Blanks' letter to the editor didn't make the cut: Why?
I've commented to a posting on Jay Ovittore's blog about a letter from Guilford sheriff's candidate Berkeley Blanks that alleges Sheriff BJ Barnes is using illegal campaign signs -- while himself making the same charge about other candidates.
The letter charged that Blanks' signs are too big, reading in part:
By his own admission, as a candidate, Sheriff Barnes has been given the "rules and regulations," yet a drive through Guilford County reveals that he has chosen to place himself above the law by displaying illegal campaign signs. Is this due to Sheriff Barnes lack of experience as a law enforcement officer, or has he simply become a hypocritical, jaded politician who has placed himself above the law?"
The letter was submitted to the News & Record but was not chosen for publication.
Jay asks why.
The letter was not selected because it makes allegations of wrongdoing that have not been verified by the newspaper.
I explained that to a Blanks campaign representative on Tuesday. I also recomended that she talk to a news reporter, and then transferred her phone call to the newsroom.
That's no guarantee that the news department will write a story about it. They've got lots to cover as it is and it's their call to make. But at least they are aware now.
In the meantime, the campaign worker said she'd send us a photograph as proof. We haven't received it yet.
For the record, here is our policy on election letters, which we publish several times a week this time a year (please note the bold type near the bottom):
Election letters
The News & Record welcomes letters related to Nov. 7 election.
Letters should be as specific as possible. As is the general rule, all letters are subject to editing.
Include your name, home street address and a daytime telephone number. We will not print letters that are unsigned or have been submitted to other publications.
Though we are unable to guarantee that all letters will be published, we will make every effort to see that the full range of competing views is represented. Here are the criteria:
Brevity: Although our firm length limit remains 200 words, the shorter the letter, the better the chance of publication.
Substance: Letters that merely endorse or recite the obvious about a candidate are less interesting to our readers than letters that contain useful information or compelling arguments.
Criticism: Opinions about a candidate’s fitness or unfitness are welcome; allegations of misconduct are not. To raise that kind of issue, call the news department at 373-7001.
Deadline: Noon on Wednesday, Oct. 18.
Finally, letter-writing campaigns are unacceptable. A letter should reflect the writer’s own initiative and effort.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
First of all Mr. Johnson, I did offer several times to bring you the photos with clear evidence that BJ Barnes' signs are larger than what is allowed by law in Guilford County, you never told me that you would like to see them. As a matter of fact, you told me that "you did not have the manpower or the resources to substantiate these unproven allegations". That is when I told you again that all you had to do was go to Barnes' website and click on his blog and read his own words accusing sheriff candidates of illegally placing signs, and that you didn't have to go take pictures yourself, that I would deliver them to you. You did transfer me to a reporter who didn't think that simple sign violations was much to fuss about. And the truth is that many candidates do violate this law by placing signs on the right of ways, but, the law is the law, and when the sitting Sheriff breaks the law, how much more is he doing. And, by the way, I have a law abiding citizen who says he will swear in an affidavit that Barnes' told him the way to circumvent that law was to build big signs in frames and to make them mobile. That way when someone complains, you have 15 days to move it, then you relocate them. Someone complains again, and you have another 15 days before you have to move them. And, that is exactly what he has done, over and over in the last 2 weeks. Now, if you want the pictures, tell me you want the pictures and I'll see that you get them. Otherwise, don't criticize us for forwarding the letter to someone who does care and did print it.
Posted on October 4, 2006 9:57 PM
Allen,
While we're on the subject of signs,
Mysteriously in the District 2 school board race, Green signs are disappearing and being replaced by the candidate's yellow signs.
What a shame.
Posted on October 5, 2006 4:06 PM
To Ms. Russell's point:
I didn't post the comment in an attempt to criticize her, only to answer a questions Jay raised in his blog about the newspaper's policies.
As for the pictures, I clearly recall saying I would be happy to have a look before transferring her to the News Department.
I don't think I'm mistaken on that, but I'm not as young as I used to be.
Posted on October 5, 2006 5:59 PM
What a tempest in a teapot. I don't see any Pulitzers forthcoming for this expose, should it come to be. Nor do I see any rational person caring.
On another point, I've caught at least two letters that were part of letter writing campaigns (easily located with google and pretty easy to spot in the first place). If I could document that a letter was borrowed from a campaign, would the N&R publicly shame the plagiarist?
Posted on October 6, 2006 2:20 AM
No, we would not "publicly shame them." But we would contact them and apprise them of the problem and of our letter-writing rules.
We try to catch such letters before they appear but we miss some of them.
Posted on October 6, 2006 10:50 AM
Having said that, we would like to know the letters in question, so we can keep an eye out.
Posted on October 6, 2006 11:06 AM
Sorry to be short on specifics, but one (as I recall) was a bulleted list of anti-Bush talking points that I found on a moveon.org-style website that wasn't moveon.org. The other that I recall specifically wasn't a letter-writing campaign, but a basically plagiarized reworking of an opinion piece by Jonah Goldberg at the National Review Online; I had read it a few days before. The latter was around 2 years ago, the former about a year ago, if I recall correctly.
But I'll keep an eye out, even if you're too squeamish to publicly shame the offenders. I guess privately shaming them is good enough.
Posted on October 6, 2006 12:08 PM
xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2
Posted on October 25, 2006 11:04 AM