Coastsider

The Review apologizes and promises reveal the identity of anonymous advertiser

Editorial posted by Barry Parr on Nov 03, 2004 at 01:08 pm in  Media   Schools
6 comments • Click to email this story

The Review knows who took out the anonymous attack ad in its October 20 edition, and managing editor Clay Lambert has said when his investigation is complete he will publish a story not only revealing that person’s identity, but “all the players”.

I talked to Clay this morning after reading his apology for the ad in today’s Review to find out if he knew the mystery shopper’s identity and why it wasn’t revealed before the election. He says that there was no time before the election to get the complete story and apparently that story is still under investigation.

“We have been duped,” began Clay’s editorial in today’s Review, which ends with “And I’m sorry for that [the anti-democratic impact of the ad]”. The apology is thorough and sincere, and Lambert goes on to mention some things the Review is doing to alleviate the problem, including following up with the Fair Political Practices Commission to see if the law was broken, rethinking the Review’s policy of allowing campaigns to reserve prime advertising space, and reconsidering accepting ads from committees without valid ID numbers.

My interpretation of all this is that the Review feels used. Regardless of their political alignment, nothing pisses off a newspaper publisher like being taken advantage of by a paying customer. It’s supposed to work the other way around.

Jonathan Lundell lost by fewer than 500 votes, so it’s entirely possible that this nasty, anonymous ad affected the outcome of the election. That can’t be undone, but the Review is taking the right steps in the wake of this mess.

Comments

Comment 1 by Hal Bogner  on  Nov 04  at  12:39pm  •  All my comments • 

While I accept as sincere the apology and sentiments of Review Managing Editor Clay Lambert, I do not expect improvement without strong and continuous public pressure.

The Publisher of the Review, Debra Godshall, has befriended people with very aggressive agendas for growth - far in excess of the current City and County Plans, and in violation of various rules and agreements in all too many cases - and has personally commited the Review in editorial after editorial to throwing out most of the current HMB City Council in 2005 to diminish the enforcement of current laws and policy.

I hope that Mr. Lambert's education is not too painful, and that he is able to openly and honestly reveal the lack of neutrality that exists in the office of his boss, and demand that editorial integrity be restored. His predecessors do not appear to have been able to accomplish this, and Ms. Godshall has made herself a force to be reckoned with in the process.

I fully expect Ms. Godshall to do everything she can with the resources of the Review which she commands to continue to denigrate HMB Mayor Mike Ferreira and his fellow Council members, and to assist folks like Chris Mickelson and Pat Fitzgerald in furthering their business interests at the expense of the public.

The Review has been taking sides against the public interest for many years now, both by editorializing, and by selective reporting. I am glad that the Coastsider is covering this issue, and hope to see frequent reporting on this topic.

Thanks, Barry!

-hal bogner

Comment 2 by Janet Zich  on  Aug 26  at  6:08pm  •  All my comments • 

Did anyone ever discover who took out the anonymous ad? Now that the 2005 election season is revving up, it seems important to review (no pun intended) the political shenanigans of last year.

Comment 3 by JazzLover  on  Aug 27  at  2:21am  •  All my comments • 

Whatever happened to Clay's promise to identify the perpetrator?

This one can't be blamed on Karl Rove. But maybe someone's been taking lessons from his playbook. Ironic, isn't it, that Pat Fitzgerald is the guy investigating TraitorGate?

Comment 4 by Barry Parr  on  Aug 27  at  10:05pm  •  All my comments • 

The Review did reveal their identities. I suspect this question is a setup because one of them is up for reelection this year. You can see it here:

http://hmbreview.com/articles/2004/11/10/news/local_news/story05.txt

From the Review:

The ad was purchased by CCWD Director Chris Mickelsen. He said last week that fellow water board director Jim Larimer and another man, whose name he couldn't remember, were responsible for the ad.

"Cabrillo board President Jolanda Schreurs said the third man is Kirk Riemer. Riemer's name appears on a list of Coastsiders who endorsed Lundell's opponent, Charles Gardner. Riemer did not return a telephone call seeking comment."

 
 
Comment 5 by JazzLover  on  Aug 27  at  10:40pm  •  All my comments • 

I'd forgotten how that had turned out. Thanks for digging that up.

That article doesn't say anything about whether the Review gave any thought to the ethics of the situation. How does a publisher of a weekly not realize that something is up?

The article also doesn't address whether the Review played any role in (1) initiating/facilitating the whole thing, or (2) providing ad copy from Lundell's ad to Gardner, Schreurs, Riemer, Mickelsen, or Larimer.

That the Review took the opportunity to write another article tells a story. They could have asked themselves whether this should have happened in their paper.

I wonder what an ombudsman would have to say about that kind of response.

Comment 6 by Barry Parr  on  Aug 27  at  10:49pm  •  All my comments • 

I haven't seen any evidence that the Review collaborated in this. However, they did manage to delay exposing the plot until after the election.

 
 


Add your own comment

Please Register and Log in to post a comment.

 

Get your story or comment on Coastsider. If you're a member, log in to submit a story. Not a member? Please register to submit a story.

Search Coastside and San Mateo County media.