Divvy should consider adding an easily identifiable bike numbering system in order to assist authorities in determining the status of their fleet.
The News Corner:
Serious Loss Problems for Divvy
"Locking systems easily compromised by thieves."
For the full article:
Yasmeen, there probably isn't a legitimate news source around that doesn't use anonymous sources in some circumstances. So, yes, it is proper, when sources are properly verified, to use anonymous sources. For example:
Are facts that are of the official record and the words of the victims and the witnesses anonymous? I think not. Any source of legitimate and actual information is of value to any citizen to form an opinion of their own.
Hmm, I think ad, Tom, and Jim didn't click on the article before responding to my comment.
My comment is specifically about the "article" being critical about Streetsblog and Streetsblog answered it with their own article but that wasn't posted here - just this new, anonymous website being critical of Streetsblog but not reporting the entire story, just their biased criticism of Streetsblog. So I corrected that by posting Streetsblog's response to the accusations. The response should have been posted in addition to the accusation.
My issue with being anonymous? This isn't an anonymous source, this is an anonymous site acting like they report news. Do you really consider it above-board when they leave out parts of the story? And you have no ability to check out who this website/new "media" source is because they have purposely kept all of their own names off the website. There's no listing of writers, editors, owners, etc. And yes, I do have concerns with considering that a legitimate source of news because every legitimate paper and media source prints that basic information. I'd take them with a very large grain of salt until they make it clear who they are. They could have conflicts of interest we don't know about because we don't actually know who they are.
No, I read both articles, but I get your comment more now.
Fair enough I guess, but I just think there's issues here on both sides of the coin, and the issues largely boil down to both blogs being advocacy blogs. I happen to agree with Streetsblog's advocacy position, and disagree with CWB's race-baiting position, but that doesn't mean that I fully rely on Streetsblog for the facts, or that I think Streetsblog's reporting on this particular issue is 100% solid. Any advocacy blog is going to put an advocacy spin on the facts, and IMHO people would be well-served to supplement those blogs with other, more neutral sources in ANY situation where possible, and not just with another counter-point advocacy blog.
Also, I think this issue is a bit more tricky because Streetsblog itself was citing CWB's reporting on the Divvy theft issues until Streetsblog and CWB got into a disagreement, at which point it became clear to John (and others, including I think most of his readers) that CWB potentially had some not-so-great perspectives driving their reporting. The lesson here IMHO is to be more suspect of blogs in general until you know what's really driving the reporting (anonymous or not, and there are valid reasons for people to stay anonymous at times), which is a point I think most agree with on here.
Not saying there isn't biased or POV. I think that's inevitable. When I write, I try to be logical in expressing my opinions on advocacy but at the end of the day, it's my POV. I don't think there is a neutral source - everyone has their POV as a cyclist or motorist or pedestrian.
I'll just push back on your last point a little, because I think it's actually been one of the biggest dangers we've seen from the Trump years. I mean, of course people are people, and there is going to be some inherent POV that seeps into anything, but at the end of the day there is a functional, observable difference between the NY Times and, say, Breitbart---despite what Trump claims.
I know your point isn't meant to go that far, and I'll readily concede that nothings perfect in terms of eliminating bias, but there are sources that strive for a more neutral, balanced stance on reporting, versus sources that clearly are designed to advocate for a position.
Agreed. There is a difference in staff reporting vs. editorial.
Breitbart isn't editorial, it's acting like it's "reporting" but not accurate or reliable (not factual).
The hashtag #freedivvy has some interesting photos on Twitter.