Orlando Sentinel's October 16 Editorial.
The Orlando Sentinel recognized that after they mis-reported the OxyContin
pain-killer/street drug articles earlier this year that they would have to
do a better job in the future of reviewing their information before printing
it. Well the future at the Sentinel has once again come and gone. In their
October 16, 2004 editorial titled, "The more answers, the better - Our
position: It's disappointing that so many candidates won't answer questions
on stands.", the Sentinel has once again "Slant-ineled" the information that
they are supplying to the public, information which is even less valid
than from their OxyContin series. First of
all the phrase from their title, "won't answer questions on stands" and their
opening sentence, "Democracy works best when voters can get specific answers
from candidates about where they stand on issues."
shows that they did not even review or cross-check their one and only source,
www.vote-smart.org. On this website, Vote-Smart.org a candidate can
deploy misinformation at almost every turn. First of all the only candidate
prerequisite for answering their questionaire is answering yes to the
following question, "Are you willing to demonstrate a good faith effort
to provide voters with your inclinations on the issues that you will most
likely face on the citizen's behalf?" Their entire web site with all of
its data analysis and categorizations
is derived from compiling these wet-noodle, patty cake 'candidate good-faith
inclinations'. But it goes further for some office holders, such as U.S.
Senators, all you had to do was provide the "issue position" you took at the
time of your last election. Thus if a U.S. Senator up for re-election
wanted to fool the voting public, he could provide a six-year old issue
position to the public, rather than his current position,
and unless you read the questionaire rules, which the
Sentinel did not, you would naturally presume that it is the Senator's
current position. Furthermore you do not have to answer all questions to
pass the questionaire.
You only have to answer 70% of them, which when I was in
school was one percentage point from failing.
Also the Sentinel shamefully used this qualifier, "Among Florida's incumbent
members of Congress, only ..." to shield the fact that both of Florida's
U.S. Senators Bill Nelson and Bob Graham had not filled out the questionaire.
Bill Nelson and Bob Graham are not incumbents because they
are currently not up
for re-election. The Sentinel praises Corrine Brown for filling out the
questionaire but does not even know that she had to sign a humiliating
party loyalty oath which repudiated her First Amendment rights in exchange
for maintaining her party's support.
Finally the paragraph from the questionaire that says it all,
The NPAT has been intensively researched written, and
reviewed by over 100 leading political scientists,
members of the media, and the Project's Founding
Board. It is not designed to commit you to any
specific position. We simply ask that you
demonstrate a good faith effort to address 70% of
the citizens' concerns and utter something,
anything, in response to these inquiries.
The Sentinel's editorial board ends their shaming of candidates with this
sentence, "The results from candidates who cared enough to offer voters
answers are available at www.vote-smart.org or by toll-free hotline
1-888-868-3762."
should more accurately begin,
"The results from candidates
who seized an open opportunity to offer more convoluted mis-information
to the voters
..."
Paid Political Advertisement
Paid For And Approved By British Reformed Sectarian Party
3108 Moss Drive, Cocoa, FL 32922
(321)638-8960