Let's peek into the coffers of Ruben Ramos' Vision for Hoboken campaign, shall we?
Last April's Quarterly ELEC showed he had cumulative contributions of $8,523.18...
And now?
Wow! Ramos has added $53, 750 to his kitty for a total to-date of $73,880.17!
Meeeow. Purrrrrrrrr.
How much of that has he spent so far?
$28,157.62 or 38% of his total to-date. Hmmm....
Ruben, I think you ought to slow down... it's summer, and only political junkies are paying attention. That's my 2 cents.
So who is contributing to Ramos? ELEC data on small donors (below $300) is noted 'N/A', but it appears he's getting mainly large contributions from anywhere but Hoboken.
For comparison, here is Mayor Zimmer's July ELEC:
Zimmer's got total contributions to-date of
$69, 605.76 and spent $36,931.36- a whopping 53%!
Slow down, girlfriend!
She'd better know that Reformers are cheap-ass skinflints and tightwads. Ask a Reformer to reach into his pocket and you'll get handful of lint. (No, I'm not talking about YOU. *wink*)
An impressive 47% of Zimmer's contributions came from 'small donors' (less than $300) and her large donors are primarily from Hoboken.
So there's your apples-to-apples.
Now, for the 'surprise'...
Guess WHO was at the top of Ramos' disbursement list....
The former Hoboken beat reporter for The Hudson Reporter newspaper!
*Mr. Carroll is not responsible for the Editorial policies of his former employer, The Hudson Reporter, nor any of it's content following his departure in 2009.
*That former reporters working as Ramos campaign operatives, the appearance of Mr. Carroll on a Ramos ELEC, suggests tentacles from the Ramos campaign into our local media.
But there's more... Tim Carroll was a press contact for...
click image to read
 |
| Original email on page 161 of 302- Pincus Affidavit |
...that guy.
*That Lane Bajardi was the Mason campaign media contact for ANY employee of The Hoboken Reporter and 3 years later, the paper writes an article about a lawsuit initiated by Bajardi and predicated on his claim he is "not a political operative" (a characterization he claims to be "defamed" by) and the paper DOES NOT DISCLOSE that he has been a longtime political operative in Hoboken (which the paper KNOWS TO BE TRUE)... that is dishonest and biased journalism. By misidentifying him as a mere 'activist' and not the media/messaging person for a political campaign, the Hoboken Reporter gave credibility to the NARRATIVE of the lawsuit ("Hoboken couple") and produced a biased piece of journalism. Not to mention other obvious bias, like letting Beth Mason rant about "bully bloggers" on PAGE TWO, posting the Defendant's comments (mine) on PAGE THREE of the print edition.
*And so this email belongs in any discussion of the reporters or former reporters of The Hoboken Reporter working on a political campaign and what that may mean in terms of the articles written by that paper. I don't believe the crossover to the Ramos campaign is an accident or coincidence.
Last August the paper wrote an article captioned: lawsuit claims that Hoboken bloggers and internet commenters defamed local couple.
Huh?
Really? Read the email above- one of dozens showing the "local couple" were seasoned political operatives for Councilwoman Beth Mason. The Plaintiff was a political operative for the Mason for Mayor campaign and communicated directly with The Hoboken Reporter.
NOWHERE did last year's coverage of the lawsuit disclose that chummy relationship with the Plaintiff.
Indeed, the Plaintiff fed press releases, statements, campaign messaging to The Hoboken Reporter yet the paper covered a civil complaint where this same political operative whom THEY TAPPED denied being a "political operative" 12 times (¶ 27, 34, 43, 49, 55, 58, 80, 83, 89, 92, 112, 120). And the paper 'played ball' with that false narrative: no mention of working for Beth Mason, no mention of being political operatives, no mention that they themselves blog anonymously.
Again, The Hoboken Reporter never disclosed their relationship with the Plaintiff.
SHAME.
(Updated, 7/25/13- 2: 30 PM)
*GA Note: Based on the lively discussion below, please note some edits for clarification indicated in bold with an asterisk.
No comments:
Post a Comment