I'll weigh in: That Clarion-Ledger piece was one of the worst I've seen in that paper in recent history, and that says a lot (especially considering last year's election coverage and the whole arc of their devotion to Frank Melton).
Ms. Apel concocted a narrative that people might be more concerned about Ms. Byrom's execution because she was a woman, which is remarkable considering the people (including Ronni and the JFP and the Innocence Project who first alerted me to it) who were the loudest on this case. They are all people and institutions that have long worked to get unfairly accused and prosecuted people out of prison and off death row.
She then interviews a male columnist/former Ledger editor (known for his support of the death penalty) and a male reporter at her paper about it -- neither of whom seemed astute about or schooled in gender/media issues.
Then there are the issues about selective and out-of-context statistics and other problems Ronni detailed in her analysis above.
Not to mention, I have heard one after another person bring this story up to me as an example of the remarkable news decisions made at The Clarion-Ledger, even now when they're trying to remake themselves but so often failing miserably (which I suspect is the fault of the editors, not Ms. Apel, whom I've never really heard much about/from, either). In fact, I can't think of a strong female news/serious opinion voice from inside The Clarion-Ledger in the years we've been pushing. Again, the fault of management and editors.
The Clarion-Ledger does its worst work, typically, on "second-day" (or often, in their case, second-week) stories where they try to figure out something to report on a story they didn't first report. That's when they often try to go contrarian and often to disastrous results (two stories about last year's mayoral election come to mind).
The problem with this story ultimately is how insulting it was to women, the people working for justice in this case and Ms. Byrom herself. It added nothing to the conversation and could actually be harmful. It matters, and that's why we ran Ronni's analysis of it.
The point of the article, and Stamps' comments, is that the council has been dodging these things from council folks running for mayor. So far, the city has not responded to our request for information on who filed the complaint to find out for sure, which is what this is about. Our city reporter is calling council people who are running for responses.
If they would just provide the paperwork, we could at least see what that says and squelch rumors about who did it.
But, again, the point for us isn't that there isn't a permit and what needs to happen, but whether it's being done for political purposes ... by whomever. That's what should concern us all.
All, this isn't a story about permitting. The city can decide to take action on permits.
The point y'all are (intentionally?) missing here is that at least one sitting city councilman apparently threatened to get the election thrown out if the city didn't erase it entirely. Not that anyone in the case has yet responded to our open-records request for the documents. I smell a cover-up at least by a couple of people who don't want us to confirm the rumors of who did this.
An analogy would be if one or more elected official/candidates threatened to sue for a new election if illegal campaign signs (many of them right now) weren't taken down immediately.
Yes, you should obey the sign ordinance, but using it for political purposes is disgusting -- and a warning sign about the person who did it.
I just wrote this on Facebook under a repost of our endorsement. I'm very exciting about the possibilities of Mr. Lumumba—and what we believe he can offer Jackson (and, ultimately, Mississippi because I predict Mr. Lumumba will turn into a formidable state and even national politician should he care to. He has the chops.)
A major reason, but not the only one, for endorsing Mr. Lumumba is that he has walked the talk on transparency throughout this campaign. Others talk about the need for it; he and his team return texts and phone calls, and not just about what they want us to know. I get no sense that he has a thin skin when it comes to criticism and being questioned, which is a strong indicator of people not to elect. It is not a job for someone with thin skin or for someone who only wants to use media when they need us, but won't return calls or be transparent otherwise. They know who they are.
We've had several conversations--in person, when he called to thank me for the endorsement and via text. All of those conversations are about ideas bigger than himself. I get no sense that ego will get in his way of trying to help "the people" (all of us). And this is a rare quality in a politician.
I like several of the people running for office, and while each of them has strengths, I have very real concerns. Some are more transparent and down to earth than others. One gets in touch to excoriate us, usually (and in lengthy, pretentious emails), and another will tell me all sorts of interesting things when we see other at public events, but will seldom return my reporters' calls. A couple of them, at least, are willing to allow surrogates to play old-fashioned dirty politics of destruction rather than to focus fully on their own records and big ideas and what they can do in the future. More than one is great in person, but seems to put together, shall we say, interesting handlers who we don't want to see follow them to City Hall. And I am concerned about some of their connections and how much influence they might have. (The latter one we discussed with Lumumba as well and plan to watch very closely, but it worries us less with him than some others.)
I don't need to get into more specifics on any of these points, but put them out there to say that we thought and discussed long and hard about this endorsement. I truly believe that Mr. Lumumba is the best person to be elected mayor at this moment in our history. I urge all of you to vote for him tomorrow. Like with his father, I believe that he is going to surprise his detractors in ways that his opponents will not.
It's not really that simple. Under the circumstances, the city could have easily have approved the mural retroactively. I'm also guessing there is a lot of public art around that doesn't have permits.
And most importantly, Stamps made it clear that this was done for political reasons.
For t he same reason, the city should go around and take down ALL the candidate signs that violate the city's campaign sign ordinance. To be fair.
BTW, if anyone wants to help us search on who these donors are, especially the businesses and LLCs, h[ere's the link to the secretary of state's corporation searc][1]h. Help us pull up the board of directors and post below! Help us sleuth; we could use a bit of crowd-sourcing during this crazy-busy election season! Besides, it's fun. ;-)
Thanks, jon. Haley was having trouble with the handwritten Lumumba report and has added those. It definitely wasn't on purpose; we wouldn't have put the finance report next to it if so. ;-)
donnaladd says...
I'll weigh in: That Clarion-Ledger piece was one of the worst I've seen in that paper in recent history, and that says a lot (especially considering last year's election coverage and the whole arc of their devotion to Frank Melton).
Ms. Apel concocted a narrative that people might be more concerned about Ms. Byrom's execution because she was a woman, which is remarkable considering the people (including Ronni and the JFP and the Innocence Project who first alerted me to it) who were the loudest on this case. They are all people and institutions that have long worked to get unfairly accused and prosecuted people out of prison and off death row.
She then interviews a male columnist/former Ledger editor (known for his support of the death penalty) and a male reporter at her paper about it -- neither of whom seemed astute about or schooled in gender/media issues.
Then there are the issues about selective and out-of-context statistics and other problems Ronni detailed in her analysis above.
Not to mention, I have heard one after another person bring this story up to me as an example of the remarkable news decisions made at The Clarion-Ledger, even now when they're trying to remake themselves but so often failing miserably (which I suspect is the fault of the editors, not Ms. Apel, whom I've never really heard much about/from, either). In fact, I can't think of a strong female news/serious opinion voice from inside The Clarion-Ledger in the years we've been pushing. Again, the fault of management and editors.
The Clarion-Ledger does its worst work, typically, on "second-day" (or often, in their case, second-week) stories where they try to figure out something to report on a story they didn't first report. That's when they often try to go contrarian and often to disastrous results (two stories about last year's mayoral election come to mind).
The problem with this story ultimately is how insulting it was to women, the people working for justice in this case and Ms. Byrom herself. It added nothing to the conversation and could actually be harmful. It matters, and that's why we ran Ronni's analysis of it.
On How The Clarion-Ledger Got It Wrong: The Importance of Context
Posted 9 April 2014, 11:41 a.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
The point of the article, and Stamps' comments, is that the council has been dodging these things from council folks running for mayor. So far, the city has not responded to our request for information on who filed the complaint to find out for sure, which is what this is about. Our city reporter is calling council people who are running for responses.
If they would just provide the paperwork, we could at least see what that says and squelch rumors about who did it.
But, again, the point for us isn't that there isn't a permit and what needs to happen, but whether it's being done for political purposes ... by whomever. That's what should concern us all.
On Stamps: 'Dadgum Low' to Complain About Lumumba Mural
Posted 8 April 2014, 11:41 a.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
All, this isn't a story about permitting. The city can decide to take action on permits.
The point y'all are (intentionally?) missing here is that at least one sitting city councilman apparently threatened to get the election thrown out if the city didn't erase it entirely. Not that anyone in the case has yet responded to our open-records request for the documents. I smell a cover-up at least by a couple of people who don't want us to confirm the rumors of who did this.
An analogy would be if one or more elected official/candidates threatened to sue for a new election if illegal campaign signs (many of them right now) weren't taken down immediately.
Yes, you should obey the sign ordinance, but using it for political purposes is disgusting -- and a warning sign about the person who did it.
On Stamps: 'Dadgum Low' to Complain About Lumumba Mural
Posted 8 April 2014, 10:48 a.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
I just wrote this on Facebook under a repost of our endorsement. I'm very exciting about the possibilities of Mr. Lumumba—and what we believe he can offer Jackson (and, ultimately, Mississippi because I predict Mr. Lumumba will turn into a formidable state and even national politician should he care to. He has the chops.)
A major reason, but not the only one, for endorsing Mr. Lumumba is that he has walked the talk on transparency throughout this campaign. Others talk about the need for it; he and his team return texts and phone calls, and not just about what they want us to know. I get no sense that he has a thin skin when it comes to criticism and being questioned, which is a strong indicator of people not to elect. It is not a job for someone with thin skin or for someone who only wants to use media when they need us, but won't return calls or be transparent otherwise. They know who they are.
We've had several conversations--in person, when he called to thank me for the endorsement and via text. All of those conversations are about ideas bigger than himself. I get no sense that ego will get in his way of trying to help "the people" (all of us). And this is a rare quality in a politician.
I like several of the people running for office, and while each of them has strengths, I have very real concerns. Some are more transparent and down to earth than others. One gets in touch to excoriate us, usually (and in lengthy, pretentious emails), and another will tell me all sorts of interesting things when we see other at public events, but will seldom return my reporters' calls. A couple of them, at least, are willing to allow surrogates to play old-fashioned dirty politics of destruction rather than to focus fully on their own records and big ideas and what they can do in the future. More than one is great in person, but seems to put together, shall we say, interesting handlers who we don't want to see follow them to City Hall. And I am concerned about some of their connections and how much influence they might have. (The latter one we discussed with Lumumba as well and plan to watch very closely, but it worries us less with him than some others.)
I don't need to get into more specifics on any of these points, but put them out there to say that we thought and discussed long and hard about this endorsement. I truly believe that Mr. Lumumba is the best person to be elected mayor at this moment in our history. I urge all of you to vote for him tomorrow. Like with his father, I believe that he is going to surprise his detractors in ways that his opponents will not.
On JFP Endorses Chokwe Antar Lumumba for Mayor; Vote Today 7 a.m.-7 p.m.
Posted 7 April 2014, 5:02 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Ha! But fair is fair. ;-)
On Stamps: 'Dadgum Low' to Complain About Lumumba Mural
Posted 7 April 2014, 4:10 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
It's not really that simple. Under the circumstances, the city could have easily have approved the mural retroactively. I'm also guessing there is a lot of public art around that doesn't have permits.
And most importantly, Stamps made it clear that this was done for political reasons.
For t he same reason, the city should go around and take down ALL the candidate signs that violate the city's campaign sign ordinance. To be fair.
On Stamps: 'Dadgum Low' to Complain About Lumumba Mural
Posted 7 April 2014, 12:59 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Harvey Johnson [sent this statement][1] this morning in response to the above article:
[1]: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/weblogs…
On Repayment of HUD Funds Emerges as Election Issue
Posted 5 April 2014, 1:14 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
More 48-hour campaign-finance reports are coming in.
[Here's one for Johnson.][1]
[Here's one for Priester.][2]
Here's another for Priester.
[The full JFP Document Morgue is here][3]. Enjoy.
Remember, we'd love your help [figuring out who these LLCs are. Click here to search the name][4]
[1]: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/documen…
[2]: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/documen…
[3]: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/documen…
[4]: https://business.sos.state.ms.us/corp/s…
On Lumumba, Priester, Horhn Lead Mayoral Money Race: Who Are Their Big Donors?
Posted 4 April 2014, 5:58 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
BTW, if anyone wants to help us search on who these donors are, especially the businesses and LLCs, h[ere's the link to the secretary of state's corporation searc][1]h. Help us pull up the board of directors and post below! Help us sleuth; we could use a bit of crowd-sourcing during this crazy-busy election season! Besides, it's fun. ;-)
[1]: https://business.sos.state.ms.us/corp/s…
On Lumumba, Priester, Horhn Lead Mayoral Money Race: Who Are Their Big Donors?
Posted 4 April 2014, 5:14 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Thanks, jon. Haley was having trouble with the handwritten Lumumba report and has added those. It definitely wasn't on purpose; we wouldn't have put the finance report next to it if so. ;-)
On Lumumba, Priester, Horhn Lead Mayoral Money Race: Who Are Their Big Donors?
Posted 4 April 2014, 10:28 a.m. Suggest removal