Has the Palm Coast Observer become the Palm Coast Participant?

     According to the online edition of Merriam-Webster, the word "observer" is defined as, "one that observes: such as:

 a : a representative sent to observe but not participate officially in an activity                  (such as a meeting or war)

 b : an expert analyst and commentator in a particular field 

The opposite, or antonym of observer is participant. As this week's editions of the Palm Coast Observer and The Flagler / Palm Coast News-Tribune hit the pavement of my driveway; and, as I began to peruse each print paper, I began to wonder if the Observer was in the process of, or, had reached full transformation to that of Palm Coast Participant.

     Allow me to set the stage as to how I arrived at this point and why I am posing this question. In 2015, I know for a fact a political action committee (PAC), named Better Government Leadership, was formed. I attended the first organizational meeting held in the conference room at Chiumento, Dwyer, Hertel, Grant and Kistamaker. Other attendees included: Bob and Joanne Updegrave, Michael Chiumento, the Laury's, and John Walsh, publisher of the Observer. 

     The committee was formed in order to counter the takeover and subsequent control of the Flagler County Republican Club, along with majority voting interest of the Flagler County Republican Executive Committee, orchestrated by remnants of the Ronald Reagan Republican Assembly of Flagler (RRR), a now defunct organization. With the PAC in place, the group could receive contributions and make expenditures for candidates that displayed knowledge and leadership and essentially were the antithesis of Kimberle B. Weeks. Further, the Flagler County Republican Club could essentially divest its assets, monies in its treasuries, to other groups, like the Flagler County Young Republicans, with the understanding the PAC would support and fund candidates who were clearly the opposite of the RRR. It was seen as a temporary measure until such time the Florida Republican Party would reinstate the club's charter, which occurred in 2016. The PAC, Better Government Leadership, has a Facebook page, with posts dating back to October of 2016; and, actively supported candidates, including: DeLorenzo, Klufus, O'Brien, and Holland. Of these 4, Walsh and his PAC, along with a little help from the Observer, were obviously successful in seating these candidates. It appears the goal is to seat these 4 this year:

Facebook Cover Photo for Flagler County & Palm Coast Better Government and Leadership 

(July 9, 2018)

Facebook Cover Photo for Flagler County & Palm Coast Better Government and Leadership 

(updated July 20, 2018)

Facebook Cover Photo for Flagler County & Palm Coast Better Government and Leadership 

(updated July 23, 2018 at 8:58 am, the day of the Hob Nob)

     I am well aware of freedom of speech and the freedom to support or advocate against political candidates; however, when you are the publisher of a local newspaper, with online and print access, let's be transparent. For instance, I know if I watch news coverage on CNN or MSNBC, the "observers" are many times active "participants" rather than reporters of the news. The same holds true for many shows on FOX News. One would hope field reporters and editors would be able to quell obvious biases. 

     Consider the series of cover photos posted above. The page incorporates the official logos of numerous government and private entities within Flagler County and Palm Coast. To the average Facebook user, it would appear as if these organizations support this page, and by extension, the candidates/issues the page either promotes and/or denounces. After receiving notification of this use of logos, the Flagler County Supervisor of Elections responded on July 11th via Facebook Message and Certified Mail. The cover photo was then changed on July 20th, with candidate photos. By July 23rd, at 8:58 am, the day of the Flagler County Chamber of Commerce Hob Nob, the cover photo was updated to include two words, "Vote for". 

Many have made inquiries as to who is behind this group. In my opinion, John Walsh is still firmly ensconced with the PAC; and, it now appears as if the bias of the PAC is spilling over onto the pages of the Observer.

     The Observer first covered the Hob Nob with an online article. The online headline read,"Locals cast their votes in Flagler Votes straw poll". It included a photo of Jack Howell, Candidate for Palm Coast City Council, District 2, and opening observations as, "Incumbent county commissioners Nate McLaughlin and Greg Hansen and School Board member Trevor Tucker beat their challengers in a straw poll held at the Flagler Votes Candidate and Voter Hob Nob at the Palm Coast Community Center July 23". This is a factual observation and was reported in a succinct, Joe Friday, 'just the facts' manner. The story posted on July 23rd. What happened from Monday to Thursday, the date of the Observer's print edition?

     The front page included this "Inside" description, "First Indicator? Locals cast their votes in Flagler Votes straw poll Page 10".

Palm Coast Observer Front Page Vol. 9 No. 20 July 26 Print

On page 10, the opening "observations" had changed from those reported online about Commissioners Hansen and McLaughlin to that of Jack Howell's win over Jon Netts for Palm Coast City Council, District 2. Other than the printed straw poll results, neither Commissioner Hansen nor Commission McLaughlin appear in the print edition, in fact, the entire first paragraph from the online story has been removed. 

Palm Coast Observer Front Page Vol. 9 No. 20 July 26 Print - Page 10

On page 11, exactly opposite of this story, the Observer reports on the first Trump Dinner held by the Flagler Trump Club. Interestingly, a photo of Joe Mullins, the first candidate featured by Flagler County & Palm Coast Better Government Leadership, is featured. Even more perplexing, the photo of the Dinner Committee shows former members of the Ronald Reagan Republican Assembly of Flagler: Polly Dunkel, Maureen Kubasky, Kim Olson, Bert Cordwell, Bob Hamby, Joe Kubasky, and Bob Dunkel. This is the very group against whom those who formed the PAC in 2015 sought to neutralize, in a political sense. 

Palm Coast Observer Front Page Vol. 9 No. 20 July 26 Print - Page 11

     Now, compare this to the coverage by The Flagler/Palm Coast News Tribune (The News Tribune). Like the Observer, an online story posted on July 24th, Campaign Season Cranks Up at Flagler Hob Nob. It included a photo gallery depicting the event. The first "observation" includes, "Twenty-two candidates across 11 races that will appear on the Aug. 28 primary and November general ballots in Flagler County set up shop at the Palm Coast Community Center to mingle with residents during the Flagler Votes Hob Nob". 

Chamber of Commerce releases straw ballot results - News Journal July 24 online

The print edition of The News Tribune arrived wrapped up with the weekly Pennysaver. Its front page called readers' attention front and center with a headline of "Poll Cats" and a large photo depicting the event. The story is covered on page A3, NOT PAGE 10. The print story follows the online reporting. Paragraphs were not deleted. 

Front page The News Tribune Wednesday, July 25

The story continues on page A8, with more photos and a breakdown of the races. The first paragraph for "Local Races" reports the results of County Commission District 2 and District 4 races and actually names the incumbents and their opponents. Isn't that how one "observes" and then reports? A straw poll was held. Greg Hansen received 100 votes while his challenger Abby Romaine received 64. Likewise, Nate McLaughlin "bested Joe Mullins" with 115 votes to 56. 

     Consider this. How would the Observer have reported the event had these candidates won the straw poll? Would their photos have been splashed across the front page? Would the reporting have started on page 3? Would there have been reactions from the candidates quoted?

For me, it's more than curious John Walsh, publisher of the Observer, would take time from his duties to send an email to me, cautioning me about referring to him in my social media posts, while reminding me he is not a public figure and my comments could be subject to liable and/or slander actions, simply because I dared to criticize one of his chosen candidates. Why would the opponents of any of these candidates spend a penny or take time to respond to any questions when a clear bias is present and in full campaign mode? 

Just as Holland, Klufus, Cuff, DeLorenzo, and O'Brien were promoted ad nauseam, and political advertisements were dispatched with fervor, I have no doubt the Observer will soon show its true calling as the Palm Coast Participant, promoting its next generation of political puppets.  

Note to the opponents, advertise in the News Journal, The News Tribune, and/or FlaglerLive. More reach for your advertising dollars. 

Publisher or Puppet Master?

Publisher or Puppet Master?

“Fake News”! Today’s anthem cry for biased reporting. Were any of us shocked when Donna Brazile, former Interim-Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), shared debate questions with then candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2016 primaries? Didn’t we share a collective laugh and attribute such action to national levels? Did our collective blinders extend a bit too far? What is the fallout when local publishers, editors, and reporters turn from their role of informing to roles of political puppet master and dutiful puppets?

            We rely on reporters, editors, and publishers for their ability to tell stories in a succinct, comprehensive manner and present facts. When a paper’s neutrality is maintained, the public and voters are well-served. Facts in well-researched stories provide valuable information for consideration in advance of scheduled elections. This is especially vital when candidates are new and relatively unknown to the community.

When neutrality is abandoned; then, motives MUST be called in to question. Did the publisher use power and position to influence, sugar-coat or suppress stories? Could the publisher pressure those from other media outlets to sweep information under the rug? If a publisher carried a grudge against an incumbent, would that publisher actively seek candidates for primary races? What if assurances were given that crucial background information would stay buried?

Gathering candidate petitions is commonplace. Most voters sign petitions, regardless of party affiliation. Many believe candidates deserve the chance to make their case to the voters. However, once qualified, significant access to monetary resources, such as personal wealth and/or strong backing from a local publisher, could, in this writer’s opinion, provide an easy path to buy the office sought and suppress past transgressions.

Consider the implications if neutrality has been tossed aside. What if facts began to surface that called into question the very political platform established by any candidate? If a candidate proclaims military service as evidence of experience, what happens when said service is shown to be exaggerated or fraudulent? If a candidate filed bankruptcy, was it a one-time event; or, is it a repeated method to address debt? What if a candidate is portrayed as a business man and that same candidate had multiple federal tax liens placed on property? Do voters have the right to know and the expectation local news outlets will report such findings?

            Political platforms convey character content, too. We’ve all seen and heard the “family man” card played. Later, we learn of escapades that make Bill Clinton look like a choir boy. How many times has God and religion been a part of a campaign, particularly if past indiscretions of younger days are to be overlooked? How many times have those same politicians been caught in establishments neither God nor religion would endorse? If given a simple traffic citation, does the candidate take responsibility and pay the fine; or, are political contacts called to quash the citation? Character matters and background stories help voters determine that content.

            Are we all perfect? Certainly not. In Romans, Paul writes, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. The difference is what we do going forward; after confessing and beginning a relationship with God. Consider the issue of divorce. A candidate with a divorce or two under his or her belt is not an unusual situation. What caused the divorce? Was it amicable? Was it messy, fraught with harassment? Did either spouse engage in activities that would cause Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt to turn away in shame? What happened after the divorce? If there are children, are the divorce provisions for the children, such as child support and health insurance coverage, being honored? What’s the current family situation? Did he or she remarry? Has past behavior changed or is it a repeated pattern? There’s an old saying, “when the cat’s away, the mice will play”. When either spouse is away, what does the other do? Does he or she engage is conversations or activities, neither would be able to explain to children? In this era of #MeToo, can the candidate’s actions be construed as the degradation and/or bullying of women? Shouldn’t voters have the answers to these questions in order to reach an informed decision?

            When neutrality is honored, diligent reporters uncover answers through public records, prior news articles, and conversations with folks who know the candidate. Information is presented to the editor for fact-checking or the development of more story lines. If the paper’s chartered course is in the neutral zone, the public will be presented with Joe Friday’s “just the facts” to develop an informed opinion. If a publisher exits the neutral zone, then slivers of facts appear in puff pieces designed to quell any further curiosity. The goal becomes to have the candidate get it front of the story early enough so that although a report has been filed, it’s done early enough so that voters will forget before primary season begins in earnest. It is at this point, in this writer’s belief, the publisher seeks to become the puppet master.

            Consider for a moment, emails transmitted from puppet masters to elected officials questioning party loyalty? Why would any publisher question the attendance of or absence from local organizations by any official? Imagine a successful puppet master, who, through careful orchestration of supported candidates, managed to help elect candidates such that a majority of a city or county council is now beholden to this publisher. Would either the editor or any reporters dare to air any unflattering revelation? Would any process be questioned? Would the pulling of such strings pave the way for partnerships with local government entities? Why would publishers knowingly abandon their natural, adversarial position to, as Jefferson would advise, “question with boldness”, statements made and platforms established by candidates and elected officials? What if puppet masters actively sought to intimidate public postings on social media with cautions of libel and slander? Think it couldn’t happen? Think again.

            We may chuckle when we hear “Fake News” ascribed to certain news outlets. When publishers seek to expand political influence, the possibility of local political organizations providing candidates with questions in advance of public forums becomes very real. Younger versions of established Democratic or Republican organizations dutifully host forums, offer support, and gather candidate petitions to curry favor and garner funding from publishers seeking fortune and fame; and, never stop to question who the candidate is. Vital information either becomes buried or appears on an obscure page of the publication. If candidates are unable and/or unwilling to break the strings that bind them to the puppet master; then we as voters must remain vigilant in holding puppet master publishers accountable when neutrality is cast aside.