Bakersfield Californian calls local blogger an uncivil bully - By N.L. Belardes
OK, so that local uncivil blogger bully accusation by the Bakersfield Californian is about me. Wow, was I laughing at that one. Here I am, one little blogger in the universe being called a bully by the big bad downtown media machine with 100s of employees, writers by the bucketload, and an entire armada of bloggers. To think I am a bully for expressing my opinion that if Belton can't do the job someone else should?
I don't like being lied to by the local print media giant. Aren't we supposed to trust them to be true and faithful to the public good? Maybe not. Maybe media is supposed to just be an impartial witness to the truth. Maybe not. Because every media has a Conservative or liberal slant; that's the truth as perceptions get skewed every day and then fed to the people as information burgers from the media vats. Go study the New York Times and then tell me it has the same perception of American and global events as Fox News, or the LA Times. Go read the French newspapers. Now you're talking slants. Heck, I have an N.L. Belardes perception of the universe. I don't pretend to see through anyone else's eyes.
I defended myself and local literary arts. I see no bullying action in defending one's opinion that local literary arts should be examined, especially by a creative writer entertainment reporter.
Like I can bully that monster media machine from my living room. The only way I am bullying them is if I have secret readers in the Californian whose eyeballs are glued to my site. Maybe those closet readers feel bullied by my meager opinion: one man's opinion, as opposed to the entire media circus I'm imagining in my happy little fantasy of media clowns all trying to jam themselves into one car for a fast get-a-way from my little opinion-filled alleged 'bullying' blog.'
How can I be bullying if I told Baldwin that I would openly criticize the Californian and she accepted that? Get this, I even offered to sign a contract that they never wrote. They could have put in their contract, 'No bullying', I mean, 'No picking on the Californian in any critical way due to fragility.' Doesn't mean I would have signed it. But you get the point.
And the contract was my idea! I can happily post those emails as well as Danielle's misleading emails for the non-believers... these are the facts!
For your entertainment reading I am including the 'bully accusation' email from the Californian followed by my response. I hope you all are as entertained as I am...
Nick,
Ever since we decided to create a list of community blogs we have
planned to put the link to your site in that section. It is a better
fit and makes more sense.
Did your recent comments accelerate the process of removing your link?
Yes.
I am Danielle's immediate supervisor, Nick. To date I have never
received an unsolicited email from you. I have never received a phone
call from you. Rather than calling me and discussing your book and the
coverage it has gotten, you have launched into unsubstantiated attacks
at the paper and Danielle Belton.
It is clear that you do not want to have a civil dialogue about
coverage, but rather hope to bully the staff here into writing about
your book through baseless accusations of conspiracy and demands for
their termination.
We have mentioned your book in The Californian on three occasions. So
far, that is an appropriate level of coverage, in my opinion. At this
point, any decision to cover your book in greater detail will be
decided by myself or one of my bosses — not Danielle Belton.
Sincerely,
Davin McHenry
Web Editor
The Bakersfield Californian
I edited mine of misspelled words. Oops... happy reading as I allegedly bully back to the Bakersfield Californian...
Hi Davin,
I was supposed to call you? No one ever said to call
you. Why didn't you call me? Belton should have
pointed me towards you in the first place instead of
dodging me in her emails. She mentioned 'trying
editors' after claiming policy wouldn't cater to my
kind, but never mentioned your name once. I merely
inquired with her because she even stated on my
website to contact her about press. That what lots of
folks do in the music and arts scene, they contact
Belton.
I am offended by Miss Belton's attitude and lack of
concern for my novel and Bakersfield/Kern County
literary arts. Danielle Belton was rude to me, and
unsupportive. I did try to have a dialogue. She shut
me down; and I have substantiated my arguments based
on her emails. Didn't you read what she wrote? Surely
she copied you in her emails. She wrote the
Californian doesn't talk about what she considers
self-published books, while the Californian in the past
two days have ran one article (possibly two) on what
she considers self published books, not to mention the
Centennial History book. That pretty much catches her
in a lie. That's substantiation.
Her emails were clear that she was speaking for the
entire Californian, so why would I take that to
another level? Am I supposed to know the chain of
command and protocol at the Californian when her
emails were written in a manner that she was fully
aware of Californian policy? Let's face it. I caught
her in a lie and I'm no bully.
If I were a bully I would have commented directly onto
her blog.
I merely defended that local authors and Lords: Part
One deserve media attention. It has had little
attention from the Californian. Your perception may
think of me as 'bullying', but the bullying I believe,
came from Belton who tried to shut me down when
bringing up the topic of my book, and then lied about
the Californian's policy instead of having a dialogue
with me. Besides, how can I be a bully with a blog
opinion piece? Are all letters to the editors that are
negative considered bullying too? And my letter wasn't
to the editor. I didn't email it to anyone. I didn't
nail it to the Californian's door. I didn't email the
blog to anyone either. My readership is tiny compared to the
Californian's massive tentacles. Yet I am the bully? So
much for the Californian taking criticism. Baldwin was
wrong. I can understand pulling the blog after I
called for Belton to be fired, but my headlines were
pulled when I barely started to get critical.
Bullying; that's an excuse.
As far as coverage for my work, I hadn't planned on
contacting the Californian anyways. By defending
myself I am fully aware that the Californian will
continue to shun great local literature in return for
stories like musician poets and self published
Tehachapi history books and self-made historical works
slanted by corporate money, and that comes even from
the man who wrote it, though he may deny such...
In the end I think it's silly to think of myself as a
bully. That's just your way of trying to paint an
intimidating picture of me and it doesn't work. The
real bully is the Californian who shuts people down
and tries to shut people up.
If you wanted a dialogue, then you could just as
easily have talked to me instead of sitting by and
watching me defend myself to the Californian's policy
per Danielle Belton's words...
I appreciate that you at least were able to come clean
and admit why my blog was pulled...
Sincerely
N.L. Belardes
I don't like being lied to by the local print media giant. Aren't we supposed to trust them to be true and faithful to the public good? Maybe not. Maybe media is supposed to just be an impartial witness to the truth. Maybe not. Because every media has a Conservative or liberal slant; that's the truth as perceptions get skewed every day and then fed to the people as information burgers from the media vats. Go study the New York Times and then tell me it has the same perception of American and global events as Fox News, or the LA Times. Go read the French newspapers. Now you're talking slants. Heck, I have an N.L. Belardes perception of the universe. I don't pretend to see through anyone else's eyes.
I defended myself and local literary arts. I see no bullying action in defending one's opinion that local literary arts should be examined, especially by a creative writer entertainment reporter.
Like I can bully that monster media machine from my living room. The only way I am bullying them is if I have secret readers in the Californian whose eyeballs are glued to my site. Maybe those closet readers feel bullied by my meager opinion: one man's opinion, as opposed to the entire media circus I'm imagining in my happy little fantasy of media clowns all trying to jam themselves into one car for a fast get-a-way from my little opinion-filled alleged 'bullying' blog.'
How can I be bullying if I told Baldwin that I would openly criticize the Californian and she accepted that? Get this, I even offered to sign a contract that they never wrote. They could have put in their contract, 'No bullying', I mean, 'No picking on the Californian in any critical way due to fragility.' Doesn't mean I would have signed it. But you get the point.
And the contract was my idea! I can happily post those emails as well as Danielle's misleading emails for the non-believers... these are the facts!
For your entertainment reading I am including the 'bully accusation' email from the Californian followed by my response. I hope you all are as entertained as I am...
Nick,
Ever since we decided to create a list of community blogs we have
planned to put the link to your site in that section. It is a better
fit and makes more sense.
Did your recent comments accelerate the process of removing your link?
Yes.
I am Danielle's immediate supervisor, Nick. To date I have never
received an unsolicited email from you. I have never received a phone
call from you. Rather than calling me and discussing your book and the
coverage it has gotten, you have launched into unsubstantiated attacks
at the paper and Danielle Belton.
It is clear that you do not want to have a civil dialogue about
coverage, but rather hope to bully the staff here into writing about
your book through baseless accusations of conspiracy and demands for
their termination.
We have mentioned your book in The Californian on three occasions. So
far, that is an appropriate level of coverage, in my opinion. At this
point, any decision to cover your book in greater detail will be
decided by myself or one of my bosses — not Danielle Belton.
Sincerely,
Davin McHenry
Web Editor
The Bakersfield Californian
I edited mine of misspelled words. Oops... happy reading as I allegedly bully back to the Bakersfield Californian...
Hi Davin,
I was supposed to call you? No one ever said to call
you. Why didn't you call me? Belton should have
pointed me towards you in the first place instead of
dodging me in her emails. She mentioned 'trying
editors' after claiming policy wouldn't cater to my
kind, but never mentioned your name once. I merely
inquired with her because she even stated on my
website to contact her about press. That what lots of
folks do in the music and arts scene, they contact
Belton.
I am offended by Miss Belton's attitude and lack of
concern for my novel and Bakersfield/Kern County
literary arts. Danielle Belton was rude to me, and
unsupportive. I did try to have a dialogue. She shut
me down; and I have substantiated my arguments based
on her emails. Didn't you read what she wrote? Surely
she copied you in her emails. She wrote the
Californian doesn't talk about what she considers
self-published books, while the Californian in the past
two days have ran one article (possibly two) on what
she considers self published books, not to mention the
Centennial History book. That pretty much catches her
in a lie. That's substantiation.
Her emails were clear that she was speaking for the
entire Californian, so why would I take that to
another level? Am I supposed to know the chain of
command and protocol at the Californian when her
emails were written in a manner that she was fully
aware of Californian policy? Let's face it. I caught
her in a lie and I'm no bully.
If I were a bully I would have commented directly onto
her blog.
I merely defended that local authors and Lords: Part
One deserve media attention. It has had little
attention from the Californian. Your perception may
think of me as 'bullying', but the bullying I believe,
came from Belton who tried to shut me down when
bringing up the topic of my book, and then lied about
the Californian's policy instead of having a dialogue
with me. Besides, how can I be a bully with a blog
opinion piece? Are all letters to the editors that are
negative considered bullying too? And my letter wasn't
to the editor. I didn't email it to anyone. I didn't
nail it to the Californian's door. I didn't email the
blog to anyone either. My readership is tiny compared to the
Californian's massive tentacles. Yet I am the bully? So
much for the Californian taking criticism. Baldwin was
wrong. I can understand pulling the blog after I
called for Belton to be fired, but my headlines were
pulled when I barely started to get critical.
Bullying; that's an excuse.
As far as coverage for my work, I hadn't planned on
contacting the Californian anyways. By defending
myself I am fully aware that the Californian will
continue to shun great local literature in return for
stories like musician poets and self published
Tehachapi history books and self-made historical works
slanted by corporate money, and that comes even from
the man who wrote it, though he may deny such...
In the end I think it's silly to think of myself as a
bully. That's just your way of trying to paint an
intimidating picture of me and it doesn't work. The
real bully is the Californian who shuts people down
and tries to shut people up.
If you wanted a dialogue, then you could just as
easily have talked to me instead of sitting by and
watching me defend myself to the Californian's policy
per Danielle Belton's words...
I appreciate that you at least were able to come clean
and admit why my blog was pulled...
Sincerely
N.L. Belardes
This entry was posted by N.L. Belardes, on
Monday, November 14, 2005.
You can leave your response.
LMAO.... that is funny!
The Story of David and Goliath.
The Story of David and Goliath
The Story of David and Goliath. Ahem, who should I root for?
Local admirer of your blog and articles here...
I agree. Not that my voice in this matter really means much, but you have support here. I don't think what you did was bullying... they are acting childish. I never really cared for The Californian for two reasons... I can't stand how they write... and what they write about when it comes to arts and entertainment. It's a local paper... it should talk about local theatre, arts, & entertainment.
I'm not really sure if this is your job, or mostly just a hobby, but whatever it is, I like your take on the universe. It is worth reading when you know the facts and stop hopping around fluff. :) You're a very interesting writer. I can't wait to purchase & read a copy of your book.
Wow. Just wow. I love how useless our paper is, seeing as Ms. Belton's supervisor has enough time to call bully to someone who just writes a blog.
The internet is a serious place.
NICHOLAS LIVINGSTON BELARDES!!! You give that media giant back their lunch money!
Hurrah to the Californian for saying what no one else could possibly be retarded enough to think. NL is a bully.
Don't they get it? Regardless of what nerves you have hit with your criticism, the Californian seems to be oblivious to the fact that you are an underdog fighting for local artists, yourself included. Don't they get that when they attack you they are shitting on all of us? I don't know what movie they think this is (in which you are the bully) but as far as the community is concerned they are Appollo Creed and you are Rocky, fighting for the people. Why are they fighting you? Why do they think this is a (public relations) fight that they can win? You are fighting for the life-bloog of local arts and they are fighting for what. To say "You're wrong, our coverage is acceptable." Who would want to be on that side.
How big of a person would it take (be it Belton or McHenry or whoever) to say "You're right, Nick, our coverage of the arts could improve and we hope that you and other local arts people will work with us to see that happen."
Ridiculous...
We have all been frustrated with this issue for years. Now you come along and put our concerns out their in the blogosphere, and place it before the Californian in a well thought out argument backed with evidence of their faults, and what do we get. Fuck you, that's what.
To the Californian (who is to say they won't read this?):
Come on. You can't win this fight. Nick is on the side of we the people and you are on the side of you the corporation. Give in. He is right, and you can do better.
You know what I miss N.L.? The good old days when the entertainment writers at the Californian (and other local publications) were not only music fans and musicians, but critics. If they thought the Jazz Festival was a tedious four hours of self indulgent white man noodling, they said so. If they thought the headliners at the CSUB Radio Raindance were a bunch of pretentious U2 fans who took themselves too seriously, they said so. Nothing personal. It wasn't so long ago, maybe ten years, that Richard Chon wrote scathing review after scathing review of everything from local bar bands to the Bakersfield Symphony (he also, incidentally, co-authored Workin’ Man Blues:
Country Music in California) Oh what he would have done to your novel. You should send him a copy for review.
The thing is, he gave the local arts and music scene a common enemy. That created controversy. Controversy kept the scene cohesive. Criticism kept the artists honest and kept the ones that suck from taking themselves too seriously. I, personally, like to read the music reviews in Blender because they are not only hilarous, but usually brutal. All the sycophantic back-patting and flattery of bands that suck (and books that suck) really is nauseating. I don't want the Californian to do it and I'm sick of you doing it.
I sincerely doubt your lack of coverage has anything to do with Lords being controversial; they broke the damn story! Nick, your book just regurgitates that same story with bad dialogue, tedious long-winded metaphor, a flimsy Nambla version of Ted Fritts as Randolf Hearst and not a single mention of the man who compiled the story your novel is based on. I'd ignore you too.
What's controversial? Nate Berg? Yeah, he's controversial. He might be an asshole, he might have carried a bat, he might have smoked enough crack to make him certifiable, he might even date rape underage girls, but his writing is more interesting than yours. That, my dear, is controversial.
You know what? I'd put my name to this if I trusted you to print it in it's entirety, but you've already proven yourself untrustworthy in that regard. This isn't hate mail love, it's your wake up call. Be a worthy opponent. Good luck selling those towers of books with your cry-baby controversy.
You sure are spending a lot of time reading my blog and my book. Don't you have anything else better to do?
:)
You sure spend alot of time checking your stats :)
Anonymous lacks the full sight of the situation. Nick is NOT by any stretch of the imagination indebted to cover anyone but his own projects. He is his own artist, and the fact that Nick allows for others to be reviewed and publicized is a great courtesy. The Californian, however, should be bound to a higher standard. They are a paper for the citizens of the community, and for them to not help those like Nick and others get the word out about their work is a gross vulgarity. If it doesn't cater to the entire community, it's not about the community. You can post all the crybaby, bullshit quips you want; newspapers sell because people are interested in reading them, be it some blown up scandal or a consistently diverse and in-depth coverage of the happenings in our community.
By the way, critics sadly never create. If you never create something, how can you validate someone else's work? To this standard, Anonymous, I hold you. Show me your mass amounts of work, and I will accept your copy/paste of every cliched critique of a book as a valid criticism. If you are so inclined to judge everyone else, prove your worth as a human, Anonymous. Nick already has.
this goes to "anonymous" who posted at 6:43pm...
fuck you and your long-winded rant on n.l. he's done more than you'll ever do!
so chicken shit to state all those things, yet leave your name as anonymous.... you're probably one of those jealous faggots wishing you could do even a small percentage of what n.l. does and succeed at it.
call it like it is! nate berg controversial?! please... that's my ass! nothing personal... whatever!
you're probably nate berg or someone stuck up his hole.
peace out!
"fuck you and your long-winded rant on n.l. he's done more than you'll ever do!" - Anonymous
What?? It figures that the potty mouths would come out in force. Why are you posting anonymous? n.l., is that you?
If you'd take your nose out of n.l.'s ass (or your own, whatever that may be) long enough to make a better point, you'll find that long winded and intelligent is better than short and stupid. Why Curse? So lame. That's like wearing denim jean shorts to swim in the ocean! I mean come on, denim? LAME.
Nick makes long-winded statements all the time. Why don't you give him a big "FUCK YOU" too? The Californian of old was good at what they did in the entertainment section, what's wrong with pointing that out?
Tell us something Mr. & Mrs. Joe Public...HAS ANYONE REALLY READ THIS BOOK? HOW COME YOU CAN'T FIND A REAL REVIEW ANYWHERE?"
Come up for air and wipe the poop off your nose!!
Post??? We shall see.
"so chicken shit to state all those things, yet leave your name as anonymous.... you're probably one of those jealous faggots.." - Anonymous (2)
Who's calling who, who?
The use of the word "faggot" clearly has no place here. What about all your gay friends, n.l?
What kind of blog moderation is that?
Nope, not me. Just sitting back and watching the drama unfold... I agree, the 'F' word is being used too much, and that alone makes me want to take down comments. Kids read this site.
Reviews take time... we'll get some of those posted as we hear back from certain folks from newspapers, magazines and such...
In the meantime, I am happy with what readers have to say locally, good or bad.
I do think all you anonymous folks should leave your names, but I think people are afraid of backlash if they leave their names, whichever side they're on...
Nick Belardes is and honorable and decent man . Why are they trying to kill "David" I ask ?
NL is an honorable and well educated historian who did tons of research for his book Lords: Part One! For anonymous that believes he should have referenced Robert Price and his 2003 articles in the book that is ridiculous considering the book is set in 1977! NL has and continues to give credit to Robert Price for inspiring him to write the novel. 'Inspire' being the key word. Those articles inspired him to do research and to dig deeper than the articles themselves and to write a riveting dark fictional story of the Lords of Bakersfield.
I have read Lords: Part One several times... and found it to be a great fictional novel with a dark and sinister view of powerful men in Bakersfield. I believe the controversy comes from the fact that the novel makes you think about what is really going on around you in your own town.
NL does more for the local arts community in Bakersfield than the Bakersfield Californian and has every right to defend his literary work and their lack of coverage and their rude comments regarding local authors and self-published works.
I commend you NL for the stand you are taking for literary arts, the arts community, other local authors and yourself. Well done!
I have to agree with the post that spoke about honest criticism. That type of entertainment coverage really ads legitimacy for the publication, artists, and the reading public. However, the value of that kind of journalism does not automatically discount Nick and his work. Harsh, honest cricism legimizes the artists and the reviewer because it takes the whole business seriously. Of course that is a given. But someone like Nick who is out there in the community seeking publicity for himself and other artists (simultanously) in his own way is legitimate as well. Why? Because Nick is the little guy. He clings to that idea and throws it in people's faces unabashedly. He is proud of it, you could say, and uses it in his marketing methods. He's the little guy, the independent journalist, the starving artist, the everyman trying to get his voice heard and his art seen by his fellow everymen (and women). If you choose to laugh at that as pathetic then fine for you, but it's like laughing at any artist who ever tried. If you look at this whole website, this whole controvercy, and everything that NL does it is clear what he is trying to do (to some). His intention is not to get in your face and say "I am a fantastic novelist and my book is great so you should read it and you should like it because it's damn good." His intention is and has been to network with artists, to lump himself in with the local community of artists, and to say "Hey, check this out. See all the stuff that's going on around town. There are bands playing, hockey stuff to talk about, and look I wrote a book." He worked to create the Hockey Songs CD, to promote local bands and to get the word out about his book. To spark interest in the local arts, and to spark interest in his novel. And hey guess what. It's worked. It has sparked interest.
So the question is, is it so ridiculous for Nick to want to mention his book when interviewed about Hockey Songs? Is it so ridiculous to expect the paper to want to tell the whole story? All it would take is to report that Hockey Songs was created by a local novelist who has just released quite a controvercial and interesting book. That sounds like a juicy story that any self-respecting newspaper would want to print. The fact that they threw it back in Nick's face is an insult to local artists.
So what is your criticism of all this, anonymous...? That it used to be cool when the Californian published harsh reviews? That some of the local bands aren't that great? That you didn't like Nick's book? Good for you, but that is all completely beside the point.
This issue seems to polarize everyone into two categories, those who sympathize with the paper and those who sympathise with the artists. In fact, you could criticize Nick for framing the whole thing that way purposely, to "further his cause." But when you recall that his cause is bringing attention to himself and other local artists, that isn't the worst thing in the world. And that brings us right back to the beginning again. NL does not expect the Californian to give him a free full page ad for Lords Part 1. He could buy that advertising. The point is that it is Nick's claim and his supporters' shared belief that the Californian is not doing their job. That this incident is another example of their incompetence in covering the arts. We expect our criticisms to be heard and taken in a mature fashion by the newspaper. Their reaction thus far is not promising.
The Californian has been in my opinion one of the main reasons Bakersfield is the Joke of the State that it is. The arts coverage has always consisted of "ads" for upcoming concerts, stuff that sounds like someone just scanned the promo packs and printed them. When was the last time anyone read an account of what actually happened at a show here? Danielle Belton had no personality and it showed in her writing. The Californian has been so inconsistent in it's staff and review identity, it's embarrassing to try to read. I guess it's cheaper to hire high school kids. Why did they go to Thursday for the arts? Did it cut into the Movie Ad copy? I believe these people get their ideas from "Access Hollywood". Pablum. Who friggin cares about Reese Witherspoon ? Or Jessica Simpson ? Hey Californian, could You come up with MORE PUNNY HEADLINES ? Well, at least we don't have to read Greg Goodsell..... LOL
I happened upon this blog, and was intrigued by the exchanges herein. From what I can gather, a very bold and intelligent writer was called a "bully" by the local paper, probably because of the vehemence of his language as he exposed certain aspects of modern society for what they were. Needless to say, I completely take the side (if sides there are) of the writer, who speaks on the behalf of all artists who are threatened with extinction by the "media machine." My favorite of his phrases, all delightfully accurate, was "information burger" -- Golly, there are plenty of THOSE going around these days. I am a filmmaker from NYC, and I would love to share my work with this marvelous individual. If any of you know how to get a hold of (him), then please write to me at: inkdrizzles@yahoo.com.
leave a response