Making the Correct Choice When Dealing With the Enquirer's Jason Williams

If you wonder how a politician should treat the Enquirer's conservative columnist Jason Williams, just refer to this sentence from his latest column:

Pureval declined Politics Extra's interview request on Thursday.

You are not going to get a fair shake with Williams unless he likes you or you fit his bias. He is biased against nearly every Democrat, namely John Cranley, so the best action is to refuse to be interviewed by him.

I would suggest coming up with colorful ways to say no.  Think of a greeting card type response, a "Sorry for you biased column" card or something similar.  Sending him a bouquet of straw might be applicable.  Avoid sending dead fish in newspaper.

Biased Journalism from FOX19's Jennifer Baker

While not the only member of the local media to create bias in referring to a group of Cincinnati Council members as the "Gang of Five", Jennifer Baker of FOX19 has gone multiple steps further. In an article today she refers to the group as a "Gang" directly:

In the meantime, however, the Gang and their lawyer can’t just ignore the judge’s order or try to seek exemption, Shrive wrote in court records earlier this week.

I added the bold section for emphasis. This is not a direct quote, as no quotation marks were used. At best she was trying to paraphrase. That's a failure. It is language a reporter would use when talking about a street gang. Something I think she and COAST and the Republicans know. It wasn't just one instance. She repeats it multiple times.

The Gang is “in contempt of this Court’s lawful order and should be required to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for their failure to comply with the Discovery Order," his motion reads.

On Wednesday, Shrive went to higher court and filed a motion to dismiss the Gang’s appeal.

The Gang, he wrote in court records, can’t use attorney-client privilege now on appeal to escape a judge’s order to release their secret text messages and emails.

What is just as bas is that she claims in the article the term "Gang of Five" is "self named" which is a lie. She's using a single text message that was never intended as anything more than a joke. The group didn't issue a statement declaring this reference. It was dug up by the Republicans and lawyers for them who are suing these council members as means hurt them.

To add insult to injury, she didn't even have a quote from anyone representing the members of council being sued.  She had all of one side's arguments and nothing else to refute it.

Baker's article extremely is biased. This is terrible journalism. She is using this to either push her political opinions or to manufacture catchy controversy to gain Conservative readers.

For Cincinnati Council The Terms They Are A Changin', Again

As cliche' as this post's headline is, it blends along an un-Dylanesque harmony with the Fourth Street backed Cincinnati Charter Amendment re-establishing two year terms for Cincinnati City Council. This ballot issue handily won Tuesday night. Due to a quirky 1930's established rule, since this amendment got more votes than a separate conflicting Charter Amendment issue proposing four year staggered terms, the two year term Amendment will be adopted. It will go in effect after the current four year terms end in 2021.

I am sure that everyone is certainly thinking about the impacts and future ramifications of this change compared with the current four year terms, so I'll reverently excite you with my list. It's based on a combination of my experience, logic, and a second cup of coffee:

Impacts and Ramifications of Change Back to Two Year Terms

1. Not as much its supporters wanted you to believe.
2. The current term limited council members will have half as long to wait to run again.
3. Funding increases will be required s to run more frequent elections.
4. Candidates have more flexibility in planning to run for office if they only have to wait two years.
5. Elected candidates have to begin running for office immediately after taking office.
6. There will be every other year election year antics, filled with grandstanding.
7. Likely would decrease the advantage of incumbency for those up for re-election after their first term.  After the second term it would be close to the same level of advantage.
8. The Mayoral office loses more relevance and would motivate the office holder to create conflict as a means of influence.
9. Voters would have the opportunity to vote out members of council more frequently.
10. It will impact the 2023 race more than the 2021 race.

What was missed on this entire process is that it was not discussed openly. For all of the talk about transparency by the local media and partisan Republicans looking to attack the city, no one cared to spend significant time to discuss who funded this process and why. Local professional media are just not doing a good job or are being prevented from doing it. Some are knowingly letting this issue go by because they just want the conflict to cover. Others are just ignorant. Some are siding with one group. Our local media collectively has taken a massive step back the last few years. Whether it is the negative influence of John Cranley and Republicans or is something else, I don't know, but it is happening.

Cranley and Smitherman Both Want a Blue Pony, with Jason Williams as Stable Boy

With the John Cranley's self made drama at City Hall this month, one might be fooled into thinking that the City Manager is a threat.  Harry Black is a not a threat, he is a roadblock.  He is blocking the lustfully power hungry Mayor and 'Vice-Mayor', John Cranley and Chris Smitherman respectively, from illegally seizing control of Cincinnati City government.  Other than the City Manager and City Council, the real hurdle getting in their way, and making their efforts illegal, is the the law, specifically the City Charter and how it defines the role and power of Mayor.

Both Cranley and Smitherman want power.  They want to be a strong mayor.  I really hope this isn't some type of fetish role-playing for either man, trying to be a modern day Boss Cox.  I get they might like gilded age costumes, but that's just taking it too far.  Steampunk Smitherman does sound like a good nickname, however.

The problem for them is that the Mayor has limited power.  The mayor is not the boss of the city.  The mayor has  some power, but not total control of all City employees.  Cranley wishes he had that, but knows unless he can somehow remove term limits (unlikely as the GOP likes them), he's only working for his legacy.  Cranley's legacy rests solely on Republican Chris Smitherman.  Yes, I called him a Republican.  I am probably going to be called a racist for daring to call a duck a duck, but Smitherman's Twitter StormTroopers can bloviate all they want.  I just hope they can figure out I am a real person.  They've claimed I'm an pen name for elected officials or maybe they think I'm a Russian Bot, but here's hoping the kids can study up.  Maybe even read the over 15 years worth of blog posts I've written, on my archive.  I may not be a good writer, but I sure as Hell have been doing this long enough to know who the players are in Cincinnati politics.  I've been around long enough to know that when you vote in the Republican primary, endorse Republican candidates, adopt Republican polices, campaign with Republicans, attack Republican enemies, and take Republican money, then I am going to call you a Republican.  If Smitherman thinks he can't get elected mayor as a Republican, he should understand that lying about you policies and allegiances isn't going to work either.  You can't compartmentalize like Yasir Arafat in Cincinnati.  Don't mix messages with different audiences.

The funny twist in recent Enquirer coverage of the Mayor's Chaos comes from the resident hack political columnist Jason Williams. He is almost criticizing John Cranley.  I say almost, as Williams still tried his best to blame Cranley's drama on what he's calling the 'urban progressives' and 'Progressive 5.'  Not sure what he means by urban, as this is a city, but we do have a suburban mayor, so I'll presume Williams isn't a fan of people who like cities. He's certainly championing those against the City of Cincinnati. That would include Republican member of council Chris Smitherman.  Williams, I guess, finally figured out he's not going to get a job in Cranley's administration, so now he's pushing the anti-city Manager form of government that Smitherman painfully desires.  His lust for power borders on the psychotic and makes Cranley's penchant for sticking it to his political foes look like pin pricks in comparison.  A character like Smitherman without a professional city manager to run the day operation would look like a small version of a Trump White House.  Same kind of ego, but with more outward signs of psychosis.

Strong mayors are not a good idea in Cincinnati and not with those wanting it now.  Former Ohio State Senator Eric Kearney stated well what I believe is the underlying problem with the position Cranley and Smitherman (with Williams) are putting forth:

If something goes “wrong” in the federal government we do not blame the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments (and seek to change them). As well, we should not blame (and seek to change) the City Charter.

— Eric H Kearney (@EricKearney) March 22, 2018

The problem is with the way they are trying to govern.  They want the government and the populace to bend to their will.  That's not leadership, that is bullying.  Leaders don't create controversy as a means to push forward as a political pretext to change the form of government. If there is a problem with the form of government, make the claim as to why, present facts, and be honest.  If you just want to gain more power, then I say fuck off, we don't need mini-Trumps in Cincinnati.

More Continued Bias Against the Streetcar at the Enquirer

Screenshot from Cincinnati.com/news/ on 02/16/2018

Yep, you may think this is a broken record. Surprisingly, however, the bias at the Enquirer I am pointing out is not directly sourced from the usual anti-Streetcar and anti-OTR Resident and Enquirer Columnist Jason Williams. No, this time it falls on the editors.

Shown on the left is the graphic that was the news page of the Enqurier's website and a similar version on the Front page this morning.  The column is about SORTA.  The column is about SORTA's finances.  The column does include in the last paragraph one reference to promotions of people with Streetcar.  The headline of the column actually reads the following:

Screenshot from Enquirer column: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics-extra/2018/02/15/px-what-hell-going/340915002/

Yep, that is the headline of actual column, which doesn't include the Streetcar.  That headline might have been changed if you read the link name in the graphic caption, but without internal info from the Enquirer, I can only see what I can observe.  Blaming the writer for the headline has traditionally been wrong.  So, how does a column that is mostly about SORTA and it's Buses and it's Finances and a Sales Tax wind up leading with the Streetcar in the headline?  It's a classic bait and switch advertisement.  The Enquirer (along with the Republicans) has help create a controversy over the Streetcar.  A bird can't shit on a Streetcar window and not make headline news for days. Meanwhile SORTA has serious issues with its's Bus Service.  The Bus Service is the vast majority of SORT is responsible to provide the City and Southwest Ohio region.

This isn't about the Streetcar, but the Enquirer wants readers and has created a damned controversy so it does not give a shit about truth, it wants eyeballs of suburbanites who love to hate on the city and Conservatives in the city who love to hate on anything Downtown.

Bias in journalism sucks when reporters and columnist do it, but when editors tilt things like TRUTH, one must question everything that is published.  This also plays into a FOX News type of infotainment, pretending opinion journalists, like Jason Williams, is hard news with this type of biased headline and link to the column.  For all of the chest pumping by the media for being self declared seekers of TRUTH, there is the cold reality that far too often they take dump on the TRUTH for sake of increasing readership and advertising revenue.  Journalists around the city must be so proud.....

In Case You Live in a Cave: 2017 Sucked in Politics

Anyone paying attention knows that 2017 sucked, bigly.  Here are the worst things politically that happened nationally and locally:

Nationally:

1. Trump took office as President.
2. Trump obstructed office.
3. The Republicans obfuscated the Congressional investigations of Trump.
4. Trump stayed in office.
5. Tie: Trump spoke/Trump lied
6. Trump continued to push hate, racism, and sexism.
7. Trump Tweeted.
8. Trump acted like a petulant child.
9. FOX News solidified is standing as propaganda for Trump.
10. An increased number of Americans (Right-Wing and Left-Wing) believe they are informed on politics.

Locally:

1. John Cranley was elected to a second term as Mayor.
2. Republican Chris Smitherman was elected to another term on City Council.
3. Democrat John Cranley appointed Republican Chris Smitherman as Vice-Mayor
4. Cincinnati Republicans overwhelming supported Cranley.
5. The Ohio Democratic Party Supported John Cranley for Mayor, despite his reliance on the Republicans to get elected.
6. Voter turnout sucked once again.
7. People are still incredibly ignorant on how government and elections work.
8. Republican Amy Murray joined the Governor's race ticket as a Lt. Governor candidate for a Trump supporting candidate for Governor.

Jason Williams' Playbook is Thin and Trite and Based on People in Power

With his year end kiss ass and trash column, the Enquirer's columnist Jason Williams lays out his jounalisticpolitical philosophy: kiss the ass of the people in power and Trash those who stand up to those in power (access is all that matters.)

If one reads his list of "cheers and jeers" for the year you will find it filled with ass kissing of those in power and trashing of their political foes.  The worst "cheer" was this bullshit about Mayor John Cranley:

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley for staying out of the mud as his political enemies hurled ugly and unfounded racially charged comments at him in fliers, mailers and on social media during the campaign.

I know Jason is in the bag for Cranley and he prints the vast majority of stories Cranley wanted, but this just takes the cake. Jason knows Cranley's opponent in the Mayor's race Yvette Simpson was horribly attacked by people on social media, making up lies. Jason appeared to ignore that and instead pushed the Cranley propaganda making him the victim.  Sure, I guess he could be ignoring social media, but when he uses his column to lash back to his critics on social media, you know he's at least reading the Enquirer's local politics Facebook group.

What adds to Williams' journalistic malpractice is in his attack on FC Cincinnati's efforts to obtain public funding for infrastructure in support of a new soccer specific stadium he refused to say a word against John Cranley's major part in approving the funding. It is quite clear that Cranley was the primary public official who was organizing the effort to create a deal for the infrastructure and he finessed the deal when it hit a road block at the last minute.

Cranley was a key player of the secret cabal that Williams ripped earlier in the year when he  criticized the secrecy of FCC for keeping the government's plan to fund the infrastructure secret before the election.  He said nothing about the obvious: Cranley kept the story in secert, with Jeff Berding's help, to avoid a MASSIVE CONTROVERSY, before the election.  Right after the election, BOOM, we have an instant plan ready to go and the Conservative portion of council was ready to help out Republican Carl Linder.  This basic concept is ignored by columnist Jason Williams. 

Yes, I'm no longer calling Williams a sometimes reporter, sometimes columnist.  He just a columnist.  Any article that touches anything about politics or government that he writes has to be taken a a column.  There is no other was to approach it as a news consumer.  You can' trust him, you have to assume his bias.  His real problem as a columnist goes even further, he actually has no ideology.  He appears to be one of those who try to claim to not be either a Democrat or Republican.  That is a psychological dodge, everyone has political opinions.  Those who appear to pick and chose issues are more likely opportunists who would rather just be on the perceived winning side.

Bottom line, he's no Peter Bronson, no matter how he tries.  I couldn't stand Bronson's columns or political views, but they were identifiable and honestly what Bronson believed.  I don't think Williams believes anything, he's just trying to build up a persona.  His new found stints as a guest on 700WLW alone demonstrate he's not serious, just a wanna-be talking head, looking to move up.