JEERS
... to our crusading New Albany councilman Dan Coffey and his rabble rousing about sewer rates and corrupt local government (Note to self: Isn’t Coffey the longest sitting city politician?). I totally agree that government must be held accountable. I don’t put it past any person with power to try some funny business. There is always temptation. So let’s watchdog those we elected! But Coffey’s antics continue to embarrass New Albany. Instead of being a true leader and looking for a solution — it took Rep. Ed Clere to locate some help while Coffey grandstanded — he blames others. Instead of looking for potential solutions, this elected leader seems only interested in picking up his pitchfork and torch. Do some research and please join the logical and constructive discussions so the city you help lead can move into the future.
— Tribune publisher Steve Kozarovich
New Albany is a state of mind … but whose? Since 2004, we’ve been observing the contemporary scene in this slowly awakening old river town. If it’s true that a pre-digital stopped clock is right twice a day, when will New Albany learn to tell time?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Kozarovich: "Coffey’s antics continue to embarrass New Albany."
There's a big cheer 'n' jeers section in today's Tribune, and Coach K gets to the heart of the matter. However, he misses an obvious point: Dan Coffey cannot lead the city into the future because his entire political existence is devoted to keeping it stuck in the past. You might as well ask Steve Price to describe the flavor characteristics of oak-aged Imperial Stout.
WOW!!
ReplyDeleteI would be curious to know what Rep. Clere's personal involvement in the sewer issue was to warrant the kudos and pats on the back...
ReplyDeleteHe helped bring the SRF, ie state revolving loan fund to favorable terms with the sewer utility, Like it or not Clere is delivering results and proving his position as an effective state representative. Sorry to burst your idol worship of Shane Gibson lawguy, but Shane is part of the reason the sewer utility has fiscal problems.
ReplyDeletePut your partisan politics aside and give credit when it is due in this case Clere does deserve a pat on the back.
I don't doubt that he did, EW. I also saw nothing in Lawguy's question to merit the Gibson reference. But that's your snarky style, and it's endearing.
ReplyDeleteRiddle me this, EW: When Ed or any other official says, "I did this," should the newspaper take him at his word, or ask for independent verification?
i like the old reagan phrase, "trust, but verify" something the tribune ought to do a little more of dont you think?
ReplyDeleteNo arguments here.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't get my hopes up, Lawguy.
ReplyDeleteWith the Tribune providing Clere free ad space each week, I'm guessing the chances of critical reporting are probably slim.
Has Shane (or any Floyd Democratic official) asked for Tribune space and been denied?
ReplyDeleteI am not going to critique Ed for putting his opinion out there.
If the Democrats have counterarguments to Ed's column, they need to get it out there. Why don't they?
Kozarovich reversed himself and rescinded preexisting candidate policy to continue providing space to Clere. Opponents of any candidate shouldn't be forced into writing a column for the benefit of the paper just to overcome a competitive advantage bestowed by them.
ReplyDelete"If you don't provide content for us, we're going to help your opponent".
Blogs have a funny way of proclaiming themselves as new media when it serves their cause, but shying away from such a definition when it would cause them to have to provide the same idealistic, unbiased coverage traditional news outlets are charged with.
ReplyDeleteYou accuse us of wrong because our leaders offered equal column space, yet NAC has never offered equal coverage of the politics it covers. Put down the stones guys, you're indoors.
That's all I got guys. I'm not going to get drug into the mudslinging and manipulation.
ReplyDeleteIt's not mudslinging, D. I stand by what I said.
ReplyDeleteWhat others make of it is, of course, up to them.
Newspapers are not subject to the "Equal Time Rule."
ReplyDeleteSection 315 of the 1934 Communications Act states: "If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any political office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station."
Only broadcast media that are granted federal license to broadcast have to meet the standards of the Equal Time Rule.
Newspapers are not affected by and do not have to meet the federal Equal Time Rule.
What's more, political candidates are free to purchase advertising time on FCC licensed broadcast stations. Opposing candidates are not given "equal time" - the licensed stations merely have to hold in reserve equal broadcast commercial time for any registered opposing candidate.
This is one reason why candidates time an announcement that they are running for office very carefully, so as not to trigger the Equal Time rule requiring stations to hold and sell broadcast time in equal measure to their opponents.
As a result of an amendment to Section 315 in 1959, the rule does not apply to regular news and public affairs programming. Thus, if a "legally qualified" candidate appears on a bona fide news program, the station is under no obligation to provide time to other candidates.
The Equal Time rule is often confused with the "Fairness Doctrine," which once required that broadcasters "operate in the public interest and afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public interest."
The Fairness Doctrine ceased to be a requirement in 1987.
Thanks for the information, but I don't believe anyone has claimed the Tribune has run afoul of the law. Poor policy, expressed as lack of policy in this case, doesn't have to be illegal to be poor policy.
ReplyDeleteEW -
ReplyDeleteI dont spend enough time around these haunts to know you, nor why you felt the need to jump my ass for a question that was, by all means, honest and legitmate. It seems your biting response was a bit over the top, dont you think?
Sure, Shane is my friend - I have lots of friends. And yes, I will support him this fall.
However, my asking what exactly Clere did to get the paper's "cheers" isnt exactly partisan politics, is it? Put down the "Limbaugh Attack Sword" and just answer my question next time - if you know the answer. If Ed made a few phone calls, say so. If he orchestrated meetings and helped get the deal done, share that too. Help me understand.
But in answering my questions in the future, try to avoid meaningless cheap shots, even if it means you have to write the answers on your hand to remember them. We can go back and forth all day - the internet is a great place for an anonymous exchange of brazen barbs. But, if you really want to rise above all that, share information and maintain a bit of credibility, I'd suggest you do it with a tad more integrity, eh?
For the record: I tend to believe that Ed Clere contributed sufficiently to be given credit for this (pretty good) deal. I do have friends who will maintain his contribution was late and minimal, but in this case I believe (can't prove) that his intervention was a significant (I can't prove that it was definitive) factor in a critical concession by the bondholder.
ReplyDeleteWe may never know. I will say that Ed did a damn sight more to mitigate the impact than CM Dan Coffey did.
Even partisans will (grudgingly) admit that. And coming from a Democrat who lives in Floyd County (as opposed to a Floyd County Democrat), you ought to credit that opinion, IMHO.
Ed, at least, intervened. Did it have an impact? I suspect "yes," but I truly don't know if it would have worked out the same way without him. Yes, I'd like to examine it further, but I don't want to be churlish about it just because Ed is a rising GOP star. This may be his only term, and I have concerns about his adherence to a certain ideology (particularly regarding wealth tax limits). But on this issue, he seems to have been on the side of the angels.
Hey, RAB? Can I change my screen name to "Rodney King?" Can't we all get along?
ReplyDelete...nevermindiforgotiknowtheanswerwishiknewtherules.
Sure do seem to be a lot of calories being wasted on pettiness.
Opponents of any candidate shouldn't be forced into writing a column for the benefit of the paper just to overcome a competitive advantage bestowed by them.
ReplyDeleteI'm rather amazed by this perspective. A cynic might insinuate that bluegill's election strategy is censorship.
Voters want to hear from their elected officials; complaining that the opponent is too articulate or writes too many articles is a losing strategy. The emphasis should be on more public discourse, not less. If the Tribune's editorial pages are one-sided, then the solution is more coverage of the other side, not less coverage all together.
For another example along the same lines, visit Shirley's blog and you'll read that some are critical of the Tribune for printing Roger's articles. Does Roger present just one view of Coffey and Price? You bet. Would pulling Roger's articles be the best way to achieve balance? It might achieve balance but I challenge anyone to tell me how that achieves the highest level of public discourse. If Coffey and Price can articulate a competing view, let them write their own column.
Roger's not running for office. In fact, he directly asked Kozarovich if he would be allowed to continue his column if he did. The answer was maybe, maybe not.
ReplyDeleteKozarovich has implicitly said that there are no longer any guidelines for candidates writing columns. If the Trib editorial board wants them to write, they can write and if they don't, they can't. There is no standard other than their personal whim.
All I'm asking for, Dan, is a policy that applies equally to all candidates for office. That's not censorship.
Another cynic might insinuate that Dan cares more about allowing his chosen candidate free advertisement than seeing that all candidates are treated equally.
If Clere was using money from donors like Dan to buy the space and his opponent wasn't responding in kind, I'd say his opponent needed to step up his or her participation, but that's not the case.
While I think Clere, too, should realize the implications of his participation, this isn't just bout him receiving advantage in an isolated incident. This about the newspaper reversing a policy that it said avoided implications of favoritism and announcing that treating candidates entirely differently based on no particular standard is fair game.
Do you think it's fair, Dan, that the paper would give some candidates columns and not others? If so, what should guide their decisions? What makes one candidate's voice more important than another?
All I'm asking for, Dan, is a policy that applies equally to all candidates for office. That's not censorship....
ReplyDelete...Do you think it's fair, Dan, that the paper would give some candidates columns and not others?
Question: Has Shane Gibson asked for a column and been told "no."
Answer: No.
We can talk all day about the Tribune's implicit contradictions, but when we look at concrete actions, I don't see the screeching bias.
More generally, as a progressive Democrat, I am disappointed at the silence from my party on local and state issues.
I regularly read rants from Dave Matthews. Where's the counterargument?
I'm glad Roger writes his columns but he's just one voice. Why aren't local Democrats, in a coordinated way, getting out the word on local, progressive issues like land use, environment, code enforcement, & education? If all Republican columns disappeared tomorrow, there's still no alternative voice out there.
I am looking at concrete actions, Dan. Other columnists have in the recent past been given a choice: either give up your column or don't run for office.
ReplyDeleteThe rules were changed for Clere, but not necessarily anyone else, under the guise that his partisan rhetoric is considered to be "valuable reporting" from Indianapolis. If Clere's highly biased recitations are considered reporting, journalism is in sad shape.
But you're right about the local Democratic party. They don't communicate enough. From what I've seen, most aren't progressive and a lot of them would have a difficult time distinguishing themselves from the GOP. They can't communicate what they don't know.
But that's a different issue from newspaper policy.
Heck, some of them would be in the right wing of the GOP.
ReplyDelete