Press Release # 397

Subj: Greenhut replies, but ignores the issue
Date: 3/29/2004 2:58:07 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Doug Korthof <doug@seal-beach.org>
To: voiceforveterans@aol.com

At 11:06 AM 3/29/2004 -0800, sgreenhut@ocregister.com wrote:
Gee, Doug, name one taxpayer who isn't a ratepayer. Must be one out there, I suppose!

Hi Steven Greenhut,

Well, it is true that ratepayers and taxpayers are often the same, that is not relevant, imo, to the point that money paid under one guise is for services rendered, and under the other excuse it's just generally spent, with little or no accountability.

This is a big conceptual difference, imo.

I am a bit concerned that your interest in the waiver, sparked perhaps by the Grant article, expanded to a one-sided investigation of the issues, talking to Norm and Mark. Your dismissal of waiver opponents as "wackos" seems to indicate that you did not query the other side for a balanced, even-handed presentation of the issues.

 

My understanding of journalistic ethics is that when charges are made, or a one-sided account is given, it is usual and normal to duly present that fact in the article ("...proponents were unavailable for comment..." or "...this article is my opinion...") thus either flagging it for the reader as a potentially one-sided presentation, or else stating, in a straightforward way, that it's your free speech opinion and thus does not make pretense to journalistic impartiality.

I suppose that "Commentators", as listed under the Register heading, are merely giving their opinion; however, it's important, in my view, to explicitly state that fact when dealing with a complex issue.

It's all about communication, after all.

Doug
714-496-1567

Back to T.O.C. 3