Monday, April 04, 2016

Joplin Globe: Sharrock Dermott is our partner

Just one day before the election, e-mail messages have been sent to Joplin Globe  newsletter subscribers supporting the candidacy of Empire District Electric Company attorney Sharrock Dermott for the Joplin R-8 Board of Education.

The message line reads "Vote April 5th."

The e-mail lists joplinglobe@cnewslocal.com as the sender,followed by the Joplin Globe logo.

Underneath that is a box which reads, "A message from our partner."

The remainder of the message is an advertisement for the Joplin Globe's partner, Sharrock Dermott. At the bottom, it says that the message is paid for by the Committee to Elect Sharrock Dermott with Dermott's fellow Empire District Electric employee, David Layne, listed as treasurer.

While this is undoubtedly simply another way for the Globe to make money, the message makes it appear that Sharrock Dermott has the newspaper's blessing and support, especially when it refers to him as "our partner."

Coupled with the Globe's complicity in keeping its readers from knowing about many of the problems in the school district, including teacher morale issues, droves of teachers leaving the district, and the district's precarious financial situation, plus the Globe's cozy relationship with the Joplin Progress Committee and CART, you couldn't blame anyone for thinking that once again the Globe is trying to put its thumb on the scale and tell its readers what to do and who to support.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

A lot of newspapers would fire the person who sent this email to subscribers. It's a clear violation of the ethical rule that a newspaper must be completely impartial. A newspaper is allowed to endorse political candidates, but not send out an email the day before the election urging readers to vote for a certain candidate. This is completely outrageous, and it leaves you wondering what's going on at the Globe!

Anonymous said...

Have you never heard of advertising? This is a paid email blast from the candidate. They are not endorsing him, but simply saying he is an adverting partner.

Randy said...

In one of the paragraphs above, I noted that this was a way for the Globe to make money, but the designation of Dermott as a partner (which I am sure is simply the phrase that is used for any advertiser does this) does not look good when used for a politician, especially with the Globe's checkered record when it comes to education coverage.

Anonymous said...

Then why did you start your article by saying email were sent supporting the candidacy of Sharrock Dermott?

Randy said...

The e-mails were sent and they did support Sharrock Dermott. That is completely accurate, as is everything else in the post.

Anonymous said...

If I had even a shred of doubt about "not" voting for Dermott, this clinched it. I'm voting Martucci, Musser and Sloan. I knew Chris Sloan years ago and even though at that time he was an egotistical fool, he may have grown up since then. I'm sick of Empire District and area hospital executives controlling everything.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm. In your world how is advertising in the Globe's email blast translate into the Globe supporting the candidate. So in that reasoning does every advertiser that pays for the Globes email blast constitute an endorsement from the Globe?

Anonymous said...

If the email blasts were paid advertising, then it needs to be labeled as such. It was not. It was an email from the Globe asking readers to vote for Dermott.

Anonymous said...

Really vote for Martucci??? Her husband was the attorney that was suing the school district while she was on the board. Conflict of interest perhaps? Have you watched her at the meetings??? No thanks he behavior is very questionable.

Anonymous said...

I don't get emails from the Globe asking me to eat at Logan's or shop at Lowe's. In fact, other than the occasional breaking news email, this is the first one of this nature that I have ever received from the Globe. A newspaper's most valuable asset is its credibility. Why put it at risk over something like this?

Anonymous said...

The screen shot looks exactly like a Globe ad supporting Dermott. Very bad choice, if Dermott approved this.

Anonymous said...

I will not vote for him or Gaarder. I will vote Martucci.
Question: Are we voting for 2 on this? The sample ballot I found says, "2 three year terms."
So I have to pick someone besides Martucci for this part?

Randy said...

There are four candidates for the two three-year positions. The other candidate is Melissa Rodgers.

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm wrong. There are four candidates for the three year term, but only choose one. There are two candidates for the two year terms, but only choose one. There are two candidates for the one year term, but only choose one.

Randy said...

There are four candidates for two three-year positions- Jennifer Martucci, Melissa Rodgers, Sharrock Dermott, and Mary Gaarder.

Two people, Lori Musser and Joe Brown are running for one two-year position.

Two people, Chris Sloan and Carlos Hailey, are running for one one-year position.

The board elects at least two people to three-year terms two out of every three years. The other year, three people are elected to three-year terms.

Anonymous said...

Get your facts straight. Patrick Martucci has NEVER sued the school district. 3 private citizens questioned the County Commision about appointing new board members after the cowards Landis and Steele "resigned". Also, anyone who voted for Jennifer Matucci last election got just what they wanted. Honesty, the questions asked that were needed, and someone who wouldn't take Huff's crap. Now that, is the truth. Something people who oppose her don't know a thing about.

Anonymous said...

Martucci, not just no, but he'll no. 6:35, that is a very ignorant, narrow minded view of life...."now that's the truth. Something that people who oppose her know nothing about." Typical, can't believe someone doesn't see something your way so they must be fools. Just like Turner and his ignorant, dim-witted character attacks on others. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

7:08, people that steal campaign signs and spread lies about someone is what is ignorant and narrow minded. I bet you don't even know her. We'll see tomorrow who's right.

Anonymous said...

7:16, if anyone has really done that....and I doubt it, it falls under the category of dishonest or unethical. Narrow minded wouldn't even apply to that conversation. And by the way, I never said she wouldn't get elected. Just said I actually DO know her...and would never vote for her.

Anonymous said...

Get your facts correct....her husband and her funded the suit...so yes he did. She can't make a decision without her husband telling her what to say. Have you watched the meetings? I have its ridiculous how she acts. The questions she asks it's apparent she is over her head.

Anonymous said...

7:23 I'm sorry that you feel that way. But her signs have been taken. So have others that don't have the support of the previous regime. Pissing match over. Martucci, Musser and Sloan!

Anonymous said...

The only people who have anything bad to say about Jennifer Martucci know that by electing her to the three year term means there is no way in those three years that CJ Huff and his little men will be involved in the school district again. She has brought much needed change to the district and will continue to move it forward. Yes, facts are facts and the fact is she is an intelligent, caring, and prepared board member that the students and teachers are lucky to have on their board. Anyone with a desire to see the school district continue to move in a positive direction should vote the best candidates for the job...Martucci, Musser and Sloan!

Anonymous said...

That is funny, especially the intelligent and prepared statements.

Anonymous said...

I guess we shall see who is intelligent and prepared and who isn't, won't we? Time will tell...

Anonymous said...

Time has already told....sad day for joplin schools if she gets re-elected.

Anonymous said...

I applaud anyone in this day and age who is willing to run for public office and subject themselves to such scrutiny and social media vitriol. Agree or disagree with their politics and question their decisions, but do so respectfully. And if you don't like what you see, run against that person in the next election. If you think you could do it better, prove it.

Anonymous said...

I do so respectfully. Well you got what you wanted good luck. Yes running for public office is no joy ride. My work schedule doesn't lend itself to letting me run for public position. That's why I educate myself on what's going on some I can cast a vote that is based on something concrete. There are 3 people on the school board that have agendas and axes to grind you can see that in how they act and vote. It's a shame more people aren't aware of it.