i L i n d . n e t

Laurie Carlson, publisher of Honolulu Weekly and Hawaii Island Journal (at least until today’s announced closing of HIJ), emailed these corrections to what I wrote earlier in the week about the Journal’s demise.

1. Peter Serafin was on vacation on the mainland when I decided to close the Journal. I’m unsure as to why it came as a total surprise, given concerns and reductions in the editorial budget shared in Hilo with Peter in January. I told him when I called about the closure that low ad revenue and losses year to date were the reasons why.

2. The Journal has never had anywhere near the Weekly’s revenue–contrary to your impressions in reviewing ad space in either publication.

Meanwhile, Big Island activist Jim Albertini sent out this message last night:

I trust all of you have heard about the closing of the Hawaii Island Journal. From what I have heard, there is some talk of a possible rescue attempt. If any of you know some rich, liberal investors, (or of anyone with jobs for displaced good journalists ) please let me know. I believe it is very important to have an independent alternative newspaper here on Hawaii Island. The Hawaii Tribune-Herald, owner of the Big Island Weekly and West Hawaii Today, has too much power and media control.

As promised a couple of days ago, here’s a link to the discrimination suit filed against the Honolulu Advertiser on Tuesday.

In the complaint, former editorial staffer Pati Poblete alleges she was recruited by editorial and opinion editor Jeanne Mariani-Belding between April and July, 2006. At the time, according to Poblete’s complaint, Mariani-Belding said she expected to be promoted to publisher “within 3-4 months after Plaintiff was hired”.

The suit alleges Mariani-Belding made numerous disparaging remarks about Filipino employees and political figures, and later “admitted making the racial statements”.

Of course, this is a complaint containing untested allegations, so it shouldn’t be simply accepted as fact. That said, it provides lots of grist for the gossip mill.

A reader sent this comment:

I check The Advertiser’s web site as a matter of course several times throughout the day. This article caught my interest, so I clicked through the link – to an ad!!! What the hell is that all about?

Is this a direction supposed news sites are going in, disguising ads as news content? EEEEWWWWW!

PBS Hawaii’s Island Insights on Thursday night featured a discussion of SB2646, the important agricultural lands bill passed by the Legislature this year. I’ve written about it here several times, such as in this entry and in this Honolulu Weekly column.

So I was prepared to fully support the critical views of attorney Kimo Frankel and Molokai’s Glenn Teves, who fear this compromise measure represents a giveaway to big land owners. But Dean Okimoto of Nalo Farms, current president of the Hawaii Farm Bureau, and Sen. Jill Tokuda, who introduced SB2646, made quite a persuasive case, in my view.

The problem is that critics tend to see the bill in terms of future risks that development will displace more agricultural uses, while Okimoto based his support for the bill on what it will do for struggling farmers trying to keep their agricultural businesses alive right now. His message appears to be that it doesn’t make sense to wait for a perfect bill to protect land from development and keep it open for future agricultural use unless you do something now to keep existing agricultural businesses alive. Wait for the hypothetical future bill that doesn’t require political compromises and there won’t be any farmers left to benefit or to take advantage of its protections.

There was also a notably tense exchange in which Frankel criticized the bills proponents for not seeking out the views of critics, while Okimoto seemed somewhere between angry and exasperated when he referred to meetings on the issues with two of Frankel’s colleagues, implying that they had fair warning but failed to jump into the often messy legislative process in a timely fashion.

I still have doubts about the version of the bill that passed, but in this round the bill’s proponents made a very good case that it should be signed into law.