Dan Niziolek says at the end of his message in the forum: "I will let you, the readers, draw your own conclusion."
Since he drew me "James Anderson" into the foray I'd like to add my thoughts. I'd like to start by saying that when Dan and I talked about the arrangements for this interview the first thing Dan pointed out to me was the lawn sign in front of the house I live in. He did not ask if it was mine. He simply assumed it was mine and did not stop to consider the possibility that it was put there by the owner of the house. I am not the owner. Dan then went on to say that he was worried that my bias would show in the article and Dan wanted to have someone from outside the neighborhood write the interview with us! Instead I offered both candidates the opportunity to have campaign staff in attendance at the interview, both of them declined. In order to add some context to the quote from Rosa, here is the entire unedited email that Dan quoted in his message: ******************************************************************* > Dear Dan, > > Jim and I appreciate your concern. As we set up the Sept. 6th debate, > it became obvious the format would not allow closer looks at candidates > and their ideas. Thus, the decision was made for a post-primary > interview well before the primary winners were known. > > To know how an item will be written for a newspaper until the event > it covers occurs is impossible, unless the article is biased. Jim was > conveying an idea of how he envisioned the interview would unfold > when he asked you to participate. As you and Doug interacted, it > became obvious that the different styles with which each of you > responded were just as important as the words. > > The article was reviewed before it was sent to you for the number of > times each candidate's name was mentioned. Doug had one more > mention than you, only because in the last paragraph, to provide > clarity, it was said "Dan told Doug...", then "Doug responded....." > In addition, it was reviewed for total word count in responses > directly connected with each candidate to provide equal coverage. > > The purpose of the article is to convey to Wedge residents how > two candidates for city council would serve the interests of people > in Lowry Hill East as a council member. The questions asked > during the interview were based, in part, on questions submitted > by the audience at the debate on Sept. 6th. The rest of the questions > came from research conducted before the debate, and phrased to > reflect the results of the primary election. > > To make a statement at the top of an article mentioning a > presumed bias is to create a factual bias. However, as a favor > to you, Jim and I included a statement at the end of the article: > > Dan Niziolek expressed a concern before the interview about > the implication of assumed support for Doug Kress by one of > the interviewers, as expressed by a lawn sign. Mr. Niziolek > asked to review the article before press and also for a disclaimer > about the potential for bias as implied by the lawn sign. > > On a personal note, Dan, your statement as a fact that an > interviewer was not one of your supporters, was, instead, an > assumption. I liked some of the things you were saying during the > primary forums, and looked forward to getting more details to > help me decide how to vote in the general election. In addition, > the committee for the debate, and thus the interview, consists > of LHENA board members. As board members, Jim and I believe > we have a responsibility to reflect the concerns and views of the > people in our neighborhood, whether we agree with the view or > share the concern. It was with this concept of responsibility in > mind that we agreed to arrange the debate and to follow up with > a more in-depth interview. We acted as representatives of the > neighborhood, and not as individual residents. > > Yours truly, > Rosa Field ******************************************************************* Rosa and I had included the statement for Dan at the end of the article as a favor to him Then after the paper had been printed Dan sent this message to Rosa: ******************************************************************* > Rosa, > > I would like the statement that you added for my benefit to not be included in the article. > > As for my statement about supporters as interviewers, I did not say that you were not a supporter of mine. There was no reference to you since I am unaware of who you support. > > Thanks!! > > Dan ******************************************************************* Another point of clarification: I did not write the story! Again Dan assumed that since I had set up the debate and helped conduct the interview that I would be writing the story as well. I had asked Dan in a phone message if he had read the story; I did not hear back from him on that one. I can only assume that these other issues are far more important than the actual content of the story to him. I would like to see a city council person elected who is able to keep the process moving and is able to represent all of the people, even the ones who disagree with him. People who spend hours and days arguing about how unfair it is that everything is not in their control worry me deeply. "I will let you, the readers, draw your own conclusion." Jim Anderson Lowry Hill East _______________________________________ 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
