Maybe Buzz already has a buzz on if he thinks it's ok to be a journalist who doesn't pick up the phone to verify facts and then make them public.
So, it's ok for journalists (Hank is still a journalist, right?) to withhold easily verifiable factual information about a candidate for political office? This is not an issue about a private citizen, he is a candidate for supervisor. Therefore, it's even more relevant because he is a candidate and he tried to hide it.
It was relevant news and news that Sundberg had control over. He could have released the news himself. It is also relevant that no one, including his Atty showed up for the hearing. That seems careless for someone who knew he was going to announce for supervisor in a few days.
How do we know that Sundberg didn't release it himself as suggested above? He makes the run off, gets it out of the way before the vote and bashes his opponent all at the same time. Not sure he is smart enough to do that, but it's been done before.
Sundberg is ,as also mentioned above, running as a family man albeit one who drives home smashing drunk to his wife and kids. Relevant for a public figure, no? Doesn't the public have a right to the truth? Seems to me that he was willing to put an awful lot on the line. What if he were 50 y.o. would we look at this the same way? Are we chalking this up to a youthful mistake? If so, maybe he is too youthful to be supervisor.
Reporting on the story now, it would be helpful for your readers to know who DID notify the press of the story and if this incident is part of a pattern or just an isolated incident. Also an what caused no one to show up. Sundberg didn't appear to get that straight in the TS version either.
It seems to me that when the press decides when to release actual news i.e. relevant facts because they think they know what is best for us, the press becomes part of the story as opposed to reporting the story. Reporting the story would also include reporting how it was released. We the reader get to decide its worth, not you.
Bad call, Hank. What other important facts will you hold back next time?
A candidate who is ahead in the polls and has a weak opponent can win with the strategy of avoiding debates. When you have a strong opponent that you know will beat you in the debate, you're screwed no matter what you do. Sundberg is screwed.
I doubt that Jill's endorsement will be seen as positive. She would have had a hard time winning reelection as an incumbent. Also, what's with Mostranski as the campaign manager? And Sundberg lets him lurk around and inject himself into the interview for the Journal. This is not exactly an enlightened team. Pile on gobs of developer money and it looks like you get what you pay for. Could be unfortunate for the rest of us.
In Print This Week:
Dec 5, 2013
vol XXIV issue 49
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation