It is with a glad heart that I can now give an update to this report that the piece o' crap newspretenda in Scran'en was ogling the Pocono Record.
It appears that the ethically-challenged and journalistically-clueless clowns in the 'lectric city realized that their meager talents were matched by their meager wallets. They fell far behind in the bidding for the Pocono Record and officially "moved on", not doubt to find other newspapers to destroy in their tireless quest to export Scran'en mediocrity.
Yay!
Showing posts with label Scran'en Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scran'en Times. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Scran'en Hacks Out of Running for Pocono Paper
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Scran'en Hacks Eyeing Pocono Record
Hey, both reliable readers of this space know that I am loathe to criticize the newspapers ham-handedly run by a certain Scran'en family of non-journalist hacks. Now, with the Murdoch deal looming, there's a little local problem on the old horizon that needs some attention.
Murdoch is quoted as saying he'd like to kill off the New York Times. After his Wall Street Journal deal closes, the betting is that Murdoch will start slicing off some of the lesser-known properties in the Dow Jones stable. That includes the Pocono Record, which, it is widely anticipated, will go up on the block.
Those hacks in Scran'en have already set their sights on the Record.
Not too long ago, they hosted a "future of the Poconos" round table of sorts, which was a thinly-disguised attempt at market research. They Scran'en folk were too clumsy to hide their real intentions (even from some of the equally obtuse political types they brought into the discussions).Murdoch is quoted as saying he'd like to kill off the New York Times. After his Wall Street Journal deal closes, the betting is that Murdoch will start slicing off some of the lesser-known properties in the Dow Jones stable. That includes the Pocono Record, which, it is widely anticipated, will go up on the block.
Those hacks in Scran'en have already set their sights on the Record.
So the problem, kids, the real sadness here, is the dismantling of the Pocono Record as a real newspaper. That process was begun in-house when Dow Jones began cutting financial support for the paper to the bone, then it brought in a non-journalist advertising salesman as a neophyte publisher a couple of years ago, and finally they lost one the best editors that little paper has seen late last year. Now, it appears, if the non-journalist family of incompetents in Scran'en have their way, they will buy the paper and bury all hopes of news-hungry folk in Eastern and NEPA.
Then, the good people in the Poconos region will join the hapless saps in Scran'en, Wilkes Berry, and Hazleton (where the hacks at the pretend newspaper also own the papers) and be left without a reliable, professional, or ethical newspaper.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Wannabe Journalist on Pretend Paper Ignores Ethics AND Inquiry
It was over a week ago that we ran a piece on how that piece of crap newspaper in Scran'en was ignoring the DeNaples stories.
In one of the pretend newspaper's articles, the paper mentioned a defamation award against the Citizen's Voice "and its parent company", which is that Scran'en paper.
We noted that, in keeping with the parent company's apparent policy of deception, the article failed to advise the readers of the Scran'en rag that they were reading the "parent company".
Being an inquiring sort, we penned a quick note to the reporter, so-called, and asked why he chose not to tell the readers that the CV parent was none other than the Scran'en Times. Dave Janoski's response after the jump.
In one of the pretend newspaper's articles, the paper mentioned a defamation award against the Citizen's Voice "and its parent company", which is that Scran'en paper.
We noted that, in keeping with the parent company's apparent policy of deception, the article failed to advise the readers of the Scran'en rag that they were reading the "parent company".
Being an inquiring sort, we penned a quick note to the reporter, so-called, and asked why he chose not to tell the readers that the CV parent was none other than the Scran'en Times. Dave Janoski's response after the jump.
Janoski's revealing reply, in full:
" "
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Pretend Newspaper Distracts and Misinforms Readers on DeNaples
As if on cue, today's version of the Scran'en fairy tales for adults finally includes some local reporting on the DeNaples probe.
As per usual for the hacks on that paper, the droning report contains no news. It is little more than a list of people seen going in and out of the courthouse (most of whom they don't even bother to talk to after their appearance) where the grand jury is examining the local felon's reputed ties to organized crime, alleged lies on his slots application, and purported illegal donations.
But that information is apparently too sensitive for the readers of this pretend newspaper, as the article fails to even detail what the grand jury is investigating.
But, we are accustomed to the wannabe newspaper's inability to master the most basic of journalism skills. It is what they sneak in at the very end of the piece that sums up what talentless imbeciles are running and writing for that piece of tripe.
As per usual for the hacks on that paper, the droning report contains no news. It is little more than a list of people seen going in and out of the courthouse (most of whom they don't even bother to talk to after their appearance) where the grand jury is examining the local felon's reputed ties to organized crime, alleged lies on his slots application, and purported illegal donations.
But that information is apparently too sensitive for the readers of this pretend newspaper, as the article fails to even detail what the grand jury is investigating.
But, we are accustomed to the wannabe newspaper's inability to master the most basic of journalism skills. It is what they sneak in at the very end of the piece that sums up what talentless imbeciles are running and writing for that piece of tripe.
Typically for this rag, the piece is salted with apologies for DeNaples -- not surprising since this lousy paper has already declared DeNaples clean and they aren't about to let something like a dual Federal/State investigation call their "news reporting" into question.
So, for example, they rush to point out that one of the people testifying before the grand jury won a defamation case against the Wilkes-Barre Citizen's Voice newspaper last year over an article that suggested the witness was linked to the Federal investigation of NEPA's mob. Of course, that was an unrelated investigation, but the mention serves the purpose of watering down the current investigation. What is stunning is what these no-talent rejects from the Weekly World News elected to leave out of their reporting.
Here's what they said:
"In 2006, a Luzerne County judge awarded Mr. Joseph $3.5 million in a defamation suit against The Citizens' Voice and its parent company over stories published in the wake of the federal raids on Mr. Joseph's Mountaintop home and at least one of his businesses."
What they leave out is that the "parent company" of the Voice and the Scran'en pretend newspaper are one in the same. A real reporter would have disclosed that, but, as we have learned before, the Lynett family, which owns the papers, appears to reject journalistic ethics and seem to ensure that the hacks who work for them are either unable to tell the difference or don't care. (An early-morning inquiry to the "reporter" has not been returned.)
How REAL newspapers have covered the story:
Priest, ex-prosecutor go before grand jury, Philly Daily News, 8/30/07
Priest talks to DeNaples grand jury, Allentown Morning Call, 8/30/07
Allies show as grand jury meets, Philly Daily News, 8/30/07
Denaples' priest faces grand jury, Allentown Morning Call, 8/29/07
More connections emerge between grand jury, Pa. casino licensee, Philly Daily News, 8/29/07
5 witnesses testify in DeNaples probe, Allentown Morning Call, 8/29/07
'Independent' panel members remain unknown, Philly Daily News, 8/28/07
Several appear before grand jury over slots, Allentown Morning Call, 8/28/07
Prosecutor in DeNaples probe to resign, sources say, Allentown Morning Call, 8/23/07
DeNaples link prompts Marino to withdraw from mob probe, Allentown Morning Call, 8/21/07
Marino-DeNaples ties led prosecutor to pull out of probe, Allentown Morning Call, 8/20/07
Sources: Mount Airy owner focus of U.S., state investigation, Allentown Morning Call, 8/19/07
UPDATE: Also on the beat:
The DeNaples story blows up while the Scranton Times sleeps, Noertheast PA Media News
The Electric Connection, Truth, Lies & Peace
And a tip 'o the hoagie to GettysBlog for this golden oldie and the apt (especially considering this) Godfather quote:
"The Pope, the Holy Father himself, has this very day blessed Michael Corleone; an' you think you know better than the Pope?"
--Dominic Abbandando
(Michael's PR Advisor, son of Genco) to reporters (Godfather III).
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Scran'en Times Ignores DeNaples Probes
The two or tree of you out there who regularly read this space might recall that I've mentioned the apparent lack of ethics and journalistic talent on that pretend newspaper in Scran'en. Like in Trashing the First Amendment, or in A Matter of Integrity, and here, and here, here, too, and, of course, here, among other places.
Having successfully shilled for their bosses' boy in the last Senatorial primary and election, the non-journalists at the Scran'en Times have recently been busy covering up the recurring problems of local felon Louis DeNaples and the joint Federal/State probes into whether he lied on his slots application, has ties to the mob, and illegally contributed money to Rendell and others to grease the slide for his slots application.
Having successfully shilled for their bosses' boy in the last Senatorial primary and election, the non-journalists at the Scran'en Times have recently been busy covering up the recurring problems of local felon Louis DeNaples and the joint Federal/State probes into whether he lied on his slots application, has ties to the mob, and illegally contributed money to Rendell and others to grease the slide for his slots application.
Real newspapers have brought us stories on the federal/state probe. Like the Philly paper which recounts grand jury appearances, and the story on the Gaming Board's refusal to identify the "audit committee" which supposedly investigated the allegations of mob ties and found them (surprise) wanting. Readers of the Morning Call were served up intrepid and original coverage of the issues ranging from the revelation of the dual-probe, to the grand jury witnesses, more on the witnesses, the (Scran'en) Federal Prosecutor's close ties with DeNaples, and the US Attorney's subsequent resignation apparently connected to the DeNaples probe.
Readers of the Scran'en paper can be forgiven for their force-fed ignorance. The boys up there at the pretend newspaper couldn't bring themselves to send a reporter out to cover the big local story. Instead, their readers got a little mention in a bland AP wire report touting that the US Attorney had vouched for DeNaples, and a brief mention of the probes in one article focusing on Billy D'Elia, the admitted mob guy who is facing trial on several charges and who is one of several sources in the DeNaples probe.
But the good folk up there in NEPA can be forgiven for thinking that DeNaples is the victim here because they know that their good and honorable journalists at the Scran'en Times have already looked into all of that and pronounced DeNaples clean as the whistle. This because the Scran'en Times served up one of the most blatant of their patented BJ pieces, this one called Denaples: Mob Links Simply Don't Add Up.
(Image Credit: DeNaples, Allentown Morning Call / August 18, 2007)
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Barletta: My Ass The Source of All Truth
Hazleton's Bigot-in-Chief testified in defense of the Hazleton anti-Hispanic ordinance in federal court in Scran'en yesterday. His testimony confirmed that all of the findings and purposes of the act came not from reasoned study of objective evidence, but from his fat, hairy ass.
When the home office of NEPA bigotry (a/k/a Hazleton) passed the anti-Hispanic ordinance, it did so after declaring certain findings, including the following:
Except that,
You see, the "numbers" can be inconvenient, as the trial will show soon:
But, apart from the false and baseless crime and health care "findings", there's the economic impact on the city of all these illegals that justify the city smacking down Hispanics. Except, those pesky facts again:
Good thing I subscribe to the Morning Call, because the people in Hazleton get an entirely different picture of the trial than those in Allentown.
UPDATE: The Hazleton pretend newspaper, the Standardless Speakeasy, didn't update its website until late in the day. When it did, it became clear that the local fish wrap is continuing its blow job pieces for the City's Bigot-in-Chief. As they did yesterday, the so-called report misrepresented what really happened at the trial.
(Photo Credit: Barletta's Source, Thanks to Planet Kornerson)
NOTE:
When the home office of NEPA bigotry (a/k/a Hazleton) passed the anti-Hispanic ordinance, it did so after declaring certain findings, including the following:
The People of the City of Hazleton find and declare:So, the act claims, Hazleton didn't just enact this ordinance after a bull session around the city kitchen table. They carefully examined the facts and reached certain findings which compelled the ordinance and justified it as an exercise of the state power.
. . . . C. That unlawful employment, the harboring of illegal aliens in dwelling units in the City of Hazleton, and crime committed by illegal aliens harm the health, safety and welfare of authorized US workers and legal residents in the City of Hazleton. Illegal immigration leads to higher crime rates, subjects our hospitals to fiscal hardship and legal residents to substandard quality of care, contributes to other burdens on public services, increasing their cost and diminishing their availability to legal residents, and diminishes our overall quality of life.
D. That the City of Hazleton is authorized to abate public nuisances and empowered and mandated by the people of Hazleton to abate the nuisance of illegal immigration by diligently prohibiting the acts and policies that facilitate illegal immigration in a manner consistent with federal law and the objectives of Congress. . . .
F. This ordinance seeks to secure . . . the right to live in peace free of the threat crime, to enjoy the public services provided by this city without being burdened by the cost of providing goods, support and services to aliens unlawfully present in the United States, and to be free of the debilitating effects on their economic and social well being imposed by the influx of illegal aliens . . . .
Except that,
Barletta admitted he did not contact the school district to ask about alleged overcrowding, call the hospital for statistics on the treatment of illegal immigrants or seek any data to back up any of the claims. . . . ''So you had no data on hospital treatments or other health care?'' asked Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. ''No,'' Barletta said. He had no data on any other city services, from sanitation to fire calls, that could prove his contention that illegal immigrants were draining city services and the budget, Barletta said. But he claimed he didn't need statistics to point out what was obvious to him and other longtime Hazleton residents.Oh, but he doesn't need troublesome things like facts when he has eyes that can see and ears that can hear and a fat hairy ass from which he can pull his facts:
Barletta said he assumed schools were overcrowded because classes were being held in trailers, and he read in the local newspaper that test scores had fallen. Barletta also said he relied on conversations with hospital personnel to determine that ''uninsured people'' were trying to use the emergency room . . . . Barletta, who was born and raised in Hazleton, said the city now suffers from increased crime and violence, and that street gangs have established a foothold. He said several murders involving illegal immigrants . . . cemented his belief that Hazleton had a problem. ''Our city is crumbling under the strain of illegal immigration,'' Barletta said. ''Most people in Hazleton didn't need numbers".Well, of course they don't. All they need to know if that their Bigot-in-Chief is gonna help rid their turf of the Sharks.
You see, the "numbers" can be inconvenient, as the trial will show soon:
Not discussed (by Barletta) were crime statistics supplied by the Hazleton Police Department that were sought by the plaintiffs and obtained under a court order Monday.So, Barletta admitted not only did the facts and findings come fresh out of his fat hairy ass, but the he refused to even look at the actual crime statistics gathered by his own police force.
Barletta said he had not seen the statistics, which covered five years beginning in 2001, and U.S. District Judge James Munley barred Walczak from questioning Barletta about them until Friday, when Barletta will return to the witness stand.
Outside court, Walczak said the statistics revealed that crime in Hazleton has not increased out of proportion to the rise in population, and that illegal immigrants were not committing a lot of crimes. Walczak said the city identified only 20 to 30 serious crimes that involved illegal immigrants out of more than 8,000 crimes.
But, apart from the false and baseless crime and health care "findings", there's the economic impact on the city of all these illegals that justify the city smacking down Hispanics. Except, those pesky facts again:
Earlier in court, Barletta and Walczak went over Hazleton's economic troubles and drop in population from 38,000 after World War II to 22,000 in 2000. By the end of the 1990s, the city was nearly $1 million in debt. Part of its resurgence, Walczak argued, had to do with the arrival of thousands of Hispanics after 2000.Oh well, at least the law was carefully written. Except, this week it was announced that, "[f]or the fifth time Hazleton is rewriting the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. "
The new arrivals propelled Hazleton's population and ushered in a renaissance, as Hispanics bought and rehabilitated shuttered buildings and opened roughly 60 businesses. Assessed property values rose three years in a row.
Good thing I subscribe to the Morning Call, because the people in Hazleton get an entirely different picture of the trial than those in Allentown.
UPDATE: The Hazleton pretend newspaper, the Standardless Speakeasy, didn't update its website until late in the day. When it did, it became clear that the local fish wrap is continuing its blow job pieces for the City's Bigot-in-Chief. As they did yesterday, the so-called report misrepresented what really happened at the trial.
(Photo Credit: Barletta's Source, Thanks to Planet Kornerson)
NOTE:
WE ARE MOVING!!! For now, the old Blogger address will bring you to the new location -- but that can change at any time. Please update your Blogroll, Links, and Bookmarks NOW:
Click Here to Blogroll A Big Fat Slob!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Hazleton CAN Just Make This Stuff Up
As reported in this morning's Morning Call:
"Hazleton's City Council approved its ordinance on illegal immigration without any police data supporting the conclusion that a surge in violent crime was caused by illegal immigrants, the council president testified Tuesday. Joe Yanuzzi, who has served as council president since 2003, also said that council didn't obtain any data from Hazleton Hospital supporting the assertion, included in the ordinance, that illegal immigrants also created a fiscal hardship for the city's health services."
Even the Scran'en paper saw it the same way as the Call: "Hazleton City Council President Joseph Yanuzzi testified Tuesday neither he nor council — nor anyone in the city to his knowledge — conducted any research, thought to commission any study or received any training on immigration documentation before passing the controversial ordinance."
Nice. What a bunch of yahoos up there. They basically just sat around the table and decided that it was 'all them god damned spics' causing all their problems, so they wrote a law. So, if the Scran'en and Allentown papers were that hard on Hazleton, you can bet that the local Wilkesberry and Hazleton rags must have slammed them, right? Oh, sweetie, you are so innocent. You forget that we are dealing with NEPA and ethics, even journalistic ethics, remain merely a punch line up there.
One of the local rags pretending to be a newspaper calls this "the full flowering of democracy in action". "Full flowering of democracy"? Who are they trying to kid? Oh, yeah, their readers.
The Hazleton government acted like a street gang looking to rid their territory of the Sharks, and not only do the local newspapers ignore the testimony, they praise what they are witnessing as the "full flowering of democracy". Hey, one guess on which county in Pennsylvania is the fasted shrinking county in the state. (And if Luzerne isn't number one, it is damned near close to the top -- no one wants to stay there.)
Worse yet, the Hazleton paper didn't even bother to mention that the stated predicate for the entire law was just pulled out of Lou Barletta's ass. To the contrary, that birdcage liner reports, as fact, that the "council adopted [the act] in response to crime". This isn't even attributed to anyone. Reporting on the same trial, on the same day, that the Morning Call reported that the city council's head thug admitted that they just made up the claim that "illegals" were causing their "crime surge", the incompetent Hazleton paper reports to their readers -- as fact so clear that it doesn't need attribution -- that the anti-Hispanic legislation was "adopted in response to crime".
Ignorant bastards, incompetent bigots. You decide who is what. You won't be wrong.
"Hazleton's City Council approved its ordinance on illegal immigration without any police data supporting the conclusion that a surge in violent crime was caused by illegal immigrants, the council president testified Tuesday. Joe Yanuzzi, who has served as council president since 2003, also said that council didn't obtain any data from Hazleton Hospital supporting the assertion, included in the ordinance, that illegal immigrants also created a fiscal hardship for the city's health services."
Even the Scran'en paper saw it the same way as the Call: "Hazleton City Council President Joseph Yanuzzi testified Tuesday neither he nor council — nor anyone in the city to his knowledge — conducted any research, thought to commission any study or received any training on immigration documentation before passing the controversial ordinance."
Nice. What a bunch of yahoos up there. They basically just sat around the table and decided that it was 'all them god damned spics' causing all their problems, so they wrote a law. So, if the Scran'en and Allentown papers were that hard on Hazleton, you can bet that the local Wilkesberry and Hazleton rags must have slammed them, right? Oh, sweetie, you are so innocent. You forget that we are dealing with NEPA and ethics, even journalistic ethics, remain merely a punch line up there.
One of the local rags pretending to be a newspaper calls this "the full flowering of democracy in action". "Full flowering of democracy"? Who are they trying to kid? Oh, yeah, their readers.
The Hazleton government acted like a street gang looking to rid their territory of the Sharks, and not only do the local newspapers ignore the testimony, they praise what they are witnessing as the "full flowering of democracy". Hey, one guess on which county in Pennsylvania is the fasted shrinking county in the state. (And if Luzerne isn't number one, it is damned near close to the top -- no one wants to stay there.)
Worse yet, the Hazleton paper didn't even bother to mention that the stated predicate for the entire law was just pulled out of Lou Barletta's ass. To the contrary, that birdcage liner reports, as fact, that the "council adopted [the act] in response to crime". This isn't even attributed to anyone. Reporting on the same trial, on the same day, that the Morning Call reported that the city council's head thug admitted that they just made up the claim that "illegals" were causing their "crime surge", the incompetent Hazleton paper reports to their readers -- as fact so clear that it doesn't need attribution -- that the anti-Hispanic legislation was "adopted in response to crime".
Ignorant bastards, incompetent bigots. You decide who is what. You won't be wrong.
(Photo Credit: WSS Movie Still, Allociné)
NOTE:
WE ARE MOVING!!! For now, the old Blogger address will bring you to the new location -- but that can change at any time. Please update your Blogroll, Links, and Bookmarks NOW:
Click Here to Blogroll A Big Fat Slob!
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Public Management, NEPA Style
So many issues here.
The Valentine's Day snowstorm (remnants of which still cover entire lanes on some main roads in Wilkes Barre based on my trip there yesterday) collapsed the roof of the Montage Mountain amphitheatre, an entertainment facility owned by Lackawanna County.
The structure, which kind of looked like a tent put up in the middle of the night by a bunch of drunk frat boys, couldn't bear the weight of the snow and ice. Turns out that the geniuses running the County insured the cheap plastic seats under the roof from snow damage but, NOT THE ROOF itself! And, why should they -- it will only cost the taxpayer-owned authority $1,000,000 to replace the thing. (And, that's not even taking into consideration what happens if they don't get the work done in time for the next concert season, when their lessee gets to collect lost profits if the stage isn't ready.)
Brilliant, kids.
Genius-in-charge, Lackawanna County Commissioner Chairman Robert Cordaro boldly told the Scran'en Times that, “If there is blame, other than an act of God, we’re going to take action in that regard." Seems, though, he hasn't a clue where to begin the look for that blame and action. We'll give him a hand.
Let's first off assume that the roof didn't collapse merely because a mythical invisible man in the sky decided that his plan for the entire universe depended on the collapse of a music venue roof in Scran'en, PA.
Bobby, have you looked at the engineering drawings and calculations? What level snowfall was the roof designed to bear up under? 50-year? 100-year? Any though at all given to the fact that this thing was going up on Montage Mountain, in Northeastern PA, and that it is adjacent to a SKI RESORT????
Bobby, have you had a chat with the County's insurance agents? (Other than those conversations asking them for more donations, you know, so that they can rely on your vote to get the insurance contract again?) Did any of those geniuses bother reviewing the County coverage and note that, ya know, might be a good idea to cover 'yer damned roof?
Oh, Bobby, did ya talk with whatever flunkie you put in charge of the maintenance of County property to find out if your genius flunkie bothered to check on the freakin' roof? I mean, even everyday people knew enough to get out on their roofs, or use roof rakes, to scape off the snow and ice. Did your maintenance people ever think about that at any time while they were busy not keeping the streets cleared?
And, while we know that this is contrary to the policies up in your neck of the woods, how about looking at your self and fellow genius A.J. Munchak?
But why would you take responsibility for your own incompetence -- you don't even take responsibility for your own real estate taxes. Not this year, not last year, not -- well, you get the point.
(Photo Credit: The Dead at Montage, 8/4/04, Rick & Shelia, The Roof, 979x.com)
NOTE:
The Valentine's Day snowstorm (remnants of which still cover entire lanes on some main roads in Wilkes Barre based on my trip there yesterday) collapsed the roof of the Montage Mountain amphitheatre, an entertainment facility owned by Lackawanna County.
The structure, which kind of looked like a tent put up in the middle of the night by a bunch of drunk frat boys, couldn't bear the weight of the snow and ice. Turns out that the geniuses running the County insured the cheap plastic seats under the roof from snow damage but, NOT THE ROOF itself! And, why should they -- it will only cost the taxpayer-owned authority $1,000,000 to replace the thing. (And, that's not even taking into consideration what happens if they don't get the work done in time for the next concert season, when their lessee gets to collect lost profits if the stage isn't ready.)
Brilliant, kids.
Genius-in-charge, Lackawanna County Commissioner Chairman Robert Cordaro boldly told the Scran'en Times that, “If there is blame, other than an act of God, we’re going to take action in that regard." Seems, though, he hasn't a clue where to begin the look for that blame and action. We'll give him a hand.Let's first off assume that the roof didn't collapse merely because a mythical invisible man in the sky decided that his plan for the entire universe depended on the collapse of a music venue roof in Scran'en, PA.
Bobby, have you looked at the engineering drawings and calculations? What level snowfall was the roof designed to bear up under? 50-year? 100-year? Any though at all given to the fact that this thing was going up on Montage Mountain, in Northeastern PA, and that it is adjacent to a SKI RESORT????
Bobby, have you had a chat with the County's insurance agents? (Other than those conversations asking them for more donations, you know, so that they can rely on your vote to get the insurance contract again?) Did any of those geniuses bother reviewing the County coverage and note that, ya know, might be a good idea to cover 'yer damned roof?
Oh, Bobby, did ya talk with whatever flunkie you put in charge of the maintenance of County property to find out if your genius flunkie bothered to check on the freakin' roof? I mean, even everyday people knew enough to get out on their roofs, or use roof rakes, to scape off the snow and ice. Did your maintenance people ever think about that at any time while they were busy not keeping the streets cleared?
And, while we know that this is contrary to the policies up in your neck of the woods, how about looking at your self and fellow genius A.J. Munchak?
But why would you take responsibility for your own incompetence -- you don't even take responsibility for your own real estate taxes. Not this year, not last year, not -- well, you get the point.
(Photo Credit: The Dead at Montage, 8/4/04, Rick & Shelia, The Roof, 979x.com)
NOTE:
WE ARE MOVING!!! For now, the old Blogger address will bring you to the new location -- but that can change at any time. Please update your Blogroll, Links, and Bookmarks NOW:
Click Here to Blogroll A Big Fat Slob!
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Just a Family Business, Man
There are five applicants vying for two slots licenses. In the Poconos there are two applicants and the betting is that one of the available licenses will go to the Poconos.
The contenders there include Louis Denaples, an allegedly mob-tied felon from NEPA, who pled "no contest" to fraudulently cashing in on the 1972 flood that hit the Wilkes-Barre area, from which it has not yet recovered. More recently, in 2001, the Internal Revenue Service filed an affidavit in U.S. District Court outlining contacts and payments Denaples allegedly made to William "Big Billy" D'Elia, whom law enforcement identified as the head of the Buffalino crime family in Northeastern Pennsylvania.
His competitor in the region is the Pocono Manor, recently purchased by a group headed by New Jersey real estate developer Greg Mazel. Mazel has spent millions, bringing in some of the most respected consultants in the gaming, resort and convention business, to help his group put together a full-scall resort, convention, and retail plan for developing the Pocono Manor property, which has continued operating as a world-class resort since Mazel purchased it. (Denaples levelled the Mount Airy property when he bought it, and it now sits as a massive eyesore in the Poconos.)
Even a cursory review of the two plans suggests that the Pocono Manor plan is more well thought out, more likely to bring non-gambling business to the Poconos, and more professionally put together. The Pocono Manor plan calls for the operations to be run by experienced resort, retail, and gambling professionals. Denaples will turn over significant responsibility to his 37-year old daughter, who has a dental degree (to be sure, there are gambling pros on the Denaples team -- but this will be a family-run business).
But, the allegedly linked-in Denaples plan has something that the Pocono Manor plan doesn't -- over a million dollars in donations to Rendell and other top state lawmakers and judges over the last five years. That includes nearly $300,000 to Bob Mellow, Democratic State Senate Leader, and committees he controls.
We aren't going to say that that bought Denaples a seat at the table -- but Mellow appointed Denaples friend and former lawyer, William Conaboy (from Scran'en), to the commission that doles out slots licenses. Conaboy is on the Board of directors of the bank that Denaples controls and is chairman of the board. Conaboy is also on the board of directors of Lackawanna Community College in Scran'en.
Also serving on the Board of Directors for the Lackawanna College along with Denaples' lawyer are Albert Magnotta and Dominic Denaples -- Louis' brother. Magnotta is the chief engineer on Denaples' slots project. Dominic Denaples, who is partners with his brother in some ventures, is chairman of the college’s board. All that is significant because, when Conaboy had to resign from the slots board, Mellow appointed the president of Lackawanna College as his replacement. Mellow's press release forgot to mention the Denaples ties.
Oh, yeah, Denaples is telling everyone there's no conflict because his brother has nothing to do with the Mount Airy project. Here's the photo and caption from a local paper on the "ground-breaking":
With "Denaples Family" juice, is there any doubt who is going to get the license -- a professional, full concept plan designed to bring retail, convention, resort, and gambling business to the Poconos, or the empty lot owned by a felon, with reported mob-ties, who was called at the slots hearing "a crook with ties to organized crime"?
One guess.
The contenders there include Louis Denaples, an allegedly mob-tied felon from NEPA, who pled "no contest" to fraudulently cashing in on the 1972 flood that hit the Wilkes-Barre area, from which it has not yet recovered. More recently, in 2001, the Internal Revenue Service filed an affidavit in U.S. District Court outlining contacts and payments Denaples allegedly made to William "Big Billy" D'Elia, whom law enforcement identified as the head of the Buffalino crime family in Northeastern Pennsylvania.
His competitor in the region is the Pocono Manor, recently purchased by a group headed by New Jersey real estate developer Greg Mazel. Mazel has spent millions, bringing in some of the most respected consultants in the gaming, resort and convention business, to help his group put together a full-scall resort, convention, and retail plan for developing the Pocono Manor property, which has continued operating as a world-class resort since Mazel purchased it. (Denaples levelled the Mount Airy property when he bought it, and it now sits as a massive eyesore in the Poconos.)
Even a cursory review of the two plans suggests that the Pocono Manor plan is more well thought out, more likely to bring non-gambling business to the Poconos, and more professionally put together. The Pocono Manor plan calls for the operations to be run by experienced resort, retail, and gambling professionals. Denaples will turn over significant responsibility to his 37-year old daughter, who has a dental degree (to be sure, there are gambling pros on the Denaples team -- but this will be a family-run business).
But, the allegedly linked-in Denaples plan has something that the Pocono Manor plan doesn't -- over a million dollars in donations to Rendell and other top state lawmakers and judges over the last five years. That includes nearly $300,000 to Bob Mellow, Democratic State Senate Leader, and committees he controls.
We aren't going to say that that bought Denaples a seat at the table -- but Mellow appointed Denaples friend and former lawyer, William Conaboy (from Scran'en), to the commission that doles out slots licenses. Conaboy is on the Board of directors of the bank that Denaples controls and is chairman of the board. Conaboy is also on the board of directors of Lackawanna Community College in Scran'en.
Also serving on the Board of Directors for the Lackawanna College along with Denaples' lawyer are Albert Magnotta and Dominic Denaples -- Louis' brother. Magnotta is the chief engineer on Denaples' slots project. Dominic Denaples, who is partners with his brother in some ventures, is chairman of the college’s board. All that is significant because, when Conaboy had to resign from the slots board, Mellow appointed the president of Lackawanna College as his replacement. Mellow's press release forgot to mention the Denaples ties.
Oh, yeah, Denaples is telling everyone there's no conflict because his brother has nothing to do with the Mount Airy project. Here's the photo and caption from a local paper on the "ground-breaking":
"Former Mount Airy Lodge owner Frank Martens, left, is joined Monday by Louis, Dominick and Lisa DeNaples for a ground breaking ceremony for the proposed Mount Airy Resort and Casino."Yeah, well.
With "Denaples Family" juice, is there any doubt who is going to get the license -- a professional, full concept plan designed to bring retail, convention, resort, and gambling business to the Poconos, or the empty lot owned by a felon, with reported mob-ties, who was called at the slots hearing "a crook with ties to organized crime"?
One guess.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Scranton Paper Shills for Casey
Demonstrating, once again, that he and his capos at the Scranton Times ShamrockTimes-Tribune/Wilkes-Barre Citizen's Voice, or whatever they are calling themselves these days, Borys Don't-Spell-My-Name-Wrong Krawczeniuk has another missive direct from the Casey Campaign, posing as his "independent observations" -- what the STSTTWBCV laughingly calls a news report.
Today's STSTTWBCV contains another pandering piece by the Casey Campaign's chief press agent rising to the defense of their boy against the Santorum "aiding and abetting" terrorists claim. The article covers all the angles of the story, well, at least all the angles of Casey's rebuttal to Santorum. (And, not for nuthin', but Casey wouldn't need to rely on a shill if he was actually out on the campaign trail.) It is what the article doesn't say which is galling. Once again, as usual for this rag, and contrary to the practices of ethical journalists everywhere, nowhere is there any mention of the hundreds of thousands of dollars which the owners of the Scranton Times have shoved into Casey's pockets over the years.
It is unusual, to say the least, for owners and editors of newspapers to be so heavily invested in a political candidate which their papers is supposed to objectively cover. A search of the FEC database reveals zero contributions to political candidates from any of the other NEPA newspaper owners, editors and reporting staff. Besides handing over wads of cash, and never providing a disclaimer to their readers, the owners of the Scranton Times have also engaged in dubious advertising of their newspaper which featured falsified headlines touting Casey, which some have said were illegal campaign donations.
All that is fine and, while giving tons of money to a politician is more than a little questionable from the standpoint of journalistic ethics, it is (presumably) legal. But for the Scranton Times to pretend to objectively cover the Senate Race without disclosing to their readers the stake that the ownership of the newspaper has in the outcome is journalistic fraud. They should be ashamed, except they are from NEPA, where we hear that such things are rather routine. So, we expect the owners of the paper to further disrespect their family heritage, give the finger to real journalists everywhere, and continue Trashing the First Amendment.
Today's STSTTWBCV contains another pandering piece by the Casey Campaign's chief press agent rising to the defense of their boy against the Santorum "aiding and abetting" terrorists claim. The article covers all the angles of the story, well, at least all the angles of Casey's rebuttal to Santorum. (And, not for nuthin', but Casey wouldn't need to rely on a shill if he was actually out on the campaign trail.) It is what the article doesn't say which is galling. Once again, as usual for this rag, and contrary to the practices of ethical journalists everywhere, nowhere is there any mention of the hundreds of thousands of dollars which the owners of the Scranton Times have shoved into Casey's pockets over the years.
It is unusual, to say the least, for owners and editors of newspapers to be so heavily invested in a political candidate which their papers is supposed to objectively cover. A search of the FEC database reveals zero contributions to political candidates from any of the other NEPA newspaper owners, editors and reporting staff. Besides handing over wads of cash, and never providing a disclaimer to their readers, the owners of the Scranton Times have also engaged in dubious advertising of their newspaper which featured falsified headlines touting Casey, which some have said were illegal campaign donations.All that is fine and, while giving tons of money to a politician is more than a little questionable from the standpoint of journalistic ethics, it is (presumably) legal. But for the Scranton Times to pretend to objectively cover the Senate Race without disclosing to their readers the stake that the ownership of the newspaper has in the outcome is journalistic fraud. They should be ashamed, except they are from NEPA, where we hear that such things are rather routine. So, we expect the owners of the paper to further disrespect their family heritage, give the finger to real journalists everywhere, and continue Trashing the First Amendment.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Trashing the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is extremely unique -- even within our unique Constitution. The First Amendment not only protects the freedom of speech of citizens (a first at the time), but also a private business -- it establishes the right of "the press" to operate without Government interference:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The intent of protecting the institution of the press must be understood in the context of the fundamental purpose of the representative democracy created by the Constitution under the charter of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . .The press was valued and Constitutionally protected not because a number of the founders may have dabbled in the business. It was valued and protected because the founders understood the crucial role which a free and independent press could (and did) play in securing the Liberty of a nation. Jefferson was explicit in his correspondence to John Jay soon after the Bill of Rights was adopted:
Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.In Jefferson's view, the freedom protected by the First Amendment was not "merely" the freedom of expression of a nation -- but the Liberty of the Nation. If the Government was legitimate only to the extent of the continued "consent of the governed", the free press was necessary to provide the information required to make that consent an informed one.
But for this to have the intended effect, the nation requires a press which is not only free, but independent. House organs (see Fox News) publishing only what serves the current interest of those in charge of the government does nothing to advance the cause of liberty. Indeed, it is harmful to the continuation of liberty.
Jefferson could have been speaking today when he wrote, in 1785, about how the British government used the press to pacify and control the colonists:
The most effectual engines for this purpose are the public papers . . . You know well that the government always kept a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, invented and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper."No means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper". The founders recognized that a newspaper not independent from the subject of its coverage -- which has a stake in the outcome or is controlled by the government -- is harmful to the protection of freedom and liberty.
The pre-revolutionary debates in colonial United States encouraged the spread of the newspaper. The first daily newspaper in the United States was published in Philadelphia in the 1780s. During the post-revolutionary period in which the "united States" were struggling define their relationships to one another, newspapers were generally associated with political viewpoints, with many being effectively house organs for one political party or another. Federalists and the anti-federalists did battle in print for the minds of the citizens of the various states.
Significantly, the political persuasion of the publisher and reporters were up front and worn on their sleeves. Citizens sought out multiple newspapers to absorb and follow the debate of the day. After the civil war, when the "united States" became the "United States", that began to change. James Gordon Bennett started his newspaper, the New York Herald, in the 1830s and his independent policies showed the way for newspapers to divorce themselves from party control. (Bennett is generally credited with introducing what, to our sensibility, is as intertwined with journalism as the forward pass is with football -- the interview. Just as football began without a forward pass, the first hundred years of journalism in America was practiced without the news interview or press conference.)
Over the years, in indirect and direct recognition of the vital Constitutional role that the press plays in our representative democracy, professional journalists developed varied codes of ethics and practices. The codes are designed, among other things, to advance the independence -- actual and apparent -- of their publications from the objects of their coverage.
The Society of Professional Journalists, founded in 1909, is one of the leading American professional organizations for journalists. The SPJ has a very straight-forward Code of Ethics which acts almost as a punch-list for effective and ethical journalism. The preamble to that Code pithily sets forth the syllogism we have been laboring on about:
[P]ublic enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.The SPJ Code is divided into simple, apt, and significantly titled first principles and associated general orders:
Seek Truth and Report ItSimple. Elegant. (Perhaps too elegant for the ham-handed in some parts. More on that infra.)
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.
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Following on these are relatively short lists of goals, prohibitions, and requirements for the ethical journalist seeking to live up to these first principles and general orders of the profession. (As an aside, we have always thought that this code of ethics, and many similar codes with which we are familiar (such as those applicable to lawyers) can be further reduced to a single word: Integrity.)
For today's purpose, we are interested in the Independence principle and, relevantly, here's what the SPJ code of ethics has to say about ethical conduct:
Journalists should:The American Society of Newspaper Editors was formed in the 1920s as the professional society for large circulation newspapers. The very first goal of ASNE was to craft a code of ethics, which they called the "Canons of Journalism".
— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts. . . .
Their preamble states the reason why:
The First Amendment, protecting freedom of expression from abridgment by any law, guarantees to the people through their press a constitutional right, and thereby places on newspaper people a particular responsibility. Thus journalism demands of its practitioners not only industry and knowledge but also the pursuit of a standard of integrity proportionate to the journalist's singular obligation.In Article III of the ASNE Code, they address Independence of the journalist thus: Journalists must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety as well as any conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict. They should neither accept anything nor pursue any activity that might compromise or seem to compromise their integrity.
Responsible journals everywhere implement these fundamental principles in a variety of ways. The New York Times prohibits reporters, editorial board members, columnists, editorial writers, and all of its staff from, among other things, participating in partisan politics. Properly, the Times' concern is equal parts prevention of influence and protection of public perception of influence.
Here is part of their ethical code respecting political participation:
Voting, Campaigns and Public Issues"Staff" members are defined as everyone on the journalism side of the paper, from editorial board members down to spot photographers, stringers, and copy boys (do they still have copy boys?).
62. Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times. . . .
63. Staff members may not themselves give money to, or raise money for, any political candidate or election cause. . . .
Similarly, the Los Angeles Times prohibits staff members from contributing to candidates: "Staff members may not engage in political advocacy – as members of a campaign or an organization specifically concerned with political change. Nor may they contribute money to a partisan campaign or candidate."
The Detroit Free Press, preferring "plain language", prohibits such staff involvement and specifically requires disclosure:
6. We are independent and we serve the publicSmaller publications, such as the Virginia Pilot and The Pocono Record similarly prohibit political donations by the staff of the paper. Kim de Bourbon, editor of the Pocono Record, takes a the classic line with her paper. In email correspondence with the Slob, Ms. deBourbon made it plain everyone on her paper -- from the publisher down to the beat reporter -- is prohibited from contibuting to political campaigns.
We stand on guard for the public interest.
We champion the people’s right to know.
We serve the public best by fiercely protecting our independence and our reputation. We do not engage in outside activities that could conflict with our duty to the public or lessen the value of our services to the Free Press.
We do not work for pay or as a volunteer in a political campaign or organization. . . .
We do not participate in political activities that diminish our usefulness to the Free Press or could be perceived as a conflict of interest.
We publicly disclose when we have relevant personal or corporate involvement in anything we cover or publish, including when a staff member has a substantial relationship with a person cited in the coverage. . . .
As she notes, in a small community, and as the only daily paper in town, that policy could result in some difficulty, but they maintain it in order to protect the integrity of the newspaper:
[N]ews employees and all senior managers should refrain from partisan political activity. As editor, I interpret that to include contributions to political campaigns, and all newsroom employees are expected to refrain from local political contributions. That said, this is a small town, and last year we had to deal with two staffers who had relatives running for office. Our editorial page editor’s husband and a news reporter’s brother both ran for judge in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, and both were elected. It is beyond reasonable to expect that these two employees did not support their relatives’ run for office, although I’m certain neither made individual financial contributions to their campaigns.(I happen to have a great deal of respect for the Pocono Record. As Ms. de Bourbon mentions, it is a small town newspaper and they clearly understand that role. They do a marvelous job covering their small corner of the world and have been rightly recognized by their peers for their work. Their editorials, whether on local business development issues, school board politics, of national scandals, are generally clear and well written, lucidly conveying the insights of their editorial board.)
An alert observer will have noticed more sensitivity to these issues over the recent years -- an increasing number of newspapers have public editors or ombudsmen serving as in independent eye on the independent eye. You've also seen an increase in "disclaimers" -- alerts to viewers and readers of an affiliation of possible conflict between the news media and the subject of the report.
The News Hour on PBS will introduce a report on BP officials testifying before Congress with a disclaimer that BP is a sponsor of the show; Keith Olbermann will remind viewers of his bosses' relationships with GE when reporting on an issue affecting GE's interests; ABC news, reporting on the struggles within the Disney Company, reminded viewers of the relationship between the broadcaster's owners and the Mouse House; the same when CBS reports on Viacom.
Does Jim McNeil do this because he thinks his reporter was influence in the coverage by the fact that BP was an advertiser?
Is Olbermann afraid that his report might be affected by his bosses' bosses' boss?
Or does Bob Schieffer worry that the correspondent colored the reporting because Viacom is ultimately responsible for the correspondents' paycheck.
Not hardly. Yet they still do it. Why?
Because they are responsible journalists who realize that it is important to disclose, up front, any information which might be reasonably viewed as a potential conflict, a potential relationship between the object of the coverage and the entity doing the covering, or any information which a critical consumer of the information might want to have in order to reach an informed judgment on the credibility, motivation, or completeness of the report or expressed opinion. It is to protect the integrity of the newsreporting and that kind of disclosure is something that all responsible, ethical journalists routinely provide the consumers of their reports.
Such disclosure is not limited to "objective" news reports, either.
Just as the consumer is entitled to believe, and will in all likelihood believe, that there is no undisclosed relationship between the "news" and its object, they will also assume that an "opinion" is one derived honestly and without the impact of any undisclosed relationship.
A food critic does not review the restaurant owned by his editor's spouse; nor a theater critic a play in which his publisher has invested money. At least honorable journalists don't engage in that conduct and, if the relationship is unavoidable, they disclose the relationship up front.
That is, unless you live in a place where integrity -- in appearance or actuality -- is undervalued. Where ethics are no more than the punch line to a joke.
A place like, Scran'en, Pennsylvania.
There, the current iteration of the Lynett Family gives the finger to ethical journalists everywhere. We've briefly reflected on this before, in "A Matter of Integrity, "Scranton Newspapers Continue Unethical Practices", and "They Just Can't Help Themselves".
The Lynetts, publishers AND editors of the Scranton Times "family" of newspapers -- including the Wilkes-Barre Citizen's Voice, and sundry smaller publications and media outlets, have donated HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars to Casey campaigns over the years.
Since the Casey-Santorum Senate race began, they have published over 600 articles covering the race. But only rarely is the Lynett Family's financial stake in Casey ever mentions (twice that I could find) -- and then not as a disclaimer, but only when it was an unavoidable part of teh coverage. (Some will be quick to claim a difference between restrictions on a publisher and on the staff. There may be some validity in that claim, where a publisher is merely a remote owner, without even an office in the building, turning over all editorial control to professional journalists. I would disagree, but that is not even the case here. First, the Lynetts are members of the Editorial Board, they are involved in the journalism side of the business. Second, they are not distant owners, they are on site, integrated into the paper's operations. They sign the checks.)
Lynett/Casey Campaign writers, like Borys Krawczeniuk, are easy mouthpieces on whom the Casey team can drop some talking points and have them repeated as supposed independent analysis to the readers of the Lynett rags.
For example, in over fifty columns touching on some part of the campaign, Borys has failed to once tell his readers that his bosses have a huge financial stake in the success of Bobby Casey.
From all appearances, he has been actively supporting the Casey candidacy -- no doubt pleasing the caporegime in the Lynett Family. (During the primary he barely mentioned the Casey opponents -- despite having had an extended face-to-face interview with Pennacchio, he never even filed a report. He never used a single Pennacchio or
He most recently displayed his faulty ethics in a column touting the FEC's rejection of a Republican complaint that the newspaper's self-advertising violated election laws.
At the beginning of the campaign, the clever Lynett boys put up billboards all over Scran'en. They advertised their rag and included a huge reproduction of a portion of the front page of their paper. What was unusual was that, instead of taking a real front page, they forged one -- and featured a fake story and headline on Bobby Casey. The Republicans cried foul. The FEC recently decided in favor of the Lynett Family (but has published neither the complaint nor the decision on its website).
Dutifully, Borys (who cares more about me spelling his name correctly than about ethics in journalism), trotted out a double BJ piece, satisfying his bosses and their bought man.
In that column, he treated the huge contributions by the Lynetts to Casey campaigns over the years as merely a GOP allegation, denied by the bosses:
As evidence, the GOP cited tens of thousands of dollars in contributions by the owners of the newspaper, the Lynett family, to Mr. Casey’s campaign, those of other Casey family members and other Democratic causes.A casual reader is presented with Borys's "objective" column setting out mere allegations and denials.
From the beginning, Mr. Lynett and Mr. Beaupre denied advocating Mr. Casey’s candidacy or coordinating with the Casey campaign.
But Borys could have, very simply, made it clear to his readers that the "allegations" were in fact true. Instead, he tells his readers that "Mr. Lynett . . . denied advocating Mr. Casey's candidacy".
A real reporter, with a real newspaper, with real ethics, would have followed up that ridiculous claim by Lynett with something like, "But, Mr. Lynett, how can you say that you do not advocate Mr. Casey's candidacy when you gave him $1,000 on June 29, 2005, another $2,100 check the same day, and $400 more this year?"
A real, ethical journalist would have pointed out that the objective facts show Mr. Lynett to have lied when he claimed not to support Casey's candidacy.
Instead, this tool, this fraud of a journalist, on a fraud of a newspaper, let his readers believe in the lie -- nothing to concern yourself with here, folks, it's all simply the yin and yang of political allegations and denial.
Over six hundred times the Lynett Family has presented the public with articles about the Senate campaign. It is bad enough that they feel themselves above standard ethical practice by shoveling so much money into the pockets of a Senate candidate, but they give the finger to ethical journalists everywhere by lacking the decency to disclose the conflict to readers.
Journalists have sat in jail for principle.
Journalists have died to get the story.
Courageous journalists have been killed because of their story.
People like the Lynetts and their errand boys, like (but not limited to) Borys, don't deserve the honor of being called journalists.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
They Just Can't Help Themselves
Bob Casey's Scranton office has issued another newsletter (a/k/a The Scranton Times-Tribune). As usual, the Times-Tribune, whose owners and editorial board members have plunked hundreds of thousands into Casey campaigns over the years -- including that of Casey's brother -- elected to ignore basic ethics by not even bothering to disclose their conflicts of interest. This time it is a puff piece on an old story by Casey Times-Tribune staff writer Borys Krawczeniuk.
The Casey campaign has been savaged in the blogosphere over the last week (see, for example, "Bob Casey is a Fucking Idiot") after it was learned that the campaign returned a donation from a gay sex columnist who has been waging a war against Santorum. Krawczeniuk gave his bosses's favorite acquisition plenty of column inches to prattle on sanctimoniously about why they gave the money back. But, as befits a house organ, Krawczeniuk never asked Casey about some of the other questionable dollars his campaign happily accepted.
Casey never had to explain to Krawczeniuk why he didn't give back any of the money he took from Jack Abramoff's partners, good 'ole Boris didn't ask Casey about all those hundreds of PACs who gave money to both Santorum and Casey, he didn't ask him about why he was so high up on the list of recipients of money from lawyers and lobbyists, and he never asked him about taking money from a disbarred New York lawyer, sex offender, and felon.
Nope, that would have been against his bosses's interest -- you don't pour that kind of money into a candidate and allow your employees to cover him objectively, like he was just any other candidate. You don't, unless of course you run a real newspaper that follows standard journalistic ethics.
But, hey, its Scran'en. Ethics, schmethics.
The Casey campaign has been savaged in the blogosphere over the last week (see, for example, "Bob Casey is a Fucking Idiot") after it was learned that the campaign returned a donation from a gay sex columnist who has been waging a war against Santorum. Krawczeniuk gave his bosses's favorite acquisition plenty of column inches to prattle on sanctimoniously about why they gave the money back. But, as befits a house organ, Krawczeniuk never asked Casey about some of the other questionable dollars his campaign happily accepted.
Casey never had to explain to Krawczeniuk why he didn't give back any of the money he took from Jack Abramoff's partners, good 'ole Boris didn't ask Casey about all those hundreds of PACs who gave money to both Santorum and Casey, he didn't ask him about why he was so high up on the list of recipients of money from lawyers and lobbyists, and he never asked him about taking money from a disbarred New York lawyer, sex offender, and felon.
Nope, that would have been against his bosses's interest -- you don't pour that kind of money into a candidate and allow your employees to cover him objectively, like he was just any other candidate. You don't, unless of course you run a real newspaper that follows standard journalistic ethics.
But, hey, its Scran'en. Ethics, schmethics.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Scranton Newspaper Continues Unethical Practices
Bobby Casey's hometown newspaper is also a major funding source for him and, from all appearances, his campaign's personal newsletter. The owners of the paper have purchased Casey's loyalty with hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations over the years. We've discussed this before in "A Matter of Integrity". The Scranton Casey campaign chief writer is Borys Krawczeniuk, and he's done it again.
Contrary to fairly-well settled journalistic ethics, members of the Scranton Times-Tribune's editorial board, and their families, have funneled tons of cash into Pennsylvania's perennial candidate's pockets over the years. This alone is a blush-inducing violation of the most basic of rules.
But they compound that by hiding from their readership their conflicts of interest in covering Casey campaigns -- itself yet another ethical lapse.
But, as I have pointed out before, they are in NE PA where, apparently, ethics are merely a punch for local jokes.
Your Slob has corresponded with Mr. Krawczeniuk on the matter and asked him whether it would be better if the Scranton Times-Tribune routinely carried a disclaimer on their coverage of their favorite donee.
Mr. Krawczeniuk's response?
I spelled his name wrong.
Like I said, NE PA.
Contrary to fairly-well settled journalistic ethics, members of the Scranton Times-Tribune's editorial board, and their families, have funneled tons of cash into Pennsylvania's perennial candidate's pockets over the years. This alone is a blush-inducing violation of the most basic of rules.
But they compound that by hiding from their readership their conflicts of interest in covering Casey campaigns -- itself yet another ethical lapse.
But, as I have pointed out before, they are in NE PA where, apparently, ethics are merely a punch for local jokes.
Your Slob has corresponded with Mr. Krawczeniuk on the matter and asked him whether it would be better if the Scranton Times-Tribune routinely carried a disclaimer on their coverage of their favorite donee.
Mr. Krawczeniuk's response?
I spelled his name wrong.
Like I said, NE PA.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
A Matter of Integrity
Today's Scranton Times contains a piece by Borys Krawczeniuk on the huge amounts of corporate PAC, lobbyist and lawyer moneys pouring into the Santorum and Casey campaigns. (That's nice, but we and many others have covered that before.) It is what the article doesn't say which is galling. In a supposed "investigative" report on the money ties these two professional politicians have, nowhere is there any mention of the hundreds of thousands of dollars which the owners of the Scranton Times have shoved into Casey's pockets over the years.
It is unusual, to say the least, for owners and editors of newspapers to be so heavily invested in a political candidate which their papers is supposed to objectively cover. A search of the FEC database reveals zero contributions to political candidates from any of the other NEPA newspaper owners, editors and reporting staff. Besides handing over wads of cash, and never providing a disclaimer to their readers, the owners of the Scranton Times have also engaged in dubious advertising of their newspaper which featured falsified headlines touting Casey, which some have said were illegal campaign donations.
All that is fine and, while giving tons of money to a politician is more than a little questionable from the standpoint of journalistic ethics, it is (mostly) legal. But for the Scranton Times to pretend to objectively cover the Senate Race without disclosing to their readers the stake that the ownership of the newspaper has in the outcome is journalistic fraud. They should be ashamed, except they are from NEPA where we hear that such things are rather routine.
It is unusual, to say the least, for owners and editors of newspapers to be so heavily invested in a political candidate which their papers is supposed to objectively cover. A search of the FEC database reveals zero contributions to political candidates from any of the other NEPA newspaper owners, editors and reporting staff. Besides handing over wads of cash, and never providing a disclaimer to their readers, the owners of the Scranton Times have also engaged in dubious advertising of their newspaper which featured falsified headlines touting Casey, which some have said were illegal campaign donations.
All that is fine and, while giving tons of money to a politician is more than a little questionable from the standpoint of journalistic ethics, it is (mostly) legal. But for the Scranton Times to pretend to objectively cover the Senate Race without disclosing to their readers the stake that the ownership of the newspaper has in the outcome is journalistic fraud. They should be ashamed, except they are from NEPA where we hear that such things are rather routine.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Scranton Newspaper Family's Questionable Campaign Donations to Bob Casey Jr
The blogsphere has long noted how Bob Casey Jr receives questionable advertising support from his hometown newspaper. His opponents have also noted how the MSM seems to ignore them.
But a look into the FEC reports filed by the Casey campaign and gathered at OpenSecrets.Org, show more than Casey's opponents are being ignored by the owners of The Scranton Times-Tribune.
The Lynett family, which owns and operates the Scranton paper, have made huge campaign donations to the Casey campaign. One would think that a multi-generational newspaper family would have developed the notion that journalistic integrity requires some separation from the political process. But, remember folks, they are in Northeast Pennsylvania -- Luzerne, Lackawanna and Pike counties don't exactly scream ethics and integrity when it comes to politics, business, or, apparently, journalism.
So, give them a pass on ignoring a basic precept of professional ethics.
But, even a cursory glance at the information collected from the Casey FEC reports appears to show that the Lynett family and the Casey campaign have already given Casey more than the law permnits for the Primary campaign. The FEC says that the law limits an individual to a maximum campaign donation of:
$2,100 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee. Notice that the limit applies separately to each election. Primaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections.But the Casey reports show that, among the about $15,000 which the Scranton newspaper owners shoveled to Casey, George Lynett gave $3,100. He did it on the same day but in two separate checks. And, t it is ALL in the FAMILY. George has a sister, Cecelia Haggerty, in Dunmore. She "only" gave $2,100 -- within the legal limit. But a lawyer named James Haggerty, also in Dunmore, gave Casey $3,100 -- again in two separate checks.
Now technically, if the individuals intended the excess donations to be used for the General Election, this isn't a violation of the law. This is because individuals can donate $2100 for the primary and $2100 for the General Election. (When Casey loses the Primary, he has to give to back. But, if he should defeat Chuck Pennacchio, then he can carry over the excess.) But one wonders, if there was nothing illegal about what they were doing, why did they go to the trouble of dividing the contributions up into separate checks?
Tell me again how Casey is going to be able to call Rick Santorum out on ethics?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
