A Disgusting Show Of Bias

I have to admit, I thought I was done with blogging the District 15 elections. But this is a story that seems to never go away. I saw a piece in today's edition of the local paper, the Nassau Herald that really made my blood boil. If this not the most biased piece of garbage to ever pass as news, then I don't know what is. This stuff makes even Gary Rosenblatt look like he's "fair and balanced". And that, my friends, is quite the stretch. Here is the piece in full, with my commentary interspersed:

The month-long battle for the Lawrence school board was tame compared to recent years, but despite the toned down rhetoric from the four candidates, the campaign was not without controversy.

Fair start.

From stealing pro-budget leaflets, submitting fliers giving the wrong date of the election, selectively sent e-mails and accusations of subliminal language, the 2006 Lawrence school board races appeared to be as divisive as in the past, according to many observers.

This could have been a reasonable paragraph, except for some minor quibbles. The first point, regarding the "stealing of pro-budget leaflets"? It's never borne out in the article. Not that the rest of the points are proven in any substantial way, as I will enumerate below, but the point as it stands, claiming the stealing of pamphlets is just gratuitous bashing of the private school (i.e.: anti-budget) community. To throw out such an accusation without even a lousy attempt at proving it? Not so much as a measly anonymous comment "alleging" that the stealing went on? Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Moving right along.

One controversy stemmed from campaign signs for candidates Michael Hatten and Uri Kaufman that had the words "Lag B'Omer" on the bottom, indicating that the election day fell on a holiday observed by many Orthodox Jews. Many residents felt the words were designed to be a code to let the large Orthodox Jewish population in the district know that Hatten and Kaufman would serve the community if elected.

"Too many people don't know what this is" said Alison Biller of Woodmere, a 1998 Lawrence High School graduate at the May 9 school board meeting when she addressed her concern over the language on the signs.

Um...a "code"? Are these the subliminal messages that the first paragraph is referring to? Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. The election fell on a Jewish holiday. The signs were put up in neighborhoods with large Orthodox population. What a genius of subliminal messaging it must have taken to encourage a population to vote by reminding them that the election fell on their holiday, and that even though many Orthodox Jews traditionally plan outings and trips on that day, they should plan their day to include time to vote. Does anyone really think that this would have been done any differently in any campaign, mayoral, senatorial, whatever? That's the name of political campaigning. Anyone see Michael Bloomberg's campaign signs written in Mandarin all over Chinatown in the recent NYC mayoral election? Or Freddy Ferrer's Spanish commercials? I didn't hear anyone complaining then that "too many people don't read Mandarin". Or speak Spanish. Thats what we call targeted campaign materials. Subliminal messages? Code? Don't make me laugh. And we continue:

Some people from the private school community also expressed displeasure at the campaign signs posted on numerous lawns for Brooks and Rizzo since they were identified as the "public school candidates"and interpreted the words to mean that they would only represent one segment of the community.

"Some" people from the private school community? Try "most" people from the private school community. Uh, this is not exactly an attempt at any sort of coded message here. This isn't a matter of "interpretation" either. Someone proclaims themselves, in signs all over the community, as "the" candidate representing a certain group, and it's kind of hard to look at it as anything but an exclusive representation. This is hardly comparable to writing "Lag B'Omer" on the signage. Hatten and Kaufman certainly did not proclaim themselves to be the "private school candidates" . To compare the first debatably "subliminal" message from Hatten/Kaufman's signage to the out-and-out message of exclusion in Brooks/Rizzo's signage is clear a sign of bias. Next paragraph:

Another controversy that occured during the campaign included a letter circulated throughout the yeshiva community saying how important the election was to their interests which was signed by numerous Orthodox Rabbis in the area.

Why exactly was the letter controversial? I read the letter. It made no indication of which way to vote, it simply stressed the importance of the election, and urged the community to vote. Is voting not important? Did the public school not send out a mailing (paid for by taxpayers, I might add), expressly encouraging public school parents to vote? Yet somehow, the second example is less controversial than the first - so much so that it didn't even make the cut to be included in this sorry excuse for reporting??? The mind boggles.

There were also many e-mails selectively forwarded throughout certain members of the community urging support for Hatten and Kaufman...

Oooh. Now that is sinister. Sending e-mails around to selective people encouraging them to vote for specific candidates. I have an even better one: There were rumors that people were encouraging others in their family and social circles to vote for Hatten and Kaufman by the use of a telephonic device that enables people to communicate by typing in a special 7-digit code. Shocking!

...accusations that leaflets were issued in certain areas giving the wrong date of the election, as well as reports of campaign signs being stolen.

"Accusations"? "Reports"? Care to elaborate? Short of any direct quotes or information referring to these allegations, they are totally meaningless. Can this article be any more shoddily researched?? Truly, though, the piece de resistance of this whole stinking piece of garbage is the last paragraph:

Despite the outcome of the elections, Janice Goorland, who formed the activist group "Lawrence Pride and Spirit" which supported the cadidacies of Rizzo and Brooks as well as the budget, was happy with how they conducted their campaign. "We truly ran an honest campaign" said Goorland. "We can hold our heads up high".

"We can hold our heads up high?" As opposed to...who exactly? The "other side"? From whom the reporter apparently neglected to get a quote? The Orthodox Jews, who had the audacity to send out (gasp) e-mails? And refer to a Jewish holiday on their signage?

Ugh. This was very disappointing to see in what is ostensibly a "community" paper. But then again, what to expect from a paper whose editor proclaimed in a pre-election editorial endorsing Rizzo and Brooks that private school parents are not entitled to hold office on the school board at all?