The Oshkosh Northwestern featured a front page story today explaining why Common Council candidate Dennis McHugh, a retired city employee, would not be prevented from voting on labor contracts or benefit issues if elected in April.
Completely missing from the story was the fact that the issue of McHugh's potential conflict was raised first by local pundit Dan Rylance on Radio Commentary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
How do you know who raised what first. How do you know someone wasn't talking to Hummel at the same time, or before it was mentioned on commentary. One news medium can run the same story as another. Rylance had a thought that plenty of thinking people could have come up with themselves. Why do you need credit for everything?
On the Eye on Oshkosh website Paul Esslinger was falsely charged with having a potential conflict of interest involving tavern league issues because he had accepted money from them. Turns out he has never accepted money from the tavern league. Why doesn't the Northwestern do a front page story explaining that misinformation? Is it because they support McHugh but not Esslinger?
Why should the Northwestern have to correct a story that Eye on Oshkosh got wrong (again). Why hasn't the staff at Eye on Oshkosh done the right thing a corrected the false reporting? Better yet, why hasn't Tony covered the story? Wasn't Paul Esslinger one of the people that stuck his neck out for Tony when doing a radio ad for him on his last run for office as a GREEN?
Follow up posts further explained the entire Esslinger situation and no matter how you want to slice it Anonymous, Esslinger benefitted with the others from monies spent by the tavern league. That fact can not be disputed no matter how much you want to bitch about misinformation from any source other than your own.
How is doing an ad for someone you believe in sticking your neck out for them?
This subject had been posted on other blogs before it was discussed on Tony's show, yet Tony did not give credit to the blogs for it. And, Paul Esslinger did recieve the endorsement and an expensive add in the Northwestern from the Tavern League.
It's true; he did. Some people are so stupid to continue bringing this up. Essligner is running for reelection and things out of sight are usually out of mind, so this may have mostly forgotten by now. But if some of you want to keep reminding people of it, they might still remember it on election day. Good job. If you're on Esslinger's reelection committee he should rethink your duties.
For those of us who do not read the Eye on Oshkosh site or watch the show because we live out of town, could someone CALMLY explain what this Essligner tavern league business is all about without making accusations or calling people names? I'm sorry Tony that I have to remain anonymous but you have some very troubled sounding people posting to your blog and I just don't want them to know who I am. You should really moderate the comments to your site.
Three judgments from up here on my highty-tighty throne.
1.) First Anon. could have made the point that no one really "knows" how a reporter gets their story ideas without that weenie "IhateTonyIhatehimIhatehimIhatehim" usual B.S. thst actually weakens their point.
2.) The other Anons, while having an unpleasant discussion that is insulting to Paul E. are actually using their Anonymous status legitimately. You would NOT want to have that kind of argument with someone you might be sharing a church pew with in a few days, or a bleacher at the kid's game. But this is the kind of stuff people should be able to thrash out.
Last night in an e-mail to Tony I said maybe the small-d democracy he likes to call for is actually kind of ugly - if we call for more participation that probably means MORE fur will fly, not less. I think we were all expecting a big pot-induced Love-In, but oh well, you get what you get.
So I personally think you arguing about Paul that way (if you can keep the Paul-hate at some kind of decent level) is good. The Tavern League rumor is out there, might as well get to the bottom of it.
3.) Whatever the reporter's inspiration was for this particular story, the blogs (alt. media, Radio Commentary, etc.) are influencing WHAT gets covered in Osh, and HOW it gets covered. Tony is right to call attention to that.
Traditional reporters have admitted openly that when sources are vague and quotes are dull and news is slow - they look at blogs.
Lots of them say this without the "rage".
Blogs are here, we're queer and we'we proud. If you know what I mean.
Stew thinks we stink, he's made that clear. He wanted to discount everyone. But then he's faced with "how come THEY have the scoop and you don't" stuff. Not good for a guy's manhood. So, the possibility that The Northwestern might wheez off someone else's gig, soemone they hate, and still pretend the guy is invisible WHILE they do it, is not really that outlandish.
Now, back to my silken couch, and the ripped youth who is offering me peeled grapes...
PLEASE! Anonymous at 2:47 PM you live out of town but are afraid to sign your name? There's got to be a bigger reason than that for you to not to want to sign your name. Nobody really gives a damn otherwise. It certainly hasn't bothered Jody. She signs her name and lives out of town.
In response to an earlier comment for clarification and recap of the situation;
Eye on Oshkosh does a story that implicates Paul Esslinger taking campaign contibutions from the Tavern League and many think that "fact" should keep him from making any liquor license decisions.
Then it comes out that he really didn't receive or report any contributions to his campaign from the Tavern League. The donation received was a personal one made by someone who was a member of the league. Thus, no conflict. But no retraction was ever made or admitted publically.
During this time, Eye on Oshkosh was told that Meridith Schuerreman received money directly from Ben Ganther and nobody questioned her in regards to the delinquent taxes and liquor license that he holds. It was dismissed by Cheryl as "old news" and never covered. Yet both occurred at the same time.
Why is one news and the other not?
Because Paul is running for office and Meridith isn't? Or is it because Cheryl became biased because she didn't report the story accurately and got called on it.
Yes, the group had an ad in the paper that was paid for 'in kind' by the Tavern League. That does not mean that Paul had any part in that transaction or that he was involved in any way. Any person or group can run an ad in the paper endorsing a candidate with or without the candidates knowledge. Case in point was the OEA endorsement of the 3 school board candidates that took place days before the primary. I would bet that none of the 3 endorsed knew about the ad until the complaints were made.
When accusations are made, accuracy is extremely important. If you aren't careful, many can be hurt by this. If you make a mistake, it should be owned up to and admitted. That is the right thing to do.
I hope this explains some of what is happening now. If I'm off in any way, I am sure someone will let me know.
Neither Paul's accepting donations from tavern league members or his being endorsed by them or Meredith's accepting donations from Ben Ganther were illegal and no one ever said they were, including Ms. Hentz So exactly what is your problem? Either find a way to let it go or seek professional help for obsessive compulsive behavior. Surely there is some treatment that could help you over the hump.
Did I say that either was illegal?
People were questioning Paul's ethics, but not Meridiths. Why is that do you suppose? Especially since Meridith received money directly.
I think my point was lost so I wont bother to further clarify.
I agree. Your point was lost. I think that when the dust finally settles there really isn't a point. Or certainly not the one you'd hoped to make.
It couldn't be that people have questioned Paul's ethics because he wants others to abstain from votes because of contributions but is unwilling to do the same, could it?...If people are having trouble understanding the issue some like 5:01 are making it is quite possible because they don't have a strong enough argument.
Here we go again. The discussion was about McHugh and Dan Rylance. Now it is about two (or more) anonymouses fighting over Paul.
Hey, Tony, how about we do a King Solomon and cut him in half. Then the anonymouses can do with their half whatever they like.
Can we get back to the real issues of today and get over an ad placed a year ago? Is that too much to ask? We all know you can write your name in the snow. Can we deal with the current election?
It seems that Mr. McHugh is still receiving a benefit from the city by being allowed to remain a part of the insured group, even though he pays his premium 100%. what would he be paying if not allowed to stay?
Tony wants credit for getting info wrong on his radio show.
I think they should have given you credit.
I agree with anonymous 7:15am, isn't it a benefit to be allowed to stay in the city health plan rather than have to go out on your own and get insurance? Also, is there really no line item in the city budget that covers retiree benefits? Just because they are managed by the state they are paid by the city aren't they? It just doesn't seem like all the questions have been answered
Anonymouses 12:17 and 2:14,
You better go back and read the entire string of posts on Eye on Oshkosh again. It looks like the only mistake that may have been made was an opinion piece based on some very confusing events and a misunderstanding by persons involved, and more than just Cheryl Hentz. That is not "getting things wrong" nor is it "lying" as Paul Esslinger and his posse ranted about. This man's constant need to yell and scream about things and people critical of him and his constant chest-thumping are becoming very old. Enough already with him and people like you.
Paul Esslinger wants to have it both ways and that just ain't gonna happen. We have gotten wise to him during his time in office and we've seen him morph from a decent official into a slick, sleezy operator. Out with the old and in with the new.
Anonymous 4:23 is really off the mark. When you use the word "implicate" it suggests a crime of some kind. Nothing even remotely close to that was ever done.
Secondly, if you actually read the entire string of posts you would see that it was not only a donation that was takled about but endorsements as well and that is a fact.
Third, it wasn't just Paul who was referenced as having gotten either a donation or endorsement. It was an entire gorup of people comprising a political action committee, including Eye On Oshkosh host Cheryl Hentz herself. These crybabies who keep bitching about poor Paul Esslinger and what a bad rap he got really need to open their freaking eyes and get a grip on reality as everyone knows it. If she "implicated" him, she "implicated" others including herself. What a bunch of blubbering idiots these Esslinger supporters be.
Post a Comment