Feed aggregator

Making the Correct Choice When Dealing With the Enquirer's Jason Williams

Cincinnati Blog - Fri, 11/09/2018 - 11:40am
If you wonder how a politician should treat the Enquirer's conservative columnist Jason Williams, just refer to this sentence from his latest column:
Pureval declined Politics Extra's interview request on Thursday.You are not going to get a fair shake with Williams unless he likes you or you fit his bias. He is biased against nearly every Democrat, namely John Cranley, so the best action is to refuse to be interviewed by him.

I would suggest coming up with colorful ways to say no.  Think of a greeting card type response, a "Sorry for you biased column" card or something similar.  Sending him a bouquet of straw might be applicable.  Avoid sending dead fish in newspaper.

Biased Journalism from FOX19's Jennifer Baker

Cincinnati Blog - Thu, 11/08/2018 - 7:31am
While not the only member of the local media to create bias in referring to a group of Cincinnati Council members as the "Gang of Five", Jennifer Baker of FOX19 has gone multiple steps further. In an article today she refers to the group as a "Gang" directly:
In the meantime, however, the Gang and their lawyer can’t just ignore the judge’s order or try to seek exemption, Shrive wrote in court records earlier this week.I added the bold section for emphasis. This is not a direct quote, as no quotation marks were used. At best she was trying to paraphrase. That's a failure. It is language a reporter would use when talking about a street gang. Something I think she and COAST and the Republicans know. It wasn't just one instance. She repeats it multiple times.
The Gang is “in contempt of this Court’s lawful order and should be required to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for their failure to comply with the Discovery Order," his motion reads.

On Wednesday, Shrive went to higher court and filed a motion to dismiss the Gang’s appeal.

The Gang, he wrote in court records, can’t use attorney-client privilege now on appeal to escape a judge’s order to release their secret text messages and emails.What is just as bas is that she claims in the article the term "Gang of Five" is "self named" which is a lie. She's using a single text message that was never intended as anything more than a joke. The group didn't issue a statement declaring this reference. It was dug up by the Republicans and lawyers for them who are suing these council members as means hurt them.

To add insult to injury, she didn't even have a quote from anyone representing the members of council being sued.  She had all of one side's arguments and nothing else to refute it.

Baker's article extremely is biased. This is terrible journalism. She is using this to either push her political opinions or to manufacture catchy controversy to gain Conservative readers.

For Cincinnati Council The Terms They Are A Changin', Again

Cincinnati Blog - Thu, 11/08/2018 - 5:40am
As cliche' as this post's headline is, it blends along an un-Dylanesque harmony with the Fourth Street backed Cincinnati Charter Amendment re-establishing two year terms for Cincinnati City Council. This ballot issue handily won Tuesday night. Due to a quirky 1930's established rule, since this amendment got more votes than a separate conflicting Charter Amendment issue proposing four year staggered terms, the two year term Amendment will be adopted. It will go in effect after the current four year terms end in 2021.

I am sure that everyone is certainly thinking about the impacts and future ramifications of this change compared with the current four year terms, so I'll reverently excite you with my list. It's based on a combination of my experience, logic, and a second cup of coffee:

Impacts and Ramifications of Change Back to Two Year Terms
  1. Not as much its supporters wanted you to believe.
  2. The current term limited council members will have half as long to wait to run again.
  3. Funding increases will be required s to run more frequent elections.
  4. Candidates have more flexibility in planning to run for office if they only have to wait two years.
  5. Elected candidates have to begin running for office immediately after taking office.
  6. There will be every other year election year antics, filled with grandstanding.
  7. Likely would decrease the advantage of incumbency for those up for re-election after their first term.  After the second term it would be close to the same level of advantage.
  8. The Mayoral office loses more relevance and would motivate the office holder to create conflict as a means of influence.
  9. Voters would have the opportunity to vote out members of council more frequently.
  10. It will impact the 2023 race more than the 2021 race.
What was missed on this entire process is that it was not discussed openly. For all of the talk about transparency by the local media and partisan Republicans looking to attack the city, no one cared to spend significant time to discuss who funded this process and why. Local professional media are just not doing a good job or are being prevented from doing it. Some are knowingly letting this issue go by because they just want the conflict to cover. Others are just ignorant. Some are siding with one group. Our local media collectively has taken a massive step back the last few years. Whether it is the negative influence of John Cranley and Republicans or is something else, I don't know, but it is happening.
Subscribe to The Conveyor aggregator