> Still waiting so I repeat: "Steve Brandt, what policy or reason had you
>leave this detail out of your article? It was a watershed, and readers should
>have been told." I look forward to your explanation here. Keith Reitman,
>NearNorth
Not being Steve Brandt, and not having any journalistic experience
since my high school paper days oh so long ago, I'll still take a stab at
answering this one.
That wasn't reported because it was just what you labeled it,
Keith: a detail. A small & insignificant item, with no particular
relevance to the public discussion that night, or to the voters in the
election a few weeks later.
It's always nice to support absolute democracy, and the fullest
and most open discussion possible. But let's be realistic. People have
busy lives, and only so much time to devote to attending forums like
this. Drag it on too long, and your audience will drift away (and we don't
have too many to start with at these forums). And including every
candidate for every office will make it very long.
The net effect of including all the candidates is that the
audience had LESS time to hear the ideas and programs of those candidates
who had a realistic chance of winning the election. So they were less
informed than they could have been. The audience would have been better
served if they had had more time to ask the major candidates follow up
questions, and get more detailed answers rather than sound bites.
Tim Bonham, Ward 12
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
