawsuit was simply an
amplification of current ooperational conditions.

Sorry for such a long post. I just things can be factual and still be
inaccurate by ommissions of important details.



On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:47:25 -0400, MrVidmar <...@nowhere.com

I don't think Mr. Hall was acting as a journalist. He made and posted
on the USCF's web site a statement by management.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:31:02 -0700 (PDT), Rob <...@gmail.com

On Jun 5, 12:47 pm, MrVidmar <...@nowhere.com
Still, it could have been written and been just as accurate to say"
'various lawsuits' the USCF ha become entangle with have caused us to
resort to temporary budget cuts to meet our ongoing financial
obligations".

It would still have been as accurate yet not construed as an attack
against anyone.


On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:01:14 -0700, Mike Murray <...@despammed.com

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:31:02 -0700 (PDT), Rob <...@gmail.comwrote:

quoted text -

And it would have implied that the lawsuits were something that just
happened, like you'd say bad weather caused a loss of sales.

It would have given a totally misleading impression of what happened,
namely, that an EB member, obligated to serve the best interests of
the USCF, filed suit against us, for an amount which would bankrupt
the Federation. And that the same EB member, when faced with her
obligation to the Federation and with what she evidently construed as
obligations to her husband, instead of recusing herself, went to "war"
with the Federation.

Why on earth would you feel some sort of weasely neutrality to be
appropriate here?

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Rob <...@gmail.com

On Jun 5, 5:01 pm, Mike Murray <...@despammed.com
Because one of the claims is that the USCF is attempting to destroy
their careers. This posting,because of it's non neutrality, provides
support for that claim. The USCF has ,if nothing else, a history of
knee jerk emotional and irrational ego driven responses to business
situations. Someone should save them from themselves.

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:26:33 -0700, Mike Murray <...@despammed.com

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Rob <...@gmail.comwrote:

"Because one of the claims" ? So somebody makes an outrageous claim,
and it constrains the press releases of the victim to neutrally? Come
on. From what I've read, Polgar won't say who it was that supposedly
called TT, how they are supposedly connected to the USCF, etc.

That's absolute nonsense Rob. The post was totally factual. Fact: An
EB member sued the USCF. Fact: legal costs have blown the budgets.
Neutrality has nothing to do with it.

Tolerating someone in a EB position who did what the FSS did and what
Truong is accused of would not be a business-appropriate response.
Tolerating theft of attorney-client communication would not be a
business-appropriate response. Etc., etc.

Brian Mottershead today posted a very articulate account of how Polgar
and Truong might have saved themselves from themselves. You should go
the USCF forum and read it. You a member ?

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Rob <...@gmail.com

On Jun 5, 5:26 pm, Mike Murray <...@despammed.com
You have missed the point Mike. I don't think this is going to end
well for any of the parties involved. Continuing to escalate this as
this post does has done nothing to strengthen the USCF 's case. It was
an ill advised act and is a thinly disguised personal attack.

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:22:33 -0700, Mike Murray <...@despammed.com

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Rob <...@gmail.comwrote:

"Escalate" ? One of the board members files suit against the
Federation, and stalls and delays in other actions, and you call
sending out a press release about it "escalation" ?

And a "personal" attack? There was nothing "personal" in it. Seems
to me, it described "professional" behavior.

For far, far, too long, the Federation tried to keep a relatively low
profile on the Polgar/Truong controversy. For months after Truong
refused to respond under oath to the FSS charges, after Polgar made
her "if Paul goes, I go" ultimatum, even after the e-mail hacking
incident, what did we read in "Chess Life". Nothing. Nada. Zip.

I went to a couple tournaments right in the middle of things where
virtually none of the members had the slightest idea of what had been
happening.

I argued on the USCF forum a year ago that the Federation's side of
this needed to be trumpeted in every available forum: the magazine,
press releases, everywhere.

Openness, true openness, is the way to get decent people on the EB.

Truth, not some polite evasion, some decorous "there are problems"
evasion is what the membership needs. The membership needs to know
what the problems are and who caused 'em. No sugar coating. No "keep
it the family, we'll have to work together later" stuff.

It's pretty clear to me, Rob, if any point was missed, you're the one
with the lousy aim.

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 13:38:45 -0700 (PDT), Rob <...@gmail.com

On Jun 6, 2:22 pm, Mike Murray <...@despammed.com
on this point we will have to agree to disagree Mike. Time will
determine who was right in their assessment..

Discussion Title: Re: USCF Blames Budget Cuts on Board Members
Title Keywords: USCF  Blames  Budget  Cuts  Board  Members