GOP smells 'conspiracy' after Charlotte O pulls Hagan conflict of interest story
Published November 3, 2014
by Joel Gehrke, National Review Online, November 2, 2014.
Republicans accused North Carolina’s Charlotte Observer of engaging in a “conspiracy of silence” after it pulled its story about a state government memo calling for “legal review” of stimulus grants given to the family of Senator Kay Hagan (D., N.C.).
“It’s time to end the conspiracy of silence in the North Carolina media on Senator Kay Hagan’s ‘stimulus’ payday,” the state-party chairman, Claude Pope, said in a Sunday statement. “The freedom of the press is a sacred trust – and hiding the truth is tantamount to lying to the people that they, and Senator Hagan, are supposed to serve.”
As National Review Online reported Saturday, a memo from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources recommends that state officials conduct “further legal review” of a grant given to a company co-owned by Senator Hagan’s husband.
In particular, his company’s decision to hire a company owned by their son appears to violate prohibitions against self-dealing that were included in the grant agreement, according to the memo.
The Charlotte Observer published a story on the memo Saturday evening, but then took the story offline. A cached version is still available online.
“The people of this state deserve the truth – and they deserve it before the election on Tuesday,” Pope said. “If the Observer hid this news story because it was inaccurate, they ought to tell us. If they hid it to protect Senator Hagan, or because they feared the truth, they ought to apologize for misleading the people of North Carolina.”
November 3, 2014 at 7:49 am
Norm Kelly says:
Liberals in politics being protected by their liberal allies in the used-to-be-news media isn't new nor is it news.
News would be liberal used-to-be-news media protecting a Republican/conservative foe.
Evidence? Look at the recent Hagan campaign ad. She gets to use 'newspapers' from all over the state who all referred to her as 'centrist', 'opposed Obama', 'middle of the road', 'willing to reach across the aisle'. Not a single example can be provided, but since the allies in print said it, K's campaign gets to repeat it. It was misleading voters when the information was printed, but didn't violate anything so it was allowed. It is misleading when K uses it, but since it's not information from her, it's allowed.
Just like the IRS scandal, there is no there there. Move on. These are not the droids you are looking for.
More evidence? Check out the N&D 'endorsement' of Sheriff Harrison. It was in the N&D, so you know I didn't waste time reading it. But the reliable analysis of it showed that the liberal ally N&D spent time pointing out Donnie's shortcomings & problems. The liberal ally N&D spent a great amount of ink praising Donnie's opponent. Yet, the N&D, proving it's always confused state, actually endorsed the candidate they didn't praise. Did the N&D do this in an attempt to 'prove' they are NOT a liberal ally of the Demoncrat party? If so, they exceeded their normal standard for showing their bias. When I endorse a candidate, I spend much more time & effort explaining why I support the candidate rather than pointing out the shortcomings and praising the opponent. This is because I actually endorse said candidate. When I spend time & effort praising the candidate I don't endorse, it's because I want to be seen as unbiased and inoffensive (to someone!). For instance, I can endorse Thom Tillis by explaining why I believe Thom is good for the state and good for the country. But if I spend most of my time pointing out the shortcomings and questions I have about Thom, am I really endorsing Thom? If I spend MORE time & effort explaining the good things I think K has accomplished while spending time in Washington, then I'm really endorsing K. (i know. the problem with praising k is that there isn't anything to praise her about. what has she opposed the occupier on? when was that one time she reached across the aisle to work with republicans? what has she done to 'support' the middle class? how does cutting 700billion dollars from medicaid/medicare help seniors? how does voting for socialized medicine whose cost will exceed 2trillion dollars help the country?) So, you see, while I know there's nothing to praise K about (using facts), if I choose to tell fibs about K's positive side while endorsing Thom, I am not endorsing Thom but encouraging K's supporters while APPEARING to endorse Thom. Playing both sides of the field. Which is what all lib pols and many other pols typically do. It's not what 'news' papers are supposed to do. And the N&D's obvious bias shines like a white dwarf star!
