Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Journal Gazette story re-visited

Several people disagreed with my previous post and wrote some good comments. I stand by that post; however, I could have worded it much better and I will attempt to do so in this post.

There is no doubt that Libertarians effected yesterdays election.

Don Schmidt made a public statement specifically mentioning the difference the Libertarian (John Bartels) made in the 2nd City Council District.

The JG editorial board did not even INTERVIEW any of the Libertarian candidates. Interestingly enough the NS editorial board did interview the Libertarian candidates and endorsed one.

The JG's coverage of the Libertarian candidates yesterday was "No Libertarian candidate took more than 10 percent of the vote."

As I stated in my previous post the above statement is a true statement and it is accurate reporting; however, all you have to do is read the JG for a short while and you will quickly realize that they spin everything in a way that fits their specific agenda.

A better example would be today's tagline for their front page story, it reads "Henry garners 60% of ballots for historic victory over indicted Kelty."

Why on earth did they include at the end of the tagline "indicted Kelty?"

They did it because it fits their agenda and they consistently spin everything.

Newspaper circulation is dwindling all across the country and I doubt if the JG has any clue as to why this is happening!

There is no way any INDEPENDENT journalist could look at yesterdays election and come to any conclusion other then the Libertarians influenced at least the 2nd District and the at-large
City Council races.

The fact that Libertarians ran eight candidates and influenced the election is news. After reading the JG it is easy to tell that the JG does not understand that it is news.

Another interesting point is that two people from the NS came to the Libertarian Party last night, amazingly enough, no one from the JG bothered to attend...

Coincidence?

I think not.

Mike Sylvester

11 comments:

Sheri said...

Once again, nicely put, but he IS indicted. Was it necessary? NO. But it is factual, not spin.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with Mike on this one. Yes, it is factual. So is victory over Catholic Kelty or victory over Male Kelty or victory over architect Kelty. Those would also be factual. They want to reiterate, however, that he is under indictment, even though it is not relevant to the tagline.

Anonymous said...

SYLVESTER!!! who won the bet bewteen you and SAM T?

Anonymous said...

There can be no doubt that the LP has power in Ft Wayne. Byron Peters got 10% of the vote in his race, and both Goldner and Liz Brown were elected because of votes cast for the LP candidates. Good Work Jennifer Jefferies

Anonymous said...

"no doubt LP has power"

May be a little bold at this point.

Come on, 10% of the vote in a race where the challenger did zilch. Byron P also benefited from a little Nelson Peters residual name id.

At the end of the day, Smith got his 60% and the two challengers just divied up the rest.

Bartles votes would have probably broken more to Goldner than Schmidt (I know I know statistics show....)

As for Liz Brown, I dont know. The libertarian votes were probably in large part "protest votes" against Crawford and the establishment. So if those votes did not go to Libertarians, they would have gone to the non-imcumbents like Brown and she would have won anyway.

Anonymous said...

The Libertarians did great and deserve a lot of credit. Kudos to Jennifer Jeffereies and all of the candidates. If Republicans don't like the impact the Libertarians had on the elections, and they shouldn't, they need to deal with the ideas that cause people to consider the Libertarians.

AS for the Newspapers, the interesting question, I think, is will they continue the absolute silence concerning any issue that might be critical of the current powers that be, or will they begin to investigate again, now that doing so cannot be of any potential benefit to Matt Kelty.

Mark Garvin

Anonymous said...

Sheri,

"Factual" and "spin" are not orthogonal concepts.

spin, verb:
11. Slang. to cause to have a particular bias; influence in a certain direction: His assignment was to spin the reporters after the president's speech.


"Spinning" is exactly what our dead-tree media are engaging in. They happen to be working with facts.

When you're spinning lies, I think that's called marketing.

Jennifer Jeffrey, Chair LPAC said...

Thank you all for the kind and supportive words regarding the election and our campaigns. (More on that thanks later)

On a quick note regarding press coverage. The News Sentinel had a differing view of the Libertarian affect on the races:

"Libertarian Jonathan Bartels appears to have played the role of third-party spoiler, drawing 6 percent of the vote. The 2nd District includes areas north of the city's core."

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071107/NEWS/711070308

Dave MacDonald said...

Congrats to Jennifer and the Libertarian Party for the inroads made this year toward credibility. Your platform of accountability in government no doubt planted a seed in the minds of many voters. The harvest is yet to come.

Dave MacDonald said...

Mark,

I agree. The Journal's lack of curiosity regarding the City's refusal to release test results for the OmniSource property was particularly disturbing. With the election now over and the purchase option deadline looming, I expect we will soon see the report. Then again, I won't hold my breath.

Dave

Robert Enders said...

It is impossible to report every fact about a candidate. So a newspaper has to stick to what is relavant. Who determines what is relavant? In one sense, the editor decides. But ultimately it is up to the readers, veiwers, and listeners on which media they use.