The Press
Watch
By DON P.
HURLEY
Contributing
Editor
HarryHurley.com
April 14, 2005
For many years now I have seen an assortment of media outlets in our
area, spin, twist and attempt to shape the news in their own way and for their
own purposes in order to suit the moment of the day.
I recently submitted a letter
to the editor, in response to what I believed was an intentionally false and
misleading story in The Press of Atlantic City.
I have included a copy of the
complete text of my submitted letter, as well as the actual (politically
sanitized for their special interests), column which appeared on April 14,
2005. ( Click Here: For the actual and edited letters for comparison )
To edit for space is one
thing, but to protect their allies in government at the expense of the
accuracy in what a letter writer is attempting to communicate with concise
facts, is another story.
So, rather than write more
letters to the editor, (which I have done for more than 25 years), I have
decided to create this new column within this space of HarryHurley.com.
I have entitled it "The Press Watch".
It is within this column that I
will highlight certain media reports, stories, issues or ideas, that in my
view are either being grossly misrepresented, or entirely ignored for
their own agenda.
I have decided to begin
with a recent example of what I believe will illustrate the bias of
The Press of Atlantic City.
I submit that The
Press intentionally planted a false and misleading story with respect to the
Atlantic City PBA and a supposed "endorsement" of Bob Levy for Mayor of Atlantic
City.
This Press story tried to make
the readers believe that a "vast majority of the members of the PBA", voted to
endorse Levy. This was not true.
After further investigation and
confirming with two independent sources, I would like to reveal the
following:
1. There was no proper notice
ever given to members of the AC PBA, that a consideration or vote for
political endorsement for Mayor of Atlantic City was taking place. Not only were
most of the members not noticed, many of the elected Officer's of the PBA
were not even notified, as well.
2. A meeting which was
reportedly "packed" with PBA Members, (as reported by The Press on
4-1-05), actually consisted of 14 members reportedly listed as
"present" on the record.
3. Not knowing
the exact number of members of the AC PBA at this point, (which is
approximately 400 in total), it is not clear at this time whether 14 members is
even representative of a legitimate quorum of members, (that would
be required to take any action or to even have had a meeting
begin in the first place).
4. Of the 14 PBA Members
that were reportedly present at this supposed endorsement meeting, 8 members
voted to "endorse" Levy for Mayor, and 6 members were strongly against an
endorsement and voted no. This was the "overwhelming" support for Levy that was
reported in The Press on 4-1-05. (A True April Fools Day
Joke!).
5. The Press is well
aware of many of these facts, and has intentionally chosen not to supplement
their written record with any update of the facts of this matter. If it was
important enough to report on this "non-event, why isn't it equally
important to set the record straight for the readers? The answer is simple:
this is an obvious effort by The Press to further attempt to reinforce the
false impression that they have
intentionally created.
I ask you, was this a show of
strong support for Levy, as reported in The Press of Atlantic City on
4-1-05? Or, in fact, was this a back-door, phony and political
stunt?
And, when The Press is
willing to go to these lengths to intentionally misinform the public, (in a
matter such as this that can be so easily confirmed with undeniable
facts)...than what else are they telling you that isn't so? This should alarm
good thinking citizens.
The purpose of my letter was to
outline a fraudulent process and also to outline the reasons that Bob Levy
should never even have been considered as a candidate endorsed by the PBA in the
first place.
Levy has a long history as
an antagonist to the PBA and it's real concerns, (as they were outlined in my
original letter). Is it legitimate for The Press to change the true meaning
of a letter writer, in order to protect their political friends and allies.
Especially when this is done, not for purposes of space available, but rather
for deceiving the public?
Please look at the original
letter I submitted to The Press on April 2, 2005, and compare it with the
"sanitized" version that The Press printed on April 14, 2005.
I respectfully request that you
ask yourselves, what is the agenda of The Press in this matter, and whom it
is they are attempting to protect in what they "cut" from my
communication?
Please be on the lookout
for "The Press Watch". It will appear from time to time, as the facts and
circumstances warrant.
Respectfully,
Don