Tell ABC That Their Debate Was Disgraceful; We Deserve Better

Send them a message HERE

Here's what I sent them:

The debate tonight was disgraceful. America needs substantial debate, not the gotcha politics that we got tonight from George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. I watch ABC because I trust ABC, but this "debate" was painful to watch. I wanted to see their plans for this country, not how they'd respond to manufactured crap. Your job is to add to the debate, not bring it into the gutter. Y'all can do better and your viewers including myself deserve an apology.

Call ABC @ (212) 456-7777 for a live person.

Call ABC @ (818) 460-7477 to leave a message. (This is full I think so use the other number).


Our news outlets are supposed to perform a public service ESPECIALLY those broadcast stations. Really ABC, Come on!

Sid, Vicious

In his unconditional defense of Haley Barbour, Sid comes to a new low.

Loaded questions are expected in journalism and in the courtroom, but they should be identified for what they are.

Sid Salter put together a blog post last week after the Bloomberg article was published. He's called the article "a manufactured story" dismissing it outright and then introduces the tactic, the tool we were waiting for.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

Presenting a question or information that is a red herring to confuse or lead the audience is an old standby. The writer can say he wasn't making a claim or the lawyer can say it was unintentional and even if it is struck it will lead the jury.

In response to an article questioning the Governor's supposedly blind trust and then the information that either Barbour lied about his remaining interest in his lobbying firm when he became Governor or the Clarion Ledger got it wrong; Sid Salter decided to change the subject.

He questions where Bloomberg News got the information and alleges that the Ethics Commission leaked it. He introduces supposed motive for the Director and a member of the Commission, but then says he of course believes them when they say they are not responsible.

No matter what he says after that he knows he has lit the flame of suspicion. Partisan Republican websites now have up posts and polls asking which person is responsible for the leak reinforcing the smear that one of them is responsible.

He knew what he was doing when he wrote that. His intention was and is to deflect any negative attention from Haley Barbour. In that defense he doesn't care who he hurts and he's crafty enough to know how to write his article to introduce the needed information while continuing to appear somewhat hands off.

An interesting point to be made is that one of the folks he attempts to tarnish is the Attorney General's brother and due to a request by the Daily Journal it is now known that Jim Hood has been discretely attempting to settle questions concerning the trust since last year. If they had wanted to make a story out of it he could have. Instead Attorney General Hood has been handling the matter quietly and confidentially in a manner that is commendable.

If Mr. Salter wants to operate as a partisan hack he should be able to, but not under the guise of a non-partisan observer.

Sid Salter: Sloppy or Biased?

In his campaign to tear down the Democratic Party Sid Salter has joined in on a game we'll call "Sloppy or Biased?"

Writing on his blog today he stated that:

My Sunday, July 8 column — written on Friday, July 6 — blasted the state Democratic Party for failing to denounce the Ike Brown debacle in Noxubee County.

By Sunday, Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Dowdy told one of our reporters that he wants Brown to resign as chairman of Noxubee County's executive committee because of the ruling by U.S. District Judge Tom Lee that Brown and the Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee discriminated against white voters and white candidates.

There are several things wrong with this.

1. Democratic State party officals have denounced Ike Brown and even called for his removal.

2. Wayne Dowdy did not wait to respond "by Sunday," he actually called for his removal 2 days earlier. Ike Brown responds Friday to Dowdy's statement which means that Dowdy's statement had to have been before the response. (Anyone in there Sid?)

3. Salter's column Sunday (two days AFTER Democratic State Party Chair Wayne Dowdy called for Ike Brown's removal) wrote that no prominent state Democrats had denounced him. How much more prominent of a Democrat do you want Mr. Salter, really?

Salter states in his defense that he wrote the column Friday for the Sunday edition of the Clarion Ledger, therefore before he knew of Dowdy's statement. Two full days lapsed between the statement and publication though and the Clarion Ledger's own Perspectives Editor didn't know. You'd think he would read his own paper where political reporter Natalie Chandler mentioned Dowdy's comment in an article published in the Saturday edition. In an era of computers and easy corrections all he had to do was a quick re-write or make a phone call. Instead he chose to attack the Democratic party with a charge that is and remains without merit.

In covering up his partisan tracks Sid Salter leaves the question: Is he simply biased against the state Democratic Party or is he also sloppy?

Update 7/11/2007:
Sid Salter responds to some of my concerns here in the comments of his blog. Here is his strongest excerpt in his defense: (It's actually quite reasonable)

But a few facts. The C-L Sunday "Perspective" section containing my column, along with the "Southern Style" section, are preprint sections with a deadline of Thursday at 6 p.m. The section actually prints in the wee hours on Friday morning and then awaits insertion into the Sunday C-L. That's necessary because of the sheer size of the Sunday paper. It's a common practice at large daily
newspapers.

This answers point three and maybe point one.