7993 replies to this topic

[shoeflack]

...and will only comment on process and the hard engineering facts that have been released–which are next to none.

 

So you have written two articles now that are full of conjecture and assumptions based on next to no hard facts. Notwithstanding the fact that this fix has been approved by the Engineer of Record.

[VicHockeyFan]

So you have written two articles now that are full of conjecture and assumptions based on next to no hard facts. Notwithstanding the fact that this fix has been approved by the Engineer of Record.

 

I'm willing to accept that it has been fixed.  But the aesthetics of the fix are unacceptable.

[Cassidy]

.....some folks (with presumably some knowledge of this topic) who have refuted some of his points.......

 

This is where you go completely off the rails in your assumptions.

 

(**edit** - my bolding and underlining on "presumably").

[Rob Randall]

The whole point of this particular design was the smooth graceful curves. 

 

My concern is that Huggett/Helps' insistence that this is in no way a design flaw harms any future legal action or compensation from Hardesty Hanover.

 

I have no doubt this fix is structurally sound. However, we need an impartial third (seventh?) party to assure us there will be no additional maintenance/life expectancy/seismic issues with the patch.

[shoeflack]

This is where you go completely off the rails in your assumptions.

 

(**edit** - my bolding and underlining on "presumably").

 

So I can't assume that a reddit user who is speaking in engineering terms and who has a history of posting engineering-related comments in subreddits that include r/engineering is an engineer?

 

Ya, I'm the one who is off the rails.

Edited by shoeflack, 12 January 2018 - 11:43 AM.

[Bingo]

I'm not too interested in reddit, but I am interested in seeing official reports that the COV has. Until that happens this conversation is going around in circles.

[Rob Randall]

So I can't assume that a reddit user who is speaking in engineering terms and who has a history of posting engineering-related comments in subreddits that include r/engineering is an engineer?

 

Ya, I'm the one who is off the rails.

 

His comments would be interesting on reddit or here on this forum. And they can be a good clue to open up a new line of investigation. But because he can't be vetted, his comments can't be used in journalism, or they have to be couched in so many caveats and disclaimers they are useless.

[Mike K.]

Not according to the mayor, however.

 

Broadland is questioning whether these improvements will yield major costs down the road, far after the dust has settled and far after the current players are around. Is that such a bad thing, to pressure the City to definitively state what the changes to the bridge entail in 10, 20 or 50 years? This was supposed to have been a 100 year bridge.

[shoeflack]

His comments would be interesting on reddit or here on this forum. And they can be a good clue to open up a new line of investigation. But because he can't be vetted, his comments can't be used in journalism, or they have to be couched in so many caveats and disclaimers they are useless.

 

I agree. But what David does is insult those people. I posted David's request to interview them from reddit earlier. Maybe that kind of interview request is standard in journalism. You probably know that better than I. But I certainly wouldn't want to interview with someone so insulting. So maybe David is deliberately trying to push that perspective away. I would hope not, but it wouldn't surprise me. There really is no reason to approach a critic in that way as a journalist.

[jonny]

I'm willing to accept that it has been fixed.  But the aesthetics of the fix are unacceptable.

 

Among other things, we (the public) also should know:

- Why were the patches required (i.e. who is at fault)

- What compensation the city is receiving for the patches (why should we pay for a bridge with a patch when we paid for a bridge with no patch)

- What effects the patches have on the bridge's life expectancy and maintenance

[Cassidy]

So I can't assume that a reddit user who is speaking in engineering terms and who has a history of posting engineering-related comments in subreddits that include r/engineering is an engineer?

 

Probably common sense to never makes any assumptions about the legitimacy of folks who post on the internet claiming expertise in one field or another. 

Even if the guy does happen to be an engineer, he's not got any first direct or first hand knowledge of the issue, and is only commenting on what's been posted by other non-engineers.

 

But I'll just come out and say that you appear to have a personal agenda against David Broadland, one that has nothing to do with the JSB.

[sam]

I agree. But what David does is insult those people. I posted David's request to interview them from reddit earlier. Maybe that kind of interview request is standard in journalism. You probably know that better than I. But I certainly wouldn't want to interview with someone so insulting. So maybe David is deliberately trying to push that perspective away. I would hope not, but it wouldn't surprise me. There really is no reason to approach a critic in that way as a journalist.

 

There's nothing "standard" in journalism about going on reddit and challenging anonymous commenters to reveal themselves. We are all steering through uncharted territory when public officials like Mayor Helps attack credible media sources and implicitly endorse reddit engineers as a source of credible information about what might have happened as the engineering, oversight and political processes led to the bolt-on plates.

 

Shoeflack, quite honestly, you could be one of those reddit engineers. How do I know? I don't know what you, or they, bring to the table unless I can verify that you are what you say you are. By the way, you haven't said who you are and what it is about your background that leads you to believe the reddit engineers' comments should be given credibility. I invite you to do that now.

 

If you think that part of a journalist's duty is to sit back and let unidentified commenters attack his work, you're mistaken. I am not insulting you. I am speaking to you firmly and with conviction. For the most part, I appreciate the thoughtfulness expressed on the bridge issue on VV by the people behind the masks above, and especially Rob and Mike because they put their names behind their words.

 

David Broadland

[shoeflack]

Probably common sense to never makes any assumptions about the legitimacy of folks who post on the internet claiming expertise in one field or another. 

Even if the guy does happen to be an engineer, he's not got any first direct or first hand knowledge of the issue, and is only commenting on what's been posted by other non-engineers.

 

But I'll just come out and say that you appear to have a personal agenda against David Broadland, one that has nothing to do with the JSB.

 

You have come to VV on occasion and made reference to your past roles, and I have believed you. Was I mistaken to do so? At a certain point, it's nice to have a little faith in humanity. I don't run around calling you a liar, because I trust there is a grain of truth to what you say. What's the point of this whole forum if we're going to say that we don't believe anonymous posters; most of us do post here anonymously. I think we've all earned a certain level of trust around here, and the same can be said for other social media forums like reddit.

 

Regardless, I don't have any particular agenda against David Broadland at a high level (what's that saying about assumptions?). I've stated my issue here quite clearly, and it is entirely related to the JSB. I've also stated that I agree with most of his points. I'm a vocal supporter of an independent audit on this entire project, and have been here on VV for a couple of years at least. My opinion on this particular piece by David is that it is counterproductive to that goal, because again, it plays to sensationalism or advocacy journalism, and that puts people off. Look at the feedback online his article has gotten. It's dramatically split down the middle of "boo Lisa Helps, not another bridge issue" and "this guy obviously has an agenda". Not a lot gets done when people are so split.

 

For something as important as an audit to actually happen, you need to engage both of those sides. Council needs to see it as something that everyone wants or at least can agree on. I think everyone can agree that there's been mismanagement on this bridge. That's what can pull people together, not some conjecture about whether a steel plate is a sound engineering concept. So it bothers me when David plays to that click-bait style journalism full of speculation, because it takes away from the legitimacy of something that can be agreed upon by all sides.

[Mike K.]

We've been patient enough.

 

Either publish the report for all to see, or stop trying to turn this into nothing more than an obstruction.

 

We've been at this nine years already and it's gotten to the point where we're no longer gullible. We're wise to the City and its practices, and we are mature enough as a society to accept the reality for what it is. The mayor hiding behind anonymous reddit comments only serves to divide us, not bring us closer.

 

Broadland has been at this for nearly a decade. He has brought us far more legitimate news on this project than all other media combined. So the only agenda I see here is to get to the bottom of how a $63 million bridge came to cost $120 million. We all deserve to know.

[spanky123]

Helps is on CFAX this afternoon.  Perhaps someone will ask her if she will release the report and put this to rest.

[Cassidy]

You have come to VV on occasion and made reference to your past roles, and I have believed you. Was I mistaken to do so? At a certain point, it's nice to have a little faith in humanity. I don't run around calling you a liar, because I trust there is a grain of truth to what you say. What's the point of this whole forum if we're going to say that we don't believe anonymous posters; most of us do post here anonymously. I think we've all earned a certain level of trust around here, and the same can be said for other social media forums like reddit.

 

Regardless, I don't have any particular agenda against David Broadland at a high level (what's that saying about assumptions?). I've stated my issue here quite clearly, and it is entirely related to the JSB. I've also stated that I agree with most of his points. I'm a vocal supporter of an independent audit on this entire project, and have been here on VV for a couple of years at least. My opinion on this particular piece by David is that it is counterproductive to that goal, because again, it plays to sensationalism or advocacy journalism, and that puts people off. Look at the feedback online his article has gotten. It's dramatically split down the middle of "boo Lisa Helps, not another bridge issue" and "this guy obviously has an agenda". Not a lot gets done when people are so split.

 

For something as important as an audit to actually happen, you need to engage both of those sides. Council needs to see it as something that everyone wants or at least can agree on. I think everyone can agree that there's been mismanagement on this bridge. That's what can pull people together, not some conjecture about whether a steel plate is a sound engineering concept. So it bothers me when David plays to that click-bait style journalism full of speculation, because it takes away from the legitimacy of something that can be agreed upon by all sides.

Point taken.

[shoeflack]

In 2016 the CoV paid the TC $192,661.45
 
2015 $109,678.20
 
2014 $107,287.15
 
In 2013 the CoV paid the TC $107,068.72
 
So while the TC circulation has decreased by nearly 25% since 2013, the City has increased spending with them by nearly 100%.

This increase seemed a bit off to me so I took a look at the 2016 Statement of Financial information. You looked at the line above the TC when you quoted the $192k in 2016. That’s figure was for Think Communications.

The City spent $78,757.74 with the TC in 2016, so a significant decrease.

[Bingo]

CHEK ran a story. The other media make lots of money off of CoV advertising.

 

It is a sad state of affairs if money made from advertising is interfering with important news getting out to the tax payer about big ticket items in the City of Victoria.

It will hasten their demise.

[Rob Randall]

I really don't think advertising is influencing the TC's bridge coverage.

 

Veteran reporter Bill Cleverley is the paper's main bridge reporter and based on a brief conversation with him many years ago is in general a bridge supporter and simply isn't terribly interested in the problems Broadland obsesses over. 

 

Perhaps Cleverley does think there's a story there but feels Broadland has already covered that ground extensively, I don't know. Regardless, the TC, as paper of record, is missing an important opportunity to objectively investigate this issue further. 

[VicHockeyFan]

Is it a "paper of record" when less than 15% of the population reads it daily?