Not sure what their amended filing means, but they changed the scope and definition of their organizational purpose days before they made their first contribution to Common Sense 2006 for the electioneering ads.
And while the papers are using these folks as "regular citizens" to interview the blogs are blazing the trail uncovering just who is part of this shady group.
Submitted by redhorse on Wed, 08/30/2006 - 1:17am.
is how Estruth and Hill were quoted in the first place. It's positively mind-boggling that no one in the editorial structure took a second to google the names or do some other archival search.
Instead we get a fence sitting and a person who was very impressed with his Lordship? Pathetic.
I hope to God those two didn't seek out the reporters and tell them their "opinions" which were slobbered upon and inserted into the stories. You want to know why? B/c the quotes fit a pre-conceived notion of what the storyline was, and that's terrible reporting.
I had an email convo with the reporter. I don't want to disclose the contents of that right now because I havent talked to him about doing that and clearly this breaking news may cause him to modify some of the things he told me.
All i will say is that i was told that the fence sitter was a "reluctant interviewee".
an enterprising reporter might do an ohio foia request for these amended articles, as they must be signed by all the directors of the non-profit. i believe the board of trustees is also a matter of public record.
The sad part about this story is that I really like Mark Naymik and his political reporting. This immediate correction makes me like him a little more (staff -- note the love for buckeyestateblog).
And while the papers are using these folks as "regular citizens" to interview the blogs are blazing the trail uncovering just who is part of this shady group.
ridiculous.
Great digging buddy.
Instead we get a fence sitting and a person who was very impressed with his Lordship? Pathetic.
I hope to God those two didn't seek out the reporters and tell them their "opinions" which were slobbered upon and inserted into the stories. You want to know why? B/c the quotes fit a pre-conceived notion of what the storyline was, and that's terrible reporting.
I had an email convo with the reporter. I don't want to disclose the contents of that right now because I havent talked to him about doing that and clearly this breaking news may cause him to modify some of the things he told me.
All i will say is that i was told that the fence sitter was a "reluctant interviewee".
This story is going to get deep real quick.
The sad part about this story is that I really like Mark Naymik and his political reporting. This immediate correction makes me like him a little more (staff -- note the love for buckeyestateblog).