The Whole Story

I am concerned there are times when people receive a distorted version of the truth from the news media; whether it is in print, on radio, television or over the Internet.

Because of that, we recently added a communication feature to the home page of our Fifth District website called “The Whole Story.” The purpose is to give you accurate information on news in North County, developments from my office, and how that is reported or ignored by the media.

Our intention is to maintain clear lines of communication with the people we serve. We want you to know exactly what is happening in the Fifth District. As you know, we routinely provide information to the news media in the form of media advisories, news releases, and I am often interviewed by reporters in person or over the telephone. Sometimes the only way our information reaches you is through the media. Unfortunately, what you receive in the newspapers, on radio, television, or over the Internet; does not always reflect “The Whole Story.” I think our new web site feature gives you a better chance of getting the truth and will allow you to draw your own conclusion.

Four days after I informed you about “The Whole Story” link on our District 5 website, the North County Times printed a story that illustrates the problem and the need to get “The Whole Story” to you.

The report “Supervisor’s meeting with developer irks residents fighting cell tower” by staff writer Darryn Bennett, April 30, 2008, was a continuation of a lengthy story “Horn Accessibility Drawing Fresh Complaints” by Bennett and reporter Edward Sifuentes, April 13, 2008. The “fresh complaints” were from a few disgruntled people who did not want to follow normal protocol in contacting my office and were unaware of the legal constraints County Supervisors must adhere to. My response to the front page story was printed in the Community Forum section of the paper on April 20, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, reporter Bennett, intent on keeping a misleading story alive, wrote about a courtesy “meet-and-greet” appointment I had in August 2007 with Doug Hutcheson (misspelled Hutchenson on my calendar), president of Leap Wireless and the parent company of San Diego-based Cricket Communications. (We have learned that Mr. Hutcheson met with the other four Supervisors for a courtesy visit and the meetings were handled in the same way.)

(May 7, 2008 — Following the publication of this web posting, we have been informed by the offices of Supervisors Jacob, Slater-Price, Cox, and Roberts that contrary to what we were told by consultant Craig Benedetto; the offices of Supervisors Jacob, Slater-Price, Cox, and Roberts maintain that Mr. Hutcheson did not personally meet with them. Since we were not privy to the office calendars of other Supervisors, we could not confirm the information we received one way or another from Mr. Benedetto. Supervisor Jacob’s office asked we make a note of that and we are happy to do so for her and my fellow Supervisors.)

Reporter Bennett wrote the following E-mail to our office on April 28, 2008, requesting information about the August meeting that was on my calendar:

“A 10 a.m. meeting with Cricket CEO Doug Hutchenson was scheduled for Aug. 28. I’d like to speak with the supervisor to confirm if the meeting took place. The issue has been raised that the meeting violated Bill’s policy of not meeting with parties involved in land-use issues he has to vote on as a supervisor. But I’d really like to talk with Bill and have his voice in the story. Thanks for your help.”

At 8:51 AM on April 29, 2008, Ms. Bennett sent the following E-mail:

“Good morning. My deadlines are 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. today. I’m just trying to confirm that Bill did meet with Doug Hutcheson, CEO of Cricket Wireless, on Aug. 28, 2007, as noted on his calendar.

Also, Joan Wonsley has told me in past interviews that Bill’s policy is to refrain from meeting with parties involved in a project once it has been submitted to the county planning department because of ex parte legal implications.

However, Cricket submitted the application the (sic) county in 2006. If an exception was made, why? Also, I know Bill’s policy is to have parties involved in land-use issues speak with one of his policy advisers instead of him, but I didn’t see such a meeting on the calendar. Did a Cricket representative speak with Dustin or another policy advisor before getting the meeting with the supervisor? Thanks for your help getting this information.”

At 11:25 AM on April 29, 2008, the following was sent from my office to Ms. Bennett at the North County Times:

BILL HORN
Supervisor – Fifth District
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 531-5555 FAX: (619) 685-2662

April 29, 2008

Darryn Bennett
North County Times reporter

Dear Darryn:

In response to your questions about Supervisor Horn’s calendar and a meeting at 10 AM on August 28, 2007:

The meeting was between Supervisor Horn and the CEO of Leap Wireless, the parent company of Cricket Communications, Doug Hutcheson.

This was a standard “meet-and-greet” appointment in Supervisor Horn’s downtown office as a courtesy with the CEO of a San Diego headquartered company. The request was screened by our Executive Scheduler, as is standard procedure. That is why the calendar states “meet and greet”. It was our understanding that Mr. Hutcheson was making courtesy calls to all County Supervisors, thus no need to meet first with one of Supervisor Horn’s policy advisors.

At the August 28, 2007 meeting, which lasted about 10 minutes, were Supervisor Horn’s land use advisor, Dustin Steiner and consultant and registered lobbyist Craig Benedetto, who has a clear understanding of ex parte County rules. The meeting was strictly informal and no site specific land use matters of Cricket’s were discussed.

In your E-mail today, you stated that “Joan Wonsley has told me in past interviews that Bill’s policy is to refrain from meeting with parties involved in a project once it has been submitted to the county planning department because of ex parte legal implications.” This was not what she said and as a point of clarification, she only has had one interview with you. In truth, she told you the Supervisor is to refrain from meeting with parties “about” a project, not “involved” in a project.

There is no impropriety for the Supervisor meeting with people about subjects that are not site specific or under consideration by various County departments as was the case with this meeting.

There is another inconsistency in your E-mail today. You stated that “I know Bill’s policy is to have parties involved in land-use issues speak with one of his policy advisers instead of him, but I didn’t see such a meeting on the calendar. Did a Cricket representative speak with Dustin or another policy advisor before getting the meeting with the supervisor?” Here is something with your question our office doesn’t understand. You were only provided the calendar for Supervisor Horn and not his policy advisers. How could you infer there was no meeting between Cricket and one of Supervisor Horn’s policy advisors if you didn’t have the policy advisor’s calendar? With that said, what is germane is that there was no need to have the Cricket CEO meet with a policy advisor beforehand, because the purpose of the meeting was strictly a courtesy “meet-and-greet” as stated on the Supervisor’s calendar.

Since Dustin Steiner is in Washington, DC with Supervisor Horn and doesn’t have access to his records of eight months ago, our office recommends you contact Mr. Benedetto at his office. Perhaps he can enlighten you.

There isn’t anything else needed to be said because that is the whole story.

John Culea
Media and Communications Director
Bill Horn
Fifth District Supervisor

At 11:41 AM, the following response was received from Ms. Bennett:

“Thanks for the answers. They were very helpful. While I have only talked with Joan once, she has explained the same practice to other reporters at the newspaper. However, I will make a note that the policy, as you have explained it, is that Bill will refrain from meeting with parties about projects that have been submitted to the county, but he does meet with parties involved in a submitted project. In that case, he would just refrain from discussing the project in question. Also, I’d love to speak with Mr. Benedetto but do not have his direct number and have had to leave messages with Cricket’s PR staff.. If you can pass it along, that would be great. Also, I do need to set up a time to talk with Bill about Guejito when he returns. Please let me know in advance when he will be available.”

At 12:01 PM, my office provided Ms. Bennett with contact information for Mr. Benedetto (which was readily available from a Google search) and also wrote the following:

“Point of clarification: you used the word ‘interviews’ in your E-mail about talking with Joan Wonsley. As you know, words have meaning. The fact that she has spoken with other reporters does not constitute multiple interviews with you.”

* * * * *

I understand newspapers and other media outlets rarely print an entire response, however, it is difficult to understand why Ms. Bennett went ahead with her April 30 story when, in her second sentence she wrote, that the August 28, 2007 meeting didn’t violate the county’s administrative code that governs when elected officials can meet with residents and lobbyists.

There was also a serious misstatement from Ms. Bennett when, despite repeated clarifications to her over the telephone and in writing; she still wrote “the supervisor’s policy is to refrain from meeting with anyone involved in a project that has been submitted to the county planning department.” The word that she should have used and that was sent to her in writing is about a project, not involved in a project.

I also found it revealing that former Escondido Councilwoman June Rady, one of those residents Ms. Bennett says is irked about the project told the reporter she met with one of my policy advisors to talk about concerns she has with the project. As a former elected official, Ms. Rady understood and followed protocol and was treated with courtesy by my staff, which passed along her comments to me.

The media has a clear advantage in the information process while the public and governments rarely have the kind of forum to respond in like manner to distortions, innuendos, misstatements, bias, or lies. That’s why we offer “The Whole Truth.”

* * * * *

To help you better understand the current climate within the news media, I’ve asked John Culea, my Director of Media and Communications, and someone who was a broadcast journalist from 1969 to 1980, to give his insight into today’s media. John worked as an anchor/reporter in Phoenix, Chicago, and San Diego. In addition to being honored with six Emmys for his work in television news, he earned the reputation of being a “fair and balanced” journalist long before it became a slogan.

For many years, John also taught broadcast journalism and news writing at Point Loma Nazarene University. He joined my staff in 2001, and I believe his thoughts will give you an understanding of what kind of message is often delivered by the “messengers” of today.

The State of the Media

By John Culea

Much of the media today is desperately struggling to survive. Local newspapers are cutting coverage, eliminating jobs; giving early retirement, buyouts, or issuing pink slips.

The San Diego Union-Tribune has lost 19% of its Sunday subscribers since 2004 and recently axed ten percent of its employees; including top reporters, one of which helped the paper win a Pulitzer Prize.

The North County Times, while reporting tiny gains in subscribers, has gone through its own round of employee reductions and has a circulation a third that of the Union-Tribune.

Nationally, overall newspaper advertising revenue last year fell nearly eight percent, including a more than nine percent drop in print advertising that was offset partially by a nearly 19 percent increase in online advertising, according to the Newspaper Association of America.

In hopes of retaining subscribers, especially young adults who realize they neither need nor want a newspaper; the Union-Tribune in 2005 became the first big-city daily to give away free classified ads to individuals. The Union-Tribune also gives away thousands of copies every day in North County of Today’s Local News.

Network television news has been losing viewers for a generation at a rate of one million a year. According to industry sources, in 1980, the big three of CBS, NBC, and ABC counted 53 million viewers. In 2006, the number had plummeted to 27 million.

Local television news, once a money-printing machine, has also seen dramatic erosion in viewing levels. Ratings and shares for television news stations in many cases are half what they were not that many years ago. Numbers that once would have triggered wholesale firings, new sets, new logos, and new slogans are now celebrated as victories.

While radio and the Internet may be the only mediums that are not on life support; they have their own problems.

The San Diego region once had several radio stations with news departments full-staffed by seasoned professionals. Today, most local radio news is outsourced or divvied out to whoever happens to be in for the day. Last year, KOGO gave up its all-news program in the mornings for a talk format. An exception is KPBS 89.5 FM, with more than 20 people making up the largest radio news staff in the County.

The biggest change in radio and perhaps the single most important reason for its current success, especially AM radio, is the talk-radio format. This is not always “news” as we generally know it—rather it is largely driven by opinion mixed with public forums that can, on occasion, provide objective opportunities for listeners to reach their own conclusions on issues and candidates.

The Internet continues to increase in popularity as a news source with Newspapers displaying their editions online along with hundreds of websites offering news digests, breaking stories, opinion, and what to me is a journalistic plague; the blog. While blogs offer a free exchange of ideas and opinions, in truth they exemplify the depths to which media outlets have sunk to keep from going out of business. For newspapers, their blogs may one day be viewed as the final desperate act to survive before being swallowed up in a Jurassic-like communication tar pit.

Media blogs frequently violate long-standing journalistic traditions of fairness by allowing people to post anything they want without being identified. Newspapers, television and radio stations do a great public disservice by not monitoring the content that often gives bogus information and false impressions that can lead to irreparable damage. And in cases where a Letter to the Editor is printed with the name of an individual, you wonder what kind of editorial judgment exists when a paper like the North County Times prints a letter from a person who said Supervisor Horn was playing golf during the October 2007 Wildfires.

There are several explanations for the current state of journalism. Some media sources are dying because of self-inflicted wounds. Their stories are predictable, shallow and often a waste of time. Other media outlets have failed to adapt to changes in communications; others are victims of corporate greed, while some have alienated their readers, viewers, or listeners with blatant bias.

With television news viewing levels declining, the once attractive salaries and perks paid to TV news anchors and reporters is a fraction of what it once was. The result is a rapid turnover of street reporters who are willing to work for what would have been a pittance in the 1990’s. Consequently, you have inexperienced reporters who do little preparation, often have only a vague clue about the region, its politics, and its government structure; and sometimes are unable to tell you the difference between a Petty Officer and a Lieutenant Colonel or that the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego are not the same.

There are occasions when reporters commit long amounts of time and resources to work on a story. Their editors expect them to justify that time with a story. In the case of the North County Times’ examination of Supervisor Horn’s calendar, access to his office, and time he spends serving his constituents; the facts revealed there was no story. However, instead of recognizing that and moving on to “real news,” the North County Times went ahead with not one, but two misleading stories. In the end, the newspaper’s actions only serve to further erode what tattered remnants of trust the public has for the North County Times.

There is no greater quality for a news organization or a reporter than trust. Integrity is something that must be earned over time—and once lost, rarely can and probably should not be restored.

I don’t think the general public is aware of how some members of the media manipulate the truth or the egregious efforts they take to control public opinion.

Here’s an example:

There is a person at a local newspaper who contacted an organization supported by Supervisor Horn. The organization was told by the individual that the person loved what the organization did, wanted to do story about them, but could not because the newspaper person “hated Supervisor Horn” and everyone who objected to people who are in this country illegally. The only way the newspaper person would write a story about the organization is if they would send a letter to the newspaper disavowing their association with Supervisor Horn. I’ve learned never to say, “I’ve heard it all,” however, I nearly did on that one.

Other examples of media manipulation about our office include the following:

• A television station used only portions of a statement from Supervisor Horn that suited its point of view and put a different slant on the story
  
• A newspaper that continually avoids mentioning Supervisor Horn’s role in supporting non-profit organizations. Often, specific mention of Supervisor Horn’s Community Project’s grants is omitted, when we know the reporter was given the information.
  
• A radio station that invited the Supervisor on the air live to talk about a community grant had made and used the opportunity to “ambush” him about the cost of transportation in San Diego County

That’s some of what the messenger of today is about and that’s why you can find “The Whole Truth” on Supervisor Horn’s website.

Never forget; the news is a business. Its main purpose is to make money and right now, the gravy train is a little greasy and members of the media are slipping and sliding to keep themselves on their feet and relevant.

People ask me, after spending nearly half my life in television news, do I miss it. My immediate response is a resounding, “No, especially with the way it is today.”

I appreciate the opportunity to serve on Supervisor Horn’s staff. We have a great team of public servants who are gifted, conscientious, and fun to work with as we support a man who has served North County better than you’ll ever read about in print, see on television, or hear on the radio.

To see “The Whole Truth” on our District Five website, please go to: http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/cnty/bos/sup5/