WHEN A POLICY IS A DECEPTION

 

 

By Patrick Farrell – member Joanne Schivley election committee

10/21/11

 

I have recently had an unexpected lesson in how to cover your tracks when you don’t want to allow the free press to operate. The Vallejo Times Herald has for years selectively edited articles to provide a slanted point of view about events in Vallejo. The lack of good, honest, investigative journalism (when one of the favored powers might be offended) has made this paper irrelevant as a partner in the democratic process.

 

I had the displeasure of seeing first hand this bias in action over the past two weeks. The issue brought to light was not and is not the conflict between the Times Herald (T-H) and Mayoral Candidate Joanne Schivley. The issue is the intentional suppression of a paid political advertisement containing nothing more than the public record of taxpayer dollars spent by a council majority. It would seem that the powers that be at the Vallejo Times Herald do not want the public to remember or be reminded of certain past decisions.

As a member of Joanne Schivley’s election committee, I was there to observe this process from its genesis. This all began innocently enough with the usual Times Herald candidate interview on October 3rd. That day, Joanne gave T-H editors Ted Vollmer and Jack Bungart a copy of the flyer that has become the center of the censorship controversy. After the interview, Joanne met with an advertising representative and contracted for the purchase of five front page banner ads.

ROADBLOCK 1

On October 6th at 4:45 p.m., layout etc. with the paper’s Advertising Department on an ad for Sunday, the 9th, showing the Council’s voting record commenced. A publishing date of October 9th was approved by the advertising department – NO MENTION WAS MADE OF A POLICY (fact checking or otherwise). Later, we were told all advertising for Sunday had been SOLD but the Times Herald, could run the ad on Saturday, the 8^th. We were naturally disappointed because a Sunday placement is more desirable. – once again-NO MENTION WAS MADE OF A POLICY.

ROADBLOCK 2

The next day, On October 7th, at 8:28 a.m. we were now told the ad could not run until October 11th or 12^th. We agreed despite our disappointment. Time was running short with the dispersal of absentee ballots. – again-NO MENTION WAS MADE OF A POLICY.

ROADBLOCK 3

Later that morning (Oct. 7), we were informed that the paper now needed to “reformat” the ad. The advertising department indicated that the “reformatting” process was time consuming and would prevent the ad from running on the agreed to Oct. 11 or 12 date. As a retired printer I can confirm that this excuse is nonsense. I adjusted the formatting in ten minutes and informed the T-H that the ad was now ready to print. In the early afternoon of the 7th, the Advertising Manager, Patrice Zettner, informed us the ad WOULD NOT BE RUN without extensive supporting documentation because “that was their policy,” and they had now sold the October 11th space.

A pattern was emerging. When the re-formatting ploy failed to derail the ad from running until after absentee ballots went out, the fact checking policy materialized.

Joanne has stated that in four previous campaigns such documentation has never been requested. She asked how old this policy was and Ms. Zettner replied “I've worked here twenty years, and it's been at least that long.” Joanne asked if this was the case, why did the paper publish six slanderous ads against her in 2001? These ads were proven false by VallejoNews.com, an independent website. The Times Herald obviously never engaged in a fact checking process of the claims made against Joanne and never apologized.

When Joanne requested a copy of the policy Ms. Zettner first displayed reluctance, then displayed resistance and finally grudgingly said SHE WOULD TRY TO LOCATE IT ON HER COMPUTER. A copy of the policy was finally emailed to Joanne at 2:26 p.m. on October 7th - not from Ms. Zettner’s computer but from the Northern California Newspaper Group.

The ad in question, citing the voting record of the City Council, already carried documentation of month and year of each item but this was not acceptable to the suddenly critical Times Herald. They wanted minutes of the meetings and every vote, in the form of new copies of hundreds of pages of publicly available original documentation. They even demanded that Joanne hire a commercial appraiser at her own expense and provide a current market valuation of the property where the new parking garage on Vallejo's waterfront is being built today. Joanne contends, in her ad, that the property was purchased with an overpriced valuation determined by an appraisal from before the real estate bubble burst.

After the Joanne Schivley campaign contacted the First Amendment Project and other civil liberty watch dogs, we decided it was time for the public to know what was happening, and the chilling effect this apparently selective NEW policy was having on free speech. When the press conference was held on Oct. 19th, the Times Herald brought in Matt Miller, VP of Advertising & Marketing for the Northern California Newspaper Group likely to provide damage control. In the October 20th edition of the Times Herald, Mr. Miller stated “Schivley was provided a copy of the paper’s political advertising policy”. Miller had never spoken with Joanne or he would have found out the copy of that policy was not provided until after the ad had been refused, and then only at her insistence. There was no mention of the two days of conversations and commitments from the paper to run this ad with NO MENTION OF A POLICY. Miller and the Times Herald have kept changing the story as to when the policy actually came into being. It went from 20 years from Ms. Zettner, to Miller's two years, to this year, to this campaign. When Miller talked to KGO-TV he said the policy had existed for two years. When the article was written in the Times Herald he said it was this year. He said Joanne has nothing to support her claim. This is untrue. The Joanne Schivley campaign has meticulously kept all emails, phone messages and written correspondence regarding this matter and is holding them at this time while exploring legal options.

Those who fail to gain favor with those in power at the Times Herald have been dealing with this type of situation for years. I submit that this policy was brought out conveniently to cover an agenda. When is a policy not a policy? When it is created to stop honest, important information from being shared with the public.

View Joanne Schivley's refused ad HERE

View the Vallejo Times Herald policy HERE

Comments

Add New Search RSS

subjectTHandantigaymayor   |October.27.2011 Vallejo makes NY Times regarding joanne and the anti gay mayor named Ozz. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/us/schivley-mayoral-candidate-sees-bias-in-vallejo-times-herald-policy?pagewanted=all

Consitutionalist   |October.24.2011 the following is from a article in NY times while it is dated it is profound We have entered an era of constitutional censorship. Hardly anyone wants to admit this -- the legalized demolition of the First Amendment would seem shocking -- and so hardly anyone does. The evidence, though, abounds. The latest is the controversy over the anti-Kerry ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and parallel anti-Bush ads by Democratic "527" groups such as MoveOn.org. Let's assume (for argument's sake) that everything in these ads is untrue. Still, the United States' political tradition is that voters judge the truthfulness and relevance of campaign arguments. We haven't wanted our political speech filtered. below is clear policy from Fresno Bee Any paid political advertisement which refers to an election or to any candidate for state or local elective office and which is contained in or distributed with a newspaper, shall bear on each surface or page thereof, in type or lettering at least half as large as the type or lettering of the advertisement or in 10-point roman type, whichever is larger, the words

wharf rat   |October.24.2011 it would appear Councilmember Schively did everything above board and legal the state requirement for disclosure on all paid adds is boilerplate for all canidates , this should have satisfied the times ho - ho as to any legal issues as it is state law . our first amendment clearly states freedom of speech includes the printed word ( thanks Ben Franklin ) the refusal to print the "paid for add" citing numerous and evolving excuses and then selling the space to another is their down-fall followed by enormous research requirements never before required for anyone this is a clear case of -- censorship -- first amendment violation -- Voter disenfranchisement -- and blatant disrespect toward subscribers .... in a past election the times hobo printed a full page hit job on Rod Boshe for a garbage consortium ( so who has the dirty hands ) Vallejo has a large low income and senior population many have no internet or cable their only source for local news / info is the times hack-job by refusing to run the ( fact based ) add limits this population access to info helpful to them in determining who to vote for this is clearly voter disenfranchisement and a major disservice to our community and our Constitution ....

Anonymous   |October.23.2011 TH policy stinks. But Schivley is running for mayor; she wants to lead us. So, gather the supporters, pull the factual information and give it to the TH. She can still pursue any legal options for TH conduct, if there are any, but she will have more credibility to the residents of Vallejo when she critizes the paper.

Anonymous   |October.23.2011 Nothing new here. The Times Horrid has been advocating and editorializing in their news reporting for many years. More recently, remember the hit piece in PSU-hated Joe Tanner? The "news" reporting on bankruptcy that was just thinly veiled PSU press releases? This newspaper is a joke and an embarassment to journalism. We can only hope they'll go out of business sooner rather than later.

silasbarnabe   |October.23.2011 @FYI LOL! TH: Space sold must reformat ad TH: Now ad is sold again TH: Now provide documentation TH: Please insert another delay teactic here I wonder what would have been next since there were no pre-requisites listed by the TH Ad Department. It seems the TH has an aversion to public record links much like the PSU apologists I have dealt with over the years.

Hypocrites unite   |October.22.2011 I love how you hypocrites are now claiming to come to Shively's defense. All of a sudden you want to save her money and other kinds of things. How thoughtful of you.

FYI   |October.22.2011 The irony would be if the candidate was let's say, Osby, that was submitting an ad without substantiating documentation. You'd be crowing that he needs to follow the policy that is being enforced; and don't make a bigger fool of yourself by stating you wouldn't.

Anonymous   |October.22.2011 I thought we had a Fright Fest already going on at Six Flags. Ms. Schivley will emerge from this artificial huff and puff with far more votes than by placing an ad in a newspaper, that according to the majority on here, is hardly read by the citizenry. Saved some money to be spent somewhere else for what ever. Think about it!

FYI   |October.22.2011 You can't refute what was stated and sound credible, so you get ridiculously defensive and tell people to go away. Do objective views and blatant facts scare you that much? Do you even know if any other candidate has submitted an ad or ads? Your assumptions seem to be splattered all over the place, I'm merely stating facts.

Anonymous   |October.22.2011 If Davis wins the election by just a few votes I will renew my subscription to the news paper prepaid for five years. This will be my thanks for keeping this crack pot out of office.

Avoiding the issue   |October.22.2011 FYI Like most apologists the facts are something to be avoided. 1) A policy was never implemented until Schively wanted to place an ad. In fact discussions about placement were under way before a policy was ever mentioned. 2) The amount of proof ,such as getting an appraisal is unreasonable. 3) Why aren't other types of claims for quake medical things being held to the same standard. 4) Why was no copy of the policy in the TH office if it was being enforced. 5) Why did they they need to bring in someone from corporate to explain their policy. If the TH was enforcing the policy their ad manager should have been able to explain it. 6) I still haven't seen a consistent answer from the TH about the date the policy was created and in what other instances it was enforced. Now run back to Topix where they beleive anything.

FYI   |October.22.2011 Ms. Schivley was never told she couldn't place the ad, she was told she had to have documentation that substantiated the facts in the ad before it could be accepted. If she doesn't come up with the documentation then it's her problem. Seems rather ironic that she is angry no one substantiated prior facts in prior ads, and now she wants to submit unsubstantiated facts herself.

Political ads   |October.22.2011 Ahem I thought that if political ads were being accepted from some candidates they could had to accept all of them unless there was a compleiing reason like slander. In this case the TH tried to avoid this rule. My best guess is that corporate had a policy that they never enforced. Suddenly the Vallejo TH got religion and used it as a way to block Schivelys ad. Who in their right mind beleieves the TH is running out of space for ads. They are barely hanging on by a thread and need all the revenue they can get. When the TH runs ads for various drugs ,medical procedures etc it doesn't appear they are looking for proof that they are effective. But since when has the TH acted like a real newspapaer.

Ahem   |October.22.2011 A paid advertisement is not "freedom of the press." She wanted to PAY for an ad and they did NOT WANT HER BUSINESS. Seems to me "freedom of business" is more appropriate. If they refuse to reimburse her, I would have a problem with that.

PISSED OFF   |October.22.2011 WOW!!! this smells worse than i thought thanks to Patric Farrell for the excellent report when reviewing the time-line it is a no brainer what was really going on the th finally got caught with their pants down the Solano Grand Jury has SUPENA POWERS i hope this info will be forwarded to them the time-line and the absentee ballot schedule could hardly be a coincidence it is obvious to me this was premeditated - planed out - managed as there were many involved it is a conspiracy by accepting money then not delivering services then lying about the whole thing seniors are big absentee voters it would seem these criminal actions were plotted to dilute their votes for Joanne where will the investigation lead to ?? the thing about truth is it always comes out as with sunshine .. it is hard to hide with illumination this kind of crap has been going on too long in Vallejo the th is no longer the only source of news in town a picket line with real news coverage and a boycott are called for these crooks have worn out their welcome it is time for them to pack up and go...

silasbarnabe   |October.22.2011 How convenient when voting records actually chronicle the corrupt activities of the Mayor and the council majority that this year no can publish voting records. In 2001 A Sacremento hit man names Jim Alford was hired by none other than Henke and the IAFF to take out adds in the horrid that were later proven false by the late great Lily Heyen, Vallejonews.coms investigative reporter. I wouldn't call this whining I would call it very suspicious at a time when voting records speak volumes that we have this new rule.

FYI   |October.22.2011 Has any other candidate been allowed to place an ad this election and has not been required to substantiate the facts? If the answer is yes, then the newspaper is biased. If the answer is no, then all Ms. Schivley can complain about is the prior elections in which she felt she was targeted. Until the biased behavior is shown to be active in this election, her complaint is merely whining.

Occupy Times Herald   |October.22.2011 I am ready to protest in front of the Times Herald. It's time to call out the sexism of the old boys network!

Jay   |October.22.2011 Patrick, you should pursue this further up the ladder within the MediaNews Group. Newspapers can't afford to turn away advertising and this is clearly a case of some small-town bullies trying to quash political debate. Someone higher up will be more likely to intervene on your behalf. Start at the top and go for their CEO.

Anonymous   |October.22.2011 "It's simply payback to someone who cannot keep their mouth shut." Wow. Does that statement not say it all? It is exactly what the Horrid is doing: punishing an elected official for having the courage to speak against the corrupt majority. The fact that people think this is ok is truly a sign that our Republic is sick and struggling to survive.

Salty Dog   |October.22.2011 anon says: "You don't answer the question of why she would want to place an add in the "worlds worst newspaper". Your first amendments rights allows you to start your own paper. It does not require the TH to allow you to place an add in their paper, especially after talking krap. It's simply payback to someone who cannot keep thier mouth shut." While the TH may be a private newspaper, it serves the common good of Vallejo. That is, it has some sort of ethical responsibility to be seen as serving the entire community (not unlike the ethical necessity for incumbent Counselors to do the same). It is perfectly within its rights to deny whatever it wishes, but to deny this political ad in an active election period based on a so called "policy", it runs the risk of ruining any thought of fair and balanced publication and contributes to a sense of political machinations. The TH is the loser here, on a number of levels.

Anonymous   |October.22.2011 Those figures don't even count another $1M which was a gift to the Vallejo Police union, while we were in the midst of bankruptcy. Any claims by the union should have gone into the bankruptcy hearings along with every other claim. The negotiator for the deal was hand picked by Osby Davis and rendered a sweetheart deal for the unions once again. This is the corruption that exists in Vallejo currently. Of course the unions have endorsed Osby, he's their bread and butter guy. The guy who brings home the bacon for them. It's time to do away with the old ways of one hand washing the other and do away with the tried and untrue ways of doing business in Vallejo. We just can't afford it.

Anonymous   |October.22.2011 An entire campaign committee of victims, a community of poor me's.

Anonymous   |October.22.2011 You don't answer the question of why she would want to place an add in the "worlds worst newspaper". Your first amendments rights allows you to start your own paper. It does not require the TH to allow you to place an add in their paper, especially after talking krap. It's simply payback to someone who cannot keep thier mouth shut.

Mariner's Landing   |October.22.2011 Hey, JoAnne, I voted for you via absentee ballot last week. When you win, the TH is going to be forced to front page it.

junk mail   |October.21.2011 While I agree with your contention that the TH policy is a sham, based on your well reasoned argument, the notion that anyone at this paper has power, or even any credibility, is not something I subscribe to (nor is their paper). Let them keep up the good work and it won't be long before they're relegated to the long line of news racks offering real-estate brochures and other free kindling.

junk mail   |October.21.2011 "I have recently had an unexpected lesson in how to cover your tracks when you don

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.23

3.23 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."