Recently, Doug Clark of the News & Record and I had a conversation as to what makes a credible candidate.This is important to myself and others because we believe the opinions of people like Doug Clark, one of the Editors of the Greensboro News & Record, have a great deal of influence over public opinion of candidates. The following are excerpts of our conversation without the insults thrown in by Bill Burnett.
As you can see, Doug Clark avoided my question like a leper colony or a case of the clap. Doug understands full well that media plays a roll in making candidates and issues credible in the eyes of the public. For example: When I was trying to get WFMY TV 2's Frank Mickens to do a story on efforts to build a Downtown Greensboro Aquarium, Frank replied:
Since Frank isn't my target here I'll be nice and not tell you what I told him. Besides, it's done.
In other words, the media has the power to make a candidate or an issue credible in the eyes of the public and they know it. As a matter of fact, the media covets that power. Without that power politicians wouldn't need media and the public wouldn't read, watch or listen.
But what happens when the media deliberately decides to use that power to make one candidate appear more credible than another? I'm not necessarily making the claim that George Hartzman is a better choice for Mayor of Greensboro than Nancy Vaughan (In my opinion, both are decidedly more credible than Robbie Perkins.) but many of us are well aware of the News & Record's deliberate cover-up of Robbie Perkins' many now known nefarious dealings prior to being elected Mayor of Greensboro and I can't help but wonder what will stop them from doing the same again this time?
Or what if they simply decide to ignore George Hartzman because he has chosen not to accept campaign contributions and buy advertising in local media? Oh sure, they'll run the occasional article about George stuck back in the back somewhere but in the meantime the candidates already deemed "credible" by the likes of Doug Clark and others at the News & Record and other media outlets will be seen in a constant barrage of stories.
Or what if Doug and others in that coveted position decide Nancy is less "credible" than Mayor Perkins? Will they not do the same to Nancy? Perhaps not to the extreme they would exercise against George but if that's their decision you can bet that's what they'll do.
Or what if another candidate throws his or her hat into the ring-- one that has never before run for public office but is promoting the greatest ideas for Greensboro that none of us have ever heard of? What then? What if that idea were something that would cause all of us to say, "Why didn't Robbie think of that? That's leadership, that's vision!" We'd never know because Doug only thinks the status quo (in this case, those already elected to office) to be credible.
You see, had I been wrong, Doug Clark would have answered my question rather than having taken me to the dance with his two left feet stumbling all over my toes.
Posted by Billy Jones
Doug, what or who determines who is a credible candidate/challenger and who isn't? Are you in charge of that decision? The News & Record? The media in general? It seems to be a subjective term based very much on whether or not you and your friendly competitors want a challenger to appear to be credible, is it not? Does the local media not have that kind of power and influence over local audiences in local elections? No need to answer, we know the truth. As a matter of fact: The N&R proved their ability to make one candidate more credible in the last Mayor's election when the N&R willingly chose to ignore the Mayor's impending divorce, tax problems and financial problems that myself and others told you of before the previous election. So the question now becomes: which candidate will the N&R choose to MAKE credible between now and November, George, Nancy or Robbie?
Posted by Doug Clark
Billy, this blog represents my personal opinions.
Posted by Billy Jones
So in the personal opinion of Doug Clark, George Hartzman is not a credible candidate/challenger for the office of Mayor of Greensboro? Yes or no?
Posted by Billy Jones
Doug, I would appreciate your answer while myself and others continue to endure these personal attacks from Bill Burnett: http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2013/04/to-news-record-does-no-one-monitor-your.html and http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2013/04/bill-burnett-strikes-again.html and a Ms Shirley Haynes who I do not know and have never seen comment before http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2013/04/how-long-must-news-record-readers.html I'm sure I can find others should I look for them. The credibility of your newspaper is rapidly failing
Posted by Doug Clark
Billy, Nancy Vaughan has been elected many times to the city council, is a district and in citywide voting. By the standard of demonstrated electability, she is a credible candidate. Is anyone else?
Posted by Billy Jones
So I take that to mean that in Doug Clark's opinion, George Hartzman is not a credible candidate. Is electability, aka, previous offices held, the only criteria you consider when deciding a candidate is credible?
Posted by Billy Jones
So I take that to mean that in Doug Clark's opinion, having held previous elected office is the only qualification necessary to make one a credible candidate for the office of Mayor of Greensboro? Of course I know you don't believe that but that is the argument you just made-- why don't you try again and explain to me what makes one a credible candidate in the opinion of Doug Clark?
Posted by Doug Clark
The voters themselves have decided that Vaughan is a credible candidate by electing her so many times. That's not the only measure of credibility but it is significant. If he runs, George will have an opportunity to show voters he's a credible candidate.
Posted by Billy Jones
Doug wrote: "Billy, this blog represents my personal opinions.." So I ask you again, what is Doug Clark's opinion of a credible candidate? Not what have the voters decided in the past. The past is gone, let's look to the future.
Posted by Billy Jones
And please, Doug, I came her for opinion, not dancing lessons.
Posted by Doug Clark
Billy, dismissing the past is like holding the NBA draft without considering the past accomplishments of the players available. In reality, you pick players who have shown they can play. Perkins and Vaughan have done that. They are credible candidates for mayor.Posted by Billy Jones
Doug, you can be quite sure I am not dismissing the past. On the contrary, I'm proving my point that you and the rest of the News & Record trendsetters are in-part, responsible for the past. Thank you for your help and for the dance.
As you can see, Doug Clark avoided my question like a leper colony or a case of the clap. Doug understands full well that media plays a roll in making candidates and issues credible in the eyes of the public. For example: When I was trying to get WFMY TV 2's Frank Mickens to do a story on efforts to build a Downtown Greensboro Aquarium, Frank replied:
"Hey Billy.
I’m aware of this effort.
We’ll have to wait until there’s more steam behind the idea. We don’t want to be the engine driving the effort. We’d rather cover a movement that’s got a life of its own.
Keep me informed.
Blessings,
FM"
Since Frank isn't my target here I'll be nice and not tell you what I told him. Besides, it's done.
In other words, the media has the power to make a candidate or an issue credible in the eyes of the public and they know it. As a matter of fact, the media covets that power. Without that power politicians wouldn't need media and the public wouldn't read, watch or listen.
But what happens when the media deliberately decides to use that power to make one candidate appear more credible than another? I'm not necessarily making the claim that George Hartzman is a better choice for Mayor of Greensboro than Nancy Vaughan (In my opinion, both are decidedly more credible than Robbie Perkins.) but many of us are well aware of the News & Record's deliberate cover-up of Robbie Perkins' many now known nefarious dealings prior to being elected Mayor of Greensboro and I can't help but wonder what will stop them from doing the same again this time?
Or what if they simply decide to ignore George Hartzman because he has chosen not to accept campaign contributions and buy advertising in local media? Oh sure, they'll run the occasional article about George stuck back in the back somewhere but in the meantime the candidates already deemed "credible" by the likes of Doug Clark and others at the News & Record and other media outlets will be seen in a constant barrage of stories.
Or what if Doug and others in that coveted position decide Nancy is less "credible" than Mayor Perkins? Will they not do the same to Nancy? Perhaps not to the extreme they would exercise against George but if that's their decision you can bet that's what they'll do.
Or what if another candidate throws his or her hat into the ring-- one that has never before run for public office but is promoting the greatest ideas for Greensboro that none of us have ever heard of? What then? What if that idea were something that would cause all of us to say, "Why didn't Robbie think of that? That's leadership, that's vision!" We'd never know because Doug only thinks the status quo (in this case, those already elected to office) to be credible.
You see, had I been wrong, Doug Clark would have answered my question rather than having taken me to the dance with his two left feet stumbling all over my toes.
