BFM down for the 2nd time today, 3rd time this month

July 31st, 2007 | by christine |

This is not the fault of BFM, this is an ongoing Soapblox issue. Average downtime is 6.5 hours.

  1. 8 Responses to “BFM down for the 2nd time today, 3rd time this month”

  2. By Chetly Zarko on Aug 2, 2007 | Reply

    Hey, on your BFM piece about Right Michigan and the outsourcing, you say you have “sources” in the MEDC.

    Although I pointed out Right Michigan’s analysis lacked depth (like a FOIA of the bidding process), why should I accept a blogger’s (on a blog that opponents are explicitly restricted from challenging) use of unnamed sources to counter them? Who are your sources?

  3. By christine on Aug 2, 2007 | Reply

    Hi,

    I would’ve been more comfortable if I could have named the source, but in this case I used a personal contact rather than go through the proper media contact procedure. I did that because I was in a hurry and had to use email rather than take the time to call.

    Anyway … I didn’t specifically ask if I could disclose the source, and that’s why I just said “my source in the MEDC”.

    I understand the point you are making but that’s just how it went down on that one. I believe the person who gave me the information, but I understand it has less credibility when there is no name to back it up.

    We continue to talk about our policy regarding comments. Meanwhile I’ll bring my headlines over here and people can comment here if they like.

  4. By Chetly Zarko on Aug 2, 2007 | Reply

    Well, I wouldn’t reveal the source either in that situation, and if I thought it important enough, I’d blog it, but I wouldn’t expect it to have much persuasive force those disagreeing with (except to the choir of my supporters), but I think you know that.

    On BFM, I’d sorely like to simply point out my statistical study of U-M and MSU salary increases. It’s top-heavy. 6% for the wealthiest administrators — 3% on average (meaning that the “median” is less than 3%, and probably close to zero for the TAs and bottom-tier). Elite Democrats like Mary Sue Coleman are treating the real educators exactly like they accuse corporate leaders of treating their employees. And there have been no cuts overall - there may be shell-game movements which administrators take credit for as “cuts” - but no substantive reform. The growth is steady - for 6 years straight - legislative appropriations does not change the bureaucacy’s raises. No correlation. MSU is a similar pattern - just one-third the size. MSU President took a 25% pay increase last year. That’s sick.

    I provide both context analysis - and the raw data (salary data for all employees in Excel format) if someone wants to check the checksums and averages I ran.

    And finally, two years ago I self-published an analysis of a 1995 statement by James Duderstadt, then U-M President during an economic boomtime who was whining about how the legislative “cut U-M’s “share” of appropriations by 50% over 10 years” USING HIS OWN DATA THAT I OBTAINED FROM HISTORICAL ARCHIVES.

    His own data shows that from 85 to 95 - and here’s the dirty, tricky part - U-M’s total budget was comprised of 18% from the legislature at the beginning and 12% from the legislature at the end (hence a 50% drop from the 12% base). How did that happen - U-M administrative growth increased an AVERAGE of 17% annually (no blip) and the legislature’s funding ONLY increased an average of 8% (twice inflation) during that time (logically, a “relative share” would fall by half if one part grew twice as fast as the other). We (the taxpayer) paid our share during that time - and I was a student at U-M from 89-93 and “benefitted” from it, but still my tuition increased in those years. Duderstadt had the gall to say that during a boom when the legislature was funnelling meal into the trough — why would I believe U-M today (aside from the fact that the new FOIA data I obtained reaffirms my 2005 work).

  5. By Chetly Zarko on Aug 4, 2007 | Reply

    I find it HILARIOUS that BFM, a censor unto its own right, is trying to make hay of Bishop’s office move to prevent BFM access.

    Pots calling kettles names.

  6. By christine on Aug 4, 2007 | Reply

    Yeah I figured you would. :)

    But on the other hand, I find it interesting that the only blog that was censored was the one that doesn’t allow Republican spam.

  7. By Chetly Zarko on Aug 5, 2007 | Reply

    Hey, I had a comment this morning “flagged by spam filter” — I think it may be because I used the word “spam”. It says you can restore it if you look?

  8. By Chetly Zarko on Aug 5, 2007 | Reply

    From my local cache I retrieved it:

    Michigan Liberal didn’t get censored. While they are slightly more arbitrary in allowing say, Saul and Leon, because they see potential gain, they censor as well.

    And BFM’s policy itself may make it quite legal and ethical for Bishop to censor. It’s exclusionary, so it shouldn’t be allowed on government time. If BFM were open, I’d actually call Bishop myself and tell him he was wrong. But I think he’s right as a result of BFM’s policy. BFM is not an “informational source”, a “news source,” etc., of the type that would have the type of protection you seek based on those attributes. BFM is plainly a propaganda source - by its own definitions.

  9. By christine on Aug 5, 2007 | Reply

    Well there are other types of media that are exclusionary. Not every letter I write gets printed in the paper, but the those newspapers still get delivered to government buildings. Not every call I made to talk shows gets on the air, but no one tells the Senators they can’t listen to those shows. I’ve had comments censored out the the Detroit News blog and that blog isn’t blocked.

    The quality of our information at BFM stands up to that of any other site. I realize you question wizardkitten’s stuff, but I think my work on economic development and Z’s stuff on transportation & MDOT qualify as informational. Is your stuff less informational simply because you don’t have a lot of liberal comments there? I see no liberal commented on your UM LGBT name change story. So that’s just propaganda? Surely Nick’s “it never ends does it?” comment didn’t elevate the quality of your work. It makes it look more like propaganda.

    Based on that kind of activity, one could make the argument that to have the protections of a “news source”, you can’t allow comments at all. The work wouldn’t be challenged, nor would it be supported by people who want to beef up your position, or add to your evidence.

    Last October my yard was full of signs for Democratic candidates. I didn’t allow any Republican signs to be put in my yard. Did I give up any of my rights because I don’t allow all political views to be communicated on my private property?

    Blogs are two-way communication. Let’s say Bishop doesn’t want the Senate reading our site. Fine. Why prohibit the Senators from publishing on their legislation? Senator Cherry’s post is the same kind of thing I get from Dave Camp in my email or Dick Ball / Valde Garcia in my mail. Would you support Mike Bishop suppressing that kind of communication to constituents? Is it ok for Mike Bishop to say that he doesn’t like those documents, therefore he’s not going allow tax dollars to be used in preparing them?

    I don’t know if BFM’s comment policy will ultimately help Bishop’s position, but it’s not the reason that he shut off access to the site. It has never been cited (to me) by anyone but you, although we may hear about in the upcoming week. Although then they’re going to have to filter all blogs that do not allow opposition comment, and that’s certainly a good use of taxpayer dollars. Seems to me they ought to be working on the budget.

    They’re reasoning was along the lines of “they report too quickly so they must have access to Senate servers”. (Which indicates to me that our reporting must’ve been accurate) That was just faulty speculation on their part. The reasoning about us being politically motivated is just silly because they allow all other politically motivated sites. (Including the DetNews editorials & blogs) Even if you think that we deserved to be blocked, I can’t imagine that you support the goofy reasoning that preceded the ban.

    I don’t think the Republicans really want to go down this road. Mike Bishop pays tons of tax money for his “new media” people. Right Michigan is fully supportive of the Republicans in the legislature. Are they going to block Right Michigan? It’s an important tool for them. What if they block your site? You do a lot of work over there. It sure seems like some of the Senators are using some of your work to support their legislative agendas.

    I’ll bring over the headlines to my stuff to make it easier for us to talk about this. Meant to do it yesterday but I got mired down in some other stuff.

Post a Comment