Should a newspaper give the background of those whose letters are featured in its columns.
While it is obvious from his letters that he is a partisan Republican, there is more than that to Joplin businessman Allen Shirley's devotion to GOP candidates, and readers have every right to know that.
In today's Globe, Shirley wrote the latest in his series of pro-GOP letters, this one boosting the candidacy of Sandra Thomas for state auditor.
I have no problem with Shirley's letters running in the Globe or in any other publication, but they should not run without a disclaimer.
Allen Shirley is not just someone who votes Republican, he is a longtime party official, serving as the local co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign in 2004.
He is also the treasurer of the 129th Republican Legislative District committee, which has invested $1,525 in the Thomas campaign, in the form of $1,275 on Aug. 22 and $250 on Sept. 22, according to Missouri Ethics Commission documents. The deputy treasurer of the 129th District Committee is Victoria Myers, whose father, Joplin CPA Nick Myers, is the treasurer of Sandra Thomas' campaign committee.
In his letter, Shirley examines the contributions to Democrat Susan Montee and finds much that he says is sinister. He also says Ms. Thomas plans to take the politics out of the state auditor's office.
Nowhere does he mention (no surprise here) that Sandra Thomas has accepted $500 from Gene McNary, head of the Missouri Gaming Commission, which will be under her jurisdiction if she is elected and thousands of dollars from those who were chosen to run license fee offices, even though those, too, should be under her watch.
The Joplin Globe has no obligation to make arguments against one of its letter-writers, but it does have an obligation to let the readers know that this is not an ordinary Joplin Globe reader, but someone with a vested interest in seeing a candidate elected.
3 comments:
I think every citizen has a “vested interest” in the election of their representatives. As such, I think we should encourage active participation in the elective process rather then calling into question the character of those who do participate.
If you believe in free speech then let the man talk and if you disagree with the content of his speech then try attacking that rather then the speaker himself.
Also, I should hope the public is intelligent enough to know that anyone who speaks out in favor of any candidate is likely a supporter of that candidate. Therefore, I hardly see the need for the paper to attach a disclaimer warning to that effect. On the other hand, if you think that the “ordinary Joplin Globe reader” is a buffoon, then I suppose they should be warned that a writer of an endorsement comes from someone who endorses that candidate.
I have no problem with citizens actively participating in campaigns. That is a hallmark of our form of government.
I will also concede that anyone who writes a letter favoring a candidate supports that candidate, even though that was obviously not the point I was making.
Allen Shirley is not your typical voter nor even your typical campaign worker. He is the treasurer of a committee that makes a sizable investment in candidates, including Sandra Thomas, and he is a major player in area Republican politics.
To run a letter to the editor by Shirley without running a disclaimer would be like running a letter from the president of a cable television company talking about all that is wrong with satellite dishes without disclosing the writer's occupation.
The ordinary Joplin Globe reader is not a buffoon, nor did I come anywhere close to saying that. I said that the reader should have the benefit of having all of the information available to be able to judge the value of Mr. Shirley's letter.
Your point of view is the one that insults the intelligence of Globe readers.
The difference between your example (cable owner vs. satellite dish) and the case at hand is that you have not made the case that Allen Shirley stands to gain something financially from this election. Rather, as far as I can see, the only thing Shirley has to gain is the election of someone who shares his political point of view. How does that particular interest make him any different from anyone else who votes?
The fact that Shirley is so committed to his point of view that he is willing to commit his time and money to the furtherance of it is in no way synonymous to someone who puts forth a fraudulent argument in order to further an undisclosed economic interest.
In the end all your disclaimer would be saying is that Shirley REALLY supports Republicans. Now, maybe I’m wrong but I still think the simple fact that he is writing in support of a Republican would be a clue to the average person that he REALLY supports Republicans. Ergo, I am willing to assume that people are bright enough to factor that into any editorial or letter to the editor that they read. Apparently, you are not.
Post a Comment