Councilman Mike Kennedy
This morning’s CdA Press headline cried out that Mike Kennedy has been vindicated! The loving article tried to elicit care and concern for the poor city councilman. And, in the unbalanced piece, every mention of Jim Brannon and the Election Challenge managed to leave an icky feeling.
I went to the CdA Press blog site to post a comment and see what other readers had to say but, lo and behold, they did not put the top headline article on their site; there can be no comments on their blog about the topic.
So let’s talk about it here. Those of you who have read the piece…what is your opinion? Fair and balanced? Slanted?
Second request, may we have an open session Tuesday.
Comment by rochereau — October 12, 2010 @ 8:40 am
You are right about Jim Brannon’s silence, Wallypog. I hear he’s been out of town on a well-deserved fishing trip, so, hopefully, when he returns he will address these issues in a public way.
The paper could still have balanced the article without direct quotes from Jim, and the part about his firing should have been left out because it was off-topic and they slanted it to one side of the story.
Comment by mary — October 12, 2010 @ 8:44 am
Lamentably, Brannon seems to be away, unavailable, or just unable to comment most of the time. That creates a public perception.
Comment by Dan — October 12, 2010 @ 8:45 am
Yes, Rochereau, brilliant idea! I’ll put one up right now.
Comment by mary — October 12, 2010 @ 8:45 am
Wallypog,
In your comment #49, you said, “Brannon’s silence and absence is his worst enemy now.”
How so?
Early in the election contest both Jim Brannon and Starr Kelso provided comments. In some cases, their “no comment” was expanded to include words they never uttered. Given the lack of commitment to accuracy in the Coeur d’Alene Press and the total disinterest by the Spokesman-Review, there is nothing to be gained by making comments that will either be distorted or ignored.
Jim and Christine Brannon and Starr Kelso are evaluating the judge’s decision to determine if it will be appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. Until that decision is made, their silence is appropriate. Let the our local instruments of propaganda speculate and fabricate to their heart’s content.
As for Jim’s absence now, he went fishing after the judge handed down his decision. Jim was present in court for every hearing and in trial for every session. He was an active participant in his own case. In pursuing this election contest, Jim and Christine and Starr have accomplished more and done more for the honest people of Idaho, Kootenai County, and the City of Corrupt d’Alene than he would have been allowed to accomplish had he won the election. I think he was entitled to get away for a few days.
Jim Brannon’s only enemies are dishonest public officials and the cowards who worship and encourage them.
Comment by Bill — October 12, 2010 @ 9:00 am
Jim Brannon has a lawyer who represents him in this election mess – he is not required to give a comment. That’s his attorney’s job which is probably a good thing ‘lest he call them all a bunch of dingleberries.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 12, 2010 @ 9:32 am
Again, Bill is correct. Parties to litigation should never comment during the ongoing process. Jim Brannon has exhibited courage rarely seen in “this place”. And yes, you may read derision in “this place”.
Comment by rochereau — October 12, 2010 @ 9:35 am
It is one thing for a litigant to say ‘no comment’. It’s another thing entirely to evaporate and not be seen or heard from. Brannon needs to at least have some degree of presence and speak through his counsel.
Did anyone else notice that the Press conducted one of their ‘on-line’ polls about the outcome of this case? Did anyone notice that this poll was ended early and the results of the poll left without any Press commentary (unlike their other on-line polls of late)? The last result of that poll I recall was about 50/50 showing a split of opinions between justice done or bald-@ss toadyism.
Comment by Wallypog — October 13, 2010 @ 6:25 am