Two separate but strangely related events occurred yesterday. The first was unpleasant, and the second was just kind of surreal. But they both informed each other.
The first event: I had an appointment to talk with Bennett Hall from the Gazette-Times about the election. My assumption was that he wanted to talk about my election plans or visions for Benton County, or something forward-focused. Ah, but when you assume...
Instead, without any preface, he launched into highly questionable questions about my supposedly provocative past. It was a dirt-digging call, and dragged me back through some of the most trying and emotionally brutal times of my life - up to and including asking questions about my extremely unpleasant divorce from nearly 20 years ago.
Bennett tried to explain that they were working on a story based on "background checks" of all the candidates running for Benton County Commissioner. Now, along those lines, let me be clear: I have no criminal record, or anything else that should be concerning to people. He acknowledged as much. (And at the end of the call he also thanked me for my candor.)
But, I absolutely do have an online "record" of articles from a very biased newspaper from when I served on the Port Angeles (Washington) City Council. I ran, and won, as a pro-farmer progressive environmentalist, in a community that trends conservative and Republican. Thus, as I explained to Bennett, I had a target on my back from Day One. I stood up for public health and environmental values against the heavily polluting paper mill in town, which at that time was owned and operated by the Nippon Corporation. At that time, the Nippon mill was the power player in town, and threw a lot of weight around, and the local newspaper was totally in their pocket - up to and including the fact that the very paper they printed on came from that mill.
In any case, the newspaper was no friend to the environment, and no friend of mine. Their lead reporter was a toxic personality who took evident glee in misrepresenting my positions, misquoting me, and generally doing everything they could to damage my reputation. I had to force them to print corrections time after time after time.
And stories from this newspaper were the source for most of what Bennett Hall was asking about. That goes way, way beyond the purview of a standard background check, and dips deeply into scandal mongering.
It also serves to illustrate a simple but overlooked fact: Anyone's history online - anyone's - is bound to be one-sided, distorted, inaccurate and weighted towards the negative. Case in point: My divorce records are online, but there is no online record of the times people have told me that I changed their lives for the better. This goes for almost everyone. When you look at someone via the internet, you are only looking down, not up, backwards but not forward.
Have you ever looked yourself up online? I have at times, and it's very illuminating. Every time I have, I've found supposed "personal information" websites that have information about me that is, to say the least, inaccurate. (And, believe me, with a name like Max Mania, I'm probably not getting confused with a lot of other Max Manias out there...) I've seen "relatives" and "friends" listed whose names I have never heard. I have been associated with groups I have no connection to. I've seen cities where I've supposedly lived that I have never been to. And on and on and on.
Which leads to the second event from yesterday: I am currently switching from working in one lab at HP to another. This means I am also switching agencies. The new agency did a background check on me, and I requested a copy of the final report. It came yesterday. Mind you, this is a professional background report, done by a company that does this as their business. And the report is both inaccurate and incomplete. In fact, it is downright bizarre.
It shows me (and my Social Security number, another highly specialized marker) as being "associated" with a PO Box in Bellevue, Washington years before I had ever even visited that city. I think I've been there twice, and have certainly never lived there, or had a PO Box there. The report also shows me as being "associated" with what seems to be a fairly random street address in Seattle - which, again, is a city I never lived in, and the address listed is not one I have ever visited. Ever.
Meanwhile, the years I spent in Port Angeles, the city where I was elected to the City Council, and the source of so much of the dirt that Bennett Hall was digging through...Well, on this official, professional "background report," Port Angeles doesn't show up at all. Not at all. Zero. Zip. Zilch. It's like I was never there.
My point being this: Any and all second-source information online is bound to be inaccurate, incomplete, and utterly lacking in context. And any reporting based on such information sources is also bound to be one-sided, distorted and woefully incomplete, as well as, yes, lacking in context.
Now, please understand, this is not intended to be a bashing of Bennett Hall (who is just doing his job), or the GT, or the press in general. Nor, obviously, is it meant to be some sort of whitewash of any supposed scandal in my past - I'd hardly be the first to bring this up if I was trying to downplay something.
All I am doing here is trying to add that grain of salt to whatever you read from secondary sources online. Again, the internet is inherently weighted towards the scandalous, the salacious and the sad. The built-in bias is towards the negative. It inherently distorts reality to some extent, like a funhouse mirror, only without any fun at all. And again, this isn't just about me; all candidates will be subjected to this process.
In closing, let me just say that, if you have any questions about me, or my history, please just ask me. (That goes for you as well, Bennett.) I am happy to tell you whatever you want to know. In a local election like this, you can easily get your information from the source, not second-hand.
The first event: I had an appointment to talk with Bennett Hall from the Gazette-Times about the election. My assumption was that he wanted to talk about my election plans or visions for Benton County, or something forward-focused. Ah, but when you assume...
Instead, without any preface, he launched into highly questionable questions about my supposedly provocative past. It was a dirt-digging call, and dragged me back through some of the most trying and emotionally brutal times of my life - up to and including asking questions about my extremely unpleasant divorce from nearly 20 years ago.
Bennett tried to explain that they were working on a story based on "background checks" of all the candidates running for Benton County Commissioner. Now, along those lines, let me be clear: I have no criminal record, or anything else that should be concerning to people. He acknowledged as much. (And at the end of the call he also thanked me for my candor.)
But, I absolutely do have an online "record" of articles from a very biased newspaper from when I served on the Port Angeles (Washington) City Council. I ran, and won, as a pro-farmer progressive environmentalist, in a community that trends conservative and Republican. Thus, as I explained to Bennett, I had a target on my back from Day One. I stood up for public health and environmental values against the heavily polluting paper mill in town, which at that time was owned and operated by the Nippon Corporation. At that time, the Nippon mill was the power player in town, and threw a lot of weight around, and the local newspaper was totally in their pocket - up to and including the fact that the very paper they printed on came from that mill.
In any case, the newspaper was no friend to the environment, and no friend of mine. Their lead reporter was a toxic personality who took evident glee in misrepresenting my positions, misquoting me, and generally doing everything they could to damage my reputation. I had to force them to print corrections time after time after time.
And stories from this newspaper were the source for most of what Bennett Hall was asking about. That goes way, way beyond the purview of a standard background check, and dips deeply into scandal mongering.
It also serves to illustrate a simple but overlooked fact: Anyone's history online - anyone's - is bound to be one-sided, distorted, inaccurate and weighted towards the negative. Case in point: My divorce records are online, but there is no online record of the times people have told me that I changed their lives for the better. This goes for almost everyone. When you look at someone via the internet, you are only looking down, not up, backwards but not forward.
Have you ever looked yourself up online? I have at times, and it's very illuminating. Every time I have, I've found supposed "personal information" websites that have information about me that is, to say the least, inaccurate. (And, believe me, with a name like Max Mania, I'm probably not getting confused with a lot of other Max Manias out there...) I've seen "relatives" and "friends" listed whose names I have never heard. I have been associated with groups I have no connection to. I've seen cities where I've supposedly lived that I have never been to. And on and on and on.
Which leads to the second event from yesterday: I am currently switching from working in one lab at HP to another. This means I am also switching agencies. The new agency did a background check on me, and I requested a copy of the final report. It came yesterday. Mind you, this is a professional background report, done by a company that does this as their business. And the report is both inaccurate and incomplete. In fact, it is downright bizarre.
It shows me (and my Social Security number, another highly specialized marker) as being "associated" with a PO Box in Bellevue, Washington years before I had ever even visited that city. I think I've been there twice, and have certainly never lived there, or had a PO Box there. The report also shows me as being "associated" with what seems to be a fairly random street address in Seattle - which, again, is a city I never lived in, and the address listed is not one I have ever visited. Ever.
Meanwhile, the years I spent in Port Angeles, the city where I was elected to the City Council, and the source of so much of the dirt that Bennett Hall was digging through...Well, on this official, professional "background report," Port Angeles doesn't show up at all. Not at all. Zero. Zip. Zilch. It's like I was never there.
My point being this: Any and all second-source information online is bound to be inaccurate, incomplete, and utterly lacking in context. And any reporting based on such information sources is also bound to be one-sided, distorted and woefully incomplete, as well as, yes, lacking in context.
Now, please understand, this is not intended to be a bashing of Bennett Hall (who is just doing his job), or the GT, or the press in general. Nor, obviously, is it meant to be some sort of whitewash of any supposed scandal in my past - I'd hardly be the first to bring this up if I was trying to downplay something.
All I am doing here is trying to add that grain of salt to whatever you read from secondary sources online. Again, the internet is inherently weighted towards the scandalous, the salacious and the sad. The built-in bias is towards the negative. It inherently distorts reality to some extent, like a funhouse mirror, only without any fun at all. And again, this isn't just about me; all candidates will be subjected to this process.
In closing, let me just say that, if you have any questions about me, or my history, please just ask me. (That goes for you as well, Bennett.) I am happy to tell you whatever you want to know. In a local election like this, you can easily get your information from the source, not second-hand.
Perfectly timed follow up: I got the above mentioned background report due to moving from one agency to another. Because we are moving from one rental to another, after posting the piece above, I got a copy of the background check our new rental company did on me.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, this is a full-on, professional background check done by a company that does those sorts of things every day. And, once again, the report they produced is bizarrely inaccurate.
This one also shows my "associated" with the mysterious PO Box in Bellevue. Unlike the other report, this one does capture my time spent living in Port Angeles - though it also has me living at an address I never lived at. And, strangest of all, it shows me as having lived in Lee, New Hampshire - a city and state I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO. Ever.
So, again, I personally take these background checks and muckraking stories with a HUGE grain of salt. The internet distorts as much as it reveals, if not more.
Meanwhile, greetings to the good people of Lee, New Hampshire, a place I've never been to.
And closing the loop...We've just gotten in from the Farmer's Market, where we went to A) Do some shopping, and B) Get more signatures on my ballot petition. (And THANK YOU to all the folks who signed today, especially the people out celebrating Record Store Day.)
ReplyDeleteOne of the couples I approached knew me even though I didn't know them. "Oh, we know you, Max. We used to live in Sequim."
For those who don't know, Sequim (Washington) is the town closest to the previously mentioned Port Angeles, where I served on the City Council. This couple remembered me from my time on the Council, and enthusiastically signed my petition. No mention of "scandal," or any such nonsense. They just remembered the progressive guy who stood up and spoke up for what he believed in.
I'm still that guy, and I still have never been to New Hampshire, or lived in Bellevue. Thanks again to all the dozens of people who signed my petitions today.
And here's all you really need to know from my special, stand alone "gotcha" story in today's Gazette-Times:
ReplyDelete"He also said he insisted on discussing the complaint in an open council session rather than a closed executive session, as the city attorney had advised.
Finally, Mania said it was ironic that the city adopted an ethics policy in response to the complaints about him when he had previously proposed such a policy to no avail."
Yes indeed, when my political opponents tried to maneuver a bogus ethics complaint against me behind closed doors, I insisted that it all be done in open session. Why? Because I had done nothing wrong, and had nothing to hide. And, of course, nothing came of it, because their lies completely fell apart in the daylight I insisted we shine on them.
And, as also stated above, I had been the only City Council member who had pressed for passing an ethics policy before this whole furor-over-nothing was manufactured. Why? Because I operate from a strong, unimpeachable ethical foundation. I "dared" to stand up for the people of the community against the dominant corporate interest in town, and they tried - and failed - to take me down.
It's a shame that in talking about the future for Benton County the GT insists on trying to drag up fantasy scandals from the past. But again, please focus on how I insisted on doing everything in public, in plain view, and not hidden behind closed doors.