Orlando Vanity Press

The brouhaha over media coverage of Sarah Palin’s unmarried pregnant daughter is not without merit. The line between journalism versus paparazzi sensationalism is clearly blurred.

All families have imperfections. Few first marriages endure. Unfortunately, Americans have become to expect, even demand perfection in those selected to lead. Human foibles that do not undermine the public trust or the public interest are exploited by members of both warring camps to disparage -- even hound opponents out of office. However, corruption, graft and greed are tolerated as part of the status quo.

While Sarah Palin’s personal family issues are not fair game, her politics of family values are. This is a woman who wishes to impose her values through force of law upon all those who disagree with her. Be it personal choice, sex education, creationism or what constitutes a loving relationship between consenting adults Sarah Palin and her supporters appear to believe that their views are omnipotent.

Thomas Sowell said, “What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long.” Perhaps a paraphrase of the lyrics of Jonathon Edwards’ Sunshine provides focus for this issue. If one can't even run his/ her own life without imperfection, why should he/ she have governmental power to dictate how I run mine?

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

As I move toward postings of a spiritual nature, I thought it would be appropriate to make clear my position concerning abortion.

I am a prochoice Christian. I believe that God granted mankind free will. I will not deny that which God granted.

As for the moral/ ethical component of the debate, I follow the younger Son. As did He, I leave judgment to God.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Welcome to Central Florida Rev. Huckabee. In honor of your visit I offer the Tale of Two Sons:

Tale of Two Sons

A Father sends his two sons out into the world to round-up, care for and ultimately return home with his now scattered herd of sheep. The eldest son heads into the hills and finds a huge herd of sheep happily grazing. However, he notices that there are many among them who are not all pure white. In his heart he knows that his Father, being pure, loves all the sheep but hates mottled fleece -- loves the sinner but hates the sin, if you will. Soon, his righteousness begets a condescending manner that belittles and devalues the mottled sheep. The sheep trust and believe that this son represents the Father. Therefore, many sheep rationalize that the Father must be on their side as they abuse, torment and even kill the others. As time goes by, the mottled sheep disappear.

At the appointed time the eldest son returns home proudly shepherding a pure white flock. He beams as he tells his Father that he has found his sheep and brought them all home.

However, in the distance he can see his younger brother approaching. His younger brother's herd stretches as far as the eye can see all across the horizon; yet, it is clearly filled with imperfection. As he approaches the younger son proclaims, "Father I loved them as you love me and they willingly followed me home. Though all are imperfect I still love them and would rather die than forsake a single one. I trusted You to judge which are worthy to be called Your own."

In the Spirit of the younger son I extend the warmest of welcomes to you. I will also remind you that “sin no more” was not just addressed to the accused adulteress but the hypocrites accusing her.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

The below email is public record.
rk
==============

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

Just a quick follow-up to thank you for your service to Orange County and express my appreciation for your willingness to listen to my opinion. I have posted my comments from last night on my blog should any wish to review them http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/08/ethics-task-force-8907-comments.html.

For those interested in John Rawls book, A Theory of Justice and his Veil of Ignorance concept a brief overview can be found here: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~piccard/entropy/rawls.html. A more in-depth look is here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/.

Several copies of the book are held in the Orange County Public Library collection: http://tinyurl.com/33l2bu . It is available for purchase from Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781.

Finally, I leave you with my evolving viewpoint after reflecting upon the many thoughtful comments made in last night's meeting:

Ethical behavior requires sufficient personal integrity to uphold the spirit of just and fair laws. Moreover, ethical behavior on occasion will require acts up to and including non-violent civil disobedience in an effort to overturn laws enabling injustice and inequality. The depth of one’s ethical integrity is perhaps measured by one’s willingness, or lack thereof, to exploit an advantageous loophole that evades the spirit yet complies with the letter of the law.

Again, thank you for your time, courtesy and consideration. I trust that you will endeavor to err on the side of the citizens fully knowing that it is the people’s government.

Sincerely yours,

Ray Kockentiet

bcc


Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Posted by: Ray Kockentiet / 8/10/2007 links to this post

The Orange County Task Force for Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform 8/9/07 meeting solicited public comments. For more information see the Task Force web page ( new window )

A copy of my intended public comments concerning limiting campaign contributions to one per heartbeat are below. However, as always I may have slightly drifted. The verbatim record is in the transcript.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ray Kockentiet. I am speaking concerning the merit of restricting campaign donations to one per heartbeat {ad-libbed.}

Opponents claim such a restriction infringes upon corporate freedom of speech. As a layperson I note that the Preamble to the Constitution begins, “We the people.” Not “We the corporations” or even “We the people and corporations.” The word corporation cannot be found in either the Preamble or the First Amendment. Only two named non human entities appear in the First Amendment. One is the press. The other is religion. Protection for those two entities is a requirement for pluralistic, democratic societies. Extending such protection to corporations is clearly not.

Furthermore, speech requires self-awareness and some communication method. People do this; corporations do not. Corporations are not self-aware. The best corporations employ spokespersons; the worst mouthpieces. Thus, the freedom of speech argument suffers from a fatal, faulty analogy.

Next, I want to present philosophical support for the one heartbeat limit. To do so, I will describe John Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance concept discussed in his book A Theory of Justice. John Rawls is considered by many as the most influential late 20th century philosopher.

A key point of the Veil of Ignorance is that while behind it, a person does not know anything about his/her status in the real world. The premise is that rational, self-interested, persons will formulate just laws because they are ignorant regarding whose “shoes” they may ultimately find themselves walking in. Because they could be a victim, they would all agree that laws punishing crimes against persons and property, for example, murder, assault, rape, theft, etc., are just and deserve punishment. In contrast, laws that allow slavery, segregation or discrimination based on any human condition, etc. are unjust. No one would like to emerge from behind the Veil to discover him/herself a slave or in separate, unequal institutions or discriminated against for any human condition.

Using the Veil concept ensures equality and fairness which are cornerstones of ethical laws. The Veil concept mandates absolute empathy for all humankind. At this philosophical level one truly understands the essence of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as one wants done unto you.” At a practical level it is two friends sharing the last piece of their mutually favorite cake. One will cut it and the other gets first choice.

Now, let’s go behind the Veil and analyze the merits of restricting contributions to one heartbeat. Corporations are not monolithic. Some persons control many while others are the smallest businesses. Not everyone controls one. Thus, when exiting the Veil one does not know he/ she will control one, many or none. Friends, I see no means to cut this corporate donation cake so all share equally.

Only limiting contributions to one per heartbeat ensures equality. Its legal rationale is firmly rooted in judicial philosophy. Moreover, the arguments against it if sustained, allow inequality under the law.

Thank you for allowing me to speak. I urge you to support this reform.

I also provided some off-the-cuff remarks concerning gifts. I was not prepared as I was under the assumption that all attendees were restricted to one 3 +/- minute comment.

My exact words escape me but in hindsight I was attempting to convey:
• Endorsement of the State’s stand on the issue as outlined in the meeting by Representative Gardner and Commissioner Fred Brummer.
• A reference as to the emotional power of gifts via examples of all attendees receiving gifts as children that one perceived as better or worse that those received by one’s siblings. In addition, a reference to the all too often workplace competition to see who can give the best gift to the boss.
• The most important issue in any policy is to examine whose needs are being met. From my perspective I was certain that few if any politicians are swayed by gifts. However, the greatest need all elected officials must serve is to ensure the citizens’ faith and trust in their government. Receiving gifts can undermine that trust so the best policy is to ban them.
• That some will always find a loophole via perhaps seeing gifts are made to cousins, etc.
• That unless mistaken, some organizations in the community are purportedly giving sporting events tickets to commissioners so that they may redistribute them to charities. To me this seems a method for commissioners to curry favor. If organizations wished to donate tickets to charity they could do so directly, there was no need to hand them to commissioners to do so.

For those interested in John Rawls book A Theory of Justice and his Veil of Ignorance concept a brief overview can be found here: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~piccard/entropy/rawls.html. A deeper summary is here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/.

The book is held in the Orange County Public Library collection: http://tinyurl.com/33l2bu . It is available for purchase from Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781.


Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Mike Thomas discusses the Sentinel's coverage of Harris Rosen. He mentions my email (below), too. Does Harris Rosen get a fair shot from the Sentinel? ( new window )

Scott Maxwell also discusses tonight’s Ethics Task Force Meeting in his column. However, I did not link it because it goes behind the Sentinel’s Iron Curtain in 7 days.


Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

I sent the below to the Sentinel's Public Editor Manning Pynn. A copy of Mr. Dameron's article is below this email. It is used under the Fair Use Doctrine especially since after 7 days it will no longer be available in the public domain.
=============
RE: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-campaign0907aug09,0,4292071.story?page=2

Mr. Pynn:

Is it mere coincidence that Mr. Dameron singles out Commissioners Brummer and Moore for scrutiny in the above referenced story? The $20,500 in donations mentioned for Commissioner Moore and the $4,500 in donations from Harris Rosen to Commissioner Brummer added together represent less than 4% of the $650,000 in corporate donations the article mentioned. Who received the other 96%?

Notably, both commissioners Brummer and Moore were the only ones to have sufficient courage to stand on democratic principles in the recent Venues debate. Is it also mere coincidence that Harris Rosen, a Venues opponent, was singled out, too? All three received less than veiled threats in the printed pages of the paper. If the paper has an axe to grind, I suggest that it not wantonly slash the throats of truth, fairness, accuracy and balance in the process.

Personally, as a reader and subscriber I am appalled at the lack of journalistic integrity in the community’s paper of record. Worse, it has become clearly obvious to the most casual observer that Sentinel’s Reader's Representative position is feckless.

From: OrlandoSentinel.com

Sentinel Special Report
Campaign-cash war brews: Plan to ban businesses' political contributions meets resistance

By David Damron, Sentinel Staff Writer. August 9, 2007


Businesses and political groups provided nearly half of all campaign contributions in last year's Orange County Commission races -- a source of funds that could dry up if local leaders adopt reforms that would limit donations to individual donors.

Proponents of a one donation "per heartbeat" rule argue that it could blunt the influence that commercial and development interests wield in local politics and renew residents' faith in how crucial government decisions are made.

"Even if those tens of thousands of dollars are not influencing votes, there's a perception . . . that it does," said Orange County Commissioner Teresa Jacobs, the lead proponent of banning business contributions in county campaigns. "And in some cases, perception may be reality."

An appointed campaign-finance and ethics task force led by Linda Chapin, a former Orange County chairman, the post now known as mayor, likely will propose a business-giving ban to commissioners for final consideration later this year.

The first public battle should unfold tonight as Chapin's task force holds a public hearing on campaign finance at 5:30 p.m. in the Orange County administration building at 201 S. Rosalind Ave. in Orlando.

An Orlando Sentinel analysis of contributions to the top County Commission candidates last year found that if such a ban were adopted, it could radically change how local campaigns are financed.

In 2005 and 2006, businesses poured in about $650,000 of the $1.4 million raised by the top two finishers in all four races, the analysis shows.

Developers dominate

Even among the remaining individual contributions that candidates received, the largest gifts and biggest volume of checks arrived from people with direct ties to the development industry, such as attorneys, architects, engineers and real-estate officials. The maximum allowable contribution is $500 per election cycle.

But critics of a ban say there is no proof that campaign contributions corrupt or unduly influence politicians. They argue that restrictions on corporate giving could make things worse.

By pushing the county system to mirror federal campaigns -- where business contributions are also banned -- it would encourage political donors to contribute through hard-to-trace special-interest groups and political parties.

"The current process is not broken," task-force member Jose Fajardo wrote in a memo on the proposal. "No one has yet to stake claim to any evidence that the current system is overtly or even slightly corrupt and in need of repair."

Fajardo, president and CEO of public-broadcasting organization WMFE, will join ranks with business and development leaders who are expected to lobby heavily against the "heartbeat" proposal.

Chamber defends system

The task force is expected to recommend a range of reforms, from stronger and more frequent financial-disclosure rules to a tighter ban on gifts. But the ban on business giving to campaigns is the most explosive issue under discussion.

"That's a total disarming of the business community at election time," said Mike Ketchum, a vice president at the Orlando Regional Chamber of Commerce. "And we're not going to do that."

Ketchum says the current system works well because large campaign contributors have to publicly report their donations.

But critics say this still leaves open the door for deep-pocketed contributors to bundle a big number of large contributions by using different corporate entities.

For instance, Commissioner Tiffany Moore raised nearly $100,000 to win her seat in a crowded field of candidates last year. She partly relied on a large number of smaller donations, many about $20 each.

But she also received $20,500 from entities connected to Picerne Real Estate Group, which develops apartment complexes, all listed at the same corporate address in Altamonte Springs. That accounted for one of every five dollars she raised in the race.

Company consultant Don Miller said Robert Picerne was impressed with Moore's "Christian values." Miller also said the company has no development plans in Orange County for the next few years.

Moore said that banning such bundled contributions would make it harder for her to fund a campaign, since her minority-heavy district has so few affluent political givers.

"It could have a chilling effect on minority candidates," she said.

Would a ban work?

County Commissioner Fred Brummer, who knocked out four opponents last year, enjoyed similar corporate support in his campaign.

One day last August, the former state lawmaker received $4,500 from hotel magnate Harris Rosen, his top employees and various businesses Rosen runs out of his 9840 International Drive headquarters.

But if businesses were banned from giving, Brummer's take from Rosen that day would have been reduced by nearly 80 percent, to just two $500 gifts from Rosen and a top executive. Rosen could not be reached for comment.

Brummer says businesses will find other ways to fund campaigns, such as encouraging top executives to donate, and that rules requiring speedy disclosure of contributions on the Internet should improve the current system.

Jacobs, who was not up for re-election in 2006, concedes some businesses will try to subvert the ban, but even small reforms could help restore public confidence in campaigns.

"It's a step in the right direction," Jacobs said.

Scott Maxwell weighs in on special interests. Page B2

Copyright © 2007, Orlando Sentinel


Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

{I have fallen behind. Posting date represents date email was sent not the actual posting date which was 8/8/07.}

Mr. Pynn:

This is a follow-up to my last email stating my extreme disappointment with the paper's neglect of its reader-customers' best interests. I wanted to make sure that you saw this: MUCH WORSE THAN SPIN ( new window )

This is a peer's perspective concerning the Sentinel's coverage of the Venues. Having asked you, in your capacity as Reader's Representative, and senior Sentinel management over the course of more than 14 months for something other than stenographic reports on this topic, I concur fully with Mr. Whitby's assessment.

With luck, other peers of the Sentinel will evaluate its behavior that many local readers see as abandonment of its watch dog role in the community. Hopefully, many will be appalled. If not, the 4th estate is dead and the future of our democratic form of government is in serious jeopardy.

-------------------------------------------------

Half a truth is often a great lie.
-- Benjamin Franklin


Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

This very lengthy thread contains a series of email exchanges with the Sentinel beginning in June, 2006. At that time, I began asking for investigative coverage of the Venues projects. {I have fallen behind. Posting date represents date email was sent not the actual posting date which was 8/8/07.}
================

Mr. Pynn:

While archiving emails concerning the Venues I re-read this exchange (below) from more than a year ago. I also re-read Mr. Schlueb's comment, "This project is not being trumpeted by anyone in the Sentinel's newsroom, including me, regardless of the supposed bias of which you so easily accuse me."

That brought to mind Mr. Schlueb's May 8, 2007 piece "Magic poll: Most think team's arena offer is fair," that is now safely hidden from public view, including subscribers, without paying an admission fee. It brought to mind my many emails giving information and links to nationally recognized authorities concerning the lack of economic benefits to communities from subsidizing pro sports that were never investigated. It brought to mind the column inches devoted to CSL's spin versus those worthy of being called investigative journalism. It brought the to mind the paper's inability to report that a UCF Sales and Marketing Professor was passing himself off as an expert in economic development in Town Hall Meetings. It brought to mind the paper's blindness regarding CSL's disclaimer in the MOEDC economic impact report.

Although outside your purview, I reflected on the many editorials by the Board. I thought once again about Ms. Healy’s, “Facts build foundation for strong opinion (See: http://tinyurl.com/ytgsee) piece. I laughed reading her assertion, “Beyond having the facts, opinion should involve finding -- and considering -- the strongest argument from the critics. If you can't answer their argument, your opinion may not hold up to scrutiny. It's all part of the due diligence of research.”

Ultimately you are only responsible to yourself to uphold professional, ethical principles. However, it is important that you know as a reader and a subscriber I believe the Sentinel's role as the fourth estate was abandoned in this debate. It is also important for you to know that as the Reader's Representative you let not only myself but the community down, too.

The claim that the Sentinel is fair, balanced, objective and diligently seeks the truth and reports it is a charade. In this debate I ran into numerous credible individuals who over the years claimed to have brought empirical evidence contrary to what was being reported and editorialized about in the paper only to be ignored. In every case these individuals reported that nary a drop of ink was spilled reporting or debunking the information provided. It is now very clear that the Sentinel actively manages the message and cannot be considered as a trustworthy source of news and information when its management structure has an agenda.

This behavior is not new in the industry. However, in the past there were competing outlets. I suggest that this is the greatest damage that media consolidation has wrought. Democracy will not survive without an independent, objective fourth estate. Hopefully for the sake of our democracy, the Internet will replace the information management system aka "big media" now in place.

Thank you for your time and attention to my concerns. From my perspective, when your role is solving complaints about TV listings and the location of the weather page, you are merely window dressing.

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.
– Leo Tolstoy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: WRK
To: Sentinel Reader's Rep
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:01 PM
Subject: Fw: Citrus Bowl struggles...


Mr. Pynn:

You have been copied on my many exchanges concerning these projects. When reading about these projects in the Sentinel they often appear to be stenographer's reports interviewing some vested interest. The source's conflicts of interest are rarely, if ever, mentioned.

Running quotes from vested interests espousing PR messages developed by spin artists at some point approaches running unpaid advertising. In my opinion there is no investigative reporting nor any attempt to dig into the meat behind this enormous spending project. To my knowledge, there has been no community-wide poll of voters.

Perhaps your hands are tied; I do not know. However, I believe that the community deserves much more before local leaders spend nearly a billion dollars. Please do what you can.

ray



----- Original Message -----
From: WRK
To: MSchlueb@orlandosentinel.com
Cc: {removed}
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Citrus Bowl struggles...


Mr. Schlueb:

Please accept my sincere apology if I implied your reporting was biased. It was inadvertent but completely inexcusable and I am truly sorry. I hope that you can forgive me. The purpose of copying all of the original recipients is to make this a public apology.

While the Sentinel does have an award winning Sports section, it's parent owns the Cubs, a renovated arena and stadium projects are in the #1 goal listed in the 1/1/06, Sentinel editorial section and the media and sports reporters desperately need professional sports to supply content; to imply that such potential conflicts of interest could taint your, other reporter's or editor’s views was clearly renounced in your reply. I stand humbled and appropriately corrected. Moreover, my guess from your reply is that if someone tried to get you to slant a story you and many others would leave.

My very poorly worded innuendo was completely inappropriate; however, it was an attempt to challenge you and newsroom editors to get the story behind this story. While coverage has been OK, I find it superficial. Content frequently reprints quotes prepared by spin artists to be spoken by persons having potential conflicts of interest. In my opinion coverage desperately needs increased analysis by members of the 4th estate.

Who are the players and what do they gain or lose? What are the risks to the community taxpayer if the tourist market sours or revenues decline? Are there campaign contributions and how much from the movers and shakers behind these projects? Who is involved with whom in what business deals? Who stands to get big construction projects if this passes? Who benefits if a bond issue is floated?

For example, Mr. DeVos is listed at #23 in Top Individual Contributors to 527 Committees in the 2004 election cycle per the Center for Responsive Politics. His over $2 million in contributions benefited Republican causes that year. Did that $2 million have any influence on another elected official who is also a Bush Pioneer? Perhaps not; regardless, it is impossible to prove. Yet, how does Mayor Crotty balance that fact when he votes on this issue? Should he recuse himself from voting on projects that benefit Mr. DeVos? If not, are ethics reforms perhaps needed in this area? Why or why not? I believe that these and other facts are ones urgently needed by readers and voters to get the whole story.

Next, while proponents will surly trumpet studies saying how much economic impact these sports venues have for the community, at what cost? How does the community economic impact compare to Gay Days, the Bay Hill Invitational or Cirque de Soleil, etc., all of which operate without tax subsided venues?

My point is something does not smell right. Professional sports ownership is concentrated in extremely powerful, wealthy hands, pays millions in salary to players yet relies on taxpayer funds to make ends meet under their business model. Why? Perhaps professional sports are overbuilt and operating on a bubble that needs to burst.

Ironically, many elected and community proponents of these public works projects normally want to privatize everything. Most are free market advocates. Why are they pushing this deal? What’s in it for them?

Again, please accept my apology for impugning your integrity. I am asking that you use your reporter's nose, talk to your editors and get someone to dig deep for readers and the community. Running a story in the future about why this was a bad deal will be too late.

Sincerely,
rk

----- Original Message -----
From: MSchlueb@orlandosentinel.com
To: WRKoke@cfl.rr.com
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 10:39 AM
Subject: RE: Citrus Bowl struggles...


Mr. Kockentiet,

Thanks for your email. A couple of points, however: When it comes to the Citrus Bowl and the other projects proposed downtown, you'll find the same range of opinions inside the Sentinel newsroom as you'd find in the community. This project is not being trumpeted by anyone in the Sentinel's newsroom, including me, regardless of the supposed bias of which you so easily accuse me. (And just so we're clear, to a reporter, being accused of slanting a story to benefit an advertiser is akin to accusing a prosecutor of taking a bribe from the mob. It's quite insulting.)

The Tribune's ownership of the Cubs is no secret to anyone. Neither is the fact that the Sentinel relies on advertising. But I know of no one in the newsroom, from the clerks on up to the top editors, who even know those advertisers. (I don't think the Sentinel accepts advertising from Anheuser-Busch, and I know the paper doesn't take liquor ads. But I'm not certain, because I don't work in the advertising department.) Further, no reporter or editor would ever even consider changing one word based on the thoughts of an advertiser. The Sentinel ran a series of stories about two years ago on shoddy home construction, which cost the paper literally millions in lost advertising from angry homebuilders. But we still published it, and would do it again.

It's not a reporter's job to say whether a project is a good idea or a bad idea. Rather, what we have done is present the plan proposed by Florida Citrus Sports. As this process continues, we will cover the ensuing debate.

Mr. Kockentiet, you read the story about the Citrus Bowl plan, and formed an opinion based on those facts. That's how it's supposed to work. We trust our readers to form their own opinions, without telling them what they should think. I have received lots of email and phone calls about this project, all from people opposed to it. If I'm as biased as you say, I'm not doing a very good job of it.

Best,
Mark
Mark Schlueb
Orlando Sentinel
P.O. Box 2833
633 N. Orange Ave.
Orlando, Florida 32802
407.420.5417
fax 407.418.5231


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: WRK [mailto:WRKoke@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 1:48 PM
To: OSC IA Insight
Cc: {removed}
Subject: Citrus Bowl struggles...


The article, “Citrus Bowl struggles to be winning venue” by David Damron and Mark Schlueb discloses that the Citrus Bowl project is needed to enhance the lifestyle of upper income groups, businesses and lobbyists. The article specifically states, “…add 4,000 pricier club seats and 80 luxury suites…” and “… create 130,000 square feet of combined banquet, entertaining and meeting space.”

Next, the habitual rhetoric, “… for Orlando to be a big city, it needs to have professional sports…,” reeks of the Emperor’s new clothes syndrome. Moreover, this “fact” is unchallenged by usually good reporters even though City Beverages' President Ford Kiene certainly has glaring conflicts of interest. As the sole distributor of Anheuser-Busch products such as Budweiser and other beverages in Orange and most of Osceola and Lake Counties, City Beverages directly/indirectly profits handsomely via these subsidized venues.

Sports are multi-billion dollar businesses. Notably, professional sports franchises are owned by some of the wealthiest individuals in the world. Many are horizontally integrated and controlled by media empires. The Sentinel’s parent owns the Chicago Cubs (See: http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/ .).

Moreover, Tribune Media's various businesses certainly receive millions; perhaps billions in sports related advertising revenue including affiliated industries such as Anheuser-Busch and its distributors. Routinely, the largest section of the Sentinel is the sports section. Perhaps the purported walls between the newsroom, editorial and advertising are better than the alleged wall Elliot Spitzer found between security analysts and underwriters. Regardless, it still begs the question, why is such information routinely withheld from readers, listeners and viewers?

Next, despite the alleged $42.3 million ripple from The Capitol One Bowl cited in the article, it primarily enriches special interests via a public subsidy. In contrast, note that per, “Support stays in the closet,” by Susan Strother Clarke in the 6/2/06, Sentinel, Gay Days participants will drop an estimated $100 million in the community during the six-day event. This apparently is before any ripple effect. Moreover, it is spent without requiring publicly funded and tax-subsided venues.

Finally most ironically, in a Nation founded by rebels protesting taxation without representation elected State and Local leaders have no problems taxing visiting colonists from other regions to benefit the bottom line of wealthy barons of industry including the reigning King, Rich DeVos. Thus, perhaps because of conflicts of interest the story behind this publicity campaign remains unwritten. Furthermore, no reporter dare question, why do purported fiscal conservatives and free-market advocates rush to tax and spend on these boondoggles?


Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.