Blogging the election
I should have posted this earlier, but sometimes I just miss the ball.
Our team coverage of Election Day started this morning with regular updates, observations and reflections at Inside Scoop. News updates throughout the day here.
Biggest surprise (to me) so far: Turnout isn't light.
Other sites across the country are doing this too; here's a collection of some posts.
Comments (9)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
For at least the last four elections (and I've noted this attentively), the day-of CW is that turnout is "heavy" or "heavier than usual." But it turns out that turnout is predictably average. I'll be interested to see whether today's turnout is any different.
Posted on November 7, 2006 5:26 PM
I see the election has pushed the Dianne-Bellamy Small revelation/News & REcord RMA leak story off the front page of the internet edition.
Can we expect an editorial admitting that Small was your source now that the Mayor's made it public?
Posted on November 8, 2006 7:36 AM
The mayor made public that the document published on 101 was Bellamy-Small's. I'm unaware of any finding RMA made about the News & Record's source.
So, does this mean that you believe RMA, jaycee?
Posted on November 8, 2006 8:30 AM
So your source was not Dianne Bellamy-Small, but yet another council member?
Word on the street is that the N&R copy was the one provided to Roch101 by someone at the N&R.
The RMA report concerns the identity of the person who originally leaked it (Bellamy-Small) and NOT who she originally delivered it to. Did it come to your hands and THEN find it's way to 101?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted on November 8, 2006 4:57 PM
Word on what street?
How many ways do you need to hear me say that I'm not going to disclose our source? We also did not give anything to "Roch101."
So, really, after dismissing so much of the first RMA report, are you now saying you believe this conclusion? If so, why this and not the other?
Posted on November 8, 2006 5:02 PM
I didn't dismiss the RMA, I just asked why you "cherry-picked" the parts that supported your "David Wray is a racist" agenda and left out the rest.
Thank goodness for Jerry Bledsoe, now we're learning what the N&R wouldn't tell us.
I'm also familiar with Durwood Matheny, and have confidence in his work.
When you say "we" do you mean the entire staff of the N&R? How do you absolutely, positively know that no one at the N&R purloined the purloined report and gave it to 101? Did you have a meeting and make everyone swear they didn't? Did you conduct polygraphs? Is there video?
Posted on November 8, 2006 7:13 PM
Don't have any agenda, jaycee, but I suspect you do. In any case, the report hasn't been circulated among the staff. Unlike the city's, our copy is secure. So yes, I'm certain.
So, what street are you hanging out on where you get such bad information?
Posted on November 8, 2006 7:42 PM
I don't have a dog in that fight, just like for my newspaper to publish all the facts and let us decide, not choose which "facts" it wants to bring to light and give us no choice. Your agenda since this whole thing surfaced appears to be to paint David Wray as a racist. Having read Lorraine Ahearn's stuff for years it's not a big surprise.
If, and I say IF, your source for the RMA was Dianne Bellamy-Small then it appears she got you to do her racist bidding as well. Sad if true.
And my source of information is confidential. :)
Posted on November 9, 2006 12:29 AM
Make that the last five elections. Turnout at an all-time low for an even-yeared election, according to today's editorial. I predict that the trend will continue.
Posted on November 12, 2006 10:59 PM