You can see the parasites and leeches in the background of this Blade photo. This photo appears above the fold on the front page of Friday's paper. Obviously, this angle was intentionally shot so that the RON dweebs with their signs would be in the photo. It's so damn transparent what the paper is attempting to do here. Are we suppose to believe that the camera person couldn't get in front the two guys answering questions? This is a subtle form of editorializing on the front page of the paper that is suppose to be restricted to news.
This is why so many people distrust the media. This is why newspaper circulations continue to decline. This is why an LA Times op-ed last month about the media's rediculous and sometimes false coverage of Katrina's aftermath said:
"The callowness now on display goes a long way toward explaining why politicians and the media are held in public esteem somewhere above child molesters and below bankers."
An op-ed in today's Blade did say to vote no on issue 2.
posted by jr at 08:29 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
Well I'm sorry I missed that one. This is one of the few times that the Blade has got it right. Maybe I'll pull this section back out of the bottom of our bird cage and put it in a scrap book.
posted by AmericanPie at 12:46 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
I wouldn't necessarily blame the Blade (God, it hurts to say that) for the banners.
The banner holders knew exactly where they wanted to be. People take advantage of TV cameras and photographers to get all sorts of messages out.
Can't discount, though, that the Blade might have chosen this photo just for that reason.
posted by historymike at 02:02 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
I agree with you historymike, you can't really blame the Blade for what they have done - but jr is also right - it was a blatent endorsement of Reform Ohio Now, using the demise of a GOP doner here in Lucas County, as though his (unconvicted) indictments reflect the overall "corruption" of everyone involved in the Republican Party.
What I was actually asking here; how did RON get a special invitation to the press release yesterday? Why aren't people outraged what looks to be a political endorsement from the federal investigators? Isn't it a conflict of interest that they were allowed to "demonstrate" in such a way? And who extended the invitation, not really allowing ample notice for both parties and/or sides of the issues 2, 3, 4, and 5 to be present? Why are demonstrators even present???? Isn't it suppossed to be a PRESS conference for legitimate PRESS FOLK? Who did this? Was it the federal investitors? Was it the Blade that set it up? Channel 11, Channel 13 (they both showed extensive shots of the "demonstrators"? I can't seem to recall any other press release that had "demonstrators" similar to what was present yesterday.
Whoever set it up, the Blade followed suit - why am I not surprised?
posted by alexandra at 03:21 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
alexandra, looks to me like the Reform Ohio Now people stole a page out of the playbook of Republican hardball politics.
posted by holland at 07:34 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
Since I'm too lazy to look it up, can someone point out the exact spot in one of RON's issues that would prevent a future Noe? The photo op-ed on Friday's front page implies that voting YES on all of RON's issues will end the so-called Republican-lead culture of corruption. Which issue would have prevented Noe from using state money for personal use?
Politicians and the media, somewhere between a child molester and a banker. I don't know what that says about a banker, but it's a great line.
posted by jr at 10:59 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
Frank Szollosi and his RON buddies are the "Petri Dishes of Corruption." Issues 2 and 3 promote corruption.
Of all the issues on ballots around Ohio this November, RON's was the one that just happened to make the photo shoot. Were any other ballot issues or social causes represented at that press conference? Was an Issue 1 supporter there with a sign and didn't make it into the photo or the video?
RON got free statewide campaign advertising. They knew the video and photo coverage would be on TV stations and newspapers around Ohio. It would be hard to prove that the media and RON were in collusion to pull off this political stunt of deception, but would anyone be surprised if that was the case?
And since RON is supported by more money from outside of Ohio than from within the state, would anyone be shocked if RON bought there way into the strategic photo-op position?
Just tossing around the usual conspiracy ideas that accompanies politics.
None of RON's issues would have stopped Noe. Campaign finance laws exist, and NOE circumvented them. You don't need illegal conduits anway. Just use PACs like Soros did.
Blade article about last night's "the editors" show:
"But an opponent [to RON], state Rep. Kevin DeWine (R., Fairborn), said the Noe indictment helps his argument: Some people are always going to try to put money into the campaign process. And while it's illegal to use others as conduits for individual contributions, low limits will force contributors to fund third-party organizations, which are not accountable to voters and will "have a voice that is stronger than the candidates we're trying to elect," he said."
alexandra said : "Issue 3 concerns me because it allows unions and 527s to hide their activity and divert undisclosed membership dues to campaigns while halting the political activity of businesses entitled to an equal voice in the political process. It limits the amount an individual or business can give against a union (1 to 20!)"
By demostrating at Thursday's press conference, RON engaged in intentional deception, and they are preying on uninformed voters. Politics as usual, yet RON pretends to be the group trying to end politics as usual. The Deceivers.
No link exists between what RON supports and the public's desire to end the Noes of the world, but RON wants the public to believe that the two do go together. You can't trust RON.
That Blade photo is a prize-winner. A picture is definitely worth a thousand words. The photo should be made into a poster, typifying corruption in politics. You have the two guys discussing the indictment of someone engaged in illegal campaign donations, and you have a group of people influenced by outside money, trying to deceive the public into making corruption in Ohio even easier.
Nice. Hats off to the photographer.
posted by jr at 11:18 A.M. EST on Sat Oct 29, 2005 #
From RON's website:
"The anti-reform group Ohio First has the support of corporate lobbyists, special interests, and religious radicals who want to protect the status quo."
So if you believe in a higher being of some kind, RON considers you a radical?
Also from RON's site :
"A generous donor has offered to match up to $50,000 in online contributions dollar-for-dollar until Friday, Oct. 28!"
Has the name of this generous donor been made public, or does the type of corruption supported by RON allow big, wealthy donors to remain anonymous?
Noe was charged with illegally funneling $45,400 to President Bush’s re-election campaign. Do we know the exact origins of the supposedly legal $50,000 match for RON?
From RON's homepage:
"Issue 3: Helps stop the influence of big money in elections by greatly reducing campaign contributions."
Isn't $50,000 big money? I must be missing something here. RON wants to reduce big campaign donations, but they are accepting a big donation for their campaign.
posted by jr at 12:11 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 29, 2005 #
JR, not only does it take money to make money but it takes money to beat money.
It does seem rather hypocritical for RON to be raising large sums of money to do this but realisitically what choice do they have now that Ohio First is out there?
Hope that voters are informed enough to research themselves? We both know that won't happen. What will happen is who ever spends the most money on ads will have made the largest impact. Which is why I do believe we should have limits.
posted by psyche777 at 01:49 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 29, 2005 #
Great comments jr. psyche, the only thing I can say about needing "big money" to fight "big money" is that the "big money" from Reform Ohio Now came FIRST. It was "Ohio First" that has to raise money to compete with RON. I do share your hope that people will do some research on these issues before voting.
jr, thanks again for your comments re: this horrible conflict of interest what what appeared to be a FEDERAL press conference endorsing a POLITICAL agenda. I am sure it was not their intent; but it certainly was the intent of Reform Ohio Now and possibly the blade and our local stations...
posted by alexandra at 11:20 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 29, 2005 #
Obviously, this angle was intentionally shot so that the RON dweebs with their signs would be in the photo ... Are we suppose to believe that the camera person couldn't get in front the two guys answering questions?
I really have to take exception with you on this jr.
Yes, it was intentionally shot that way. No, you aren't supposed to believe Ms Dutton couldn't get in front. I know for a fact that she did because I was shooting right next to her.
For the record, I also shot and posted the same side angle photo with the protesters in the background to the AP. A photojournalist's job is to record what occurs and let newspaper editors choose which to use. It would have been wrong to not record that image. That fact would still remain if pro-Noe people would have shown up instead.
Aside from any personal opinions I may or may not have, the Blade did nothing wrong or slanted in running that photo. It was factual, relevant and didn't intentionally misrepresent anything.
I also don't buy the idea that anyone from the the U.S. Dept. of Justice, U.S. Attorney's office or the F.B.I. gave RON a heads up on the press conference. The risks to their objectivity far outweigh any benefit. I was called about covering the event more than 3 hrs beforehand. I'm sure people in RON have enough connections to hear about an official news release like this and It's really not a stretch to think that 4 people could be rounded up in that amount of time to show up and gloat.
Come on guys.
-Dan
posted by photodan at 12:04 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 31, 2005 #
Okay, let me ask this. Were any other protesters or supporters for other causes present? Did you take pictures of the Issue 1 and TPS levy supporters that were there holding their signs up?
RON is the one misrepresenting reality. Nothing relevant exists between Noe and RON. If it a connection exists, where is it?
Was the photo factual? Sure, I don't doubt RON was there. But was their presence relevant? Of couse not.
And I never said anything was wrong with gathering a large sum of money in total. I'm questioning RON accepting $50,000 from one donor, which could be from a single individual or an organization. But according to their site, "A generous donor has offered to match up to $50,000 in online contributions dollar-for-dollar ..." Singular, not plural. Any word yet about who this generous donor is? If not, why not?
Also from RON's site:
"Thousands of voters are still undecided, and many more don't even know what's at stake on November 8."
And that's exactly why Defraud Ohio Now attended the press conference the other day: to advance a myth and to deceive the public into supporting RON.
Notice how the Blade caption on Friday's paper never acknowledged the obvious RON supporters in the background.
Anyone shocked that the Blade op-ed section endorsed Issues 3, 4, and 5? Notice how the op-ed, when discussing Issue 3, never mentions campaign contributions by unions.
"That fact would still remain if pro-Noe people would have shown up instead."
Since you said "if," I assume no pro-Noe supporters showed up. I was wondering if the guy with the sign that appears to say, "So what if I lost a few coins" was a Noe supporter. I'm not sure what the point was of that lame, homemade sign.
photodan, we'll have to disagree on this one. I believe the media were willing accomplices in helping RON misinform the public. Simple. I call them as I see them in the picture. And like you said, it's up to the editor to decide, and we know which way the Blade editors slant.
And by the way, the Columbus Dispatch asked voters to vote NO on issues 2, 3, 4, and 5.
posted by jr at 12:38 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 31, 2005 #
And by the way, the Columbus Dispatch asked voters to vote NO on issues 2, 3, 4, and 5.
But you're still going to claim "liberal media", aren't you?
posted by anonymouscoward at 12:54 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 31, 2005 #
Friday's Blade story that contained the above photo said:
"Democrats have tried to paint Mr. Noe and the Taft administration as part of a “culture of corruption” and used near-daily press conferences and attacks to make their point."
"[Thursday], members of the group Reform Ohio Now attended the press conference, holding up signs about Mr. Noe’s coin funds."
That's it when it comes to the Blade reporting on RON in that story. Willing accomplices. No doubt about it.
Keywords in back-to-back paragraphs: Noe, Taft, culture of corruption, Reform Ohio Now. That's intentionally misleading the public.
Real, honest journalism would have pointed out in the story that none of the issues supported by RON would prevent a future Noe. So no, the "story" with the photo is not completely factual. It contains enough facts to paint a misleading picture, which is standard operating procedure for many media. They don't lie. They just conveniently leave out some of the truth in order to slant a story.
Maybe the ombuttheadsman should make a ruling. But since the Blade op-ed endorses Issue 3, of course there's nothing wrong with putting an opinion on the front page supporting RON.
posted by jr at 01:09 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 31, 2005 #
Oct 30 WTOL story:
"Issue supporters are banking on voter frustration with a $300 million investment scandal in the state's injured workers' insurance program and an ethics scandal that led to the conviction of Republican Gov. Bob Taft."
"But would the four statewide issues prevent or encourage more Tom Noe style political fundraising and influence? Depends on who you ask. "Issue 3 would allow someone like Tom Noe to spend as much of his personal money as he wanted to get elected," said Haynam. "What it comes down to is the status quo, versus change. If people like Tom Noe, Bob Taft-style politics, they should vote no," said Frank Szollosi, from Reform Ohio Now."
Frank is rediculous. He didn't give an answer. He read from an index card. Frank, give specific details how any of RON's issues would prevent a future Noe. You can't because they don't.
From the story:
"Frank Szollosi says Reform Ohio now believes Republicans have rigged political boundaries and districts to the point where "pay to play" politics will continue without the passage of the four issues."
That perversion of reality comes from someone who resides on a council for a city known for it's own ethical problems: McCloskey, Betty Schultz, McConnell-Hancock, the city charter violations, the clean campaign violations. Frank participates in that last one. A RON worker is in violation of Toledo's city charter. Real good principled people there. I'm glad they're fighting for us.
Here's an idea. Clean up the filthy mess that resides in your own backyard first. Oh yeah, in case anyone forgets: Toledo ranks 195 out of 200 in terms of economic and job performance.
posted by jr at 01:39 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 31, 2005 #
"But you're still going to claim "liberal media", aren't you?"
Now there's some in-depth analysis I couldn't live without. In other words, you agree with me. Still waiting for someone to point out which RON issue would prevent a future Noe. Frank seems to think Issue 4 would do the trick.
posted by jr at 01:47 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 31, 2005 #
First - disclosure: I'm opposed to 2,3,4,5.
Second - a RON commercial that I saw has people pulling duct tape off their mouths. I think the last comment was that these issues would help with jobs and the economy.
Has anyone seen this one and heard the last comment? I wasn't paying that much attention to it, but when I heard "jobs" connected to these issues, a big red flag went up. Now I'm trying to clarify the statement. Anyone?
posted by intrepid at 07:24 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 31, 2005 #
Were any other protesters or supporters for other causes present? Did you take pictures of the Issue 1 and TPS levy supporters that were there holding their signs up?
No, there were only four non-media people there and they were all clearly anti-Noe. If there would have been others, yes I would have taken their photos too.
Since you said "if," I assume no pro-Noe supporters showed up. I was wondering if the guy with the sign that appears to say, "So what if I lost a few coins" was a Noe supporter. I'm not sure what the point was of that lame, homemade sign.
No, he wasn't a Noe supporter. He was trying to be sarcastic. I believe his point was to gloat, as I said earlier.
Looks like we will have to just disagree. I think you're wrong to attack the photographers and also probably reading too much into the use of a single photo.
posted by photodan at 05:07 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 31, 2005 #
Scarlett Bouder, campaign manager of the reform group looking to pass four statewide ballot proposals, called the arraignment of Mr. Noe “one more sad chapter in the sordid drama of ongoing corruption and campaign contributions playing out in our state.”
In an article covering the "NOE ARRAIGNMENT" the blade continues to tie in "Reform Ohio Now" with this indictment, now the arraignment. Seriously, are we to believe they are not trying to advance their own agenda to pass 3, 4 and 5? Give me a break. Passing the RON issues are NOT going to prevent situations like this from brewing! The media and RON need to stop misleading the public. ISSUE 3 WILL TIE MY HANDS, but not the hands of UNION LEADER AGENDAS. It will further allow them to donate many times what I am allowed to donate and it will allow them to do so WITHOUT DISCLOSURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by alexandra at 10:20 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
"I think you're wrong to attack the photographers and also probably reading too much into the use of a single photo."
Well, I did say the photo above was a prize-winner, and I said hats off to the photographer for capturing the image of corruption in politics.
To the possibility that I'm reading too much into the Blade's obvious front page opinion in last Friday's paper, consider today's letters to the editor.
"Blade is changing for the better.
"In the last four years I have observed myself and The Blade changing for the better. I've watched The Blade become one of the best (if not the best) regional papers in the nation."
"The reporting by our hometown journalists of political corruption in Ohio and military dishonor in Vietnam has been inspiring. Years of masterful photography by the likes of Herral Long are second to none."
"I thought that Blade readers and staff might enjoy reading the glowing reviews given to The Blade by the one of the largest and most influential political blogs in the nation: www.dailykos.com."
Receiving glowing reviews from an extreme left-wing blog more aptly named the Daily Kook isn't a positive, but it's not surprising in this case.
You know the Blade (no capital 't' in the word 'the') loves being accepted by the Daily Kook. It shows the power of blogs.
posted by jr at 09:46 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 04, 2005 #
So did anyone see the front page of the Sunday Blade? Below the fold, surrounded by a border, is a "story" titled "For better government".
Above the title are the words: AN EDITORIAL.
Give the Blade credit for at least admitting the front page "news story" was really an editorial. So what's wrong with the op-ed section? How often do stated editorials appear on the front page?
Sunday's front page op-ed tries to scare voters into supporting Issues 3, 4, and 5. Apparently, the Blade felt that last week's op-ed supporting Issues 3, 4, and 5 that appeared in the editorial section of the paper wasn't enough.
Sunday's front page op-ed was simply the text version or the text translation of the front page op-ed photo that appeared two Friday's ago and is mentioned above.
Sunday's front page editorial continues to promote deception. It said:
"Citizens who understand how their state is damaged by all that, and what Bob Taft and Tom Noe have come to represent, can vote YES."
With trying to connect passage of Issues 3, 4, and 5 with stopping future Tom Noes, the Blade is spewing propaganda.
This is what the Blade says of Issue 3:
"The Coingate scandal, plus Tom Noe's federal indictment on charges he illegally funneled money to the Bush-Cheney campaign, should be most instructive regarding the extent to which money manipulates politics."
See, the Blade never explains how the issues will stop future Noes. The Blade states that Noe is an example of how money manipulates politics, as if we didn't already know that. Issues 3, 4, and 5 do not stop money from manipulating politics.
The Blade's intentionally misleading editorial appearing on Sunday's front page is a blatant example of Yellow Journalism.
View the large picture of Sunday's front page here.
posted by jr at 10:25 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 06, 2005 #
RON's basic argument:
Republicans=Evil
Taking power away from elected Republicans=good
Sorry....not enough to sell me
posted by lloyd at 10:56 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 06, 2005 #
The Blade put the Noes into the editorial for one purpose - to fan the flames of another Pulitzer.
If RON passes, the Blade can then crow that its investigation not only led to the downfall of Noe and Taft, but also that the state can live happily ever after due to the reforms.
(assembled multitudes hold hands and join in a cuddlefest to the sound of angels blowing trumpets)
Yes, kiddies, the Blade is playing politics, but of a Pulitzer kind.
posted by historymike at 11:13 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 06, 2005 #
How often have you seen an advertised editorial appear on the front page of a newspaper?
posted by jr at 11:34 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 06, 2005 #
Nov 7 story:
"Average weekday circulation at U.S. newspapers fell 2.6 percent in the six month-period ending in September, the latest sign of trouble in the newspaper business."
"Sunday circulation also fell 3.1 percent at newspapers reporting to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, according to an analysis of the data by the Newspaper Association of America."
"The declines show an acceleration of a years-long trend of falling circulation at daily newspapers as more people, especially young adults, turn to the Internet for news and as newspapers cut back on less profitable circulation."
posted by jr at 01:34 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 08, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
