<< I, Keith Reitman, asked the question; Why not report the first candidate
debate open to all registered mayoral candidates, in the run-up to the
Primary? It was news and it was an exercise in free speech. Keith says;
> 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
In a message dated 2/13/02 12:28:09 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
(Snip)Keith- I borrow Terrill Brown's comment below (from current
redistricting debate) to address Tim Bonham's dismissive comment above.
[TB] I find that statement rather sexist. It should be a goal to get
more *people* both running for office and involved in the process. We
have a tremendous number of people who just don't care enough to get
involved. Those that don't care enough are both men and women.
(Snip) Keith adds; And when they do get involved, Tim Bonham is there
to support silencing them. Is it not discouraging to participation if persons
who abide by all rules to qualify, are then not allowed their fair forum? And
do I really want Tim Bonham to be the Gatekeeper of candidate quality and
relevance? As far as who may win, or not; Tim, you are treasurer of our local
DFL and have said little cash is available. Perhaps you should take what is
left to the track and work your magic there. I will wait around here and
listen closely to all those who take the time and give the effort to
participate in our democratic system.
(Snip) back to Tim Bonham
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
>>
Keith says; Specific to the NRP rally and candidate debate I had
originally mentioned: Agree or disagree with him, I was pleased that
"also-ran" Bill McGoughey was a voice in the debate calling for the complete
abandonment of the NRP Program. And I was pleased that the NRP activists,
that night, gave him the forum to present his candidate view. It was one more
memorable, but unreported, moment that magical evening.
Keith Reitman, We fought for change at City Hall, NearNorth
_______________________________________
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
