she suggested that press people ask questions during the public comment period at meetings.

It's hard for me to imagine that that's going to go over well, but by all means, let's take her at her word and see how long that lasts.

not to mention, it doesn't fit in well with deadlines. but hey! I'm a big believer in giving people what they ask for.

and kudos to the Boise Weekly for starting this.

She obviously doesn't trust the local reporters- and with good reason.

For just one example KR, your online version of the latest Voter's Guide was much different than the printed version of the Voter's Guide. Oddly enough the printed version was condensed. Odd that you are in the PRINT business and you chose to shorten candidate's answers in the print version. In some cases, the shortened answer was misleading or misrepresented the candidate's actual answer.

Ullman is not the first politico to not sit down with Statesman reporters. KR, Why do you think that is?

***
For another example, in your own words, "...for sailors learning to operate nuclear submarines". Kevin, they did not learn to operate nuclear sumbarines; they learned to operate nuclear reactors. There's a big difference. It just goes to show a careless reporter can change the meaning of a message. In politics it's a risky proposition to let a BIAS reporter carry the torch (no Special Olympics pun intended) for a politician's message.

YOUR WORDS:
stubbornly peevish Ullman
tumultuous term
I hope Ullman keeps her word and doesn't put constituents through this ridiculous rigmarole.
her disdain for
Must have been a slow day at the Courthouse.
*****
KR, you definitely use words with a negative perspective towards Ullman.
***
And you forgot to mention that Ullman has published her personal phone number, and email for ANY constituent to contact her. That is gutsy!
And that is open government.

So your snip at "I hope Ullman keeps her word and doesn't put constituents through this ridiculous rigmarole" is WHAT is ridiculous.

AS for the comment of "slow day at the Courthouse" --- You try to make it condescending, but it only makes you look bad. She was doing HER JOB by replying to your gamish questions.

Don't worry though Kevin, it's not too late for you to CHANGE.

More people in public office need to take extreme tacts with media in light of the current atmosphere. Again folks, you only had to watch the post press conference reaction, for example, on MSNBC to see the state of what passes as "journalism" in America today.

And folks like Richert can go on petulantly stomping their feet and huffing while their industry goes the way of the dinosaur.

Ullman is still an obstructionist and failed to be productive first time around, so she knows what a blog is wow, good for her. Success depends on information and answers she provides if its factual or her propaganda, odds are she will do herself in and won't need the media's help.

Her know it all attitude to controlling information is concerning, her lack of personal confidence is disturbing, her own comments from the past are her enemy, not the media. Ms.Ullman has a lot to prove to the public, can she actually get things done this time around.

Until you crater the rest of it in somebodies harbor!

----------
To read is wonderful. To comprehend art. Falling back to whatever you believed in is NORMAL.

Her skepticism, unfortunately, reflects the mistrust by the public in general and government officials in particular in the media and its ability to be fair and accurate. It is further unfortunate the media credibility and believability continue to sink lower and lower, even below the former Administration and the current Congress, in public opinion surveys. I hope the next generation of reporters and editors can bring about meaningful change in the way the press goes about its business.

I personally see this as the ultimate in open government. This newspaper (and media in general) are so accustomed to catering to the "sound bite" attention spans of most of the public that real unbiased journalism is a long lost memory. I see Ms. Ullman's policy as a "no secrets and everything in the open" policy that prevents the usual underhanded shadiness of "business as usual" politics from having the edge over the rights of citizens to know that their servant government is doing with taxpayer dollars. And part of that "business as usual" politics involves MEDIA politics, as well. So having to wait your turn like a mere "citizen" gives you nothing to complain about, Mr. Richert. Back when the press was actually engaged in real journalism - especially investigative journalism - then a press pass may have mattered when it came to opening doors and getting information. But now that the mainstream news media has been reduced to infotainment rather than real journalism, I don't think you (or Chris Matthews or Tom Brokaw for that matter) merit any "privileged access" to our public servants IF and WHEN they are willing to have everything said between you and them available for to see. Yes, it deprives you of the opportunity to color and edit things and *GASP* let's everyone decide for themselves based on the full exchange rather than snippets and contrived context. I'd say that's a good thing for us and I don't care that it's bad for you.

I worked in the Teton County Courthouse during a heated moratorium and I got to where I would make them e-mail me all of their questions after having a few untrue spins. The funny thing was that the community knew it to be untrue, but it was an out of town paper or TV that would twist it. It gets in the way of you doing your job.

it's good journalism, the way it's actually supposed to be practiced. Politicians who try to substitute blogs for face-to-face interviews are letting the public know that they need time to formulate their answers and that they're not going to let any information out that they don't want out...it's purely a public relations strategy created to fool the constitutents, particularly those who have an anti-media bias. It's a shame that some citizens allow their dislike of certain members of the media to overshadow the fact that they should be happy to live in a country where journalists are allowed to ask politicians the tough questions, live and unrehearsed...that's how we get the real answers.

The statesman did everything short of stuffing the ballot box to insure that Ullman didn't get elected! Now, Rickert wants to moan and complain about her being snarky with the media. Not the media Kevin, just you and your rag! What goes around , comes around. And Kevin, ain't karma a beeotch?

I'd be more inclined to beleive anything Richert said if the Statesman would actually cover the news. But they don't actually ever go to meetings and expect that they can call people up and get answers and then twist those answers to suit their biased point of view.

Take a look at your incredibly shrinking paper Kevin - let's use today's Monday February 16. The editorial is your blog which was posted on line 3 days ago. The national section is 2 pages - 2! Thank goodness nothing is happening in the world. The local is 6 but if you take away the stuff that's not news, it's like 1 1/2. And those stories are really not local, our region now includes California, and the statesman "reporters" are AP and the New York Times. Most of the stories are seen online days before they make it by Pony Express to Curtis Rd.

Go ahead, rip on Sharon. You didn't support her before, you didn't support her in the election so wah wah wah that she won't talk to you.

I guess the transparency that you prefer Kevin is the kind where a (former, thank heavens) Commissioner Judy Peavey Derr denies a citizen the right to inspect records, then sends him a bill for what was it $100,000.00 ish and then loses in court costing taxpayers $36,000 or so because she didn't want to pay a $150.00 fine.

----------
To read is wonderful. To comprehend art. Falling back to whatever you believed in is NORMAL.

are from the media? Somehow they all got together, decided they didn't like her, consciously decided to lie about everything she said so she would lose an election? But she learned her lesson and won't talk to them again? I've yet to figure this whole liberal media thing out. Somehow they spread all these liberal lies and fill all their reports with liberal bias, yet conservative Republicans keep getting elected. Ms. Ullman, every person who is in the public eye is misquoted at some time or another. Your reactionary position on this issue makes me question your ability to react appropriately to other issues.

Anybody with a decent high school education could tell you that the media is an outlet for completely biased information. The goal of the media is to convey the "news" in a quick and efficient manner so as to keep a reader's attention for the 30 seconds they spend glancing at an article. This means the news article needs to be full of "quotes" and many one sentence paragraphs, which any elementary school teacher could tell you does not constitute a full paragraph. To make the job of a reporter easier, they get to pick and choose what information they report. If I said to a reporter "Hitler was the greatest evil the world has ever faced," and they truncated my response to "Hitler was the greatest," I would be exceedingly mad at the reporter for misrepresenting what I had told them. Every single day in the news there are misquotes that either modify or leave off vital information in order to create a biased perspective of the reporter and/or in the case of the Statesman, the entire newspaper. This leads to the topic of Ms. Ullman.

In the past, different media outlets have obviously misinterpreted and given false information about Ms. Ullman's perspective. It appears that in order to be completely open and up front with the public, Ms. Ullman has taken the stance to not talk to the media unless it is live or otherwise documented so that they cannot misrepresent what she says. She is in no way obligated to have the media filter her ideas, and her blog is an excellent tool for the public to know what is going on in county government without a spin on the issues. Ms. Ullman's blog serves as a public forum that anybody can view, including the media.

I implore the reader to take a minute and step into the shoes of Sharon Ullman. Being a public official, she is under scrutiny. Her goal is clearly to work in the interests of the people. For most people, the media is the primary source of information about what is going on in the government. This can lead to a mass misconception of the real issues government officials face. In the interests of the people, Ms. Ullman has established a direct way to interface with the public and she is not afraid to hide behind closed doors.

Now for another minute, step into the shoes of Kevin Richert. Being the editorial page editor, he is in charge of selecting which opinions of the people go into the newspaper. The editorial section of the newspaper is intended to get people riled up about current events. Now that Mr. Richert has been successful in perpetuating the Statesman's obvious vendetta against Ms. Ullman, he can live a happier life knowing that he is doing his job in getting people's attention.

So, as a last request to the reader, I call upon you to take your own initiative to get out there, attend a public meeting of the county commissioners, let them know that you are concerned about your future in Ada County. Just know that what Ms. Ullman is doing is not a bad thing. It is apparent that she is willing to answer your questions and concerns without the mess of having to go through somebody else to get accurate information.

----------
To read is wonderful. To comprehend art. Falling back to whatever you believed in is NORMAL.