Would that there were more people like Dennis Cauchon, for he does something the majority of bitchers do not: He speaks publicly about what he sees as unethical behavior by office holders.
TheAdvocate reported yesterday on his accusation to the Ohio Ethics Commission that Newark Mayor Bruce Bain had accepted a $10,000 donation from developer Dick Kraner which may have improperly influenced the sale of water to an area Kraner owns in Granville.
Unlike most astonishingly unresearched "reports" in the Advocate, this one is astonishingly over-written. It goes on for maybe 2/3 of a full page of text. It is shored by reproductions on the paper's web site of the letter by Cauchon to the Commission, and by Bain letters to City Council, and by Bain letters to Kraner.
But here's the problem, truth-in-reportage-wise: In the very second paragraph, the Advocate kills any hope for relevancy when it reveals its bias through this assertion:
"The allegation by Dennis Cauchon, who has become well known and heavily criticized in Granville for his views on public issues, focuses on the mayor's acceptance of a $10,000 campaign contribution from developer William Kraner." (My italics.)
Heavily criticized in Granville? For God's sake, Advocate. By whom and for what and in what medium?
I never heard of the guy before this; however, as though to sterilize itself from this citizen, the editor's note at the end of the report identifies Cauchon as "a national reporter for USA Today, which is owned by the Gannett Co., the owner of The Advocate. He is not affiliated with The Advocate and has no role in the newspaper's content."
Obviously. Otherwise there would have been no deliberate shadow over his honesty and sincerity by accusing him of being "heavily criticized in Granville" without a hint of evidence.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You nailed it!
ReplyDeleteDennis has a tarnished reputation in Granville, of which he is a resident, for saying things that not all the town wants to hear. But as a citizen watchdog, he was the right to file an ethics violation without being called names by the paper. It's was a sloppy piece of reporting, especially considering that they didn't even quote the ethics law correctly. It's also worth noting that a subsequent article has been posted that eliminates Mr. Mallet's un-objective slant.