Keeping in sync with the Naperville Sun's longstanding policy regarding letters to the editor, comments regarding candidates for local elections will not be published prior to the election.
This applies to all blog entries.
Candidate comments will not be published
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/8340
Speaking of integrity issues, why did the Sun allow that pandering, partisan editorial by Mark Mitrovich in Sunday's
paper?
It certainly was against this alleged policy.
Plus, if you read it closely, there are some spooky statements by the school board President:
Specifically, he infers it is the district policy to avoid having to do another referendum. No wonder they continue to hammer the taxpayers with continued over taxation!
Second, his utter disrespect for the citizens was apparent in his comments on those disagree with the school board or have a different viewpoint are "...narrow minded and mean spirited". Thank you, my trusted employee for being so arrogant!
Finally, he goes to lengths to say that contrary to statements made the district is not going to.be financially insolvent. Gosh, we hope not given the surplus they are building to the tune of 300% over their own policy!
I will add here that it is his own projections that showed tje deficit spending in a few short years (the definition of bankruptcy).
Naperville Sun editors,
The Naperville Sun started this thread by posting: "Keeping in sync with the Naperville Sun's longstanding policy regarding letters to the editor, comments regarding candidates for local elections will not be published prior to the election.
This applies to all blog entries."
Where is the response to all of the questions about the candidate policy?
Where is the response to all of the questions about using Potluck to link to endorsements on other web pages?
The Naperville Sun has had adequate time to consider these issues and make a decision. It is time to get off the fence and clarify the Naperville Sun position.
It is doubtful that anyones has ever seen such an "internal" Naperville Sun policy. It would be helpful to print the policy in it's entirety so we all know exactly what it says, who wrote it, who is responsible for enforcing it, when it was written, and when it was last reviewed.
Your subscribers are waiting to hear what you have to say and more importantly whether or not you are taking input from subscribers seriously.
(no candidate comments)
Now that the 3-person PAC's website has (expected) endorsements on its front page, it is time to prevent that PAC from linking to its website. Now that the SUN editors know this info, they are choosing to allow a single link to an endorsement.
In fact, I would suggest all others stop using the name and instead try 3-PAC in referring to it.
From the 3-PAC website ..... "brings into question (pronoun deleted) understanding of these issues."
Is this the pot calling the stainless steel refrigerator black?
-1
That's an easy one, the School Board doesn't own the Sun and it's editors, the councilmen who people have so much bad to say about, do. Simple as that.
I've got to say Dan is spot on with his comments.
An endorsement is an endorsement regardless of who makes it. It doesn't matter if it is a person, a questionable "group" such as QE203.org, a legitimate group, or even a link through to other websites and news media. If the Naperville Sun is going to refuse to change its policy and allow for free and open discussion of candidates and issues then it should go back and delete all posts with any such linkages. Let's not play by two sets of rules. Fair is fair. And the Naperville Sun isn't doing a very good job of policing their own policy by allowing this kind of nonsense to slip through!
Agree with D2:
If the policy is to not alllow endorsments of candidates on the blog, why does the Sun allow so much drivel from QE203 on here?
The QE203 site only gives accolades to the sitting board, which by implication is an endorsement.
IF you really follow this policy, then you should delete all e-mails by Thom Higgins that reference his web site on the election. I think it has been safely identified that QE203 is nothing more than his mothpiece and is not an objective group like the Naperville Homeowners conferedation or the Chamber of Commerce. Even the latter endorses candidates and should also not be linked.
Practice what you preach. No links to QE203. It even has filed as a campaign fund!!!!
Hmmm, with a coin flip huh? I guess most of us could live with that as a solution in a situation where at least some people obviously voted for all or at least some of the candidates.
Granted, most voters are so stupid they will vote for any candidate, even candidates they know nothing about. Voters are even cast their vote for someone even when they don't like any of the candidates because they feel like they have to vote FOR someone.
Hypothetically, absolutely no one voting for all of the candidates is pretty much off the charts statistically... we could reasonable expect the candidates would at least vote for themselves... but, IF a situation existed where not one single vote was cast is there really a legal mechanism, such as a coin flip, that could still put one of them in office just because they were a candidate even though they received NO votes??? Or would the election commission be required to hold another election??
3 way tie and they'd devise sometype of lottery to pick the winner. In the past where there have been 2 tied, they flipped a coin. With 3 maybe they might draw straws. I think they did the coin flip for school board in a north suburb about 10 years ago.
Here is an interesting constitutional question. What if there were three candidates running for an office and the people disliked all three candidates to the extent that not one single vote was cast for any of the three candidates... what would the election commission have to do? Does anyone know if there has ever been a voter boycott like this?
VERY important to note La C. It is almost impossible to get people in Naperville out to vote in these elections - and without constant public information being available, that certainly won't change.
Endorsements along with information on what each candidate has accomplished, or failed to accomplish would certainly help anyone who wants to vote but doesn't feel they know enough about the Candidates to do so make informed decisions.
Please though, no rehash of City Press Releases or clips from the candidates websites where they sing their own praises. Voting records, support of projects like the Smart Grid and the Childrens Museum - possible conflict of interest information (like a Realtor voting on Zoning issues??? really???) if a current council member has refused to give up any personal perks of the job, or maybe even sued the City costing it over a million dollars. THESE are the facts people NEED to know about both incumbents and their challengers.
If ANYONE has a record that displays honest and integrity - and is willing to stand up to greed and dishonesty - and can actually show evidence of that - they will absolutely have my vote. The only non-option right now is more of the same.
Speaking of elections, we have one coming up. Will the Sun be endorsing any candidates? If you do, please publish that article. I don't see it having quite the impact of saying it in the newsroom and not printing it.
When will we have a blog on the election?
Will the Sun quit running any news negative on the city?
Any stories that were negative on the snow removal were an obvious support of any non-incumbants for teh Council, right?
FB,
Please reconsider your logic. You seem to think it is ok for the Naperville Sun to have onerous policies towards the very people it depends upon for it's continued existence.
No, if just one person like me cancels my subscription the Naperville Sun won't go out of business, but if many cancel then it will have to pay closer attention to how it's policies and business decisions affect it's revenue stream.
Granted, there are other avenues to express my opinion. I could write a letter to the Naperville Sun print edition, but the censorship that goes on there is even more onerous and restrictive in terms of what they are willing to publish. I could take out a full page ad and lambast the Naperville Sun for what they are doing, but again the Naperville Sun would most probably decline to run the full page despite the potential revenue they would get from me. Sure I could take out a full page ad in another newspaper such as the Daily Herald or the Chicago Tribune that isn't affiliated with the Naperville Sun or the Sun Times and they would probably be glad to expose the Napervill Sun for being such hypocrites as well as earn some more revenue, but who knows how many Naperville Sun and Potluck readers subscribe to these other papers?
This isn't a situation of "I'm not getting my way, so I'm taking my ball and going home"... which is nothing more than a trite old saying that is more dismissive of a legitimate complaint than it is an objective analysis of what the Naperville Sun has done.
What I and others have said is we don't want to go home. We want to stand here and play ball. And we want to play ball by the ground rules of free speech which have served both Americans and the American press so well for over two hundred years. It is the Naperville Sun that want's to change the rules of free speech, not us and anyone who reads Potluck should be outraged at this... not in terms of just the current discussion of whether or not we can discuss local candidates before an election... but in terms of the bigger picture that the Naperville Sun is acting like "big brother" and patronizing us in terms of what local topics we can discuss.
Anyone who is legitimately outraged that the Naperville Sun would conduct themselves in such a manner to deliberately squash public opinion and freedom of expression doesn't consider this a "I'm not getting my way, so I'm taking my ball and going home" rather we consider it simply a situation where the Naperville Sun owns the ball park and is being arbitrary and capricious in how it treats the ballplayers.
Sure we can pack up our equipment and move to another ball park, but why should we? We are citizens, we are residents, and we have a stake in our local community and we are not being heard. Maybe the bigger question is should the Naperville Sun own or control the ball park if it is going to conduct business like this?
Like I said, they won't go out of business, if you cancel. And honestly, it's kind of stupid for you to cancel because they "won't budge on their policy." There are other avenues for you to express your opinions. If this is not one of them, then you may move on. And, if that's the case, again, I understand. And appreciate your passion. But you have to admit, it's the "I'm not getting my way, so I'm taking my ball and going home" approach.
I'm with you Anonymous - this policy, and the support it implies for the candidates who have the most money, but are also the least desirable - is the end for me. Add to that the arrogance and malice of so many of the bloggers here, and I can't see any reason to continue to support this type of news organization .
Happy to be done with the Sun, and hopeful to be as far away from this screwed up town full of hypocrites and liars sooner rather than later. What a horribly sad little place this has turned in to in recent years.
FB,
I agree that the Naperville Sun doesn't give a crap if I cancel my subscription. However, subscriptions are down with all newspapers and if enough people cancel their subscription the Naperville Sun would be forced to reconsider their position. Market forces being what they are the Naperville Sun wouldn't have any other choice.
So far the Naperville Sun editor has ignored this issue and hasn't commented, clarified, or changed position. It is clear that the intent is to ignore or stonewall until the election is over. It would seem some one at the Naperville Sun is just arrogant enough to actually believes a Naperville Sun policy decision has the upper hand they don't. The readers and subscribers have the upper hand because what we do or don't do can decide whether or not the Naperville Sun continues to exist. As the old saying goes it is ok to be right, but when you are dead right what have you proved in the end? Is such a policy position right?
Does it make good business sense to sacrifice the financial health of the paper and put all of the Naperville Sun jobs in jeopardy as well? I guess we will see how dearly the Naperville Sun editors feel about this policy and we will also see how passionate Naperville Sun readers are on it too.
Anyone want to guess my next move?
With all due respect to you being a loyal customer, I don't think the Sun would shed two tears if you dropped your subscription, honestly. If you are this passionate about the subject, and I love that passion, maybe you can start your own blog and invite people to it. Then you can write and allow anyone to write what they want on it.
Very well put. I agree with you. (very rarely, I see logic in these blogs)
So are you going to block all links to candidate opinions and opinions on candidates?
Are you going to ban names with candidate information?
Are you going to prevent PACs from linking to their website or even mentioning their name?
If not, you better allow any and all opinions.
-1
Just to further illustrate how really stupid and illogical this Naperville Sun policy is...
Apparently the Naperville Sun will censure, by not publishing, anything we submit that directly uses or refers to a specific elected official or candidate name... such as Pradel, Krause, Wherli, Furstenau, etc.
However, as been clearly demonstrated in the last several posts on this thread if we use a little slight of hand we can write pretty much anything we want about any of the current elected officials or candidates.
Someone would have to be really stupid not to be able to figure out that:
Mr. First and first to sue = Furstenau
ranting grant = Wherly
realtor #1 = Krause
The bigger question here is why the Naperville Sun editorial staff is so intellectually shallow that they think parody and innuendo games are acceptable and at the same time they think it is inappropriate for users to openly and honestly express their opinion?
And the real irony here is the American Press, including the Naperville Sun, is supposed to be the staunchest supporter of the First Amendment. Considering the heavy handedness of this Naperville Sun policy we might as well as live in Libya or any other dictatorial country where people do not have the right or freedom to express themselves. If the Naperville Sun doesn't extend freedom of speech to it's own users then the Naperville Sun shouldn't deserve to enjoy any of the protections of the First Amendment themselves. The Naperville Sun can't have it both ways.
JUST caught a glimpse of Councilman first to sue on television on the City Station ... shock of shocks, he was AGAIN preaching his zero percent increases for every employee, basically forever.
Mr. First to sue has GOT to tell the residents how long he is going to freeze the rents in his apartment buildings, and how much of the Million plus he sued the City for he is going to return given his HUGE amt of concern for the Cities Financial situation. I think we as citizens should get to view all candidates Tax Returns for each and every year they have been laying off employee's and spending our hard earned money on personal projects.
Until people like first to sue can show THEY are making the kinds of sacrifices they expect the workers to make - AND that they expect their cute little pet City Manager and his band of thieves to do do the same, they don't deserve anyone's trust, let alone vote this spring.
AN OPEN AND INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF THIS CITIES FINANCES IS IMPERATIVE! There is absolutely no reason to believe the numbers they toss out to support their personal positions and personal gain. It's time for them to put up, or shut up.
If this was truly an open forum for discussion of issues we find pertinent, then the Sun would NOT censure the existence of a topic!
I understand that they should censure for illegal comments, swearing, etc. However, to not allow us to comment on candidates, effectiveness of current office holders, etc. that is outrageous!
A simple fact: if incumbents are running for an office, their effectiveness in THAT office is not only fair game for discussion, it is a necessary driver of that discussion!
Look at your tax bill. Then look at your Council, park district, and school board. THEY are spending the money from your tax bill (ironically, the school board is about 80% of the total tax bill, but most spend THEIR time crying a river about the Council, who spends a pittance!)
So, Sun Editors, tell us again WHY IS IT YOU WILL NOT ALLOW US TO DISCUSS THE MOST SERIOUS ISSUES OF NAPERVILLE IN A DETAIL THAT WILLA CTUALLY PROVIDE SOME VALUE TO US ALL?
Both you and Furstenau's backhand were correct. We do have the right to write whatever we want; we just don't have the right to have it posted on Potluck. As the owner of this blog, the Sun has every right to control it's content; that doesn't mean, though, that every policy the Sun implements in this regard is a wise one.
Guess that's what we all get for saying bad things about First to sue, ranting grant, and realtor #1 in conflict of interest! Anyone want to bet that if we were all big supporters, there wouldn't a problem in posting our comments?
Furstenau's Backhand,
You wrote: "You don't have the right to post whatever you want on these blogs."
Actually we do have the right to write anything we want. That isn't the point. The point is the Naperville Sun is censuring what we write as well as the topics that are posted for discussion.
The Naperville Sun is already on shaky ground. It is now back to a 3 day a week publishing schedule and has laid off a lot of staff. Time will tell if these moves will keep it afloat or not... a lot of "sister" publications owned by the Sun Times no longer exist.
Many of us who contribute to Potluck are also long term subscribers. Paid subscribers are the lifeblood of advertising dollars. This is not a good time for the Naperville Sun to be ticking off paid subscribers to the point that we not only stop contributing to Potluck but also start canceling our paid subscriptions.
But then again maybe a whole bunch of cancelled subscriptions is exactly what is needed to ensure whoever implemented this really stupid policy gets the wake up call they deserve before this policy does too much permanent damage to the Naperville Sun.
It's not censorship. It's their policy. You don't have the right to post whatever you want on these blogs.
Actually, the opposite is true. Naperville is run pretty well if you DONT stop and think about it. When you get around to doing that thinking, you will see that Naperville has been run so poorly, that a once extraordinary City it s only a few missteps away from a implosion.
And Anonymous, the issues they ALL need to be addressing are how best to provide the residents of this community with the services they truly need in an ethical and responsible manner. What they probably are discussing is how to make themselves look good so that they can hang onto their seats, their perks, and their connections so they can continue making backroom deals that benefit themselves, their friends, and their egos.
To Naperville Sun editors,
You wrote: "Thread suggestions are always welcome. Please submit any you may have."
OK, Naperville Sun I'll take you up on your offer.
Please start the following threads:
1. Who is your candidate in the Naperville Mayoral race?
2. Who gets your 4 votes in the Naperville City Council race?
3. Does it matter to you where council candidates live?
4. Considering term limits will you vote for an incumbent?
5. What are the big local issues the mayoral and council candidates should be discussing?
They have their Directors writing too. If I'm not mistaken, one of the Directors who runs the Development department (you know, due to all that growth we have now that we are built out) writes a column, and so does the Electric Director (PR for that Smart Grid residents never wanted maybe?)
You are right Experienced - looks like the Sun at this point is "the State" newspaper. They publish rephrased press releases, support the profitable candidates, and sensor what the residents have to say. It's one very tiny step away from being a City Newsletter with a few ads tossed in for color, and that's a shame, because this town has never needed a place to turn to find truth more than it does right now.
I say we take to the streets like they are doing up in Madison! Let's all stom city hall and change the world!
... No thanks. Naperville is pretty well run when you stop and look at the big picture. I'm going to Starbucks.
What do you expect? 2 city officials, Pradel and Dial, write for the Sun.
Actually, if you check it out, the Sun is just a subsidiary of the Beacon. Look at the Editorial Departments.
Sun Editorial Department
Jerry Alger Publisher & General Manager
Denise Crosby Senior columnist
Nick Reiher News Editor
Heather Pfundstein Readers' Editor
Brad Engel Sports Editor
Tim West Opinions Editor
Jim Svehla Photo Editor
Beacon Editorial Department
Jerry Alger Publisher & General Manager
Denise Crosby Senior columnist
John Russell Associate news editor
Marianne Mather Photo editor
Brad Engel Sports editor
Jason Bauman Asst. sports editor
3 out of 7 are the same.
Plus the Sun is housed in the Beacon's offices in Aurora. Harold and Eva White are turning over in his graves.
Remember, none of the editors have been there more than two years let alone Naperville --if at all, as well as probably being fresh out of college, too.
Given the Sun's financial position, maybe the sales department is making the decisions; don't want to upset the candidates who buy ads with them.
Time to check out the Trib blogs, they don't seem to have this problem.
The Naperville Sun policy position notwithstanding I did open my Tribune last Sunday to find an entire two page spread of reader submitted endorsements for the Chicago mayoral election.
Interesting indeed that the Tribune welcomes reader input and the Naperville Sun is actively censoring what user of Potluck may post about our local candidates.
Is there really any surprise why newspapers and the media are in such financial trouble these days? The Naperville Sun leadership clearly is not on board with how how people get their news or how they choose to communicate.
If we can't communicate how we want, where we want, when we want, and on topics of our own choosing we will simply go somewhere else that allows us this freedom of expression. Naperville Sun editors should consider this their wake up call. This in not the time to hit the snooze button.
Yeah...what JQP said....
-1
Honestlty, you'd get more readership if you actually reported things, and were fair to all sides. Your reputation is that you're in the City Council's pockets.
Yeah, I don't get it either, Anon. I think what makes this even more difficult is that the Sun has offered no real explanation to their policy except to say that it's long-standing. Or did I miss something? Makes absolutely no sense. Can you help us here, Mr. Editor?
Now Anonymous, how can we expect The Sun to continue to blindly support the City Council if they let us post whatever we want about their buddies so close to an election! I'm sure the candidate I can't name but who cost the City Millions with his ego centered lawsuit didn't like it one bit that many of us pledged to boycott any business that was foolish enough to endorse him with a sign on their property. He probably made a few calls, and so much for free speech. That's the way things work in Naperville these days. Money talks, bullies intimidate, and newspapers just rewrite press releases. If things weren't that way, something might change, and then what!
Long-standing policy? Is two years longstanding? Here is a Potluck blog topic from March of 2009: What do you think of the City Council candidates.
Thread suggestions are always welcome. Please submit any you may have.
Sun editors,
Can you explain this further?
What exactly do you mean by "no comments".
Are you acting as a form of "big brother" to censure ideas and thoughts on the overall effectivenss of politics as a whole, or only those that pertain to certain candidates?
I think the horse is already out of the barn on this one. Look at the comments on the Police Re-hire thread.
This is an illogical and outdated policy that needs to be rescinded immediately. It is arrogant at best for anyone at the Naperville Sun to feel they have the right to publicly endorse candidates and then cut off all other public input before an election while continuing to accept any and all advertising dollars from the candidates.
What does prior to an election mean exactly? The day after an election begins the next period of prior to the next election. Or does that mean once someone declares their candidacy that they are now off limits in terms of posters being able to comment? Or is there going to be a well defined and announced time period prior to each election within which such comments will not be accepted?
Rather than explain the answers to these questions it would probably be better to educate those that are responsible for making such policies at the Naperville Sun that this is simply an unacceptable restriction to those of us who choose to use public forums like Potluck. With policies like this I have to question if I am going to continue to read or contribute to Potluck and think everyone else should do the same.
If Potluck isn't going to be an open, unrestricted public forum that respects free speech at all times then I will simply express myself elsewhere and I hope others will follow me. In terms of public forums Potluck has plenty of competition. None of the competitors have similar posting restrictions, such a clumsy interface, such an awful lag time in posting comments, and no user freedom in starting new thread.
If those in charge of Naperville Sun are hell bent on killing off Potluck I couldn't think of a better way to go about it than to do something this immensely stupid immediately prior to a local election.