Ellington

• Sign in to favorite this
• Discuss Comment, Blog about
• Share this Email, Facebook, Twitter

The turn this mayoral campaign has taken is extremely frustrating, especially between the Harvey Johnson and Jonathan Lee campaigns. And from where we sit, trying to get out as much accurate information as possible, we see it all. It is one thing to get good, solid public information from a candidate, supporter or anyone as we did last week when we received an envelope of real information about Lee's business issues—which, in turn, a led to a very revealing interview with the candidate, in which we learned that he actually never has been a business owner. The public has the right to know about all of this, and then decide what they think.

But this week, both campaigns have frustrated us. First, the Lee campaign put out a press release (see below) listing several accusations of the Johnson campaign. When our reporter called them to get backup materials, they refused to give us any. I guess we're all supposed to believe it without proof. (See: lesson in that envelope of documents we got last week.)

We're also frustrated with the Johnson campaign over the same press release, though. They put out a press release in response (also quoted in below story) that referred to our story about Lee's business woes and used the fact that Lee is facing those troubles as a response to the allegations?

Huh?

That is not a response. A response would be actual information about the incidents referred to—on which both campaigns failed epicly. It's as if it is a push-and-shove game on a playground. "Oh, yeah?" "Oh, yeah!"

What the public needs is information: documents, links, sources, people will go on the records. It's what we're in the business of doing: gathering and disseminating facts. We cannot legally put out garbage on people and public officials, and the campaigns should not, either. Granted, the Johnson campaign was responding to Lee based on a factual story about his business problems, but a much better response would be information that refuted and/or gave context to the allegations in the email.

Not to mention how many half-baked accusations are flying around; Lee supporters have been especially fond of floating theories to us about the Johnson administration—which none of them bothered to pitch us over the last four years—but then not being able or willing to back them up with documents or people to talk to.

One case in point: a story someone mentioned to me last Sunday; he told us who to call to get details, which we did Monday; he wouldn't talk unless we knew exactly which questions to ask, which we didn't because it's their story tip; the original source then said he'd provide those Wednesday; we didn't hear from him; texted him last night; he texted back this morning with a 90-minute window we could talk to him in; we were on daily deadline and couldn't; now says he's too busy to talk. I told him to call me when he can so we can pursue his lead.

Meantime, Lee supporters claim that we're biased because we reported his legal issues (supported by DOCUMENTS, mind you), and none of them have given us something we can do much with, yet, although we are scrambling to pursue all the allegations below. (http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2013/may/03/fact-checking-lee/">See what we know so far here about one part of it.)

We're also frustrated no end today over campaigns and PACs that thumb their noses at transparency and the public's right to know who is funding candidates, but I'll save that one for a different blog post.http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2013/may/01/lees-legal-troubles-multiply/">link text

Rant over.