Local paper's "sample" ballot

[manimal]

I find stuff like this absurd and very unethical for a mainstream paper by any standard. Sadly print media is in a death spiral as they fight for relevancy in the new media world. The paradigm of "just report the facts" has been replaced by this......

Within 20 years print media will be just another form of advertising for their online presence.....

 

[Vette73]

My paper does have a big leftist swing and I don't have a problem with them having endorsements.

I would have a severe problem with them having a "sample ballot" with those endorsements on it, it's shady as newspapers frequently report real sample ballots so you know what they'll look like and where to go. Can't you see the difference?

AGAIN its called the PG's (Post-Gazettes) Sample Ballot. Then at the top is says Post-Gazette Endorsments. You have to be a pretty big idiot to not see what it is.

Still waiting for you to show me where you said it was wrong when right-leaning papers do this.

 

[FuzzyBee]

AGAIN its called the PG's (Post-Gazettes) Sample Ballot. Then at the top is says Post-Gazette Endorsments. You have to be a pretty big idiot to not see what it is.

Why not make the front page say "PG's Endorsements" rather than PG's Printable Sample Ballot"?

Besides, wouldn't a ballot include all of the candidates?(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ballot) I think they may mean ticket.

 

[JD50]

It's a good think Marlin never complains about Fox News being biased.

 

[BoomerD]

I got a card-stock sheet in the mail from the AFL-CIO (even though nether I nor my GF are members) with a list of all the candidates they support and encourging me to take the sheet to the polls with me so I know who to vote for.




Guess which party every single candidate they endorsed belonged to... /yawn

I got about a dozen of those dammed things last week. All from various union organizations.

Of course, I'm a registered Democrat and spent most of my working life as a union member, so it's not really a surprise...but come on folks...1 or 2 should be enough...

 

[Vette73]

Why not make the front page say "PG's Endorsements" rather than PG's Printable Sample Ballot"?

Besides, wouldn't a ballot include all of the candidates?(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ballot) I think they may mean ticket.

AGAIN its THEIR sample ballot. Below that is a link to "Generate your own sample ballot here", their words.

If you can't tell the differance then don;t vote. There are enough idiots already voting. Hell if you can;t tell what they have then better yet just run for office, you be a good fit with the Odonnels and Angles.

 

[sactoking]

AGAIN its called the PG's (Post-Gazettes) Sample Ballot. Then at the top is says Post-Gazette Endorsments. You have to be a pretty big idiot to not see what it is.
Still waiting for you to show me where you said it was wrong when right-leaning papers do this.

You mean like the idiots who, every election, say "the ballot was confusing, I didn't know who I was voting for" when there is one name with a GIANT arrow on the left and one name with a GIANT arrow on the right? Pretty big idiots like that? That's like 25% of the population right there so you can see why labeling an endorsement page as a "sample ballot" is unethical.

 

[Vette73]

It's a good think Marlin never complains about Fox News being biased.

Yea as this evil liberal paper that endorsed a Republican (Gov) as the first person on their sheet.

Oh let me guess you have not even looked at it and just ASSuming right?

 

[FuzzyBee]

AGAIN its THEIR sample ballot. Below that is a link to "Generate your own sample ballot here", their words.

If you can't tell the differance then don;t vote. There are enough idiots already voting. Hell if you can;t tell what they have then better yet just run for office, you be a good fit with the Odonnels and Angles.

You're very angry for someone who can't read what the definition of a ballot is.

 

[Vette73]

You're very angry for someone who can't read what the definition of a ballot is.

And you're a big idiot to only see one word from the statement "PG's Sample Ballot".

Its not a blank Ballot, but PGs Sample Ballot. If I said "Jim's Sample Ballot" would you think that is a plain blank ballot or something that Jim wants you to read that is in line with something that want/endorse?

 

[FuzzyBee]

And you're a big idiot to only see one word from the statement "PG's Sample Ballot".

Its not a blank Ballot, but PGs Sample Ballot. If I said "Jim's Sample Ballot" would you think that is a plain blank ballot or something that Jim wants you to read that is in line with something that want/endorse?

Point proven. Thanks.

 

[JD50]

Yea as this evil liberal paper that endorsed a Republican (Gov) as the first person on their sheet.

Oh let me guess you have not even looked at it and just ASSuming right?

I'm not the one comlaining about a news organization being biased, that's you. Oh wait you're defending it this time, my bad.

 

[nick1985]

All of the above conservative posters watch Fox News. Why are we talking about this again?

What do you suggest I watch? MSNBC?

 

[Vette73]

I'm not the one comlaining about a news organization being biased, that's you. Oh wait you're defending it this time, my bad.

So how am i defending a "biased" news org?

AGAIN have you even been to the site and seen their sample ballot?
And by "biased" you mean a paper that has endorsed people from both the R and D party?

 

[spidey07]

So how am i defending a "biased" news org?

AGAIN have you even been to the site and seen their sample ballot?
And by "biased" you mean a paper that has endorsed people from both the R and D party?

You're not getting it. The endorsement, no matter who or party, aren't the problem. Trying to pass it off as a sample ballot IS. When newspapers are a primary source of ballot instructions/assistance, poll locations, etc it is HIGHLY unethical to do something like this because many people will truly take it as a sample ballot and what it is supposed to look like.

Yes, people are that stupid. You're not getting the point of why it's wrong which I'm pounding you over the head with.

 

[Vette73]

You're not getting it. The endorsement, no matter who or party, aren't the problem. Trying to pass it off as a sample ballot IS. When newspapers are a primary source of ballot instructions/assistance, poll locations, etc it is HIGHLY unethical to do something like this because many people will truly take it as a sample ballot and what it is supposed to look like.

Yes, people are that stupid. You're not getting the point of why it's wrong which I'm pounding you over the head with.

AGAIN it is not listed as a Ballot or Sample ballot. Its list as "PGs Sample Ballot". I.e. THEIR ballot not a blank one.


Still waiting for you to point out your threads where you lambasted right wing TV channels and papers for doing the same thing. :whiste:

 

[Moonbeam]

I wonder how long news papers have been endorcing candidates and telling folk who they want you to vote for? Crazy, just crazy this modern world that's gone to hell.

 

[JD50]

So how am i defending a "biased" news org?

AGAIN have you even been to the site and seen their sample ballot?
And by "biased" you mean a paper that has endorsed people from both the R and D party?

Yep, and Fox has both Republicans and Democrats on their network. I guess they're not biased either.

loliberals.

 

[JD50]

AGAIN it is not listed as a Ballot or Sample ballot. Its list as "PGs Sample Ballot". I.e. THEIR ballot not a blank one.


Still waiting for you to point out your threads where you defended right wing TV channels and papers for doing the same thing. :whiste:

The only difference between you and spidey is the color of your jersey.

 

[kranky]

So I talked to a couple friends who work in the media business and all of us agree this is not kosher.

It's fine for a publication to endorse candidates, but it is wrong to call a list of endorsed candidates a "sample ballot". That term is used to represent a list of ALL the candidates and the offices they are running for. None of us can think of an example where the term "sample ballot" was used for anything else. Right below that banner is a link to "Generate your own sample ballot" and guess what... when you follow that link it shows you a sample ballot. All candidates, all offices.

It's wrong of the paper to represent a list of endorsed candidates as a "sample ballot". Liberal, conservative, whatever, it's not appropriate for a newspaper. Doesn't matter if there was any intent to deceive people or not... a newspaper has a responsibility to be clear, and saying on the next page that it was the endorsed candidates does not cut it for me.

I left a message for one of the editors and we'll see what the response is.

Guess I better reiterate that my objection is not connected to any specific endorsed candidate, party, left-wing, right-wing, whatever. It's about journalistic ethics and clarity.

 

[FuzzyBee]

So I talked to a couple friends who work in the media business and all of us agree this is not kosher.

It's fine for a publication to endorse candidates, but it is wrong to call a list of endorsed candidates a "sample ballot". That term is used to represent a list of ALL the candidates and the offices they are running for. None of us can think of an example where the term "sample ballot" was used for anything else. Right below that banner is a link to "Generate your own sample ballot" and guess what... when you follow that link it shows you a sample ballot. All candidates, all offices.

It's wrong of the paper to represent a list of endorsed candidates as a "sample ballot". Liberal, conservative, whatever, it's not appropriate for a newspaper. Doesn't matter if there was any intent to deceive people or not... a newspaper has a responsibility to be clear, and saying on the next page that it was the endorsed candidates does not cut it for me.

I left a message for one of the editors and we'll see what the response is.

Guess I better reiterate that my objection is not connected to any specific endorsed candidate, party, left-wing, right-wing, whatever. It's about journalistic ethics and clarity.

<Marlin>You are a big idiot. </Marlin>

 

[IBMer]

Yep, and Fox has both Republicans and Democrats on their network. I guess they're not biased either.

loliberals.

Right, when Fox was doing the news story on the supposed voter fraud in Nevada, their news caster stated, "Well the voter fraud is really minimal and it really means nothing against the incoming tide". This wasn't a discussion group this was a news caster.

 

[DrPizza]

I received a list of supported candidates from my union. However, in addition to the list, there was a well-reasoned rationale for their choices, including specific past legislation voted for/against, etc. It certainly wasn't "vote for A because we said so." It also listed several races that it said "we don't favor either candidate for these reasons." And "we supported this candidate in the past, but because of this, this, this, and this legislation that the candidate voted against, we no longer support that candidate."

And, the list of supported candidates isn't specific to either party. I apparently belong to a group of intelligent people who expect that the other members of their group are equally intelligent & make informed decisions, rather than the decisions that the majority of Americans are making. i.e. "vote strictly Repub, that'll show 'em" or "vote strictly Dem."