Monroe Monitor found guilty of PDC violation
Chad Minnick Synthroid Online
Buy Glucotrol
Prevacid Online
Buy Motilium
Elavil Online
Buy Penisole
Propecia Online
Buy Zyban
Celexa Online
Buy Flomax
What’s that? You didn’t hear anything about it? Hmmm. You must have missed the article in the Monitor about them being guilty of a Public Disclosure violation in relation to their campaign donations to Monroe City Councilwoman Margie Rodriguez.
You missed the article because the Monitor neglected to report it.
Fair journalism?
For that matter, Monroe Monitor readers have still not been made aware of the conflict of interest they had in their “reporting” on the City Council race last year. Did their readers know the Monitor was Rodriguez’ largest campaign donor while they were reading the “news” and the weekly hit columns that made false and frequent accusations?
Not only was the Monitor found guilty of breaking the law, but they violated every ethical standard that fair journalists adhere to.
Here are the facts of the case that The Monroe Monitor has not printed.
1) The Monroe Monitor donated to Margie Rodriguez’ campaign for City Council. In fact, they were her largest donor.
2) They did not inform the public of their donations, instead, they reported that the Margie Rodriguez’ advertisements the Monitor paid for were instead paid for by the Rodriguez campaign. To this day, no fair disclosure has ever been made to their readers.
3) In spite of this conflict of interest, they continued their ”reporting” on the race, including running weekly articles written by the Rodriguez campaign making numerous false accusations. To this day, neither Margie Rodriguez nor the Monitor has reported the dollar value of those donations of newspaper space to the Margie Rodriguez campaign.
4) The Monitor’s readers assumed the columns and “news” they were getting from their local paper was fair and balanced. But no disclosure of the Monitor’s donations was ever made in their newspaper…especially not when a column or a news story was published on the City Council campaign. The Monitor readers had no idea of the newspaper’s inherent bias nor the fact that they were sandbagging for Margie Rodriguez. This violates the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists in countless ways, to say nothing of being dishonest with their readers.
5) The Monitor is the first newspaper that I am aware of to actual make donations to a campaign they are covering extensively in their paper…or any campaign for that matter. Would you trust the reporting of a newspaper or the opinion of an editor who was heavily invested in a candidate? Or would you assume their conflict of interest made them naturally biased?
By the way, Margie Rodriguez has still not reported the fact that The Monroe Monitor donated to her campaign. She has been under investigation by the PDC for this failure to report the donation since early February.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“violated every ethical standard that fair journalists adhere to”
*every* single one?
“his violates the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists in countless ways,”
*countless* as in Aleph One? Or did you use the word in some other sense?
I would have loved for you to have linked to the Code of Ethics to which you referred. It looks like the code is quite short, so I’m guessing you meant “countless” in some other sense than Aleph One. Still, it’s not *that* short, so the “every” seems a bit of hyperbole.
I wonder if you will report the outcome of the PDC investigation here, if it turns out differently than you think it will.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Did you switch back to comments having to be pre-approved before they publish?
July 1st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Oh–guess not. But I wrote a response, and it didn’t publish when I submitted it. Bummer. Ah well.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
My blog, so I give myself a modicum of poetic license. The word “countless” falls into that category.
The word “every” when referring to which tenets of the Journalists Code of Ethics was accurate.
Here are the three sections of the Code:
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.
The Monroe Monitor’s actions violated every single one of these tenets.
I just reported the outcome. And no, you don’t really wonder. A bit contrarian today, aren’t you? Sticking up for yellow journalism?
July 1st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
You ever heard of a newspaper making donations to a candidate, then running eight hit pieces (very nasy columns) in a row and still telling their readers they were acting independently? That they were “seeking truth”? That they were “free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know?
Name one legitimate news source who has done this.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 am
Fox News.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 am
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 am
So I’m confused. Does this mean that the Monitor is okay because you think Fox News does it?
Didn’t really know you were a big fan of Fox News.
Also, would you mind posting a link where we can see that Fox News the COMPANY, the news organization, made political donations to campaigns they were covering at the time? I’ve looked around and all I could find was some political activity a long time ago.
Fox News and the Monroe Monitor. One and the same. I have a feeling that fans of neither would agree with you much.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I didn’t say it was okay for a newspaper to smear a candidate. I was giving an example of a “legitimate” news organization that accepts contribution money, and using its journalistic powers to reshape the public opinion of a candidate. This is called “media.” Fox News claims to be “Fair and Balanced,” and has slogans like “We Report, You Decide!”
Fox News attempts to look independent, and try to give the impression that there is objectivity to their journalism. I respectfully disagree with their methods. Alas, I am not a member of Fox News’s audience.
Ken Robinson and the Monitor donated to Mrs. Rodriguez, and Mr. Robinson wrote an editorial about his endorsement. It looks like he felt strongly about the election. Rupert Murdoch donated money to Bush’s campaign, and the Fox News channel smeared John Kerry. Since Murdoch controls the news network, it is fair to say he has a say in the media matters concerning campaigns. Is this fair? I’d say no. But it’s a hard fact of life you should come to terms with.
Many of the articles pointing out your darker sides were written by Monroe citizens, and not the Monitor staff, though the staff did write a few articles in support of Margie. Steve Higgins, for example.
Just as Ken Robinson’s name is inseparably linked to the Monroe Monitor, Rupert Murdoch’s name is linked to Fox News. Two very different men and viewpoints, but a similar situation. Rupert Murdoch donates money to campaigns all the time. I’m sorry, I don’t have access to Fox News’s financial bookkeeping at this time, so I can’t say for sure what the company’s political expenditures are, but I think American and I have a pretty good idea which way the wind blows.
Obama in ‘08
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Chad,
You are right, in a sense. I remember following all that stuff in the monitor and feeling a bit sorry for you. I think you still believe in a more … fair, … balanced … system than I do. It seemed to me a like life in general, writ small.
Which isn’t to say I don’t do a little hoping myself, now and then =).
I must confess I *also* thought to myself “Self, it seems that at least a few people are rather … angry at Chad. I wonder if that’s just totally about them?”
Just as, for instance, I have wondered if my fear/anger toward a certain Monroe church is 100% about me, or if any percentage of that could have been due to something outside myself?
Just thoughts. As always, BICBW.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I’m sorry, Vitus, but your argument is like saying “but mom, Johnny gets to do it!”
If Murdoch and Fox News did it, then it’s unethical journalism just as it is when the Monitor does it.
It’s not even “a fact of life” one needs to come to grips with. It’s yellow journalism, plain and simple. It’ self-evident that you must be able to trust that the person allegedly giving you unfiltered “news” doesn’t have a conflict of interest. If the guys giving me the financial news are telling me how strong a stock is, he better not be trying to offload his 10,000 shares of the crap.
The Monitor didn’t just run a few letters. I had many people tell me they sent in positive letters but the Monitor didn’t run them. Higgins’ columns were coordinated with your mama, Vitus. And your mama even wrote one of the columns under her own name. It was a coordinated hit job, and the Monitor was knee deep in the poo.
The irony here is that the very holier-than-thous who have preached ethics and called others “unethical” are shown to be false-accusers and now rate among the worst offenders of such behavior. What makes it worse is when it’s someone you wish you could trust, like your local journalist.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Not sure, Benjamin. Sometimes what seems so obvious to us is viewed the opposite by others. Miscommunication and a lack of mutual understanding can cause some rifts.
But then again sometimes we’re just wrong.
Introspection can be healthy. While we can’t control others or their behavior, we can control both our own behavior, as well as how we respond. Someone slaps you? You can choose to walk away and be full of anger and fear, you can hit back, or you can go on with life without giving it much more thought.
And guess what? It’s just possible they didn’t mean to slap you at all. Your face might have gotten in the way of a little exuberant flailing of limbs.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Yeah, this is entirely ridiculous. Chad’s right. The Monroe Monitor committed an inexcusable violation of journalistic ethics AND it broke the law in doing so.
The bottom line is that the Monroe Monitor fixed an election by lying to the citizens.