« Calendar Girls | Main | United Way »
September 09, 2006
Blaming Who
The ER's Roger Aylworth reported that during this past week's Chico City Council meeting a few Councilors exhibited more politics than usual during a public hearing on developer Stephen Schuster's Tuscan Village subdivision.
First, I'm surprised Aylworth didn't just speak up during the public hearing to tell the City Councilors to knock it off, but then editor David Little might be forced to reassign him to cover the school board.
Interestingly, the article headline read: "Politics take over agenda at City Council meeting."
Yet if you read the article or watched the meeting, it's very clear who started the political posturing and accusations. And that's Councilor Dan Herbert.
The headline could have easily been: "Dan Herbert politicizes City Council meeting."
Granted, there's always an element of politics in any controversial public hearing. And with less than two months before the November election, there's sometimes a bit more tension during meetings or elected officials try to score political points against each other for campaign positioning.
But Herbert's antics took a difficult land use issue and politicized it more than necessary. If you don't believe me, watch the DVD of the meeting you can pick up from the City Clerk.
Interestingly, the ER's coverage of the meeting seemed to provide political cover for Herbert's bad behavior. Even in the recent "Hits and Misses" the ER wrote:
"MISS — Please. City Council meetings are long enough. Keep the political campaigning outside.Tuesday, that didn't happen. A discussion of a subdivision plan was turned into a brief forum on the differences in land use policies between councilors Maureen Kirk and Steve Bertagna, who happen to be running for county supervisor. Before it was all over, a quorum of the council had jumped into the squabble.
Discussion of those differences is important for voters to make an informed choice, but the council chambers isn't the place to do it. When the City Council is meeting, councilors should stick to the business of the city."
A quorum of the City Council "jumped into the squabble" because Herbert made an initial over-the-top accusation that demanded a response from the Councilors he was attacking.
The ER editorial fails to mention which City Councilor - Dan Herbert - instigated the very scenario for which the ER editors are castigating the City Council.
This is a very important point that the ER - in its news article headline and in its subsequent editorial - failed to mention.
If the ER wants to reprimand the City Council to keep "political campaiging outside" the Council meetings, it may want to go one step further and point out - at least in its editorial "Miss" - that it was Councilor Dan Herbert who showed bad form in the first place.
And newspapers wonder why many readers believe there is bias and subjectivity in reporting and editorials.
I give the ER's "Miss" its own miss.
Today's Scrabble word is whidah, any of several African weaverbirds of the genus Euplectes, the males of which have similar long tails.
Posted by dan_nt at September 9, 2006 11:17 PM
Comments
Dan's remarks demonstrate the value of blogs...self initiated dialogue in a public venue sponsored by the very subject of the blog, ah, if everything could be simply boiled down to cash? As for your thoughts on the Circus de Council...wonderful job in shaping the power of the news. My people will tell you, I fully believe in the first amendment right to say what is true - and - what is not so true. What more can one expect from a for profit newspaper? But wait...we have this Blog device, I wonder if it really makes a difference in the level of human contemplation and communication? In any event,another gold star for exposure Dan!
Posted by: Buck Rogers at September 10, 2006 07:59 AM
Dan - Great item.
This kind of biased spin has been an E-R characteristic for decades. Unfortunately, the public can rarely detect the bias because, in this case and others, most people don't watch City Council meetings to be able to judge for themselves.
The E-R uses the technique employed by the rest of the mainstream media to dismiss charges of right-wing or pro-business bias. They will soften the news of egregious, over-the-top right-wing corruption or behavior by equating it with some petty example of the same behavior on the left.
Example: Tens of thousands of dollars into right-wing councilmember coffers EQUALS the tens of dollars that buys left-wing council influence! And in the example you cited, the over-the-top outburst from a right-wing councilmember EQUALS the liberal defense against those charges.
Posted by: Chuckles at September 10, 2006 10:46 AM