|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Elections & Legislation |
|
News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
Current rating: 0 |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
15 Feb 2005
Modified: 10:00:41 AM |
|
Can ANY of the News-Gazette's reporting on Urbana politics be trusted? |
Given it frequent inaccuracies, can ANY of the News-Gazette's Reporting on Urbana politics be trusted?
Matt Stensland, in a report on the front page of Monday's B-section, discusses the Ward 4 race between Brandon Bowersox and Casey Diana. In it, he states that they "hope to replace Danielle Chynoweth as the representative from Ward 4..." Ok, that is accurate enough, but then Stensland goes on to say that "Chynoweth is not seeking reelection." That is just plain untrue and there is no excuse for such an inaccuracy.
Given the News-Gazette's massive handwringing over the reapportionment of the Urbana ward map (it was a major reason cited by Tod Satterthwaite in his sponsorship of his ill-fated "Plus 2" measure to dilute progressive power on the city council), you would think they would know by now that Ms. Chynoweth is now running in a different ward that her home now falls into (sorry, it's not my ward, so I don't know which one it is -- but I'm not being paid to write, unlike Stensland) after the reapportionment.
I realize that the N-G doesn't like Danielle and has done everything it can to undermine her campaign. However, given that she is the ONLY current councilmember running again, there is no excuse for this statement by Stensland. It represents, at the least, gross incompetence. It would not surprise me if it was intentional, since they realize that readers often miss the correction which they WILL be running to correct this misleading depiction of the upcoming election in Urbana. |
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
by Relax!
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Feb 2005
|
Much as you would like to find another right-wing conspiracy, this is no doubt a
simple error on Matt's part. Matt is a young, new reporter, recently graduated from the U of I (he used to write for the Daily Illini). He's from Urbana. Give him a break. And what different does it make as far as Ms. Chynoweth's campaign goes ? She has no opponent in the primary and her new ward was drawn to maximize her chances of re-election. |
|
That's a Damn Poor Excuse |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Feb 2005
|
#1 Well, Stensland being a former DI reporter does explain a lot about his inaccuracy. Interestingly, even though he is new to the N-G, this means he had at least four years in which to pay attention to local politics -- and apparently didn't. He should ask Tod to appoint him to some position in Urbana, though, as he clearly meets Tod's standards for those who should be in government.
#2 I would assume that any new reporter, as well as older ones, at least have their stories reviewed by N-G editors. It's plain they aren't paying much attention to accuracy about Urbana politics either. However, they sure haven't missed prominently featuring a quote from Tod on numerous occassions over the last few weeks as he takes credit for every good thing that has happened -- or more accurately things that MIGHT happen with all the suspiciously timed announcements by wealthy developers -- in Urbana in the last 12 years -- as well as acceptingly it all uncritically and without asking any tough questions about his numerous failures.
Even if they gave away the N-G for free, the quality of most of the news coverage in it rarely exceeds its recycling value.
Whether it is a "right-wing conspiracy" or simple incompetence, this community deserves better. Urbana's voters should keep that in mind as they read it for substantive info before going to vote a week from now on February 22. |
|
Re: News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
by Relax!
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Feb 2005
|
|
Well, Dose, for someone who has such a low opinion of the News Gazette, you sure seem to read it cover to cover on a regular basis. You always quote from it when they say something good about the candidates you support. |
|
News Gazette: The Pravda of Local Republicans |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Feb 2005
|
I read the N-G to keep up on what the latest spin from the mouthpiece of the local Republican Party is. Does this mean it has much in the way of news value? Not really, but it pays to pay attention to the propaganda it prints.
Its days of holding a near media monopoly are over, but it still likes to pretend that it is the leader of community opinion. More often than not, its endorsements in Urbana elections are ignored by voters here. I anticipate this will hold true for its endorsement of Tod.
Do you want to remind me when I last quoted from something it said favorable about any candidate that I might support? Because I sure do not remember when it last said anything good about progressive candidates. What I quote from the N-G is almost invariably about the distortions and lies it prints about candidates I oppose. |
|
Re: News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
by a reader of the Public I and News Gazette
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Feb 2005
|
|
Yep, but I was happy when the News Gazette endorsed Rietz.... |
|
Re: News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
by voter
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Feb 2005
|
> Yep, but I was happy when the News Gazette endorsed Rietz....
A stopped clock is right twice a day. |
|
Re: News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
by Michael Langendorf
crdmike (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Feb 2005
|
I am certainly glad to see that only you...Dose of Reality accurately relays the the "truth".
Everyone else lies and distorts but not you.
Get a life!.....and by the way how come you won't identify who you are? I got it ...the world according to Dose of Reality.... |
|
Re: News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
by Reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Feb 2005
|
The News-Gazette also exposed the imcompetence and damaging policies of John Piland, which was a major factor in his demise as State's Attorney. The Gazette also endorsed one of the Green Party candidates in Urbana last fall...can't remember for which office and I believe they endorsed a progressive running for school board in Champaign. AND, they prints lots of letters from people supporting progressives.
I think the N-G is an excellent, locally-owned and operated newspaper that provides good coverage. You should see what's happening to newspapers in so many communities this size....they're gobbled up by national/international chains, the reporting staff gets cut, and everybody loses. |
|
Progressives Beware |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Feb 2005
|
To start with, both the Reitz and Urban vs. Anderson cases were not about Urbana politics per se, so I stand by my evaluation of the N-G as hopelessly out of touch with Urbana politics.
In the case of Reitz, she is a first step in the much needed reform of our racially biased criminal injuctice system. I am hoping for the best, but also skeptical of long term change, although she has made a few good decisions so far. The N-G, unfortunately, has shown a propensity to be part of the problem with the injustice system and only rarely part of the solution.
As for the N-G's endorsement of Ken Urban over Jan Anderson for a Champaign county board seat, don't be fooled by the N-G's situational and cynical embrace of the Greens. The N-G has shown absolutely no inclination to promote Green principles and spends most of its efforts on undermining them, in practice.
I am an independent progressive. It still troubles me that the Greens have at times been more interested in running against progressive Dems than taking on Dems-in-name-only or Republicans. The N-G's _only_ objective in endorsing Urban was to split the progressive vote. Fortunately, this was a failure and Jan Anderson, who supported both the nursing home and the Living Wage, was returned to the county board for another term.
And Langendorf, I'm still waiting on an explanation for why you are all of the sudden so cozy with Tod after your previous falling out with him...As for the truth, I'll leave it up to the readers to decide. I don't think that my accurate skewering of the N-G's editorial foibles is either inexact or untrue. |
|
Re: News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
by Reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Feb 2005
|
|
Ah, Dose, so you're an independent progressive Democrat. Is this different from being a progressive Democrat? And Democrat-in-name-only Democrat? And conservative Democrat? I have a friend who is a progressive Republican. Seems to me that people who are calling themselves independent progressive Democrats should just be Green. |
|
Independent Progressive |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Feb 2005
|
I am what I wrote. I am hardly wedded to the Democrats, rarely vote for them, except in local elections where I usually personally know their character, vigourously support alternatives, both electoral and in the streets, and have been a supporter and contributor to local Greens. I voted for Nader in 2000.
The Greens offer a real alternative -- in some cases. However, I am under no delusions that voting for a Green when that will help a Republican win over a progressive Dem is anything that reflects the need for more progressives in public office. I am not too particular about party labels and think that those that are really should pay more attention to the hard realities of an electoral system designed to sustain conservative power, rather than offer real alternatives. Sometimes Greens have an alternative -- and sometimes they really should think through the actual resulting balance of power that can occur when they have no realistic chance of winning or of building the Green Party.
OK, call me a _pragamatic_ indepedendent progressive.
As for "progressive" Republicans? They are a very endangered species, largely because they keep walking out into the traffic of their own party. You could probably get no more than a busload in all of the state of Illinois who really have any substantive adherence to genuine progressive principles. Why they persist in calling themselves Republicans, and what is more actually voting for Republican candidates, is a mental pathology, not a credible poltical position in this day and age. |
|
Re: News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
by Michael Langendorf
crdmike (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Feb 2005
|
To Dose of Reality ........you should have your own newspaper.....facts according to Dose...
Part of growing and maturing and learning is getting to know people and how the world works...I have watched the city and watched the council and watched Tod...it has become clear that the folks who you support have screwed up more often and actually have been ruder and more inappropriate. I have watched the council meetings as Danielle and Esther have made their mean spirited comments and wasted the time of the council. The behavior of Danielle during the antiwar nonsense was insulting. Those of us who protested Viet Nam and luckily weren't drafted learned a valuable lesson...don't insult the soldiers or their families. Further, she and Esther were insulting of the school professionals when they attempted to follow up on Chief Adair's request for a police officer for the Urbana High School. Time and time again the "progressives" have been much ruder and inappropriate than Tod ever was. I support him because he manages to use common sense, something that is lacking among the "progressives"....and to support Laurel....she is to Urbana what Lair American Daley used to be to Chicago...a perpetual candidate....and a candidate who has had no involvement in Urbana and how it runs. I find it interesting that her real strength is her ability to antagonize people...which would make her a perfect match for the "progressives". |
|
Re: News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
by green
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Feb 2005
|
> It still troubles me that the Greens have at times been more interested in running against progressive Dems than taking on Dems-in-name-only or Republicans.
Nothing gives democrats exclusive rights to progressive constituencies.
If you don't want third parties to spoil elections, support IRV or similar electoral reforms. |
|
Abusers Always Blame the Victim |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Feb 2005
|
It would be good if you stuck to the facts, Mr. Langendorf. I know Danielle well and I know for certain that she simply would not insult the troops. Sure, she definitely wonders why the hell they are where they are, doing what they're doing, but you're reading stuff into what you heard that simply wasn't there.
As for you blaming progressives for antagonizing you and the mayor, we already know the mayor is abusive -- and that abusers always say it was something the victim did that "made them do it." Danielle speaks her mind. If you don't like the way she does it, then deal with it. She always tries to do it in a way that is considerate of the feelings of others and the truth -- something which frequently eludes the mayor -- and you, too.
green wrote:
"Nothing gives democrats exclusive rights to progressive constituencies."
No, and I never said or implied that. I will state it a bit more clearly for your benefit --just because you CAN run, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so, if you really are interested in adavancing progressive government. Sometimes it's a good idea and I support Greens. Sometimes, it is just plain foolish. I have never claimed that any Green does not have the right to run.
"If you don't want third parties to spoil elections, support IRV or similar electoral reforms."
Absolutely. However, until we have this effective tool, I sure as hell wouldn't hand the keys to the public's car to Republicans drunk on the idea of rolling back years of progressive social legislation.
Sheesh, you two make me sound like I'm in the middle of the road -- and being in Urbana, I probably am. Don't forget to vote on February 22. |
|
Re: News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
by Michael Langendorf
crdmike (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Feb 2005
|
|
Dose of Reality...who ever you maybe.....Danielle speaks most of the time to just hear herself speak......she frequently makes no sense and can't complete a coherent sentence....maybe you should listen to a tape of city council and get a dose of reality. |
|
Re: News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
by green
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Feb 2005
|
> just because you CAN run, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so, if you really are interested in adavancing progressive government.
You're the one claiming Greens operate this way. Note that we're not running anyone in *any* of the city council races or the mayoral race. Why? Because we agree with you that we have to pick our battles carefully. Just because *you* don't always agree with us on which battles to pick, doesn't mean we aren't balancing party-building with other political considerations.
I'm volunteering for progressive dems this election, along with several other individuals from the Greens, so it's particularly annoying to listen to progressive dems continue to scapegoat us as spoilers. A little gratitude goes a long way ... |
|
Again, You're Misreading My Motivations |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Feb 2005
|
green,
Again, I think you are misreading both what I said and my motivations for saying it. I want Greens to win. I think that Ken Urban would make an excellent county board member, if he gets in a situation where he can win.
Let us look at what happened. The Greens can win when they don't have to split progressive votes with a progressive Democrat. In this case, that is exactly what happened. They have to appeal to both those who do not already vote and to those who do. If they persist in running races like that one, then they create -- not a self-fullfilling prophecy -- but the prophecy of their critics among the Dems who wish they would just go away. This is simply not good for party-building, no matter how you slice it.
I cannot say enough good things about how the Greens are handling this very crucial election in Urbana. Many of them, like you, are working for good progressive candiates. In fact, I believe support from the Greens is likely to be far more crucial to its outcome than any crossover voting by Republicans. This will go a long way toward overcoming some of the unreasonable criticism that the Dems have heaped on you.
I think we differ about the results from the race between Urban and Anderson. The proof is in the pudding and that is who was elected. I am not saying anything other than that the result is not what the Greens expected and delineating what I believe that result shows. You disagree -- that's cool. Nonetheless, it might just be part of the factor in the Greens' more thoughful approach to the primary in Urbana.
The Greens, as for any party, are effective when their tactics don't get in the way of their overall strategic plan. That is all I am saying. It's just my opinion and is in no way meant to be the indictment of the Greens that some Dems frequently mouth. I understand you disagree with me and I can see why you might. However, I like to try to sustain my frequently curmudgeonly approach with facts and I think the facts dispute your view on the wisdom of that race.
Meanwhile, we've got work to do in order make Urbana a place where being the best progressive gets you elected. A progressive sweep next Tuesday will go a long way toward making that happen and I'm glad that, in this case, our opinions coincide. |
|
There are no "IMC-Controlled" Candidates |
by Paul Kotheimer
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Feb 2005
|
There are no "IMC-Controlled" candidates for any office. The Independent Media Center is a volunteer organization which makes a radio show, puts out a monthly newspaper, produces occasional video pieces, and makes this website available.
This website is an "open publishing" system. That means that Samy Jose has as much control over what appears on www.ucimc.org as I do--and I helped found the Urbana IMC.
IMC members, either individually or in groups, might exert "control" over a candidate. They'd do that in the same exact way any group of citizens can (and should!!) in a democracy: By organizing and making decisions together; by voicing their views to their elected representatives; and by volunteering in the campaigns of candidates with whom they agree.
However, the Urbana IMC, as an organization, does NOT do any of these things. It's, in fact, expressly forbidden from doing so as part of its 501(c)3 non-profit status. |
|
Re: News-Gazette: Grossly Inaccurate on Urbana Politics |
by other
other (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 Feb 2005
|
"There are no "IMC-Controlled" Candidates "
Nonsense! You choose as a "collective" which stories to highlight in your "features" section. Anywhere else, this would be called an editorial board, and it serves the same function.
By coincidence (tongue planted firmly in cheek), your last two "features" have been attack pieces on two of your members political adversaries a week before an election! The IRS should yank your tax exempt status immediately. I for one am going to write them a letter requesting that they do so immediately, and hopefully others reading this will, too. |
|
Threats and Intimidation Against the Press: What It Means |
by IMC member
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Feb 2005
|
No, there is no "collective" making decisions as you assert. Individual members of the Web group can make stories off the newswire into features. The criteria that they use to make these individual decisions are based on news value and wide interest in the community, particularly if stories cover subjects that do not receive coverage in the dominant media. Join the IMC Web group if you want input into that. There is nothing preventing you from doing so. All they are doing is practicing journalism, which is a basic function of the IMC.
The site is open for posting of news by anyone. And you can clearly see by viewing the comments to the very articles you complain about that there is a wide range of opinions present, from both supporters and opponents of various candidates in this election. Your complaint is totally unfounded. You have the same opportunity as all those using this site to make your own comments in response, but instead you only want to intimidate the press into silence. Your desire to silence discussion on these issues says far more about your politics and biases than it does about the politics and biases of people who use UC IMC to express their divergent views.
I find it rather interesting that an apparent supporter of a candidate who is said to rely on tactics of disinformation and intimidation resorts to exactly the same tactics here in this forum. That alone points out that these issues have not received enough coverage in other media. These features fit in exactly with the UC IMC's mission. The fact that there are about 100 comments, for and against, the one article amply justifies the decision to make them into features.
I doubt that your mistaken and counterfactual assessment of this site's editorial policies has much relevance to anyone. I have noted that a frequent troll here has been using exactly the same tactics of threats, before his crap is hidden. If you are one and the same, then any such signed complaint would certainly be of interest in determining the real motivation behind much of the trolling and abuse this site has endured in recent months. And it would certainly fill out a clearer picture of the context in which any such (bogus) complaint would be considered. |
|
That herring is getting awfully red |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
18 Feb 2005
|
|
Whether or not a newswire post is made into a "feature" has exactly zero legal implications with respect to the IMC's tax status, because all it does is make the post appear on a different part of the page with a more prominent layout. It doesn't make other newswire posts disappear. |
|
