Look for me at the Ocean Beach Bulletin

This blog is on hiatus for the foreseeable future. I’ve started the Ocean Beach Bulletin, a local news organization for San Francisco’s Ocean Beach and nearby neighborhoods. Look for local journalism from me and from other contributors at oceanbeachbulletin.com, facebook.com/oceanbeachbulletin, twitter.com/obbulletin and youtube.com/oceanbeachbulletin.

 

My Muni express bus story published on Spot.Us

Crowd-funded journalism site Spot.Us has published my story on Muni’s express bus service!

For years, a lack of information left Muni in the dark about what it was doing well, what it had to improve and what its riders actually needed. But a proposed shuffling of resources following the Transit Effectiveness Project, a massive systemwide study, would add more frequent service and extend routes on some express lines serving city commuters. …

Julie Kirschbaum, manager of Muni’s Transit Effectiveness Project, says there also are other reasons why Muni doesn’t run more expresses. One is that although they might seem to be highly efficient – buses fill to capacity and swiftly transport full loads of passengers all the way across town with a minimum number of stops – there are some hidden costs to express service. …

Shrinking transit funding from the State of California and the City of San Francisco – as well as the federal government’s preference for funding buildings and equipment, rather than operating costs – will have an effect on Muni, including potential hits to vehicle maintenance, which would reduce Muni’s reliability systemwide.

And budget problems will have an impact on the TEP. “We do expect the budget challenges to slow the implementation of the TEP,” says Muni spokesman Judson True.

In 2008, an idea emerged to charge riders who pay cash fares an extra dollar to board express buses, but the proposal petered out. True said there’s still a chance the SFMTA might decide to pursue an express-bus surcharge again.

“Once an idea is out there it never really goes away. … It’s still out there as an idea,” said True.

In fact, the SFMTA Board is scheduled to discuss its budget for the coming fiscal year at a meeting Tuesday morning, March 17 — including the possibility of raising express cash fares. According to documents prepared for the meeting, Muni could gather an additional $1.4 million by raising the fare for all cash-paying express riders by $1.

Either way, because the TEP is focused on ways of doing business and on redirecting existing resources, Kirschbaum says she thinks the TEP’s recommendations for improved express service will remain largely intact: “Because the TEP service plans are resource-neutral, we’re still looking forward to implementing the TEP route proposals.”

I’ll post the rest of it here soon, but in the meantime please see the story by visiting http://spot.us/stories/76.

In related news, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency meets Tuesday to discuss its budget for the coming fiscal year, including the idea of charging some riders an extra dollar to board express buses. The SFMTA meets at 2 p.m. in Room 400, San Francisco City Hall.

While you’re at Spot.Us, be sure to check out the other stories and ideas there. Spot.Us has brought to light some good old-fashioned journalism, using new methods of publication and funding.

Some riders of San Francisco Muni buses could pay an extra dollar

Would you pay an extra dollar to ride a Muni express bus? If you pay a cash fare you might have to do just that, under an idea being considered to help offset big cuts to the transit agency’s funding.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency is scheduled to discuss its budget for fiscal year 2010 at a meeting 2 p.m. Tuesday, March 17, and one of the ideas covered in a presentation prepared for the meeting is to charge cash-paying express riders an extra buck: “Currently approximately 25,700 passengers ride the express routes daily. Assuming that 20% pay cash fares, increasing the cash fare by $1.00 over regular cash fare” would yield about $1.4 million for Muni.

If the SFMTA Board likes the idea, it would present the proposal — and any other potential changes to fares — at public meetings in April, according to documents prepared for Tuesday’s meeting.

In a related development, on March 10 I filed my long-time-coming article on Muni express service with crowd-funded journalism site Spot.Us. Spot.Us tells me they anticipate either publishing the article themselves or reaching an agreement on selling the piece very soon, perhaps even before Tuesday’s SFMTA meeting.

I spoke with Muni spokesman Judson True and Transit Effectiveness Project manager Julie Kirschbaum for my story, and I asked them about the idea of charging express riders a premium on top of the regular fare — something that came up in 2008 but didn’t go anywhere. True told me at the time that although the idea was still out there, he didn’t know that anyone in Muni was considering it actively, but it looks like changes to Muni’s revenue and spending projections changed that pretty quickly.

More information on Tuesday’s SFMTA meeting, including an agenda.

A PDF of the presentation on Muni’s fiscal year 2010 budget.

Watch a stream of the SFMTA meeting live on SFGTV2.

SF Weekly calling the kettle black?

This morning, the San Francisco weekly newspaper SF Weekly tweeted thusly: “We Hate to Pick on the Chronicle When It’s Down — But Is Anybody Proofreading? http://tr.im/gLPB”. Now, even though I make my living helping smart people look smarter by editing their writing, I

What's wrong with the ad on the right?

understand that mistakes happen to everyone, so I won’t needle the Weekly too much about something I found in its Feb. 4, 2009 edition. But it is funny, so I have to point out that either someone at the Weekly or one of its advertisers needs to look to its own mistakes.

On page 12 of the Feb. 4 SF Weekly, I noticed an ad for a medical marijuana establishment. The ad features a photo of a young businessman, apparently in an attempt to show that a “typical stoner” isn’t who one might think it is. But there’s something wrong. A scan of the ad is included in this post, linking to a bigger version on Flickr. Bragging rights go to the first person who comments explaining what’s wrong with the ad.

And to be fair, it’s likely that this error is the advertiser’s fault, but someone at the Weekly could have caught it before it went to press.

Update on Muni express story for Spot.Us

I’ve had a couple of questions recently about the status of the story on San Francisco Muni’s express buses I’m writing for the crowd-funded journalism site Spot.Us, so here’s a quick update.

I am finishing some interviews this week and expect to file my story by this time next week. Once it’s in Spot.Us’ hands, a fact-check editor will have a go at it before publication. My belief is that they’ll publish soon after that, but it’s up to them.

This story has been pushed back longer than I would have liked. But the way Spot.Us works, there’s no definite deadline for pieces — and since I have a wife, two kids and an older house to think about, when I’ve found work that does have a deadline and also provides enough to cover the mortgage payments, I’ve taken it. The unfortunate result is that I’ve put off the Muni story.

One observation about the expresses that I’ll share now won’t surprise daily express riders, but it seems almost surreal to people used to the regular bus or the streetcar: By and large, express riders are really polite. Trying to get on most streetcars and buses can sometimes resemble a contact sport (I’ve had plenty of jabs in the ribs from people who try to shove their way in the door of the L-Taraval ahead of everyone else, regardless of how long others have been waiting), so it’s very odd to see passengers line up neatly for the express and head to the back of the line if they arrive late. And although it can be hard to get a seat, depending on the time and where you catch the bus, the ride itself usually is quiet and civilized.

I’ll post further updates if I have anything new to report, including when I file the story. In the meantime, do visit Spot.Us. Some great pieces already have been published, and others are still in need of funding.

It’s sweet deception, honey

That honey you stir into your tea or drizzle on your toast may not be the pure and natural product you think it is. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports today that in spite of the sweetness-and-light image most people have of honey, the industrial honey trade is rife with contaminated products, faulty safeguards, organized crime and deliberately disguised products. This a great piece of journalism from the P-I, well worth the long read through the main story by Andrew Schneider.

Honey's path from hive to market can take many turns, including some that disguise its true origin.

According to the P-I, honey from China often is rerouted through other countries that have little to no native honey industry. Among the other disturbing findings in the article is that when American honey packers do find that the honey they buy is contaminated, the honey goes back to the producer. (Any guesses as to what a producer willing to ship bad honey once is going to do with this returned product?) None of this is helped by the fact that there is no federal definition of honey. The P-I follows up with at least one more story tomorrow: “Experts say there’s no such thing as ‘organic’ honey made in America, but that hasn’t stopped the industry from putting it on the market.”

Honey laundering: A sticky trail of intrigue and crime

Antibiotic use could taint honey’s reputation as a miracle drug

My Spot.Us pitch about Muni reaches full funding

Success! My Spot.Us pitch for a story about San Francisco’s Muni express bus service, and why Muni doesn’t run more express buses, is now fully funded.

Thanks to all the sponsors who signed on to support this story — and, by extension, the concept of crowd-funded journalism. Thanks also to Spot.Us honcho Dave Cohn. Without his efforts, I’d still be in the fundraising stage.

I’m really pleased to be able to get moving on the legwork for this story, which I expect to start in January, and I have ideas for several other stories I think would fit in well on Spot.Us.

My Spot.Us pitch on Muni express buses is here.

Update on my Muni express bus story pitch

I’m really pleased to report that I’ve almost reached full funding for my story about San Francisco’s Muni express bus service on spot.us!

Muni may be watching its funding get yanked out from under it right now, but that makes it even more important for Muni to run well with the resources still available. And clearly, people are interested in why Muni doesn’t run more expresses to serve the needs of daily commuters. As of the afternoon of Dec. 11, my story pitch for crowd-funded journalism site spot.us was just $60 away from full funding.

And — super cool — San Francisco blog SFist ran a little piece about my story pitch. Thanks, SFist! Read the SFist post at http://sfist.com/2008/12/09/can_muni_run_more_express_buses.php.

A more detailed update is available on my YouTube channel, http://www.youtube.com/user/tpretesf. Or just watch the video below.

For more information about my story idea, spot.us and how crowd-funded journalism works, please visit http://www.spot.us/pitches/39.

Muni express pitch for Spot.us catches MetBlogs’ eye

My pitch for a story about San Francisco’s Muni express bus service has attracted some attention over at MetBlogs, as has new crowd-funded journalism site spot.us.

MetBlogs’ Anna explains the concept this way: “You submit an idea, either a story you want reported, or one you want to report, and people vote or Digg it *before* the work is done. Crowd-sourced journalism.”

Muni bus on Market Street.

I’m also pleased to report that thanks to some generous pledges, funding for my story is just $180 from the goal. For just a few dollars (really — a donation of 10 bucks makes a big impact), you can be part of this new direction in journalism, too. And if you’re a media outlet or other publisher of news, don’t forget that this is a great way to get unique content at a very reasonable price.

To find out more about spot.us and my story about Muni express buses, please visit www.spot.us/pitches/39.

Read the rest of MetBlogs’ post.

Grading the first McCain-Obama debate

U.S. presidential candidates Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama met Friday for the first of three scheduled debates in the general election. Who won? Did the candidates accomplish what they needed to do?

Overall grades on the debate itself:

John McCain B-minus

Barack Obama B-minus

I thought the debate was a wash, if considered on its own. Obama looked much more comfortable than McCain did, but McCain seemed more knowledgeable about foreign policy, the main topic of the evening.

I was struck by the fact that whenever McCain attacked Obama, the CNN “Approve-O-Meter” showed a noticeable plunge in approval among independent voters, much more so than when Obama attacked McCain.

What about the things I previously said the candidates would do, or ought to do?

McCain did very well. He didn’t get too deep into the economy, but conveyed the impression that he was mighty mad at somebody. He displayed his expertise and experience in foreign policy to good effect. On the other hand, while Obama usually is the one who seems to be talking down to McCain, McCain was the one who came off as a condescending ass by repeatedly saying Obama “doesn’t understand.”

Obama did a great job of getting to the point in many of his answers, even phrasing his responses as numbered lists, which people love. He gave the short answer, and only then went back to get into the details. However, I think Obama missed out by not going back to the economy for context even when the questions turned to foreign policy. He also didn’t manage to provoke McCain’s temper, but that would have been merely gravy for Obama, so I don’t think it mattered that much.

Grades on the success of the debate in the broader context of the campaign:

John McCain B-minus

Barack Obama B-plus

For John McCain, the debate capped off a spectacularly awful two weeks for his campaign. For a week and a half after Sept. 15, when Lehman Brothers went belly-up and McCain said that the fundamentals of the American economy were strong, the Arizona senator came out with a different message about the economy every day. And when he finally did take clear action, it was to “suspend” his campaign and hustle back to Washington, there to insert himself into a Wall Street bailout plan under consideration by a committee of which the senator is not a member — with questionable impact, at best. On top of that, his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, floundered embarrassingly in a one-on-one interview with Katie Couric, who’s not exactly a crushing interrogator (I can think of a number of reporters I know personally who would have eaten Palin for lunch, then picked their teeth with the cast-off bones of minor PR flunkies before retiring to the corner bar for an afternoon of dice and cocktails).

What McCain needed was either an exceptional performance on his part, or a major stumble from Obama. Instead, the mostly pretty good performance from McCain was muddied by fact that Obama held his own in spite of clearly being less expert — and less experienced — than McCain, and Obama appeared every bit as presidential as McCain did. So McCain did well, but not well enough.

Simply keeping up with McCain on foreign policy, on the other hand, was an accomplishment for Obama. It would have been a coup for him to make serious points against the senior senator in a debate centered on one of McCain’s strongest subjects. Obama didn’t do that, and he failed to turn the conversation toward the economy as aggressively as he probably should have. Nevertheless, bad news about the economy generally favors out-party candidate Obama, which gives him a better context for the debate. With this context in mind, because Obama turned in a passably presidential performance and kept his opponent from establishing a clear victory, the debate turned out better for him than for McCain.

Other views

For an interesting alternative opinion on the debate, check out the analysis by San Francisco-based communication guru Bert Decker. Decker looks at the debate from an almost purely impressionistic perspective, which is in line with his expertise is in the communication of trust. That is, Decker believes that a speaker must convey believability before a listener can even really hear what the speaker is saying.

Also interesting: Two polls taken Friday night — which means they’re imperfect empirical research because their samples included only people whom they could reach on Friday night, so take them with a little salt — put Obama significantly ahead in overall impression. Poll respondents also said they thought Obama was more in touch with the problems of their own lives than was McCain. An Associated Press story on the polls is here.

Parting Shots

CNN’s Approve-O-Meter — or whatever the network called its approval ticker that appeared at the bottom of the screen during the debate — failed for three reasons. First, it was too hard to read the legend on the left explaining that the red line signified approval from Republicans in a selected audience, the blue line stood for Democrats and the green line stood for independents. Second, it was impossible to tell whether the lines, as they emerged from the right side of the display, signified results in real time or were delayed by some unknown length of time. Third, the graph was zoomed out too far to see the separation among the three lines, so it was annoyingly difficult to see when approval ratings changed. The overall result was just dull. It would have been better to have a three-bar graph showing a zero line, and colored bars extending above or below the zero line to indicate approval or disapproval from the three groups. This not only would make it easier for viewers to detect the differences among the groups, but would better represent real-time impressions of what the candidates were saying at the moment.