Last February The Union reported “Federal lawsuit filed against county clerk-recorder” — but with a glaring omission: His political opponent’s direct involvement in the case, known as the AtPac v. Nevada County.
Now the newspaper is reporting only one side of the story again: this time without getting the county’s perspective in a ruling against it to release some documents in the case. It is getting “spun” by AtPac’s attorney without publishing the county’s side — against the tenets of Journalism 101.
In the first instance, The Union failed to mention that the attorney representing AtPac in the bidding process was none other than Barry Pruett, who was Diaz’ opponent in the race. With egg on its face, the paper was forced to follow up with a subsequent report, leading with Pruett’s involvement. AtPac also was one of Pruett’s largest campaign donors.
Pruett wound up losing the clerk-recorder race handily, in every precinct, in fact.
This hasn’t stopped Pruett, a tea party advocate and big Tom McClintock supporter, from bashing Diaz months after the election. McClintock also made the local race partisan with a remark that it was time to replace the “left wing” clerk recorder. He was speaking at a tea party rally earlier in the year.
Pruett hasn’t let up. “Greg Diaz whining about retired ladies?” Pruett wrote on his blog when Diaz submitted an Other Voices that he had received reports of poll worker and voter intimidation.
Well, no. As it turned out, the report wasn’t focused on “retired ladies” at all — but McClintock staffers. In fact, Pruett probably knew one of them.
Now Pruett is continuing to beat the drum for the AtPac lawsuit, though parts — including the most serious charge — have been thrown out.
“It has been over two years since this mess created by Gregory Diaz began, over nine months since litigation started, and it does not appear to be any closer to resolution,” Pruett wrote about the political opponent who defeated him. Like-minded, hard right political blogger George Rebane followed up with his own similar spin too, baiting the local media to follow up.
Then (“surprise, surprise”) The Union weighed in.
But in all three reports nobody talked to the county, Diaz or its legal council. “Caroline Mankey, the attorney representing Nevada County and Aptitude Solutions, did not return repeated calls for comment. County Counsel Michael Jamison, who is not handling the case, was out of the office Monday.”
In fact, The Union isn’t even sure whether the required documents were provided or not. “The county’s deadline was Friday; on Friday afternoon, AtPac attorney Michael Thomas said he had not received any documents from the county. Thomas could not be reached Monday, and it was not clear whether the required documents had arrived in time.”
The Union should have held off publishing its report until it got both sides of the story. County officials, including the county executive officer, are readily available by cell phone and email.
Now The Union has provided a one-sided account to its readers, whether it was intentional or not — just like its original reporting of the suit when it omitted Pruett’s involvement.
It’s easy to argue that it played right into the AtPac lawyer’s hands — and Barry Pruett’s — solidifying its reputation as “The Tea Party Gazette.”
Filed under: Uncategorized
No mention in your report that the county has been ordered to pay $20,000 to Atpac’s lawyers, and for someone who constantly criticizes local government for their “good old boys” ways and lack of transparency, why no outrage over the fact that these documents haven’t been turned over as ordered? Why isn’t the county answering their phone?
I like Greg, and I voted for him like you did, but that doesn’t change the facts.
RL,
Wait a second. What facts? We only know what AtPac thinks. We don’t know the county’s position on the matter, because The Union and “wingnut” bloggers didn’t bother to get it. It “ain’t over” yet.
Look at all the fools who took sides in the original lawsuit and then learned that Barry Pruett represented AtPac in the bidding process and was making political hay out of it.
Thanks, but I’ll keep my power dry. There’s plenty of time to hold “good old boys” accountable. We should at least give the county a chance to respond.
What facts, indeed. U.S. Magistrate Judge Mueller ruled against the county back on Nov. 18th. The deadline was Friday. You’d think the county would want to get this story off the front page.
No, RL. You’d think The Union would keep it *off* the front page until it got both sides to respond, so it could fully inform its readers. The judge ruled against the county on Nov. 18 but the decision was appealed and denied on Dec. 14.
What’s the rush of another day or two until they hear from the county, or do they just want to keep writing it over and over again until they get it “right,” as with the original reporting of this lawsuit when Pruett’s involvement was omitted?
It looks to me like The Union is responding to pressure from the “wingnut” bloggers, including Pruett, and dragging the readers along.
I think your blog and other community members have done incredible work to reveal the venomous, petty, deliberately obtuse antics of the likes of Pruett and “Heckler” Meckler…and the ultimate vanity and ignorance of the party of wing nuts…while they merit no attention otherwise, the “Tea Party Gazette” is happy to heap slavering attention on fools. It shows what kind of quality journalists they are not. The truth always outs eventually–just ask Faux News
…Kate Hancock…this is not to say that the County of Nevada hasn’t acted like slimey cretins…counties often are cowardly liars when truth time comes due…
Pruett is still sniveling “sour grapes” after he took a whipping in the clerk-recorder race. Would this lawsuit magically go away had Pruett won?
Kate, I agree 100% with your post.
After the put-down he got from the voters of Nevada County in the race trying to oust Greg Diaz, a big 79% No to you, bub, it is surprising that Barry Pruett continues to try to propagandize and influence public opinion. His only claim to fame ever was through his wife’s employment as a staffer for McClintock. As for The Union, no educated, thinking person pays any attention to “news” printed in our local rag, which has come to be so error-filled, incomplete, one-sided since the paper was turned over to its present head honcho that it is really just a joke among serious news geeks, who list among its uses wrapping the garbage and puppy training. I continue to check it out online for the readers’opinion pieces and comments, buy a copy Wednesdays for the grocery specials. But good that you continue to report on the deficiencies, Jeff, and also the wingnut blogs, for the benefit of those who might follow The Union, Rebane, Steele, etc. and believe what is said there.
Pat,
Thanks for clearing up Barry Pruett’s “claim to fame” for us: His wife’s employment through McClintock. Woopdido. I guess the voters saw right through it too.
Voters here, it seems, are able to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff.” Pruett, Lamphier, and so on.
The laser-light focus of this blog on issues like this will continue. (BTW, I received another unwanted magazine subscription, this time from Maxxim. It’s looking awfully thin nowadays). LOL.
The involvement in the suit against the County while running for the office the suit is against STUNK during the campaign, and after simmering in the summer heat, even in the frost and cold of winter, is slick and stinks even more.
Campaign for another run at Diaz started the day after the election results? Interesting, for shore!!!
Just wanted to let your readers know that this is an article that was held while I pored through the documents, and held while I tried to reach the outside counsel repeatedly. If newspapers held stories indefinitely while embattled sources refused to talk, that would give those who don’t want articles to see the light of day a pretty powerful weapon, don’t you think? Also want to reiterate AGAIN that in my two-plus years here, Jeff A has never forced me to write a story that supported his politics, which as many know can be counter to most of those on the editorial staff. If I find info that hurts his stated position, I write it with no repercussions.
It’s great being able to read Liz’ response in this blog.
I’m not a reporter, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems to me that someone from these blogs, or The Union, or Yubanet, or KNCO, or KVMR, should drive up to the Rood Center and just start knocking on some cubicle walls.
Make a list, check it twice, go to find out who’s been naughty, and who’s been nice.
* Rick Haffey
* his direct reports
* county council and staff
* Clerk-Recorder’s office (Diaz and anyone else who
doesn’t hide in the cloak room)
* BOS
* random people in the hallways
Then come back a write a story about who talked and who didn’t.
The county has been ordered to pay $20K to AtPac’s lawyers and I want to know why. Like yesterday.
Righto Michael. It’s what Liz gets paid to do!
Liz,
The George Rebane and Barry Pruett blogs scooped you on this story, and all you did was match it without advancing it. You might as well have credited them for the original reporting.
You should have waited for the county or outside counsel’s response to more fully inform readers beyond what their blogs said, “advancing the story” in journalistic speak — just as you should have “dug deeper” to find out that Barry Pruett was involved in the original one in the first place. (Pruett’s involvement was a matter of public record at a county board meeting, searchable online).
This: http://www.theunion.com/article/20100206/NEWS/100209822&parentprofile=search
Then this:
http://www.theunion.com/article/20100208/NEWS/100209801&parentprofile=search
Then this:
http://www.theunion.com/article/20100209/NEWS/100209767&parentprofile=search
Newspapers still think that if it didn’t appear in their pages it “didn’t happen,” but the internet is changing the way we communicate.
I look forward to reading the county’s response, whether in The Union or on Yubanet (which has provided the most complete coverage of the AtPac lawsuit).
From Pruett’s blog:
“From an insider’s perspective, I observed with my own eyes what was happening in the Recorder’s office and in the County. That is why I ran against Diaz – not because of political ambition, but in an effort to do the right thing.”
LOL!
Well, it seems Pruetts “right” and my “Rights” just aint the same thang–kinda knew that goin in…Kate Hancock
Wouldn’t it be better if Pruett wanted to do the correct thing?