Blade bias, Board of Elections and abuse of process

or otherwise titled:

Everything you didn't want to know about what's going on at the Lucas County Board of Elections

Alas, it should come as no surprise that news coverage of the recent brouhaha at the Board of Elections is biased. The Blade, for whatever reason, continues to support Lucas County Republican Chairman and BOE board member Jon Stainbrook.

People have wondered for years what Stainbrook might have on publisher John Robinson Block to make the man so supportive of Stainbrook, who some go so far as to call a sociopath.

Sadly, the voters of Lucas County - all of them, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof - are the ones to suffer.

Let's recap, in case you've been otherwise occupied...

Jon Stainbrook engineers a majority of central committee members and gets himself elected as chairman of the Lucas County GOP. After years of struggle (I'm not exaggerating), he manages to finally get himself appointed to the Board of Elections. He also gets someone he believes will be his crony, Anthony DeGidio, appointed as the second Republican on the four-member board.

Along the way, he tries to fire everyone at the BOE he deems an enemy. Several individuals were his victims. Then he gets his 'sometimes girlfriend' (as The Blade identified her numerous times) appointed at the director of the BOE. No conflict of interest there, I'm sure (which is important as you will read in a moment).

Together, they announce they're going to 'clean up the board.' But that's hardly what is happening.

Instead, they're using the BOE and its resources to continue to go after those Stainbrook has deemed 'enemy.' And Stainbrook loves to hold a grudge, never forgetting a perceived slight or wrong.

But then comes the Secretary of State who oversees all the voting - and the local Boards of Election - in the state. They realize things are amiss in Lucas County and send in a Republican and a Democrat to take a look and make recommendations.

Not surprisingly, the report they issued calls for Gallagher and the Democratic assistant director to be fired.

This does not sit well with Stainbrook - for without his FoS (friend of Stainbrook) in the director position, how can he fulfill his vendettas? Plus, if rumor is to be believed, she shares income and earnings with him and I'm sure neither of them want to go without her $85,000+ salary.

What did surprise everyone, though, including his fellow Republican board member DeGidio, was Stainbrook's motion when the SoS report came before the full board.

Stainbrook made a motion to fire everyone at the board EXCEPT the two recommended by the report.

Seriously.

The motion did not get a second, but discussion did follow. After a brief recess, the board returned and no other action regarding the report was taken.

I can only imagine the conversation - more likely bullying - Stainbrook did during that recess to try to get DeGidio to second his motion.

I also presume that was the point at which DeGidio stopped being a FoS and became an enemy - and a target.

Suddenly, DeGidio is persona non grata and must be removed from the Board of Elections.

He doesn't live in the county.

He has a young, Filipino girlfriend.

He has an ethics complaint against him at the Supreme Court (which has nothing to do with his eligibility to serve on the BOE, but is apparently just cause for removal in Stainbrook's eyes).

And in case you missed it, let's repeat all those things until you believe DeGidio is an evil, evil man who must be removed from the BOE so we can avoid the zombie apocalypse.

Enter John Marshall, another FoS and failed candidate for Lucas County Commissioner.

Marshall files a challenge to DeGidio's eligibility to vote in Lucas County. He produces, according to The Blade, hundreds of pages of so-called 'proof' that DeGidio doesn't reside in Lucas County. Some of the 'proof' was before DeGidio was even on the elections board, so it was irrelevant to the challenge.

But all the so-called evidence was not enough to overcome a Supreme Court ruling about residency that says regardless of where you might stay/live on a temporary basis, it is your intent to be a voting resident of your home county that matters. (The Court said a lot more, but you get the drift.)

Accordingly, the BOE voted 2-1 against the challenge, with the two Democrats voting to dismiss it and only Stainbrook voting to uphold it. DeGidio wasn't present - and couldn't have voted anyway - though he was represented by an attorney for the hearing.

Here's where The Blade comes in, right on cue to join with the character assassination so desired by Stainbrook.

First came the article that Stainbrook wanted DeGidio off the Board, alleging all sorts of evil things (see list above).

Then came the story about the official complaint by Marshall.

Then came two stories (here and here) about the board's vote to dismiss the complaint.

Then, despite a rather firm decision, The Blade attempts to make readers 'question' the decision with yet another article raising - you guessed it - 'questions.'

It's a long sordid story, but necessary to go over the details so you can see why various information being omitted in the Blade coverage is vital to truly understanding what is going on in this most important government agency.

In reporting on the hearing, The Blade wrote:

Attorney James Perlman, who represented Mr. DeGidio at the hearing, tried to cross-examine Mr. Marshall and the legitimacy of the documents several times, but Mr. Marshall refused to answer any of the attorney's questions. Mr. DeGidio did not attend the hearing. "I'm not going to talk to you anymore," Mr. Marshall said when asked how he obtained such things as Mr. DeGidio's insurance records.

When Mr. Rothenbuler explained that cross-examination is part of the hearing process, Mr. Marshall told him, "I'm not going to answer his questions."

Mr. Marshall did acknowledge to Mr. Perlman that he launched an investigation of Mr. DeGidio after speaking with Mr. Stainbrook and Meghan Gallagher, the Board of Elections' director.

Further down in the article, is this:

Mr. Stainbrook expressed frustration with the board's decision. He said Mr. DeGidio's absence from the hearing undermined the proceedings because Mr. Marshall couldn't question him.

Did reporter Federico Martinez bother to ask Stainbrook why he didn't then object to Marshall refusing to answer questions from DeGidio's attorney? Isn't that a double standard for Stainbrook? Where is that coverage?

Then there is this, from the 'questions' article that says the decided residency issue isn't over (though I'm pretty sure it is).

Evidence produced by Mr. Marshall, through subpoenas issued by the elections board...

"Subpoenas" - plural???

Since when do staff members at the Board of Elections have the authority - without direction from the board itself - to issue subpoenas???

Why isn't this questioned by DeGidio's attorney and the Democrat members of the board - and The Blade?

Mr. Stainbrook, a former ally of Mr. DeGidio, said he felt it was his duty to tell Mr. DeGidio to move back to Lucas County.

I understand that Stainbrook has known all along about DeGidio's back and forth between Lucas County and his parents due to his parents' age and health. Why doesn't the reporter ask Stainbrook how long he's known about this issue and why it's just now an issue? Why doesn't the reporter ask Stainbrook if all this is just being brought up because DeGidio wouldn't second his motion to fire the entire staff rather than Gallagher and the Democrat assistant director.

Aren't those very valid questions to ask and extremely pertinent to the story?

The article references log-ins to DeGidio's BOE email, with only six of the 88 being from an Internet address within Lucas County. Did Marshall file a public records request to obtain that information or did BOE staff provide it to him in an effort to get rid of one of their bosses?

How much time did BOE staff spend on assisting Marshall with his challenge?

If the reporter is going to list all the documents and say they 'raise questions' why didn't he also ask how much BOE time employees and resources were used?

The challenge was by Marshall not the BOE. Because of this, the BOE is limited by statute to investigating only whether or not DeGidio was on the records at a proper address. The rest is supposed to be prepared by Marshall as the challenger to the voting eligibility.

Why doesn't The Blade mention that Marshall was assisted throughout the hearing by Kelly Bensman, another FoS? In fact:

Turns out Marshall was responsible for almost nothing. Someone else had assembled all the information he was presenting and was sitting next to him handing it to him.

Clearly it would not do for Bensman to have filed the challenge - that would be too obvious.

In fact, Marshall even said during the hearing that he didn't care about challenging DeGidio's right to vote but just wanted to get DeGidio off the board.

But that presents another serious problem for Marshall: abuse of process.

Abuse of process is where a legal process is used for an unlawful purpose.

Doesn't using a residency challenge to someone's right to vote in order to get them thrown off a Board of Elections because they won't agree with another board member fit that description?

And if Stainbrook has known all along about DeGidio's care of his parents and that it didn't have anything to do with voting residency but instructed Marshall to file the challenge, is Stainbrook also not guilty of abuse of process? What did he know and when did he know it?

What about BOE staff improperly using subpoena authority to get rid of one of their bosses?

I know I've developed a reputation for asking good questions, but why isn't anyone else asking about these things?

Clearly, we can't expect The Blade to do so, but surely the Secretary of State should be wondering.

There's another matter as well: Gallagher's grievance complaint with the local Bar Association against DeGidio, her attorney on a injury lawsuit.

Apparently, DeGidio, who has represented Gallagher, Stainbrook and Bensman in various lawsuits in the past - hence the title FoS - had filed suit on behalf of Gallagher over a car accident where she was hit from behind. The suit for $25,0000 claims:

* Gallagher has suffered - and continues to suffer -" headaches, numbness, stiffness, limitations in movement and pain with movement" as a result of injuries to her shoulder, neck and head in the accident.

* Gallagher has suffered "permanent physical injury and will continue to experience severe pain and suffering for the rest of her normal life."

* Gallagher will "suffer life-long pain and suffering and will require life long medical treatment."

One wonders how she can manage to work at the BOE?

Interestingly, on March 5th, DeGidio requested to withdraw as her attorney. His filing says notified her three times - in March 2012, November 2012 and January, 2013 - that he needed to withdraw and that she needed to find a new attorney to represent her in the case. On March 3rd, he emailed her and told her that he could no longer wait for her to find a new attorney, filing the motion to withdraw two days later.

The nature of the grievance against DeGidio is confidential, but the effect is very public. With DeGidio facing a grievance, he has a conflict of interest with Gallagher and cannot ethically vote to fire her.

What I want to know is this: when did Gallagher learn the SoS report was going to recommend her firing and when did she file the grievance against DeGidio to 'conflict him out' of the vote? I'm certain the two directors were notified before the report was made public so they would not be surprised by the findings and the recommendation. Is this another abuse of process?

And if DeGidio has a conflict of interest because of the grievance complaint, doesn't Stainbrook also have a conflict of interest if Gallagher is his 'sometimes girlfriend' and if he accepts monetary support from her as is rumored?

See, told you that conflict of interest would be important, especially because Stainbrook and Gallagher have denied a relationship, but no one at The Blade chose to research what they previously had documented about the two.

Clearly, there are conflicts all around.

The bottom line

Stainbrook should be removed from the BOE. DeGidio, with his on-going health problems and need to care for his parents and himself, should probably step down. But he shouldn't do so when Stainbrook will be responsible for naming his replacement.

The SoS recommendation to fire Gallagher and the Democrat assistant direct needs to accepted and the two need to go.

The SoS needs to bypass the local GOP in order to name two new Republican board members.

Stayed tuned...there is certainly more to come!

Blade bias #12 - waits until last paragraph to identify indicted commissioner as a Democrat

I started reading the story and, since I didn't know the indicted commissioner, I wondered if he was a Republican or Democrat. However, as I kept reading and the reporter didn't give a party affiliation, even after mentioning the man was on the ballot and how old he was, I knew he had to be a Democrat.

And sure enough, in the last paragraph, there it was. He's a Democrat.

Was there no place in the preceding 20 paragraphs to give us this detail?!?

You see, this is common practice for The Blade - if the individual in trouble is a Democrat, they bury the party affiliation. But if it's a Republican, the party affiliation is in the first several paragraphs or even the headline - so you can be sure not to miss the 'bad' association with Republicans.

It's certainly not a subtle bias - it is their modus operandi. It's also probably one of the reasons they, and other papers like them, have such declining readership.

It's bad enough if a reporter makes such a stupid error - it's worse when the editors allow it to go through.

Here are screen shots of the rest of the article just to prove the party affiliation wasn't earlier in the story.

I certainly don't expect The Blade to end this horrible practice in their supposedly objective news, especially when pointed out by #justablogger. But I do hope continually pointing out their bias (so often evident that I resorted to numbering my posts on it) will rightly educate any still-remaining subscribers and advertisers about what they may read.

If you can't get petitions right, why should we trust you to get a county charter government right?

The paper has another article about changing the form of county government - surprise!

After previously covering the fact that Better Lucas County (what a misnomer!) failed to submit enough valid petition signatures to put the measure on the ballot, they have today's story telling us they're going to try to get more signatures.

But we already knew that.

From the first article comes this lead paragraph:

It’s back to the streets for petitioners hoping to spur change in Lucas County’s government.

If that doesn't tell us the group is going to try to get more signatures, we also have this:

Thomas Palmer, a Toledo lawyer involved in the county reform effort, said the group will meet Tuesday to decide whether to appeal the elections board’s conclusions, and to decide how to make up the signature deficit.

Note that Palmer said "how" to make up the deficit. They were going to decide "whether" to appeal, but the decision to get more signatures was a given - the only question was "how" to get them.

That's twice in the earlier story that we're told they're going to collect more signatures in their effort to put the measure on the ballot.

But in traditional Blade style of pushing their agenda in what is supposed to be an unbiased and objective news report, they do today's story telling us what we already know.

Better Lucas County, the volunteer group trying to put a proposed county charter on the Nov. 6 ballot, plans to stay together after a disappointing attempt to collect nearly 14,500 signatures.

Robert Reinbolt, a group co-leader, said the group met Tuesday and agreed to continue the effort.

As if there was any doubt.

I could go on and on about the emotionally-laden and non-objective descriptive words and phrases used in the articles, but here are just a few that they are using to manipulate the perspective:

* hoping to spur change
* all is not lost
* important step
* disappointing attempt
* educate voters

The bigger point - and one most people may miss - is what Reinbolt says about their failure to ensure a very basic requirement on the petitions: having the circulators state the exact number of signatures they witnessed.

Most petitions include a blank space that needs to be filled in as part of the witness statement the circulator needs to sign. It's hard to miss, but that's exactly what Better Lucas County did:

Mr. Reinbolt said Better Lucas County focused on verifying registered voters' names and overlooked double-checking the circulators' signature counts.

As a result, over 4,000 valid signatures of the 22,195 total that they submitted were thrown out. But even if they had counted the 42 petitions with the fatal flaw, they were still short of the required number for making the ballot.

If this is the level of incompetence exhibited by Better Lucas County in just the petition process, it doesn't give you much confidence in their ability to 'reform' county government.

If my previous posts (see below) about the inaccurate assumptions, comparisons and conclusions in their study wasn't enough to have you reject the idea, certainly their inability to follow such basic requirements for the petitions will make you think twice about their aptitude, expertise and fitness to design a new form of government.


Previous posts:

Asking the wrong questions about a county charter form of government for Lucas County

The Blade is wrong about charter county government

Konop forces failed ideas into his county charter proposal

Another blatant attempt to push Lucas into a charter form of government

Next public meeting on county council issue scheduled

Initial thoughts - report on restructuring Lucas County government

Detailed look at report on changing Lucas County government

Konop admits that I am right

Citizens Review Committee makes my argument for me

Post Office closings show defect of district council seats

Deconstructing The Blade's drug-pusher mentality on changing county government

Blade Bias #11

I was forwarded this column by The Blade's ombudsman, who is supposed to help monitor 'fairness' in the newspaper.

To say that it hurts my head to read the column would be an understatement. Contradiction and anti-logic abound. If this is the twisted and contorted reasoning the ombudsman applies to his task, perhaps it's no surprise that this is the 11th column I've written on the bias in the paper, at least since I resorted to just numbering the columns.

Let's start with the first sentence:

For many years, The Blade has worked hard to see that its news coverage is free of partisan bias.

Actually, this cannot be true when, in a negative story, the Republican is identified immediately as a Republican but the Democrat descriptor waits until the end of the article - or never appears at all. Or when the political party of a prosecutor is emphasized, but the political party of the indicted individual is not.

Or how about the adjectives used to identify partisan philosophy? The paper routinely identifies the Buckeye Institute as a conservative think tank, but fails to identify the Center for American Progress as a liberal (progressive) one.

Clearly, these examples prove that the news coverage is not "free of partisan bias." But perhaps the ombudsman is correct that they "work hard." They just fail.

The next 'logic' is that deciding what stories to cover is not based on 'fairness.'

Now, the ombudsman may have a point in that a decision to cover the actions of elected officials in Toledo may result in more stories about Democrats than Republicans, which is not 'fair.' But that's based upon the fact that there are more elected Democrats, so it's not 'unfair' to end up with a disproportional number of D to R news stories.

But a quick look at headlines for the 2009 Toledo mayoral race shows that 'fairness' clearly isn't an aim when it comes to headlines and identifying the Republican and Democrat candidates, as I've previously documented:

Note the not-so-subtle bias of including some candidate names in the headline versus others and note which candidates get their names listed first. Also, do you really think the selection of an advertising firm is a news story (as in Wilkowski's case)? The selection of any particular firm will have ramifications for the other candidates because a firm isn't going to have two mayoral candidates as clients. Do you know who the other candidates have selected? Not from The Blade.

Also, look at the nature of the headlines - whether it's positive or negative. On Wilkowski, you have 'pitches wind-testing program,' 'adds advisory panel,' 'leads in cash,' 'suggests tax credit,' and 'vows aid to small firms.' On Bell you have 'resign' and 'draws flak.' On Konop you have an appeal to sympathy as 'critics' attack him. On Moody you have 'seeks special plates' and 'privatize' along with 'businessman' and 'businesslike.'

The impression from the headlines is one of specific and positive ideas from Wilkowski, but not so much from the other candidates. While it's still early in the race and Wilkowski, as I noted above, has more time as a candidate, those factors do not account for today's Moody headline of 'GOP mayoral hopeful offers plan.' They could have used any number of headlines (like 'Moody offers turn-around plan for city,' 'Moody offers plan to retool city,' or even 'Moody offers 5-point plan for city') that included his name and some description of the plan. They even could have focused on just one aspect of the press announcement and used a paragraph to say that other ideas, including x, y, z, were also presented. But they didn't.

These are specific ways in which the coverage is slanted and biased.

Again, if 'fairness' is the aim, then The Blade is failing miserably.

But anti-logic comes to the rescue, as the ombudsman explains:

But it's important to remember two things -- fairness, which is what I, as the ombudsman, am supposed to monitor, doesn't have anything to do with choosing what stories the paper should focus on.

...

But if the sports editor thinks one team or another is more worthy of coverage, that isn't necessarily unfair but is that editor's call, based on his news judgment and knowledge of the area.

Apparently, using this anti-logic, when a news editor decides what to cover, there is no bias present, despite an editor making a judgment call as to what constitutes 'news.' This article explains the bias well:

Bias through selection and omission: An editor can express bias by choosing whether or not to use a specific news story. Within a story, some details can be ignored, others can be included to give readers or viewers a different opinion about the events reported. Only by comparing news reports from a wide variety of sources can this type of bias be observed.

For example, if people boo during one of President Clinton's speeches, the booing can be described as "remarks greeted by jeers" or the boos can be ignored as "a handful of people who disagree".

As in my example above about the headlines, it was an editor's decision that the selection of an advertising firm by a favored candidate in the 2009 mayoral race was news - but only for the favored candidate, not for all candidates.

Then there was this story about union violence against a business owner. Strangely, The Blade failed to report any of the information that indicated a potential union connection.

Clearly, editorial decisions about what to cover and how to cover it are not always based on objectivity. Again, the paper has failed miserably in both bias and fairness.

In his next point, the ombudsman takes exception to a writer who points out the hypocrisy of the editorial board. He writes:

The paper does not, however, have a right to be hypocritical, and one longtime critic of the newspaper complained the newspaper is doing just that. He notes that on Christmas Day, David Kushma, the editor of The Blade, cautioned letter writers to "be civil," adding, "Name-calling is not argument. One-word labels are not ideas."

True enough. Yet the writer was upset because the newspaper nine months earlier criticized those "Luddites in Congress, mainly Republicans," who were trying to repeal the law ordering the phasing out of old-fashioned, energy-wasting incandescent light bulbs.

He is correct that the paper does not have a right to by hypocritical, but then defends the hypocrisy by saying, basically, it's not 'name-calling' if the description is accurate.

When a description is completely accurate, it is not unfair name-calling.

Huh? The editor of The Blade writes an editorial that says "name-calling is not an argument. One-word labels are not ideas" and when the paper gets caught doing exactly that - name-calling and using a one-word label, the ombudsman says 'that's okay because when we do, it's just being descriptive and accurate.'

I guess calling voters unwise and implying they're stingy when they don't support an endorsed tax levy is 'just being accurate,' as is calling the local United Way board 'rash', or when they say local business leaders are not displaying leadership and exhibiting a 'lack of resolve' because they don't jump on board the paper's push for a charter county form of government.

You may say that these are 'descriptive' from the editorial point of view, but they're name-calling just the same.

It is this type of convoluted exception-making that makes my head hurt - and part of the reason why these types of articles in the paper have to be emailed to me for me to know about them.

But is it any wonder why The Blade has such bias and 'unfairness' in their news and editorial pages when this is the contorted and illogical reasoning of their ombudsman?

You're not a 'victim' if you're shot while committing a crime

First, let me start by saying that the death of anyone is not something to celebrate. That being said, finding yourself dead because you were committing a robbery does not make you a victim.

From the local paper's report of the incident:

Person fatally shot in North Toledo
Victim was suspect in apparent robbery attempt

Toledo police are at the scene of a convenience store robbery in North Toledo where one person has been fatally shot.

The deceased was identified by police as Lamar Allen, 25, of Toledo.

The incident occurred about 9:45 a.m. at the Express Carryout, 1920 Mulberry St.

The two adult male suspects were in the process of emptying the store's cash register when the clerk fatally shot one of them, said Toledo police Sgt. Joe Heffernan. The victim, who was struck multiple times, collapsed right in front of the counter.

It was unclear whether the second suspect, who fled the store, was hit by a bullet or got away with any cash. He was last seen running toward Stickney Avenue.

The robbery attempt happened about 9:45 a.m. and just as the store had opened for the morning.

The clerk, whose name police withheld, was working by himself at the time.

The robbery attempt was caught on a store video camera. Forensic experts are reviewing the tapes.

Note the choice of words (emphasis added): "The victim, who was struck multiple times, collapsed right in front of the counter."

Anyone who is shot while emptying a store's cash register cannot be a 'victim.' They could have called him 'suspect' or 'robber' or 'thief' or even included the term 'alleged' in conjunction. But "victim" certainly was a poor and inaccurate choice and makes it appear as if the news report is trying to garner sympathy for the robber.

Because remember: when you have a victim, you also have a perpetrator. So is the paper implying that the store clerk is somehow guilty in defending himself? It would appear so.

Then they make sure to point out that the robber was "struck multiple times" and "collapsed right in front of the counter." My take on this is that the clerk shot the guy several times and killed him dead.

Never having found myself in a similar position as the clerk, I have no idea how many times one might fire a weapon at two people who are robbing your business. But there's also no way to know, when you come upon such a situation, whether or not the robbers will fire back.

The perception the paper seems to want you have is that, somehow, the clerk must have used 'excessive' force since he killed the robber on the spot. I could be wrong in their motive, but knowing the penchant of the paper for such positions, I doubt it.

The bottom line is that the story could have been written and reported on without such biased words being used. But liberal bias in our local daily is a given, rather than the exception.

***Side Note:

While I can have sympathy for the robber's family at their loss, I have more concern for the store clerk. Even in self-defense, it must be a terrible thing to know you have taken someone's life - and logic about it being the 'right' thing is usually not enough to overcome the feelings that must result.

Blade bias #10 - union violence unreported

It's been a while since I've done a Blade bias article and, quite conveniently, they provided fodder for a post.

If you listen to WSPD, you would have learned earlier this week about the vandalism and shooting at the home of the owner of one of the area's largest non-union electrical contracting companies. Details from the WSPD News department:

John King was shot in the arm last week when he surprised a man trying to slash the tires on the truck at his Lambertville home.The word "scab" was also scrawled on the side.

King says he became suspicious when he saw an outside security light outside go on.

When he stepped out of his front door, the man fired one shot and ran off.

King is the owner of the largest non-union electrical contracting company in the area.

The story has been picked up nationwide - The Blaze even provided a photo of King's vehicle with what appears to be two-foot high letters spelling SCAB scratched into its side.

But here's how our local paper reports the incident (link):

Lambertville man shot in arm after man tries to slash his tires

LAMBERTVILLE — A man was shot in the arm Wednesday night when he interrupted a suspect trying to puncture his vehicle’s tires with a knife, authorities said.

The incident happened about 11 p.m. in the 3300 block of Deepwood in Lambertville, according to the Monroe County Sheriff’s department.

When confronted, the assailant shot a small caliber pistol at the victim, grazing his left upper arm. The victim was treated at the scene and was to seek medical treatment on his own, sheriff's deputies said.

The suspect was described as being in his mid-20s to early 30s, white, of medium build, and about 6 feet tall. He was wearing a dark-colored T-shirt, jeans, and a dark-colored baseball hat.

He appeared to be in his mid-20s or early 30s.

The Monroe County Sheriff’s Office is requesting anyone with information to contact the detective bureau at 734-240-7530.

There is no mention of the the word 'SCAB'; there is no mention of the fact that the man owns a non-union company. There is nothing whatsoever to even remotely indicate that perhaps the union issue is a key component of the crime - clearly important information to helping find the culprit.

And when you read the comments following their story, you'll see people speculating that there is more to the story than just a tire-slashing event. Duh!

I'd wager that the paper only included this blurb because other news outlets were airing the story, as 'mere vandalism' just across the state line is something they don't normally cover.

Perhaps, they'd explain, there is no way to know the motivation for the act until the culprit is found and 'concluding' this was an act of union violence would be premature.

As if they've never jumped to conclusions on their own....

But there's a clear difference between jumping to conclusions and making an educated guess based upon evidence clearly present. Hint to The Blade - the word 'SCAB' is what is known to investigators as a 'clue.'

There is the history of the IBEW with this man and his company. As LaborUnionReport writes:

John King didn’t plan on being an enemy of unions. In fact, he says all he’s ever wanted to do is work at something he loves doing and be successful at it—something that most normal Americans would call ‘The American Dream.’

After high school and some college, Mr. King briefly worked for an IBEW contractor before being drafted into the military. Following his service in the early 70s, King became his own boss by going into business as the youngest electrical contractor in Toledo.

Over the years, King Electrical Services had always been a small business. However, during the Great Recession, King’s business has actually improved as his union competitors have priced themselves out of work.

Unfortunately, being a non-union electrical company, King has always been on the radar of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). In fact, in 2006, he won a significant case against the IBEW at the US Court of Appeals, after the union had improperly promised his electricians jobs on union sites if they voted the union into King’s company.

Since he’s been in business, in addition to the legal battles and verbal abuse, King’s company has been vandalized and threatened on numerous occasions.

“Back then, it was nothing to have to regularly buy a new set of tires.” King said during a telephone interview on Tuesday. “The ice pick was the weapon of choice.”

Until Wednesday, the worst of the union attacks on King and his business came in the mid-eighties during the UAW strike at AP Parts. During a lull during the lengthy strike, King’s business was picketed by more than 50 IBEW picketers. This was at a time when he only had eight or nine employees. One of his employees, whose car was trashed by the union picketers, was also beaten up by IBEW thugs.

Unfortunately, the vandalism has never stopped. This year alone, he’s had to report three incidents of damage to police. This doesn’t include the incidents of stalking he and his men have to go through while they’re working.

In one incident earlier this year, rocks were thrown through the front windows of his shop, one of which had the word “kill” written on it.

When you take the prior incidences into account and the use of the word 'SCAB,' along with the act of slashing tires, it is logical to presume that the perpetrator dislikes King's non-union stance. Clearly the place to begin looking for the culprit is among IBEW and/or other union supporters. Fortunately, the police have a slug as well as the knife they believe was used to vandalize the vehicle. Obviously, there could be evidence on those items which may assist in identifying the perpetrator.

But if you read just the local paper, you wouldn't know any of this and you wouldn't even remotely suspect that there is more to this than just some nut job getting caught trying to slash someone's tires.

WSPD's Fred Lefebvre interviewed King this morning (podcast available here). King has offered a $10,000 reward. He said that this is particularly hard on his wife. I can only imagine what she must feeling and thinking when her husband is shot in their own yard by someone who got caught in the act of vandalism. Throwing a rock through a window is bad enough, but getting shot elevates it to another level entirely.

Now, the next question is: where is the IBEW? Wouldn't it be great if the leadership of the local union publicly denounces any such action as an option to its members and promises to expel the culprit if he is found to be a member of their union?

Oh - wait - considering it's a union, they'd probably pay for his legal defense....

UPDATE: As of 4:45, this story made the Drudge Report - see the middle column:

Blade bias - #9

It's been a while since I did a post about our local daily paper's obvious bias - but today's headline on the trash service story cries out for attention.

Yesterday, Toledo City Council held a committee meeting to discuss the administration proposal to transfer garbage collection to Lucas County. Council had previously approved the county issuing a Request For Proposal (RFP) to see what kind on interest there might be for contracting out the collection of garbage. The Commissioners approved that RFP last week.

Today's headline about the committee meeting reads:

Councilmen drag heels on trash decision

When you read the article, you find that members of council had some serious questions about the plan and the claimed 'savings.'

In fact, I talked about one of the concerns last week when I filled in on WSPD for Brian Wilson, so I'm glad someone was listening and is now raising the question. The RFP calls for the 'option' of buying the city's newly purchased automated trucks for $7 million. But we paid $12.2 million for them about a year ago. The $7 million isn't enough to cover our debt on the trucks - and it's only an option for the bidder to consider. If the bidder doesn't want to purchase the trucks, they don't have to - which means that we'll still be paying for them despite the fact that they won't be in use.

I also took a look at the budget numbers that don't add up in this post from earlier today.

Then there are the questions members of council raised about the obligation to cover the refuse department employee pensions (for forever, it seems) as well as the costs the city will still have to pay to actually dump the garbage in a landfill.

These are serious concerns and getting clear answers to the questions is part of the duty of the members of council. They aren't 'dragging their heels' - they are, in this case, being responsible representatives.

The headline is clearly the opinion of the headline writer. There is no quote in the article that might have supported the opinion as a claim and only the mention of the administration's arbitrary deadline to support the erroneous conclusion.

The headline could have easily read, 'Council considers costs, savings of trash plan' or even partial use of the sub-headline, 'Council raises questions on trash decision.' Either of these would have been both accurate and truthful without expressing an opinion in the news section.

Now, if this had been a headline for an editorial, it would have been perfect, as it expresses the opinion of the editorial board. But since this was the news section, it deserves to be #9 in the ever-growing list of bias examples at The Blade.

Blade's bias gets outside attention

My friend, and fellow Ohio blogger, Tom Blumer, takes a look at the recent dust-up over the Brian Wilson 'monkey comment' as it's now become known.

In case you missed it, the Toledo Blade took an on-air comment from NewsTalk 1370 WSPD afternoon host Brian Wilson, chopped off everything but about 14 seconds and then shopped it around to, primarily, African-American members of the community to see if they could manufacture community outrage over the implied reference of children to monkeys, and the 'obvious,' (so they promoted) racism of the statement.

Eventually, the editorial board issued an apology, clearly admitting that they took a comment out of context, but they still blamed Wilson for saying something that he should have known they would distort.

I looked at the issue in terms of how the local paper 'pushed' an idea they wanted to promote rather than just do what papers are supposed to do - cover the events of the day.

Blumer's post looks not only at a summary of the ridiculousness of the actions by The Blade, but goes further to examine why the comment was more important than the serious issues facing Toledo Public Schools, including their performance and deficits.

He includes a rather damning chart from the Ohio Department of Education that shows African-American students are not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress. He writes:

As bad as the school district is, children from every other identified ethnic group managed to get acceptable results on the latest ODE report card (not that ODE is setting the bar particularly high). Why not African-Americans? What would MLK say?

What indeed?

Blumer also has high praise for Michael Miller's Toledo Free Press column on the matter:

"The next day, the Free Press’s Michael Miller posted a column that would be in the running for the NewsBusters Hall of Fame if it had gone up there."

And he should know - he's a frequent contributor to NewsBusters. He also writes:

Congrats to Miller and all those involved at the Free Press on their persistence. As to the Blade, it must really be a drag to know that those old, reliable tricks that used to work like a charm have lost their power to deceive.

Heaven help Toledo if people like those who run the Blade ever regain control over what “responsible” speech is in that city. If the Blade’s bludgeoners get their their way, parents might not even be able to deliver a “monkey see, monkey do” scolding to their children when their little ones do something dumb in imitation of their friends who have done something dumb.

Be sure to read the entire post at BizzyBlog. Tom understands the problems we have in Toledo - even if most Toledoan's don't. But with news-scaped* stories such as this one, we're beginning to.


(*New term which will be clarified in a future post.)

Toledo Blade fails to 'fact-check' Obama claims

Yesterday on WSPD, we talked about the interview our local paper, The Blade, did with President Barack Obama in advance of the G20 Summit. One of the questions had to do with the future of the newspaper industry and Obama said:

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding."

However, in the same interview, Obama uttered a two bald-faced lies:

"When I came into office, we were losing 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen so that small businesses and large businesses alike couldn't borrow. You couldn't get an auto loan even if you had good credit. People were losing their homes at an extraordinary pace."(emphasis mine)

As this chart from the Wall Street Journal shows, people were buying cars and getting car loans in January when he was sworn in (though the numbers were down), yet the editors and reporters never questioned this statement.

They never 'fact-checked' the claim. And when a president compliments your industry on doing just that, don't you think you should?

Here's another 'fact' that didn't get checked: "losing 700,000 jobs per month."

According to CNNMoney.com, job losses in November 2008 were 584,000 and job losses in December 2008 were 524,000. Total losses for the months of September and October 2008 were 792,000, so clearly neither month was '700,000.'

U.S. News and World Report says that the January 2009 job losses were 598,000, while the New York Times reported February 2009 job losses of 651,000.

So when the president said we were losing 700,000 jobs per month when he came into office, was he lying? Or just, perhaps, exaggerating?

Regardless, why was there no 'fact-checking' of his numbers and claims?

The "fact" is that much of the checking occurring today is being done by the blogosphere, just like I have with these two examples.

It was the blogosphere that fact-checked and exposed the faked memos about George W. Bush's National Guard service which was reported by Dan Rather and later became known as Rathergate.

It's been bloggers and Glenn Beck who've exposed the extreme positions of the various czars appointed by Obama. And there are terrific websites that focus on investigative reporting. One of them, Texas Watchdog, not only 'watches' government, but helps train bloggers and reporters so they can learn how to "uncover waste, fraud and corruption in state and local governments."

One reason many newspapers are seeing a decline in circulation and many television news networks see their numbers falling is because of this very 'fact.' They've stopped 'reporting' and started spending too much time 'putting stories in context' for us - telling us what we should think about events rather than reporting the facts so we can decide on our own. As a result, people have turned to other outlets, like blogs, for additional information so they can make an informed decision and not rely upon some talking head reading from a teleprompter.

Then there are events like Wolf Blitzer's appearance on the Celebrity Jeopardy charity tournament. Blitzer is the anchor for CNN's The Situation Room and the lead political reporter for CNN. Yet despite his vast experience and knowledge, he finished the easy-question Jeopardy episode in the hole - significantly - with a score of minus $4,600.

Is this the type of person Obama thinks we need to 'trust' to put news stories into context for us?

As the examples I've documented above prove, it is arrogant and pretentious to think that only the main stream media can provide the type of news coverage that fulfills the function of a free and independent press and helps keep our governments in check.

Blade bias - #9 and why Stainbrook is wrong, again

Today's paper has an article about a new group of candidates for Toledo City Council, running together as a coalition under the name of Teamwork Toledo.

Strangely, the article is less about the new group of candidates than it is about outrageous claims from Lucas County Republican Party Chairman Jon Stainbrook about how this group came together, trying to imply that WSPD is somehow behind everything.

It's sad that Stainbrook is criticizing these individuals as pawns of a radio station rather than praising them for taking the initiative to run for office and offering themselves and their philosophies as a solution to the problems we face in this city.

Republicans should be questioning why Stainbrook isn't actively recruiting them to run as Republicans since they are all fiscally conservative. In fact, GOP faithful in Toledo should demand to know why Stainbrook failed to return a call from one of these candidates who wanted to discuss an endorsement, as detailed in a phone call this morning to WSPD.

So far, the LCRP has announced NO city council candidates for this year. One can only wonder if Stainbrook's criticism of these people is to mask his own failures as a chairman, whose primary duties are to raise money and field candidates.

"There was a meeting with [WSPD reporter] Kevin Milliken and other Clear Channel employees and they were discussing the formation of this other political party," Mr. Stainbrook said.

Where is the investigation by The Blade of the veracity of this claim? Did the reporter ask Stainbrook how he 'knew' this was true?? And if he did, what was the response and why isn't it printed?

Mr. Milliken did not deny some involvement with Teamwork Toledo, but said he would make his involvement clear in a news conference set for this afternoon, his last day with WSPD.

He denied as "patently false" that he was involved in a meeting at the radio station about Teamwork Toledo.

So if the claim is patently false, why did this become part of the story? Tricia Lyons, the Tax Day Tea Party organizer and one of the new candidates, also called in to WSPD this morning to say that Stainbrook was "lying" about the group's involvement with the radio station. She said the only time she's been to the station was when she was at the Fort Industry Square studio to be interviewed by Brian Wilson when she announced her run for council.

John Adams, Jr., also in a radio call, said that if there was some meeting with anyone from WSPD he wasn't invited (and then he laughed), and he is one of the named Teamwork Toledo candidates.

With all this evidence that Stainbrook's claims are false, why is he given any credence at all and why did his claims become the focus of the story? One can only wonder, especially considering Stainbrook's history of failing to file the proper forms to put Jan Scotland on the ballot for County Commissioner, secretly recording conversations and releasing portions to The Blade, failing to recruit candidates, trying to make the Tax Day Tea Party look like a GOP event he arranged, missing their campaign finance filing deadline, and not raising any money. He has developed a reputation as a liar and a documented history of playing fast and loose with the facts, yet The Blade, reporter Tom Troy and the City Editor, Kim Bates (whose parents are Judge Jim Bates and Lucas County Prosecutor Julia Bates) see no problem with using his false information as a basis for a news story.

Could this be part of the reason why The Blade's circulation numbers are falling?

But it doesn't stop there. Stainbrook then attacks me, trying to make the claim that I am somehow behind all this, which also is patently FALSE.

Tom Troy did call me about this story, but failed to tell me that Stainbrook had made specific allegations about my alleged involvement. Troy only said 'we're hearing some rumors that you're working with these candidates.' Why would the reporter withhold this information and intentionally conceal Stainbrook's involvement?

For the record - as I told Troy - I am not involved in any way with these candidates and, because of my role at WSPD would not be part of their campaigns because I will have to cover them on air.

Troy asked if I helped with the Tea Party and I told him my only role in that was to help Tricia with information about where to go to get a permit for the event. Tricia asked for my help with finding the park rental forms on the internet and with what city offices she needed to go to in order to use International Park. I told Troy that was my only involvement and that I did not help in any of the organizing. Of course, that's also 'mis-reported':

Ms. Thurber, a former Republican Lucas County commissioner, a columnist for The Toledo Free Press, a free weekly publication, and a show host for WSPD, said she helped Ms. Lyons with organizing the Tea Party, but has not been involved in her foray into politics. (emphasis added)

The Blade makes some other false statements about me which resulted in a phone call at 8:15 a.m. to the editor demanding a correction. We'll see how long it takes for them to get their facts right.

Considering the animosity between WSPD and The Blade, it's no surprise that they include this:

Political action would not be new to WSPD personnel, some of whom are active in Take Back Toledo, the group seeking to force Mayor Finkbeiner out of office with a few months left in his term.

Of course, political action is not new to The Blade either as their bias with candidates is clearly evident in their news coverage, or in what they decide NOT to print, as The Newsmeister documents. And I must point out that the political involvement of talk show hosts is much different than the not-so-subtle biases shown in the news portion of The Blade.

Just to show how manipulated this Blade story is, check out the Toledo Free Press story about these candidates. Or The Blade's coverage of the announcements by these candidates: Stephen Ward, Terry Biel. Or the January 14th article (archived) in which Toledo School Board president Steve Steel's candidacy is announced.

This story is all about trying to get their readers to think that some nefarious source is behind the candidates - and to discredit them before they've even begun their campaigns. So the question you should be asking yourself is why Stainbrook and The Blade would think it important to do this?

Control? Influence? Spite? The last thing The Blade wants is to have a bunch of city council members who are responsible first and foremost to the public, rather than a party or a newspaper publisher. If these candidates have no allegiance or 'debt' to the paper or the party, they cannot be controlled and might - heaven forbid - make decisions other than what the manipulators want.

Stainbrook, finding that serving as chairman is much harder than running for the position, has no money and nothing in terms of experience and support to offer these candidates. He's also failed to present even one person for a GOP endorsement for council. It's a direct slap in his face that the Republicans in this group would rather run as Independents.

So what to do? Make false claims to The Blade (with whom he is intricately tied and who supported his bid for GOP Chairman), be sure to tie in that evil Tom Noe and count on the paper's support to attempt to discredit good people who just want Toledo to be a better place.

Having watched this kind of coverage for years - both inside and outside the political realm - I believe the single most destructive force in this area is the agenda of The Blade and it's manipulation of news, politics and politicians as well as their well-documented ability to intimidate people, community leaders and businesses.

And they wonder why people are fleeing Toledo?

Blade bias - #8 - UPDATED

UPDATED: Fellow Ohio Blogger Tom Blumer has a post about this on Newsbusters, which includes a response from the reporter the last time The Blade had a problem with identifying party affiliation.

Original post:

The Toledo Free Press is reporting the declining circulation numbers of the Toledo Blade. I cannot help but wonder if their obvious bias is part of their problem.

In this story about the indictment of an aide to former Democrat Attorney General Marc Dann, they fail to mention the Democratic Party affiliation...but they seem to think the party affiliation of the prosecuting attorney is relevant.

"COLUMBUS - Anthony Gutierrez, the man at the center of a sexual harassment scandal that helped drive former Attorney General Marc Dann from office, faces theft and fraud charges for allegedly using his ties with his long-time friend to benefit himself financially.

Franklin Country (sic) Prosecutor Ron O'Brien Thursday announced a 10-count indictment -- six felonies and four first-degree misdemeanors -- against Mr. Gutierrez one year to the day after Mr. Dann left office just 16 months into his term.
Mr. O'Brien, a Republican, said the timing was not scheduled to coincide with the anniversary."

The first - and only mention - of the political affiliation of the disgraced Dann is this sentence - in the very last paragraph of the story - that really doesn't call him a Democrat:

"Mr. Dann resigned last year under pressure from Republicans and fellow Democrats alike in the wake of the harassment scandal."

They never identify Gutierrez as a Democrat.

So why is the political affiliation of the county prosecutor relevant or even needed in the story? And why would you mention that in the second paragraph yet never mention the political party of the indicted individual? Further, why would you wait until the 13th and final paragraph to only 'imply' the political party of Dann?

Bias is the only answer. And it's rampant when it comes to these types of stories in The Blade.

On the campaign trail #1

* In response to comments made by mayoral candidate and Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner issued the following statement:

"Candidates for public office should never use human tragedy to further their political ambitions or agendas. Mr. Konop should be ashamed of himself."

Of course, never one to take his own advice, Finkbeiner did exactly that when he announced the suicide of a 'very good friend' in a Toledo park. He was trying to make a point about safety even during layoffs of police officers, saying that the mother of the man did not blame the suicide on a lack of police officers to patrol the park. Of course, the tragedy occurred in Maumee, not Toledo, but Carty should be 'ashamed of himself for using human tragedy to further his political ambition and agenda.'

* There's more evidence of bias from The Blade when it comes to headlines in the mayoral race. As I've previously documented, the lack of the candidate's name in the headline is a subtle bias designed to impact name ID and recognition. Here are the latest headlines and word counts for the most recent press conferences:

Konop sees savings in city-county office merger - 289 words (candidate Ben Konop, Democrat)

Bell says city needs business advocate
Mayoral candidate wants to cut red tape, rules - 294 words (candidate Mike Bell, Democrat running as an Independent)

Wilkowski criticizes city for $2.5M paid in severance - 523 words (candidate Keith Wilkowski, Democrat)

Toledo mayoral candidate focuses on livability - 270 words (candidate Jim Moody, Republican)

All stories included photos of the candidates, with photos of Moody, Bell and Konop being upper body shots of them talking and gesturing with their hands. Wilkowski's photo is a head shot with a dark background, so it looks portrait-like. And Wilkowski is smiling.

* I've not covered the city council races yet. It seems like every day there is a new candidate announcing their run for one of the seats. After the petitions are in and certified, I'll cover the candidates who will be on the ballot.

I'm encouraged at how many people are actually pulling petitions and think we may set a record for the number of contenders. I'm not surprised, though, by the number who want to run as an independent. I think the number of candidates indicates that people are not only tired of the current decisions being made by the people who hold those offices, but also tired of the same old party politics that have given us these incumbents.

This is where news comes from

Ever wonder where 'news' comes from? Most people think that news organizations have reporters who are out on the streets, talking to people and gathering information, asking questions and conducting interviews, and then reporting the facts.

However, many times, the 'news' you see is nothing more than a press release that someone has sent out. While press releases are an effective method of notifying news organizations of what's going on, most agencies won't just print your release.

Well, here is The Blade story on the FEMA Flood Map public meeting I discussed last night on Eye On Toledo with Lucas County Engineer Keith Earley. Councilwoman Lindsay Webb will be my guest tonight to talk about Toledo issues with the new maps:

Article published April 23, 2009
FEMA to unveil floodplain documents
Point Place residents urged to attend forum


The Federal Emergency Management Agency will formally present the preliminary digital flood insurance rate maps during an open house Monday at Martin Luther King, Jr., Plaza.

The meeting will begin at 3:30 p.m. on the third-floor of the train station.

Toledo Councilman Lindsay Webb, who urged Point Place residents to attend, said approximately 1,700 homes are at issue - most of which are in the city's Point Place neighborhood. Last year, the city applied for a provisional accreditation of the Point Place Flood Control System, but the accreditation expires in January.

After that, the 1,700 homes will be included in the floodplain and required to carry flood insurance unless the city of Toledo can prove compliance, Ms. Webb said.

She said proving compliance within the time frame established by FEMA is almost impossible.

"The city is reviewing proposals to engage in an engineering study to find out what improvements need to be made to the dike, but this study will take time and any necessary improvements will require more time and more money," Ms. Webb said. "In these times, to require the city to engage in an expensive study and costly improvements on an aggressive timetable is egregious."

The preliminary floodplain maps are posted on the Lucas County Web site, co.lucas.oh.us.

Here is the press release from Councilwoman Lindsay Webb:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 21, 2009

Contact Info: Lindsay M. Webb, District 6,
Toledo City Councilwoman
Councilwoman Webb Encourages Citizens to Voice Their Concerns at FEMA Meeting

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will formally present the preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps at an Open House on Monday April 27th, 2009, on the third floor of the AMTRAK Train Station, Martin Luther King Plaza, 650 Vance Street from 3:30 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. In addition to FEMA, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), along with City and County officials will present information and be available to answer questions in the open forum.

At issue, are approximately 1700 homes, most of which are located in Toledo’s Point Place neighborhood. Last year, the City of Toledo applied for a provisional accreditation of the Point Place Flood Control System, but this accreditation will expire in January 2010. After January 2010, these 1700 homes, previously protected by the levee system and as such, exempt from flood insurance, will be included in the Floodplain, and required to carry flood insurance, unless the City of Toledo can prove compliance.

According to Webb, proving compliance within the timeframe established by FEMA is nearly impossible. “The City is reviewing proposals to engage in an engineering study to find out what improvements need to be made to the dike, but this study will take time and any necessary improvements will require more time and more money.” Councilwoman Webb believes that FEMA’s timeframe is unacceptable. “In these times, to require the City to engage in an expensive study and costly improvements on an aggressive timetable is egregious,” says Webb.

“We need more time, as well as financial and technical aid from the federal government, not a fast track approach that encourages the inevitable inclusion in the floodplain,” says the Councilwoman. According to her, the additional requirement of flood insurance could seal the fate of the neighborhood already at the tipping point. “Adding insult to injury for the good Citizens of Point Place is the fact that the adjacent property owners were originally assessed for the installation of the Point Place Flood Control System by the Army Corp. of Engineers,” notes Webb.

Webb recommends any citizen with questions about the Floodplain maps attend the meeting. Those who live in Point Place are strongly encouraged to attend the meeting on Monday, April 27th, between 3:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. According to Webb, this is the only chance residents will have to address this federal agency. Toledo’s District 6 Councilwoman is clear, “if the requirement of flood insurance will adversely impact your family’s bottom line, or if you paid the assessment for the Dike the first time, or if you have a business interest in the neighborhood, or if you just love the community, make plans to come to the train station on the 27th.”

For more information on the preliminary floodplain maps, visits the Lucas County website (www.co.lucas.oh.us).

That The Blade copied the press release nearly word-for-word is a compliment to Webb. That they didn't bother to read it and then write their own story could be an indication of their lack of staffing (due to a lack of revenues) or to their own laziness in handling press releases.

The problem is that this happens more than you could ever imagine, which means there is no true 'reporting' when it comes to the 'news' you read.

Blade bias - #7

While we are no longer surprised, in any way whatsoever, by the bias shown in our local newspaper, The Blade, I will continue to point it out - hoping that either you will learn to recognize it yourself, or that they will stop doing it. I'm more confident of the former than the latter.

But with so many prior posts on the issue, I've had to start numbering them.

Today's story on the indictment of several Lucas County Sheriff employees, including Sheriff James Telb, is the third version of the article since the news broke yesterday.

Despite mentioning his age (70) and how many years he's served in elected office (25), the article does not mention his party affiliation - which is Democrat, by the way.

Contrast that how often the party affiliation is used in any other story and you'll see that their omission on this one is glaring, particularly in light of the fact that this is a 'scandal' story about a Democrat. Would a Republican have been spared the party affiliation?

While they do have a side bar about his lack of campaign opponents, it's on page 9 and the note on the front page referencing the additional information only says "James Telb's first campaign for public office was in 1984. Page 9."

That side bar does give his party affiliation, but there is no reason to exclude it on the front page main story about the incident.

This is what we've all come to expect from our paper. But just because we can anticipate it does not mean that we have to tolerate it without comment.

UPDATE: This issue is now a story at NewsBusters, thanks to fellow Ohio blogger Tom Blumer at Bizzy Blog.

Blade bias in mayoral race

Prediction: Mayoral candidate Jim Moody will NOT get the endorsement from The Blade.

No, not because he's a Republican, though many would think that would be reason enough.

I'm not able to look into the minds of the editorial writer or the publisher to know WHY they won't endorse him, but I can tell they won't because of their coverage of him and his campaign.

Yesterday, Moody outlined his plan for retooling Toledo. It's 2,172 words and it is a detailed listing of several ideas for changing how city government works.

The Blade did carry a story on the plan, "GOP mayoral hopeful offers plan." It's a 206-word article - six paragraphs - and doesn't even make the front of the second section where they usually put important local news articles.

Contrast that with Keith Wilkowski's press conference on creating a business council and offering companies a tax credit if they join the chamber of commerce. The headline of that story was "Wilkowski vows to aid small firms." It's a 260-word article and the headline includes the candidate's name and tells you something about the content of the idea. It doesn't leave you asking 'offers a plan - for what?'

When you do a search on The Blade's website for 'Moody' or 'Jim Moody' you'll find 20 or 16 responses, depending on which name you use. Interestingly, the articles about his entry into the race don't show up, perhaps because the search only goes back 30 days. Here are the headlines:

GOP mayoral hopeful offers plan
Toledo candidate seeks special plates for predators
Mayoral hopeful: Privatize airport
Natural gas pushed for trucks
Moody vows to take businesslike approach to city
Businessman opens office for mayoral campaign bid
Republican to open HQ for Toledo mayor's race

There are other stories in which Moody is mentioned, like when all the candidates signed the Clean Campaign Pledge or when a new candidate entered the race and comments were sought. But note that his name is in the headline only once - and in 'Natural gas pushed for trucks,' you cannot tell this is even an idea from a candidate. It could just as easily be an environmental group lobbying government.

This wouldn't be an issue if it were the same for the other candidates, but it's not. Some might say that Moody is a lesser known candidate, so his name doesn't qualify for headlines - but I'd turn around and ask if the failure to use his name in headlines directly impacts that 'known' aspect - and whether or not it is intentional to omit his name from the headlines in order to NOT increase his name ID.

So here are the mayoral campaign headlines regarding the other declared candidates (remember that Wilkowski has been a declared candidate longer than the others, so he has more):

Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop:
Critics recall Konop pledge
Commissioner Konop to kick off mayoral bid
Konop tours local firms, talks potential mayoral bid
Konop pursues bid to seek mayor's job
Konop takes step toward bid for mayor

Mike Bell:
Ex-Fire Chief Bell spots crash, pulls woman from wreckage
Ex-chief told plan to governor prior to going public
Bell makes it official, draws flak
Former fire chief Bell to seek mayor's job
Bell resigns as fire marshal
Bell says he's eyeing a run for mayor office

Keith Wilkowski:
Wilkowski vows to aid small firms
Wilkowski suggests tax credit to get investors
Wilkowski loses Web address for mayoral campaign
Mayor questions fit of Wilkowski, PR firm
Wilkowski taps Hart to oversee campaign
Wilkowski leads in cash for mayoral primary race
City urged to rank projects
Wilkowski adds advisory panel
Welcome to the mayor's race
Wilkowski in mayoral race
Wilkowski inches closer to race for mayor
Wilkowski pitches city wind-testing program
Solar panel field sought
Wilkowski poll advances his plans to run for mayor

Note the not-so-subtle bias of including some candidate names in the headline versus others and note which candidates get their names listed first. Also, do you really think the selection of an advertising firm is a news story (as in Wilkowski's case)? The selection of any particular firm will have ramifications for the other candidates because a firm isn't going to have two mayoral candidates as clients. Do you know who the other candidates have selected? Not from The Blade.

Also, look at the nature of the headlines - whether it's positive or negative. On Wilkowski, you have 'pitches wind-testing program,' 'adds advisory panel,' 'leads in cash,' 'suggests tax credit,' and 'vows aid to small firms.' On Bell you have 'resign' and 'draws flak.' On Konop you have an appeal to sympathy as 'critics' attack him. On Moody you have 'seeks special plates' and 'privatize' along with 'businessman' and 'businesslike.'

The impression from the headlines is one of specific and positive ideas from Wilkowski, but not so much from the other candidates. While it's still early in the race and Wilkowski, as I noted above, has more time as a candidate, those factors do not account for today's Moody headline of 'GOP mayoral hopeful offers plan.' They could have used any number of headlines (like 'Moody offers turn-around plan for city,' 'Moody offers plan to retool city,' or even 'Moody offers 5-point plan for city') that included his name and some description of the plan. They even could have focused on just one aspect of the press announcement and used a paragraph to say that other ideas, including x, y, z, were also presented. But they didn't.

These are specific ways in which the coverage is slanted and biased. But there are other things to pay attention to as you watch the coverage of the mayor's race from The Blade:

* placement of story - is it a lead story or buried inside?
* length - how many paragraphs?
* photo - is one included and, if so, is it a complimentary photo or does it make the candidate look ridiculous?
* content - does the article focus on the candidate and whatever idea/program is being promoted, or does it devote most of the story space to the reaction of other candidates?
* opposing views - does the article just cover the candidate's idea/program or does it include comments from all the other candidates? If it includes opposing views, are all the candidates given space for a response (or does it indicate that all candidates were contacted to provide response)?

The Blade's coverage is often one-sided. Now you know what to look for to be able to see just how one-sided it can be.

(SIDE NOTE: I'm currently awaiting a return call from the Moody campaign. I want to know if, as has happened in the past, the coverage of the press conference is so minor because the paper did not have the details ahead of time.

The Blade is well-known for its desire to have candidates give them the contents of a press conference ahead of time so that they can print the details on the day of the event. The idea is that, by the time the TV and radio stations cover it on the day of the event, it's old news for the paper to print it the next morning. As a result, if candidates don't give the paper 'the scoop,' they often find their coverage - well - lacking.

UPDATE: I've just heard from Jim Moody and he said he was informed (I did not ask by whom) of the desire of The Blade to have the contents ahead of time, but that he is treating all media outlets the same and giving them the same information at the same time.

So now the questions are: are the other candidates getting better coverage because they play The Blade's game? Will Moody's lack of preference for the paper's publication times impact their opinion and coverage of him and his events? Does the paper have an obligation to its readers to include mayoral proposals even if they are the day after the event? With the paper's website, could they not provide the same timely coverage as radio and TV and then include a notation in the print version that more details are available on-line?

Watch and see...