Shoddy Journalism And Cry-Babyism In Newport Beach
Posted by: Jubal | 02/12/2008 4:33 PM
There's an article in today's Daily Pilot that's both an example of poor journalism and an especially virulent strain of loser whinitis. It's a half-baked post-election analysis of the Measure B campaign in Newport Beach. [I was a consultant to the Yes on Measure B campaign, which sought to amend the Newport Beach city charter to require that if a new city hall is built, it must be on a 12.8-acre, city-owned parcel adjacent tot he Central Library. It passed 53% to 47%.]
Let's start with the article headline: "Patrons Insist B Not Bought." A great example of "when did you stop beating your wife?" journalism. A more accurate headline would be a "Election Losers Complain About Being Outspent." Unfortunately, the Daily Pilot takes the sour grapes of the No on Measure B campaign and legitimizes them by treating it as if the No sides complaining were a legitimate political issue. I'm amazed reporter Brianna Bailey and her editor judged this worthy of a story.
I've been involved or watched quite a few campaigns over the last 17 years, and this Daily Pilot article was further confirmation that the No on Measure B campaign was one of the whiniest and pettiest I've seen yet.
Measure B opponents are still upset that Newport Beach resident Jack Croul - a businessman and philanthropist -- wound up giving a total of $670,000 to the Yes on B campaign, and they're indulging in that time-honored ritual of out-spent election losers -- accusing the winners of "buying" the election.
For example:
Newport Beach heiress Audrey Steele Burnand gave the "No" campaign a $125,000 contribution. If she'd decided too go the distance and written four more such checks, would Councilman Curry -- one of Measure B's leading opponents -- have wrung his hands over her attempt to "buy" the election? Would he have urged the "no" campaign to refuse the donations? Somehow, I doubt it. I think Keith Curry would have had no qualms about someone trying to "buy" the election if that donor tried to "buy" it for the "No" campaign.
Accusing the winners of "buying the election" is an exercise in excuse-making by the losers. Too often, reporters get taken in because it's an off-the-shelf article narrative that's easy to write, even if it doesn't hold up under more than a cursory analysis. Take the amount spent, divide it by the number of votes and voila! there's a number we can ooh and aah over. Never mind that it really doesn't mean anything.
The Daily Pilot article even goes on to regurgitate baseless rumors circulated by the No on B campaign that Jack Croul must have some ulterior motive for donating to the Yes on B:
Jack Croul could care less about buying an election. He doesn't need to buy an election. He supported Measure B because he believed in it and thought it good public policy. $670,000 is a huge amount of money to me, but to someone as enormously wealthy as Jack Croul, it just isn't. Him donating that much to a political campaign is probably like me giving $20.
The Yes on Measure B campaign had the advantage of a proposal that made sense to people and enough money to communicate with voters. The No on B campaign had the disadvantage of flip-flopping from one "alternative" proposal to another -- but they had a substantial campaign budget and their muddying of the waters generated a degree of voter confusion that worked in their favor.
Rather than whine about being outspent and continuing to rumor-monger, they ought to grow up and deal with the fact that they lost fair and square.
Let's start with the article headline: "Patrons Insist B Not Bought." A great example of "when did you stop beating your wife?" journalism. A more accurate headline would be a "Election Losers Complain About Being Outspent." Unfortunately, the Daily Pilot takes the sour grapes of the No on Measure B campaign and legitimizes them by treating it as if the No sides complaining were a legitimate political issue. I'm amazed reporter Brianna Bailey and her editor judged this worthy of a story.
I've been involved or watched quite a few campaigns over the last 17 years, and this Daily Pilot article was further confirmation that the No on Measure B campaign was one of the whiniest and pettiest I've seen yet.
Measure B opponents are still upset that Newport Beach resident Jack Croul - a businessman and philanthropist -- wound up giving a total of $670,000 to the Yes on B campaign, and they're indulging in that time-honored ritual of out-spent election losers -- accusing the winners of "buying" the election.
For example:
"Divide the vote total by $700,000 and that's how much they spent per vote," said Councilman Keith Curry at a No on B election night party. "It may be the most spent per vote ever in the United States."Cry me a river, Councilman.
Newport Beach heiress Audrey Steele Burnand gave the "No" campaign a $125,000 contribution. If she'd decided too go the distance and written four more such checks, would Councilman Curry -- one of Measure B's leading opponents -- have wrung his hands over her attempt to "buy" the election? Would he have urged the "no" campaign to refuse the donations? Somehow, I doubt it. I think Keith Curry would have had no qualms about someone trying to "buy" the election if that donor tried to "buy" it for the "No" campaign.
Accusing the winners of "buying the election" is an exercise in excuse-making by the losers. Too often, reporters get taken in because it's an off-the-shelf article narrative that's easy to write, even if it doesn't hold up under more than a cursory analysis. Take the amount spent, divide it by the number of votes and voila! there's a number we can ooh and aah over. Never mind that it really doesn't mean anything.
The Daily Pilot article even goes on to regurgitate baseless rumors circulated by the No on B campaign that Jack Croul must have some ulterior motive for donating to the Yes on B:
Rumors abounded in the weeks leading up to the election that Croul has designs on the old city hall site on Balboa Peninsula. Critics accused Croul of wanting to purchase the property and develop it as condominiums.That's not the first time the Daily Pilot has put those rumors in print, Never mind that the Measure B opponents have absolutely no evidence to substantiate their rumor-mongering -- which isn't surprising because it is a lie. It used to be you had to provide a newspaper with at least some evidence that an accusation had merit. Apparently not at the Pilot.
Jack Croul could care less about buying an election. He doesn't need to buy an election. He supported Measure B because he believed in it and thought it good public policy. $670,000 is a huge amount of money to me, but to someone as enormously wealthy as Jack Croul, it just isn't. Him donating that much to a political campaign is probably like me giving $20.
The Yes on Measure B campaign had the advantage of a proposal that made sense to people and enough money to communicate with voters. The No on B campaign had the disadvantage of flip-flopping from one "alternative" proposal to another -- but they had a substantial campaign budget and their muddying of the waters generated a degree of voter confusion that worked in their favor.
Rather than whine about being outspent and continuing to rumor-monger, they ought to grow up and deal with the fact that they lost fair and square.
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Its amazing how expensive free speech is; as a disclosed consultant on this project, this post is beneath you. Act like you've won before, with grace.
When someone spends more than half a million dollars of their own money on a municipal ballot issue, even in Newport Beach, you bet it's news. I stand by my work, which was ballanced and fair to all parties involved.
Jubal calls out these No on B characters for the slimy conduct, and he's the bad guy? Get a grip, Dan.
Brianna, it's been obvious for weeks Croul was dumping tons of money in this race. Suddenly it's news? Come on.
You even fell for the last minute FPPC complaint manuever to score the late negative story. It's not your fault your a rookie, but you still are. The No on B people spun you like a top.
Good for Jubal for calling it like it is.
Amen, Jubal!
Well stated Jubal. The No on B committee raised thousands of dollars by asking for donations. It would appear they just didn't have enough supporters to go the distance. It is a shame the DP feels the need to cry in their soup.
No one complains or questions motives when Jack Croul generously contributes to community groups trying to control John Wayne Airport, or he offers his restaurant for numerous community events. When they eat his food and drink for free they don't question his motivations. Mr. Croul and Ms. Steele Burnand should be complimented for stepping up for a causes they believe in.
I stand by my work, which was ballanced and fair to all parties involved.
Uh, Brianna, giving someone an opportunity to respond to a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife accusations isn't the same thing as being "fair and balanced." It's superficial, he-said/she-said journalism.
People who live in Newport Beach and saw the enormous volume of mail, sometimes two pieces a day, ubiquitous "Yes on B" signage plastered over all the city medians 4 and 5 signs deep, and the persistent daily phone calls and push-poll surveys, all designed to tell the story that "Newport Saves Millions" by building on park land next to the library, were witness to the power of money in determining the outcome of the election. Jack Croul spent that money because his surveys were showing that the measure was faltering in the last weeks, as people were waking up to the fact that a city hall built in a hole in a hillside was actually not cheaper than the alternatives such as leaving city hall where it is. For him, he can take pride in his buying the election. For the rest us, we can lament that we did not give a clear, less expensive, option, such as the single alternative of leaving it where it has been historically located on the Peninsula. In the end, money talks and **** walks.
But it wasn't just Jack Croul. The Daily Pilot publisher had pumped up Bill Ficker ever since he came out with his proposal to take dedicated park land and carve out a city hall complex in half of it, giving it the fanciful name "City Hall in the Park", when it should have been called "City Hall Instead of the Park" The Daily Pilot's editorial bias could have been as much of a factor as the constant bombardment of visual and audio messages in mailers, signs, and phone calls. I can see how people might subliminally see "Yes on B" after all that garbage.
Yet, the vote was close. The Yes on B folks thought there would be a landslide, but there wasn't. Given the close vote, and the fact that people did not have a chance to vote for the alternative of leaving City Hall where it is, maybe there is an opening for another initiative campaign.