Posted Oct 4, 2011, 4:18 pm
Republican city council candidate Tyler Vogt told the editorial board of the Arizona Daily Star last week that he'll only answer written questions, and won't appear for a candidate interview.
The East Side GOPer, who hopes to unseat Ward 4's Democratic councilwoman, Shirley Scott, sent the Star a letter, saying he'd decided to "opt out of your candidate interview process. While I believe that an informed public is the highest aspiration of the election process, I have very little confidence that our meeting will result in an unbiased presentation of my platform, qualifications and opinions."
Vogt faulted the Star's endorsement of Scott in her last race: "your political agenda was flawed to endorse an incumbent because she wanted to put solar panels on her ward office."
Shades of Republican legislators Sen. Al Melvin, then-Rep. Frank Antenori, Rep. David Gowan and Rep. David Stevens, who refused to answer even written questions from the Star's editorial board in 2010.
Then, the quartet wasn't singing the praises of the morning daily, saying they were asked "extremely liberally-biased questions, built upon premises on which we disagree."
Vogt did say he'd answer questions in writing: "I trust that the Star has the ability to present facts in an unbiased manner and bring those facts to the public. In that vein, I am anxious to answer any and all of your questions in writing to truly achieve our mutual goal of an informed electorate."
Scott's campaign manager, Matt Kopec, said the incumbent is "more than happy to meet and discuss the issues with anyone at any time."
What's your take?
Is the Star's editorial board liberal? Too liberal? Or do they reflect an establishment, mainstream viewpoint? Are political candidates duty-bound to discuss their platforms with the media? Is answering written questions enough, or should a candidate stand up for the sort of scrutiny that can only happen in an interview?
Thanks to our donors and sponsors for their support of local independent reporting. Join Bryn Bailer, Jane Erikson, and Rose-Mary Grzasko & Bill Vaughn and contribute today!
2 comments on this story
Yes. But, I don’t want my news “conservative” either. What I demand from news outlets is just to present me with the fact. Give me all the facts, and have them verified and well-researched, and then leave it at that. Leave opinions and slant out of stories. I don’t need the newspaper to do my thinking for me. I am perfectly capable and willing to do my own thinking and form my own opinions.
If you’re talking about the media establishment…the Star represents what the mass media has deteriorated into, with the volume turned up a bit.
Well, yeah, I believe they are…but I also believe that media outlets are duty-bound to be fair, balanced, and unbiased. I guess giving objective facts don’t sell as many newspapers or something. Anyway, cooperation is a two-way street. If the Star isn’t going to live up to its duty, then I perfectly understand why a political candidate wouldn’t want to subject himself to that sort of disparagement.
What, the kind of scrutiny that Buckmaster gives to Braindead Bob and Jim Glock?
In this particular case, I believe the written questions are far more than the Star’s editorial board deserves. However, generally speaking yes I would like to see a political candidate sit for an interview and answer the tough questions. At the same time, I don’t want to see an interviewer turn up the heat just for the sake of controversy…I would want to see fair questions, both positive and negative.
I don’t know much about Vogt or the Ward 4 race. However, I read Vogt’s letter, and it was spot on. Were I running for any public office, I would do the exact same thing. The Star has conclusively proven in the last handful of years that they have a blatant political agenda, will prop anyone up who furthers that agenda, and will distort, spin, or even smear those that threaten their agenda.
The Star’s editorial board endorsed Grijalva for Congress…someone whose qualifications were based on smoke-and-mirrors, and…oh yeah, someone who called for a boycott of our own state. To me, that gives the Star just as much credibility as it gives Grijalva…not much.