Online subscriber? Please Log In
  

Need Help? | Forgot Your Password?

Politics of deception weaves tangled web

May 16, 2014 | 15 Comments


By Jeb Bladine
Of the News-Register


Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .

Would you like to comment on this article?

Only online subscribers may comment on articles. Click here to see how you can subscribe.
Already a subscriber, please

Note: Some articles do not accept comments at all.

Comments

07:33 pm - Thu, May 15 2014
jag said:
My name is Tim Casey and this article about me by Jeb Bladine is completely false and the comments are untrue. Mr. Bladine had correct information given to him on 5-9-14 by Local 223 Union Steward in regards to my teamsters endorsement as well as an email from the Local 223 Secretary validating my endorsement.**EMAIL SENT TO JEB BLADINE FROM TEAMSTERS STEWARD ON 5-9-14:"It appears I have been added on to these emails because I am one of the Teamsters Local 223 Shop Stewards. No one should be explaining a Teamsters endorsement except Teamsters themselves. Teamsters Local 223 is directly affiliated with Teamsters Joint Council 37 and Local 223 is a voting member of the Joint Council 37. Teamsters Local 223 directed all candidates seeking an endorsement to the Political Screening Committee of Teamsters Joint Council 37. Two of the three Sheriff's candidates sought this Teamsters endorsement, and one of them received it." Rich Shop Steward Teamsters Local 223 *EMAIL SENT TO JEB BLADINE 5-15-14 FROM LOCAL 223** "Just a comment on alleged deception.Tim Casey did attend and receive an endorsement from the Teamsters .Teamsters Joint Council 37 is made up of 9 Teamsters Locals within Oregon and SW Washington.The Teamsters political action screening committee is made up of representatives from the respective Locals. Everyone has the opportunity to come before the committee to be interviewed. Tim attended and was interviewed and did receive the Teamsters endorsement . Local 223 had 2 representatives on the committee interviewing the participants. The unanimous vote was to endorse Tim Casey.That vote was a Local 223 endorsement. There was no deception on Tim's part, but I question the motives,deception and timing of your story. You should know your facts before printing such a misleading story. I wonder which candidate has your newspapers support?" Clayton D. Banry, Secretary/Treasurer Teamsters Local 223
08:02 am - Fri, May 16 2014
Rocket said:
Jeb, my understanding is that two candidates met with union officials seeking their endorsement. Can you tell me who the other candidate was? I assume that for both candidates to seek the endorsement in the middle of a campaign, both candidates placed a lot of value on this endorsement.
10:09 am - Fri, May 16 2014
Jeb Bladine said:
Tim Svenson reports that he did not receive notice from Joint Council 37 about the endorsement process, and did not seek the endorsement independently. As a YCSO captain, he is not a member of the Local 223 union.

According to Svenson, Tim Casey, who is a member of Local 223, sought the endorsement of Joint Council 37; and candidate Joe Shipley, who as a YCSO sergeant is not a member of Local 223, also sought the Joint Council 37 endorsement. Sgt. Shipley, said Svenson, was a shop steward in Local 223 prior to becoming a sergeant and thus leaving the union under organizational rules of the YCSO.

12:06 pm - Fri, May 16 2014
Rocket said:
Jeb, This just keeps getting more comical by the hour! At this point I can't determine if Tim Svenson works for the News Register or the Sheriff's office. You are now slanting the story to sound as though the only reason Tim Casey got the endorsement is because he is in the union and Svenson and Shipley weren't endorsed because they are not in the Union. The truth is, the Union endorses whoever they believe to be the best Candidate. They endorsed and support Tim Casey. In your editorial, you state that Casey is falsely claiming the endorsement. Now you appear to be slanting the story in an effort to make it sound as though he won by default.

In your response today you seem to appear to indicate Casey won by default, in your editorial, 4" above, you appear to be saying Casey lied. Which is it?
12:42 pm - Fri, May 16 2014
jag said:
The irony of the News Register writing an editorial on deception, interesting.


EMAIL SENT TO JEB BLADINE 5-15-14 FROM LOCAL 223** "Just a comment on alleged deception.Tim Casey did attend and receive an endorsement from the Teamsters .Teamsters Joint Council 37 is made up of 9 Teamsters Locals within Oregon and SW Washington.The Teamsters political action screening committee is made up of representatives from the respective Locals. Everyone has the opportunity to come before the committee to be interviewed. Tim attended and was interviewed and did receive the Teamsters endorsement . Local 223 had 2 representatives on the committee interviewing the participants. The unanimous vote was to endorse Tim Casey.That vote was a Local 223 endorsement. There was no deception on Tim's part, but I question the motives,deception and timing of your story. You should know your facts before printing such a misleading story. I wonder which candidate has your newspapers support?" Clayton D. Banry, Secretary/Treasurer Teamsters Local 223
07:23 pm - Fri, May 16 2014
Jeb Bladine said:
Rocket,
You asked for the identity of the other candidate who sought the endorsement, and I responded. You raised the issue of how much value the candidates placed on the Council 37 endorsement, and I simply was suggesting that current and past union membership might be an indication of that value to the candidates. I don't claim any insight into how Council 37 determines its endorsements. I can report that the 51 candidates endorsed by Council 37 include 49 Democrats, 1 Independent and 1 Republican. Paul Savas (Republican) and Sal Peralta (Independent Party of Oregon), both running in non-partisan races, were the only non-Democrats endorsed.

Editor's Note: The Teamsters Council 37 endorsement identified Tim Casey as a Democrat, but he reports to us that he is, and always has been, a conservative Republican.
08:18 am - Sun, May 18 2014
Don Dix said:
Let me get this straight -- two candidates couldn't get a union endorsement because they weren't members (one didn't even attempt), but the third candidate, who was a member, received an endorsement. Rather an underwhelming boast, from this perspective.
12:30 pm - Mon, May 19 2014
Self-Leveling said:
I find it interesting that there was no response to News Register requests for information until after the article was published (look at the date on the email). If this endorsement was anything but an attempt to get campaign fodder a response would have come sooner. I think a more accurate portrayal of endorsement would have come in a vote of the general membership and not a counsel where members have no vote. I will spin it like others have on different issues and say if Casey wanted the endorsement of 223 why didn’t he request a vote? Is it because he lacks support there? All is not well for Casey and the rank-and-file.

See I can spin too.
04:46 pm - Wed, May 21 2014
JamesJ said:
All I see is that once again The NewsRegister is showing it's true colors - dirty journalism. Makes me wonder if they have been bought out by The National Enquirer.
09:16 pm - Wed, May 21 2014
Jeb Bladine said:
JamesJ,
An obscure, 46-word paragraph tucked into a column on the back of our editorial section now is the equivalent of the National Enquirer? And a down-played expression of opinion -- one, by the way, that is shared by many people -- now is dirty journalism?
Sorry to say, but that seems akin to various forms of McCarthyism in which hyperbole is used in an attempt to redirect issues and perhaps silence expression of opinion.
But perhaps I'm over-reacting to your expression of opinion, which of course is why we provide this forum in the community.
12:31 am - Thu, May 22 2014
sbagwell said:
James:
Newspapers have been publishing opinions in opinion sections since the 1600s. Hundreds if not thousands of journalists make their living writing columns in which they express opinions.
This was a clearly labeled opinion column appearing in a clearly labeled opinion section. All of the hullabaloo is over a single paragraph in a single column.
Here's the nub issue:
This was not an endorsement made by the 41 deputies working for the sheriff's office. It was an endorsement made by the parent Teamsters Union in Portland.
It went to a union member who was expressly invited to participate. It did not go to a management command officer who is not a union member, not eligible to be a union member, and not given a chance to make a pitch.
I understand you like your guy. But it seems to me he can compete just fine on his record as it stands, without unwarranted embellishment.
He has not been endorsed by the rank and file and no stretching of words is going to make it so. He has been endorsed by the regional Teamsters Union, which is affiliated with many other employee groups as well as with the Teamsters union that represents local deputies.
Steve
10:25 am - Thu, May 22 2014
Spongebob said:
JamesJ either has a very unfocused view of things ("All I see..."), or he's trying out new material for a stand-up comedy act. Sad, either way.
05:14 pm - Fri, May 23 2014
Self-Leveling said:
I understand you like your guy. But it seems to me he can compete just fine on his record as it stands, without unwarranted embellishment.

It makes me wonder what other embellishments are hiding within the Casey campaign. I guess there is six months to figure it out, shorter if you figure the campaign before the vote. Trust me I know several in law enforcement across the county and will be asking questions when I see them.

Perhaps I found a mission since I don't like how the campaign got on other comment sections and were called out on it after stating they were not part of one. In most parts of the world they call that a lie...
08:46 am - Sat, May 24 2014
macbeardad said:
The News Register, as with many opinion pages, can and does periodically put a stake in in ground in the wrong political place from my perspective. However, i support their right to do so. I get more concerned with the news reporting in which subtle hints and words used in coverage reflect, either intentionally or otherwise, bias and/or editorial opinion. Report facts in news, opinion in editorials and trust us to know the difference.
10:53 pm - Sun, May 25 2014
Jeb Bladine said:
I want to agree with you, macbeardad, because editorializing in the news is something we want to avoid. But here's the rub:

Much of the criticism in that area is about inclusion of facts that someone thinks were not relevant or were intended to bias the reader. And other criticism focuses on inclusion of "common knowledge" as if it were fact -- definitely a gray area of reporting. In that view, the test of unbiased reporting is that it ignores the facts that are not relevant, and does not include any of that common knowledge reporting.

That introduces plenty of bias in thinking through the subtleties of whether one fact is relevant, while another should be withheld. Our bias is to report as many facts as we know and trust readers to choose what is relevant to them.

That said, I have to admit there those common knowledge assumptions can be troublesome. When such reporting seems inappropriate, you should send us a comment.

© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Web design & powered by LVSYS