Over the email Monday night I got an invitation to an “Elections Panel: Issues and Trends” hosted by J.W. August, Managing Editor of Channel 10 News. Channel 10 is an official co-sponsor of this event.
The speakers on the “Expert Panel”? Francine Busby, Democrat candidate for the 50th Congressional District, Steve Freeman, an author of a book that asserts that President Bush stole the 2000 election, Mark Price, a local Republican activist, and Ken Karan, Co-Founder of Psephos and one of the attorneys against Bilbray in Bilbray v. Jacobson. Quite a balanced forum…
It gets better. Who is sponsoring this (besides Channel 10)? Psephos, a left of center election watch organization, PACE, a left of center research center based in Berkeley, www.activistssandiego.org, a “social justice” organization that you’ve got to see to believe, Common Cause, a left of center election advocacy organization, The Peace and Democracy Action Group, the name of which says it all, and our old friend the First Unitarian Universalist Church of San Diego. Not one neutral or center right organization.
Media is already viewed with a highly jaundiced eye by the public. It’s this kind of event, where media personalities and stations show their cards, that demonstrates the public might just be on to something. This is clearly not a neutral discussion by professionals. This is a gathering of San Diego’s left, under the umbrella of Channel 10, being held at Channel 10, with the participation of Channel 10’s Managing Editor.
J.W. August was also the longtime producer and personal
friend of a Channel 10 reporter by the name of :
[Wait for It]
Wait a second are you kidding? Channel 10 and LET ME GUESS none of the other main stream media will cover this. Hey JW THIS is why no one trusts media any more… because ITS NOT HONEST OR NONPARTISAN.
I cannot remember the last time I watched channel 10. Does anybody watch it?
I know J.W. and will bring this to his attention. And I’d also like to bring him a list of neutral, center-right or Libertarian groups willing to sponsor such programs in the future.
Please offer J.W. an opportunity to respond to the above as well.
“Sponsorship” can sometimes mean a willingness to help organize and promote, sometimes it means a financial contribution. In the case of a forum such as this, it shouldn’t cost that much to put on, unless it is a fundraising vehicle for one or more of the organizations. So, dependent on the meaning of sponsorship, some of the organizations from the neutral/center to the right (or perceived as such) typically willing to be involved in community forums include:
-San Diego Rostra (!)
-Lincoln Club of San Diego
-San Diego County Taxpayers Association
-San Diego Tax Fighters
-Several area Chambers of Commerce
-Local Conservative Radio Talk Shows, such as KCBQ’s The Rick Amato Show
-Local Political Parties (if appropriate)
I’ve also seen a number of other business groups and associations involved over the years, like the SD Assoc of Realtors.
I’m sure I’ve missed some other obvious ones. Readers weigh in.
The League of Women Voters has a long history of forums also, although philosophically they lean a “tad” to the left while claiming neutrality, IMHO.
Lastly, an obvious question is that if a left-leaning church such as the Unitarians can be involved, why not a conservative church?
Let’s hope the answer from the current organizers is not that the Unitarians are really non-religious, so they don’t violate anyone’s sensibilities about church and state, while conservative churches do. That would simply be funny.
I’d argue the League of Women Voters is more than a ‘tad’ to the left. For years our candidates attended their forums, which invariably advantaged Democrats via the line of questions, so finally we came to the decision to never have our clients attend their forums. It’s been six years, and I don’t regret that policy for 1 second.
More on topic I’d hope J.W. responds to this, either publicly or privately. This isn’t right.
To my friend Duane:
Do you know what it means when a word, outside of the use of quoting someone, is put in quotation marks, as in “tad”? I think I was being a “tad” facetious about my use of the word “tad.”
I don’t usually comment on anonymous posts, but I’d like to set the record straight.
Psephos is non-partisan. So, it is neither left nor right. Election integrity is a non-partisan issue. The goal of election integrity is to ensure that the results of an election truly reflect the will of the people by requiring that every aspect of an election be transparent. In a democracy, votes must be cast in private and counted in public.
When a news organization provides an opportunity for the expression of divergent views, it does not endorse those views. When the same organization provides a venue for citizens to inform each other about issues facing the community, it is fulfilling a responsibility to the community it serves, not having “friends” over to validate each others’ views.
The election contest I was involved in was not “against” Bilbray. The Elections Code requires naming the candidate who was declared the winner. The registrar of voters was also named in the lawsuit and was intended as the primary defendant. In that case, citizens were justifiably concerned that the election lacked transparency due to the use of privately-owned software recording and counting the votes. That issue is non-partisan, except for the candidate whose “election” is being challenged.
If a balanced panel requires the identity of partisans being on the panel, then the panel had a Republican and a Democrat. It also had a scientist and a lawyer. Organizers reached out to a diverse range of persons, including Rep. Bilbray who had to be in D.C. at the time.
Ultimately, Mr. North Pole’s only criticism is about the make up of the panel which misses the point. The issue is whether or not we have a sustainable democracy, not whether a sufficient number of Republicans or Democrats are on a particular panel discussing it. I only wish Mr. North Pole would have come to the event and shared his views of the elections process. He would have been in a better position to determine whether or not “a neutral discussion by professionals” took place instead of relying on irrelevant labels.
I invite all who read this post to join us in pulling back the curtain on elections that cannot be verified.
You are right. I’m sure the next time around it will be several center right groups at Channel 10.
The fact is Channel 10 yet again was willing to shell out time and money with far left organizations and candidates. Not one center right organization. One patsy Republican.
By the way, I was there, at least in spirit. It was taped. And the taping will be available on SDRostra soon enough.
“The site reflects Carr’s views and does not claim to be politically neutral” from Wiki.
Or maybe, Ken, you’d like to take a look at the bio of the founder of your organization:
http://www.adam-carr.net/biography.html. Gay rights activist. Labor Party activist.
Nonpartisan, maybe. Leftist, certainly.
PS — Really like the tour of 3rd Reich Berlin locations on his home site. Even with the panting apology that he doesn’t share the NAZIs goals… boy its odd that someone would like NAZI monuments so much as to set up a website for them (yes he’s against the NAZIs damn you, but he likes the boots sooooo much).
You continue to miss the point. It would not have mattered to me if the John Birch Society was represented on the panel as long as it embraced, along with 92% of Americans, the principle that citizens have a right to observe every aspect of processing votes.
Community activism does not take place “in spirit” behind pseudonyms.
Yes, I know it was taped. I taped it. If you would like a copy, I would be happy to give you one if you promise that it will be posted prominently on your web site.
There is more than one organization using the name “Psephos.” The local organization is a California non-profit, tax-exempt corporation. The organization you are referring to is not associated with the California group. I don’t know Adam Carr. He is not a founder of Psephos organized in California.
I’m happy to continue this dialogue if you will both identify yourselves and address the real issues regarding transparency in elections. Ad hominem attacks do not advance the debate and only reveal the fatuousness of a position.