Assumptions made by reporters are the first lesson in Reporting 101. Never assume, always, always verify your facts. If you think you verified them go verify them again.
Let's look at the latest piece of campaign reporting misinformation regarding Paul Kanjorski's statements about minorities.
In today's Times Leader Bill O'Boyle pens a story about Democratic political collegues coming to the rescue of Kanjorski despite his insensitive statements made at a conference hearing where he stated his proposal was to help "good American people", not "minorities" or "defective" people, a summation written in the Los Angeles Times.
Several members of Congress came to the defense of U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski Friday after he was taken to task for remarks he made during a committee hearing in Washington, D.C.
Kanjorski’s challenger, Republican Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, issued a press release Thursday criticizing the congressman for making what Barletta termed “insensitive” remarks directed toward minorities.
Mr. O'Boyle left out some important information regarding the events that lead up to the press release by the Barletta camp.
Look at this HumanEvents.com article POSTED on 06/23/1010. If you trace the comments they started at 8:36P.M. on JUNE 23, 2010. The video itself is time stamped at 3:00 P.M. when Kanjorski made his disparaging remarks. The story was less than five hours old when it was reported on Human Events.
Look at this post over at pajamasmedia.com by Ed Driscoll from JUNE 23, 2010.
At the Washington Times, Kerry writes:
Connie Hair at Human Events has posted this shocking video of Rep. Paul Kanjorski, Pennsylvania Democrat, at a Wednesday conference committee hearing to merge the House and Senate versions of the recently-passed financial regulation bills. Here he talks about the debilitating effects of the recession on his constituents.
The Washington Times is already carrying the story on June 23. The first comment to that story is June 24, 2010 at 6:17 A.M.
The NRCC issues a press release on 06/24/2010. It states "A Kanjorski spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment."
On June 24, 2010 Lou Barletta's campaign issued this press release. The campaign was simply responding to the article that appeared on Human Events almost 24 hours prior. The campaign received numerous phone calls for comments about Kanjorski's statements.
The Standard Speaker reports on Barletta's release on June 25, 2010. Again it is reported that Efforts to reach Kanjorski were unsuccessful. The Times Leader did not run the story. Why?
It is a known fact that a campaign spokesperson for Kanjorski called the TL over this article. Livid might be an understatement.
Perform a Goggole search about Kanjorski's remarks and see the results. You will find pages and pages of coverage regarding Paul Kanjorski's insulting diatribe. But the Times Leader didn't run anything about the original story, just this piece to come to Kanjorsk's rescue. Why? O'Boyle didn't have any problem getting reactions from Kanjorski and his cronies for his story despite no response on previous attempts by the media.
Let's discuss an ethical issue for the Times Leader. It is no secret that Joe Healey, City Editor at the Times Leader is friends with Ed Mitchell, media consultant for Kanjorski's campaign. His friendship association with Ed Mitchell openly on FACEBOOK result is more than an apparent conflict of interest. How can a person in Healey's capacity sustain any criticism and claim complete disassociation from Kanjorski's campaign? Is Joe Healey involved in any decisions in the editorial room regarding article and content covering Paul Kanjorski?
The fact that the original article about Kanjorski's comments went viral all over the country including its placement at Number 3 on ABC news brings into question decisions made inside the Times Leader not to cover the original story but print the "saving grace" to help Kanjorski.
Showing posts with label Bill O'Boyle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill O'Boyle. Show all posts
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Ed Mitchell- When Will Paul Pay The $250,000 Owed To The DCCC?
In today's Times Leader Bill O'Boyle writes a column about Kanjorski's campaign money vs. Lou Barletta's campagin funds.
There seems to be on factual piece missing from this article. Boyle writes
According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission in Washington, Kanjorski, of Nanticoke, has $952,233 cash on hand and no debt as the November general election looms.
In fact Paul Kanjorski owes a $250,000 payment from his campaign funds for dues assessed to him by the DCCC that has not been made. I call that debt.
If Kanjorski's campaign were to make that payment instead of $952,233 on hand the CFC would have $702,233. Since Ed Mitchell stated it costs approximately $100,000 per week to advertise on television Mitchell will only be able to buy seven weeks of air time.
“We’ll just have to wait and see what he comes up with,” said Ed Mitchell, spokesman for Kanjorski’s campaign. “Mr. Barletta claims to be a major fundraiser nationally, but it seems like he is lagging behind.”
It is a fact that Lou Barletta For Congress has raised more money at this point in time than in the 2008 race.
Kanjorski claims to be a powerful person in Congress.
Democratic leaders assess dues on members of their caucus, ranging from $800,000 each for top lawmakers to $150,000 annually for less powerful members.
Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat who won re-election with 52 percent of the vote, has not paid his $250,000 DCCC dues despite almost $1.2 million in the bank.
So how powerful is he if his DCCC dues assessment is only $250,000 out of $800,000 potential?
As for Kanjorski's campaign money I point to a comment left on the O'Boyle article. (V)irtually all of Kanjorskis money comes from Wall Street banks, insurance companies, credit unions, and others that he is supposed to regulate. Aren't those types of conflict of interest what Kanjorski has been howling about with the fiancial institutions he claims need regulating?
There seems to be on factual piece missing from this article. Boyle writes
According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission in Washington, Kanjorski, of Nanticoke, has $952,233 cash on hand and no debt as the November general election looms.
In fact Paul Kanjorski owes a $250,000 payment from his campaign funds for dues assessed to him by the DCCC that has not been made. I call that debt.
If Kanjorski's campaign were to make that payment instead of $952,233 on hand the CFC would have $702,233. Since Ed Mitchell stated it costs approximately $100,000 per week to advertise on television Mitchell will only be able to buy seven weeks of air time.
“We’ll just have to wait and see what he comes up with,” said Ed Mitchell, spokesman for Kanjorski’s campaign. “Mr. Barletta claims to be a major fundraiser nationally, but it seems like he is lagging behind.”
It is a fact that Lou Barletta For Congress has raised more money at this point in time than in the 2008 race.
Kanjorski claims to be a powerful person in Congress.
Democratic leaders assess dues on members of their caucus, ranging from $800,000 each for top lawmakers to $150,000 annually for less powerful members.
Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat who won re-election with 52 percent of the vote, has not paid his $250,000 DCCC dues despite almost $1.2 million in the bank.
So how powerful is he if his DCCC dues assessment is only $250,000 out of $800,000 potential?
As for Kanjorski's campaign money I point to a comment left on the O'Boyle article. (V)irtually all of Kanjorskis money comes from Wall Street banks, insurance companies, credit unions, and others that he is supposed to regulate. Aren't those types of conflict of interest what Kanjorski has been howling about with the fiancial institutions he claims need regulating?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)