Do you notice how The Union’s editor/publisher relishes bashing the politicians in Sacramento from afar (he called the new Assembly speaker “an arrogant SOB” on Tuesday). But he treats the local politicos — at least the Tea Party Patriots or ones admired by his advertisers — with kid gloves? (“Bawk, bawk, bawk”).
Here’s one to chew on: Barry Pruett’s campaign for clerk-recorder — supposedly a nonpartisan post — has turned about as partisan as you can get. It is backed by what many locals call the “good old boys” political network (including women), who around here happen to be the dyed-in-the-wool GOPs (AKA the Tea Party Patriots nowadays).
In the latest twist, Pruett filed a campaign report on Tuesday (albeit a day late) that shows Fran Freedle is his Treasurer. First, you’d think that Fran (a former supervisor and would-be clerk-recorder) would know how to meet an election-related deadline.
Second, Fran is an active Republican who was bumped from the clerk-recorder’s post six years ago after supervisors felt she was appointed more in a case of “not what you know but who you know” — an ongoing problem here. The late Supervisor Drew Bedwell, a GOP along with his successor John Spencer, had added Fran’s name to the list.
“From my experience in the election process, I can honestly say that Ms. Freedle is not qualified for this important position,” said one citizen, Edith Schenone of Grass Valley, at the time. “It is an insult to Lorraine Jewett-Burdick (her opponent), Joy Massey, the current elections workers and all of the people of this county, to appoint someone whose election experience consists of reading a poll worker’s handbook.”
After much public debate, the supervisors voted to rescind Fran’s appointment and choose another candidate.
Now Fran is back as Barry’s campaign treasurer. She also donated $100 to his campaign. Barry’s list of supporters reads like a “who’s who” of longtime GOP backers: B&C co-owner Kimberly Janousek ($100) — B&C also is a big advertiser in The Union; active Republican Central Committee members Greg Marks ($100) and Betty Hood ($160); and The Union columnist George Rebane ($280).
To be sure, incumbent Greg Diaz’ supporters include some died-in-the-wool Democrats. But Greg also has bi-partisan support, including an endorsement from Supervisor Nate Beason (who also contributed to Spencer’s campaign). My wife and I also contributed $500 to Diaz’ campaign. She is a registered Republican, and I’m a “decline to state.”
As Beason put it: “Greg has done an exemplary job in bringing stability, order and transparency to an office left in confusion and disarray after the abandonment of it by his predecessor. His sense of fairness and ethical conduct has been amply demonstrated by his meticulous, objective adherence to election laws and procedures and by his commitment to ensuring that voters in Nevada County enjoy unfettered access to the exercise of their rights.”
We endorsed Diaz for the same reason.
In its article about the campaign contributions in The Union on Wednesday (a day later than here and here), there is not *one word* about Freedle as Treasurer or the B&C owner’s contribution to Pruett’s campaign. This shows you what can happen when the publisher of a newspaper is also is its editor.
Filed under: Uncategorized
A very interesting post, Jeff. You have sized up pretty well how it lays out in Nevada County. I have reason to suspect that Jeff Ackerman may be censoring postings to any columns he writes. Thin skin? More and more, The Union newspaper has become merely a propagand tool of the Republican power elite in Nevada County and does not at all reflect the political spectrum here. One may only surmise this is in part due financial problems the paper may be experiencing and its expanding dependence on big local advertisers to stay in business. As for Ackerman, he may well, as a columnist and editor, be becoming more of a liability to The Union than an asset.
Looks to me like there are “Good Ol Boys (and girls)” on both sides of the political spectrum, Pat. Funny how you folks (in this Good ‘Ol Boy Network called a blog) believe that anyone who disagrees with your left-leaning tendencies must therefore be a “Good O’l Boy.”
Does Jeff P.’s $500 campaign contribution to Diaz qualify him as a Good ‘Ol Boy? Or…is the P.C. term, “Good ‘Ol Persons”?
Propaganda tool? Come on down, Pat. We’ll review the Opinion pages, where you will find more political diversity than you will ever find in this mudhole designed to feed an oversized ego. I’m just surprised there is enough bandwidth to support it, let alone the others who share in his little stroke-fest (“As an award-wnning journalist…let me tell you…in my day…when I was somebody…please…anybody…listen to me…”).
I just wonder how many “Scooplets” $500 can buy these days.
Jeff,
Somebody in the Swift HR group ought to rein you in, since you seem incapable of doing it yourself.
Interesting. Ackerman sounds a lot like the whack jobs currently in the “news” that have nothing of substance to say other than pull insults out of their a**.
You should definitely let him rant on. It’s a learning experience.
As for their diversity online, right , all ten of them.
It’s unfortunate that the main line Union readers will never see this side of Ackerman. Sound and fury signifying nothing.
So the lawyer that wants to be in charge of our elections and the guy that wants to enforce our election laws violated the elections laws by not filing his campaign finance report on time, as required by law?
Pruett keeps shooting himself in the foot, time and time again. It’s 100% clear Pruett should not be elected to this important office.
Those endorsing Pruett must really be working hard to hide from the facts and the reality that Pruett is a joke.
Aaron, George and Russ must be real proud of their endorsements of Pruett. No wonder smart folks are now running to get away from Pruett. Who in his right mind would want to try and defend Pruett as qualified for the job after reading the facts about Pruett?
“I have reason to suspect that Jeff Ackerman may be censoring postings to any columns he writes.”
I can tell you from first hand experience that is exactly what Aackerman does. He’s done it to me several times. Most recently he refused to publish a Letter to the Editor, with links to articles concerning his dishonest and fabricated “facts” about Mr. Meckler. The Union is a travesty of a newspaper.
In fact, today someone directly asked Ackerman if he was censoring posts. One of the replies included “He owes you zero in terms of explaination or otherwise even if they were being censored (which they’re not). Stop being such an entitled brat Juno. The staff at the Union offers these pages to us to discuss/banter/argue. They OWE us nothing.”
So I replied that they certainly are being censored. I stated that if you criticize the Union in any way they don’t approve of, it will be censored. If you post links that factually show some of the stuff they’re running is pure rubbish, it will be censored. If you post links that might factually cast Ackermans’s friends, or himself in a negative light (Meckler article BS), it will be censored. And to think otherwise is either naive or dishonest. (This was paraphrased because I didn’t save it, but it’s pretty damn close).
Guess what…it was censored.
I’ve been put on permanent “moderation” by Ackerman to online comments of the Union for having the temerity to suggest to Union readers last summer to go to YubaNet.com to get the very best in fire updates. When I sent an email asking why my comments were moderated, he said that I was “advertising” YubaNet and why should the Union put up with that? When I protested that I had no affiliation with YubaNet, just appreciated the community service they were providing re fire news, we had an email exchange in which he was quite rude to me, for no reasonable purpose that I could see. I’m still in moderation there, so I don’t bother to comment any more.
No doubt his next gig will be teaching at journalism school.
Thank you so much Jeff for offering a fairly unbiased source for local news. If it wasn’t for my wife wanting the union “for what it does offer”(?) we would have cancelled it long ago.
Yes, thanks Jeff. We’ve had our disagreements in the past (a la Union) but this is really something good you’re doing.
This from an “Award Winning Journalist” who is Greg Diaz’ largest campaign contributor? Any credibility you had (left)on anything related to this race is lost,Jeff. But it is still entertaining to the usual suspects who continue to swim in your swamp.
What did you get for your $500?
Jeff,
Pride. My wife and I gladly disclosed our $500 contribution. I am not a “for pay” journalist, so I have every right to do so. As I explained in my post, I was making a point: that we have support the most qualified people for nonpartisan positions in our county, not turn them into a political football matches. County supervisor Nate Beason has endorsed Greg for the same reasons I have.
You on the other hand, have fumbled the clerk-recorder election story from the get-go as a “paid” editor/publisher/columnist:
•You did not disclose Pruett’s involvement in the AtPac lawsuit in the initial story, a glaring “error of omission.”
•You ran an unflattering photo of Greg that upset his supporters.
•You did not report Greg’s side of the story about school board candidate Eric Hoefler’s allegation that he “reneged” on a promise.
•You failed to report the B&C Owner’s contribution to Pruett’s campaign. You also failed to report that Fran Freedle is his treasurer and also made a contribution. What happened to posting campaign finance documents online rather than selectively reporting the contributions?
In short, you have made one error of omission or error after the other. At the same time, you have been a cheerleader for the Tea Party Patriots, whom Barry supports — in columns and on the news page.
You should be the one worrying about credibility. You are the “paid” journalist. ROFLOL.
Liz Keller just wrote the following:
“I hope everyone understands that the online comments are an automated function of the website. No one here at The Union is monitoring the posts in any ONGOING fashion and censoring those they don’t agree with. The report abuse function is the only way posts get censored.” (capitalization mine)
Clever…not. And so transparently dishonest I can’t imagine this particular phraseology came from Liz. As far as the abuse function, my many posts simply never appeared to be flagged, EXCEPT a couple rather nondescript posts. Which, to me, indicates that they’re certainly monitoring and censoring specific people on specific subjects.
At this point there isn’t even an attempt to hide their agenda.
Wow – that is absolutely NOT true, and I have emails from Ackerman to prove it.
Sounds like Liz is not aware of the “moderate” feature that can be manually introduced on reader comments.
I can’t imagine how it’s possible that she’s NOT aware.
And she said “ongoing”. That’s her out, or rather Jeff’s out.
Sharon,
Send them along. I’ll be glad to publish them here.
My regrets, Jeff Pelline – but I would not consider that quite ethical. I only feel comfortable paraphrasing, as above.
I can’t think of a better way to make your point. Ask for Jeff’s permission to publish them. I’m sure he’d be glad to oblige as a journalist who’s interested in transparency and such.
It must be interesting reading for the Sac Bee journalists and editors to read these exchanges between the former editor and the current editor/publisher of The Union. I suppose one day they might decide to write about it. Now that will be interesting.
It’s also interesting that Jeff A. is able to spout his stuff unrestrained here, while The Union doesn’t afford that opportunity to its own community. Could it be more hypocritical?
It seems as if a common denominator among the “gool ole boys network” is to say something and then contradict themselves shortly thereafter – hoping that nobody will notice: As in Ackerman writing “So enjoy youselves, “ladies” and gentlemen. This is one cesspool I will not be revisiting.” – from the story on his lawsuit – he won’t be revisiting, but here he is revisiting. Funny, but it only feels ‘cesspooly’ when he enters the waters.
I know what really got the big A fired up – ’twas the “bawk, bawk, bawk” in conjunction with the chicken photo that lit a fire under his insecurities – especially after his recent humiliation. Is anybody at Swift paying attention to these antics? If they endorse his behavior, it must be a bad omen for the future of that company in general – not only the Union.
Thanks Jeff Pelline for putting out important news and keeping relevant matters of the community in the light.
I’m sure swift knows what’s going on. Their papers aren’t exactly the New York Times.
Folks, be careful. Make sure “Jeff” identifies himself as Jeff Ackerman; there are troll-type people who get their jollies by impersonating others, preferably in a plausibly-deniable way.
Because his rants are so unbelievable it couldn’t possibly be Jeff? Please. Have you ever had a back and forth with him?
Another good-ole boy commonality – aaron klein posts as ‘aaron’ – and ackerman posts only as ‘jeff.’ But hey, aren’t they above the rules that eveyone else uses? Obviously they think so.
Anna,
If you recall, I asked Jeff to identify himself by full name. And he should. But I am able to see the email address of all people who comment here.
> i am able to see the email address of all people who comment here
or at least the one they type in.
But OK.
I do think it’s valuable that Jeff Ackerman, assuming he is Ackerman, comes to comment here, even if it’s just to rant. I wish Pat Butler and Pascale would do likewise (though not necessarily the ranting part).
Dialogue iz good.
Anna…When one receives email, in most if not all cases, the address of the sender is automatic. One doesn’t “type it in.” No one is “posing” as Ackerman here. There’s no plausible deniability involved.
Anna,
Pat B. has been here to comment.