Comments
They can't run positive statements about folks and not expect to be used like this. Do you believe that every movie review quoted in trailers was overall positive as well?
It's careless, but the person who sticks his hand in the till is still the guilty party. This is not to prejudge Will's brochure which I haven't seen. However, when reading the Indy endorsements, I noticed several comments in each of CH, Carrboro, and school bd which could have been misappropriated.
If all Will did was quote from the IndyWeek non-endorsement of him, I don't see why anyone would think he was trying to be misleading. The Indy wrote:"Will Raymond, whether elected or not, is and will continue to be an
important voice in town. He takes on hard issues, listening to
residents and following issues from conception to reality. He is a
student of local politics who has shown he can learn and adapt. The
only reasons he did not receive our endorsement are that we question
his viability, given that he has run twice before, and that we believe
he can continue to serve the community in his role as the town's gadfly."Sounds to me like they think he would do a good job, but didn't endorse purely for political (viability) reasons. What's more important to you as a voter? Their opinion on his knowledge and commitment or their opinion on whether he's one of the in crowd?
Full quote from Indy:"Chapel Hill is fortunate to have the above four running, but we also are impressed by some of the other candidates."Will Raymond, whether elected or not, is and will continue to be an important voice in town. He takes on hard issues, listening to residents and following issues from conception to reality. He is a student of local politics who has shown he can learn and adapt. The only reasons he did not receive our endorsement are that we question his viability, given that he has run twice before, and that we believe he can continue to serve the community in his role as the town's gadfly."So the quote appears to be perfectly accurate - to my way of thinking Will has no obligation to quote the entire paragraph. I suppose there is some intentional ambiguity about whether he was endorsed, and I don't think I would personally have gone there (ie I would recommend against the "Independent Endorsement Issue" tag).But, in Will's defense, electioneering does result in folks taking some license and although we can all wish that it were not so, I think this example is by no means the worst one we have seen this fall (nor any fall for that matter).
The quote is accurate. I don't see a problem with that. One thing I've noticed over the years is that we seem to be overly squeamish about adhering to some vague restrictive code of politically correct & "nice" campaigning, forgetting that the content is what is most important. The real question is: is it accurate or not?Just like with the howls and moans of righteous indignation over the flyer about Matt Cz - the real question is: is it accurate or not?
Will's use of content from the Independent seems fair to me ... I thought the Independent got this right. Call me contrarian, but I'll be single-shot voting for Will Raymond tomorrow morning.
Hardly that, mostly wastefulCam
Without condeming or condoing, let me say that the exact wording would be very important in making this sort of judgment call. It would be interesting to see the pamphlet. Can you (or someone else) post it online somehow, Czei?