In a move certain to shock no one, the San Jose Mercury News endorsed prosecutor Jeff Rosen over incumbent Dolores Carr in the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s race.
Of Rosen, the newspaper said: “He’s an excellent candidate.” The incumbent, on the other hand, “lacks the moral compass and clear judgment” to do the job.
The column on its Easter Sunday “Opinion” page echoed themes from its recent news coverage, which has prominently covered Rosen’s campaign and Carr’s missteps.
Managerial experience, ability to meet county budget reduction targets or public safety issues went unmentioned as campaign issues in the editorial endorsement, as the daily framed the race in the same manner as challenger Rosen’s campaign, declaring, “There is only one issue in the race for Santa Clara County district attorney this year: ethics.”
Rosen, it said, has a “sterling record of prosecutorial skill and personal integrity,“ overlooking its own prior reporting. In 2006, the Mercury News cited one of Rosen’s cases as an example of prosecutorial misconduct in its “Tainted Trials, Stolen Justice” series.
The daily newspaper took Carr to task in its endorsement for boycotting a judge who issued a ruling unfavorable to the District Attorney’s office and for Carr’s shifting positions after her husband’s paid consulting work for a murder victim’s family created a conflict of interest for the DA’s office. After the $14,000 contract with ex-cop John Carr came to light, Carr’s office recused itself and handed off the case to the state attorney general’s office, and funds were returned to the family.
The Mercury News’ published recommendation was silent on the subject of the Rosen campaign’s unauthorized use of its archival material on its website—while it quoted use fees of $1,855 per article to Carr’s campaign. The Carr campaign has called the use of the copyrighted material an illegal $17,000 campaign donation to Rosen.
“How did they feel about Rosen’s theft of their material when he went in for the editorial interview?” one Carr supporter wondered. “Did they ask him for a check on the way out?”
The Mercury News commits its second clear-cut violation of journalism ethics today in its pompous and wordy endorsement editorial.
Remember the first violation? The Merc quoted a member of its own editorial board, Michele Lew, in a news story without disclosing her relationship to the paper. That was documented back on March 18 in comments about a story by The Fly.
Today the big puffed-up, deliberately one-sided editorial criticizes the incumbent DA for talking with an attorney who just happens to be the attorney for the Merc, and somehow the editorial fails to mention its own close relationship with the attorney in question.
Well, the Mercury News speaks correctly when it says today, “There is only one issue in the race for Santa Clara County district attorney this year: ethics.”
Unfortunately for the Merc, that sound of a gun shot you just heard was the Merc shooting itself in the foot with its own closely held allegiance to no ethics, no disclosure, and no transparency.
Great job on this article FLY! The Merc wouldn’t know how to publish the facts if you gave them a step by step “How to” booklet!
Is there a “Journalism for Dummies” volume?
Once, there was at least a pretense at the Mercury News of separation between news and opinion. They had separate staffs to do the reporting and write the editorials.
This appears to be no longer that case. The news reporting has no ethics or pretense of fairness or objectivity. This is agenda journalism, pure and simple, with the coordinated activities of the opinion and news staffs (if they are indeed even separate still) playing by the same playbook.
“Once, there was at least a pretense at the Mercury News of separation between news and opinion.”
That was a LONG time ago
Fly sayeth:
> Rosen, it said, has a “sterling record of prosecutorial skill and personal integrity,“ overlooking its own prior reporting. In 2006, the Mercury News cited one of Rosen’s cases as an example of prosecutorial misconduct in its “Tainted Trials, Stolen Justice” series.
Nice work, Fly. An excellent “gotcha”.
No one deserves it more than our local metropolitan newspaper named, appropriately, for a toxic chemical.
Barbara Marshman, San Jose Mercury News Opinion Pages Editor, undoubtedly commanded that the following editorial cartoon be published and distributed to the Mercury’s dwindling readership:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/tomtoles/2010/03/trouble_brewing.html
Employing cartoonist Tom Toles as her sock puppet, Marshman’s unseen, non-moving lips insinuate malignantly to the community that the “Tea Party” movement is, ominously, linked to “violence”.
Those involved in the Tea Party movement are citizens of a Constitutional Republic with an established Bill of Rights, and are empowered to petition their government for a “redress of grievances”.
If Barbara Marshman cared about the Constitution, or the rights of American citizens, or the grievances they are petitioning their government to redress, she would be publishing their “Bill of Particulars” against the government.
Instead, she suppresses their collective and individual voices, and defames and maligns them by means of vague, malicious innuendo as somehow consequentially associated with “violence”.
Perhaps its a bit unfair to actually SAY that Barbara Marshman is a Pig.
Mirroring her approach, it is probably only appropriate to suggest that she is linked to piggish elements.
Interesting attack on Marshman. I guess it doesn’t bother you that your tirade is based on a premise that appears not to have a factual thread in it.
You say “…Barbara Marshman, San Jose Mercury News Opinion Pages Editor, undoubtedly commanded…” yet you don’t have the slightest idea if she did or not. She is not the one who drew the cartoon, she is not even the one who has linked the Tea Party to violence—they have done that themselves, yet you say it was Marshman who “commanded”.
Obviously you have your own agenda and you certainly aren’t going to let facts get in your way. And you condemn the Mercury. Nice going.
> You say “…Barbara Marshman, San Jose Mercury News Opinion Pages Editor, undoubtedly commanded…” yet you don’t have the slightest idea if she did or not.
Of course. Of course.
Barbara doesn’t command anything. She just makes suggestions and the printers in the press room decide whether or not they want to print it.
You went to a California public school, didn’t you.
> Interesting attack on Marshman.
Piggy:
You got it! It WAS an attack on Marshman, and it WAS interesting.
You’re a genius!
If the McNews and Marshman want to go after the Tea Party group – maybe they could at least show some objectivity – for example we heard pleanty from Code Pink when they went after Bush for bombing civilians but nothing about what the current administration which is doing precisely the same thing
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/world/asia/05drones.html
Does the McNews have an agenda? Just asking.
Hugh
According to Pigg Malion:
> You say “…Barbara Marshman, San Jose Mercury News Opinion Pages Editor, undoubtedly commanded…” yet you don’t have the slightest idea if she did or not. She is not the one who drew the cartoon, she is not even the one who has linked the Tea Party to violence—they have done that themselves, yet you say it was Marshman who “commanded”.
Obviously you have your own agenda and you certainly aren’t going to let facts get in your way.
Oh. So you’re saying that Barabara Marshman DIDN’T command that the Tea Party sliming cartoon be published on the editorial pages of the Mercury News?
You must be a Mercury News insider to have this inside scoop.
Well, then, if Barbara Marshman, who is nominally the Opinion Pages Editor DOESN’T control what appears on the Opinion Pages, and cannot “command” that an editorial cartoon by published on HER pages, then she is essentially powerless.
Does this mean, then, the Barbara Marshman is just an ornamental gender token put in place by the male patriarchy at the Mercury News but not given any decision making authority or any power?
Barbara Marshman is being held hostage by the corporate titans of Big Newspapering.
She is undoubtedly being silenced and prevented from speaking out on her own behalf.
It is time to liberate her from the chains of corporatist servitude.
FREE BARBARA MARSHMAN!
It was actually a pretty good cartoon that appeared in numerous publications. Since the Tea Party is comprised of the lunatic fringe who like to wear weapons at Starbucks and other public venues, it certainly is an appropriate cartoon. Of course, the verbal nonsense from some Tea Party organizers and members is also inciting violence.
Obviously, the cartoon was right-on since it seems to have spun up the local lunatic fringe.
Good job SJM.
” Since the Tea Party is comprised of the lunatic fringe who like to wear weapons at Starbucks and other public venues,…”
Thomas:
Would those be Second Amendment protected weapons that those citizens would be “wearing”? And, FYI, most armed citizens “bear” their arms rather than “wear” them.
People “wear” noserings; they “bear” arms.
By the way, how are Sally and the kids?
Who really gives a crap if someone wants to wear a pistol strapped to their belt when they go to Starbucks? As long as they don’t fire the damn thing, I couldn’t care less. In a free country, it ain’t some big deal if some person wants to ostentatiously wear a sidearm. We might roll our eyes and snicker behind their back a little, but we certainly don’t worry about it. Mellow out, dude. The big bad militia men aren’t coming for you.
If being pro-2nd Amendment is “right-wing,” then that says something nasty about the left. Personally, I favor all ten articles of the Bill of Rights, not just the ones I associate with my particular partisan affiliation, or whatnot.
Wrong again, DaDa. But I won’t get into a duel of wits with you—it is not fair against an unarmed opponent. Suffice it to say you seem to be comfortable railing against a newspaper for their perceived sins, yet you have no problem spouting off your opinion without the facts to back it up. Maybe you didn’t go to school at all?
Dear Pigg-ee:
You’re really Barbara Marshman, aren’t you.
> But I won’t get into a duel of wits with you—it is not fair against an unarmed opponent.
Throwing down your arms and running off to Canada?
Even though it might be unfair of me to do so, you deserve to be shot in the butt anyway.
Tea Party violence? Baloney.
But journalists – that’s an entirely different kettle of fish. Consider.
– http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/01/entertainment/main5357314.shtml
– http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/10/13/rick-sanchez-of-cnn-ran-over-a-man-then-fled-the-scene-two-hours-later-sanchez-was-still-drunk/
– http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304636,00.html
– http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535463,00.html?test=latestnews
– http://www.wor710.com/pages/6426664.php?
– http://www.kboi2.com/news/15445971.html
– http://www.projo.com/news/content/BEACON_ARREST_04-07-07_U055N96.331a748.html
– http://www.590klbj.com/News/Story.aspx?ID=1075178
– http://news.therecord.com/article/514443
And always remember these safety tips when dealing with journalists.
– If approached by a reporter, do not run straight for home unless help is available. Go to an area where there are other people around.
– When being interviewed, do not overdress, and avoid wearing jewelry.
– Take care not to be interviewed near cars parked at the curb or close to doorways or shrubbery, which could conceal an ambush.
Lots of free time today, Novice?
Some Practical Tips For Dealing With Reporters
Reporters have a bipolar disorder. At first, they will be charming but the minute the camera or recorder is on they turn into a demented smear artist.
Don’t believe the interview is over when they turn off the recorder and say something like, “Well, how did that go?” because that is just to get you to let your hair down, and then they gotcha. Remember that you are on the record when they come into view until they depart physically.
Watch out when they ask you if you are a child molester because when you say “No I’m not,” they’ve got you in a denial which will be the first sentence in the article: “So-and-so denies child molestation allegations,” and you’ll be dazed and confused as to how easy it is to insert a slander in the very first sentence, even as a denial. Propinquity is what they seek—your name near the words “child molester.” Then they’ve done their job.
The final thing to remember is that they will attempt to distract you from your major points, so always be prepared with two or three cogent things to say and answer their off-the-wall questions with your own points.
You don’t have to answer loaded questions.
You should never answer questions with a simple yes or no, because they get to put their question in your mouth as a quotation from you.
Don’t argue because they will then characterize your manners as explosive, angry, or evidence of an episodic outburst disorder.
They’ve got a trick for everyone. They’re not on a search for truth.
Vote for Rosen, if you believe Mercury’s ” Tainted News, Stolen DA Campaign series” and want Mercury to run District Attorney’s office
Rosen’s campaign slogan – “I don’t need any staff management, budget or public safety experience, the Mercury’s Editorial Board will tell me what to do”
[Please delete my previous post. It was a shameless ripoff of an internet blog.]
Drivers are stuck in Interstate 880 traffic jam going towards downtown San Jose. Nothing is moving.
Suddenly a man knocks on a driver window and he rolls down his window to asks: ‘What happened? What’s the hold up?’
‘Terrorists have kidnapped Mercury Editorial and News reporters and are asking for a $1 Million ransom or they are going to douse them with gasoline and set them on fire. We are going from car to car, taking up a collection.’
The driver asks, ‘On average, how much is everyone giving?’
‘About a gallon.’
Thanks for adding to the childish level of discussion on this topic. I didn’t realize so many kids played on this site but it certainly explains the mindless content so many have posted regarding this subject. Back to the video games, kids.
Oh, and a few of you might want to actually be trained as a journalist so maybe you could at least post comments that are somewhat based on reality. The tirades on this site only shine the light on your ignorance and bias and it is not flattering to you.
Thank you for your helpful guidance.
When I grow up, I want to be just like you.
People will think I’m really smart.
You’re welcome. Thanks for proving my point.
So, what’s your point? That its bad to make a joke? Don’t you ever make jokes?
Anyhoo, I voted for Carr in 2006, and I plan to do so again in June. I stopped paying attention to the Mercury News editorial page back in ‘96, when they urged a “No” vote on Proposition 209.
I always thought a joke was supposed to be funny. I guess times have changed.