Posted by
tohu.vavohu on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:44:06 AM
Remember a while back,
like yesterday, when I pointed out that the Arizona Republic was absent in
really taking up the story about the Arizona 9/11 memorial? Well, I think they
did another disservice to the public. But maybe I'm wrong, read what I have to
say and determine for yourself. This concerns two stories that may be
significant to people looking into the elections. To see where things stand and
the character of the people involved. In an e-mail I sent out yesterday, I
linked to an Arizona Republic story I had read: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0927elex-poll0927.html.
This story noted a poll that has Napolitano leading Len Munsil. Napolitano 64%
~ Len Munsil 28%. A very interesting article that compelled me to send a
letter of my endorsement of Len Munsil and for you to look at the issues
personally to make your own educated decision. This also highlighted that even
if it wasn't true, that there is still work to get done before the general
election. (But Len Munsil has a little to say about this poll: http://www.lenmunsil.com/2006/09/early_polls.php.
I like how he points out other polls have him running closer but this poll is
the one getting the press. Maybe that is another thing that would bother me
about the Arizona Republic, but back to the story at hand.) After I finished
those letters and sent them off, I continued reading articles available on the
internet. I came across one that was titled "Dems paid group behind web site
attacking Munsil". In the article it says that originally on September 18th it
was denied that the Democratic Party gave $100,000 to the Arizona Values
Coalition. But it is now being retracted and acknowledged that that this amount
was given. Arizona Values Coalition is noted as funding the Arizona
Conservative Trust sponsoring a anti-Munsil website. The article also points
out "...the Arizona Conservative Trust reported paying for anti-Munsil automated
phone calls shortly before the September 12th primary election." The article
doesn't make it known but I can only assume the calls it is talking about are
the calls that passed on a personal Munsil family story. The story that his
eldest child was conceived a month before he and his wife wed. You can see the
full story about the Democratic parties donation here: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0927munsil-democrats0927.html.
Elements of that story just displays the deplorable actions taken by those
involved. But this isn't the problem I have in regards to the Arizona republic,
these are actually "decent" articles to provide information to the voters. I
read these articles in the newspaper this morning and here is the problem, the
questionable (according to Munsil) poll story is on the front page, the funding
story is on page B6 towards the crease of the paper. I think a story like this
should be on the front of the Valley and State section, not six pages in. I
think it is a disservice to the public. I hope it isn't an 'apparent attempt to
not make the story publicly known'. I am not trying to say that the funding
story should have gotten the front page and the polling story get the back page
treatment. They both deserve front page treatment. Why do I think it is a big
deal? Well beside what I said before about stories being significant to the
voters, the funding story states, "...Munsil's campaign has filed complaints
asking the Secretary of State's Office and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office
to investigate whether campaign finance laws were violated." If it is deemed
campaign finance laws were violated this means legal consequences are in order.
This is where people get in trouble for wrong doing. Job lose, jail time, that
kind of stuff. That's huge!!! Granted it was a donation to the group and the
Democratic party can't "...coordinate their activities..." but they gave it to
the group "...in hopes that the group's activities would help Democratic
candidates get elected." But these are the organizations they feel comfortable
enough to not only give money to but to also associate with. Their actions
aren't showing the most compelling, moral light and they can get in trouble for
those actions. So in summary, my problem with the Arizona Republic is their
placement of stories of significance. But maybe I'm wrong and it's ok, I mean,
I've never worked for a paper before.
Update:
forgot to mention
In my last e-mail I
quoted the Arizona Republic in saying "...the Arizona Conservative Trust
reported paying for anti-Munsil automated phone calls shortly before the
September 12th primary election." I told you which phone calls I assumed they
could have been. I would like you to note that if my assumtion is correct about
which phone calls they were, that would mean that those calls were illegal.
That's right, illegal. How? Well, the calls went out to people asking their
opinion but it was not expressed who was paying for the call. During election
time, a political call can not be made without naming who the
phone call is being paid by. It's illegal.
Update:
maybe I'm *NOT* reading to much into this one
Gleefully I picked
up one of several Valley & State sections laying around at work. Why
gleefully? Because I wanted to see if the Arizona Republic would pick up the
poll story (click
gubernatorial) that Len Munsil talked about Wednesday.
Also because like I mentioned yesterday, the Wednesday morning paper had the
story about how Len was way behind on the front
page but the story about shaky money schemes in the
back, and I wanted to see how they were going to handle this kind of story.
Just like Len Munsil was wondering and hoping to "...see if they place this new
poll information with huge numbers and graphics and a big story at the top of
the front page of the 'Valley & State' section, like they did with today's
poll that had results much more favorable to Janet." I too was looking for
Len's suggested headline "...MUNSIL CLOSES HUGE GAP IN ONE DAY, SURGES 27
POINTS!" The glee turned to wonderment. It wasn't on the front page in huge
letters and nice graphics. I did a quick once through and didn't see any
headline suggesting the story. But later I was going through and was reading a
story, right above the continued obituaries, on B9 about the memorial and how
the lawmakers were looking in the possibility of calling a special session to
handle the concerns that have been raised. I get towards the end and it has a
sub headline of "Dueling polls". It's in bold but it is in fairly small print.
It must be still about the memorial. Nope, it's the story about the new poll
Len pointed out Wednesday. This memorial/poll
story is on the second to last page, B9. So a local poll showing Munsil way
behind is good and worthy for front page press, but a national poll showing
Munsil close behind is only suited for a back page halfway mention? And the
stark contrast of the numbers. Wouldn't that alone deem it worthy of front page
status? Why wouldn't both be shown side by side to show the difference and
extremes just days apart? Or does this show possible subjectivity? I can't
believe it. This makes me think that I might have been right yesterday when I
was thinking that this might be an 'apparent attempt to not make the
story publicly known'. Before I started typing this I noticed that Len Munsil
picked up on the story
as well.
If you've read my
e-mail about Prop 107, and read specifically the Republic story linked in it,
you might understand why the Republic might not want the people of Arizona to
know about Len Munsil and his position in the polls. Maybe a little liberal
bias slant? I don't know. Just a guess and observation. Like I said
yesterday, "...I've never worked for a paper before." Maybe it's all good but I
am starting to think that I'm not reading to much into this.
Update:
investigation update
I mentioned to you last
week about the Demecratic
party admitting they gave $100,000 to the Arizona Values Coalition who funds
the Arizona Conservative Trust. The Arizona Conservative Trust is the group
that sponsors an anti-Len Munsil website. They also are "...reported paying for
anti-Munsil automated phone calls shortly before the September 12th primary
election." Well I wanted to update you as to what is happening with this
story. The Clean
Elections Commission has "...dismissed allegations brought against her
(Governor Janet Napolitano) campaign by representatives of GOP gubernatorial
candidate Len Munsil." (2)
Pass this on for
people to know the other stories out there.
Originally sent 9/27/2006 — Update 9/28/2006 — Update 9/29/2006 — Update 10/3/2006
A look into the placement of stories in local paper.
Placed on your e-mail's
front page,
~tohu.vavohu