Off Leash "Chews" on the Candidates
Off-Leash Public Affairs is making their public access show special Chewing on the Candidates series available on line at the above link.
Off-Leash co-hosts Cathy Murillo and David Pritchett asked the city council candidates five questions and gave them about two and half minutes to respond with short follow-up. This more structured approach is in sharp contrast to Larry Nimmer's open ended style highlighted about a week ago here on BlogaBarbara.
The series will be available on public access television (CH 17) through election day.
Off-Leash co-hosts Cathy Murillo and David Pritchett asked the city council candidates five questions and gave them about two and half minutes to respond with short follow-up. This more structured approach is in sharp contrast to Larry Nimmer's open ended style highlighted about a week ago here on BlogaBarbara.
The series will be available on public access television (CH 17) through election day.
Labels: Off-Leash Public Affairs, Santa Barbara City Council
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 10/18/2007 05:50:00 PM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
32 Comments:
The TV-17 schedule is at the website for Off-Leash Public Affairs (see the link in the posting), or per the list below.
SCHEDULE on cable TV-17 for Chewing on the Candidates:
Part Two-- Wed. 17 Oct., 2300 hrs. (11 pm)
Part One-- Thu. 18 Oct., 1300 hrs. (1 pm)
Part One-- Fri. 19 Oct., 2100 hrs. (9 pm)
Part Two-- Sat. 20 Oct., 2000 hrs. (8 pm, still okay to watch TV while Lights Out)
Part One-- Sun. 21 Oct., 2100 hrs. (9 pm)
Part Two-- Sun. 21 Oct., 2200 hrs. (10 pm)
Part One-- Tue. 23 Oct., 1900 hrs. (7 pm)
Part One-- Wed. 24 Oct., 0900 hrs. (9 am)
Part Two-- Wed. 24 Oct., 1000 hrs. (10 am)
Part Two-- Wed. 24 Oct., 1900 hrs. (7 pm)
Part One-- Wed. 24 Oct., 2000 hrs. (8 pm)
Part One-- Thu. 25 Oct., 0300 hrs. (3 am)
Part One-- Thu. 25 Oct., 1300 hrs. (1 pm)
Part Two-- Thu. 25 Oct., 1500 hrs. (3 pm)
Part Two-- Fri. 26 Oct., 0500 hrs. (5 am)
Part One-- Fri. 26 Oct., 2100 hrs. (9 pm)
Part One-- Sat. 27 Oct., 1000 hrs. (10 am)
Part One-- Sun. 28 Oct., 2100 hrs. (9 pm)
Part Two-- Sun. 28 Oct., 2200 hrs. (10 pm)
Additional replays to be scheduled after this date.
Cathy and David have an agenda. Even to the point that they label Brian, Das and Helene "council incumbents" and Dale, Frank, etc. "council challengers".
Why use the labels when they are all candidates? Unless you have a bias...
On its face it's a small thing, but the tone of the words give some an advantage, and others a disadvantage.
A bit of a stretch Bill...any newspaper you read will call an incumbent an incumbent -- even Fox News! Most people in politics call it a dirty word around election time...why all of a sudden is it a positive?
We were going to add text labels that identified them as "Star Children of the Universe" and "Caring Human Beings"... but then our Agenda kicked in and we just reverted to the obviously biased identifiers as "Challenger" and "Incumbent".
We are always glad, usually, to read our fan mail, no matter from who.
Got to agree with Bill Carson. But as someone who opposes Measure, please keep out in front of the issue David. You are doing great.
Newt Gingrich ran a whole campaign on throwing out all the incumbents -- with no regard whatsoever who the replacement was. This time it again sage advice - throw out all the incumbents because we do have sound challengers.
Thank you for labeling who to throw out - how are they identified on the ballot - hopefully as incumbents to make the job easier for those who remain marginal to the real city issues but who also cast votes.
Choice of labels and words are one subtle way of expressing bias. In yesterday's NewsPress a story about how hard it was to maintain a life-style for a family in Santa Barbara on $72K a year claimed the "blame" was cost of housing and health care.
Would not using the word "cause" have been more neutral. Using the word "blame" sounds like some one else should fix the problem for these people (free housing and free health care)
Using the word "cause" instead conveys it was these people's choice to live in Santa Barbara and were willing to accept and work with the limitations this choice of theirs entailed.
And this is how bias creeps so easily into journalism: pure word choices that carry totally different meanings and consequences.
Dave's sarcasm comes as no surprise. I made it clear that the choice of labels is a small thing. Whatever.
So my next question (which should trigger more cute sarcasm)...Why, then, are the terms "incumbent" and "challenger" not used on the ballot to describe the candidates? Perhaps the State feels that these terms are biased.
And another example of biased terminology appeared in the Daily Sound on October 3rd. In a column about candidate fund raising, compare the phrases used for the "incumbents":
Williams has pulled in the most cash……
the POA chipped in…
Nava gave him the thumbs up……
and Conklin gave…
Helene Schneider is running second...
Schneider’s donation list includes such notables as…
…the Planned Parenthood Fund pitched in…
…while the Women’s Political Committee gave…
(Referring to Barnwell) …the councilman has $7,057 in his piggy bank…
…notable donations include...
…a $250 nod from….
And then read how they characterized the "challengers":
Francisco is sitting on…
(is labeled) “an outspoken opponent”…
Sharon Westby…forked over…
Hotchkiss dished out…
…and has about $3,450 to play around with.
Hmmmmmm. Guess it's just a journalistic coincidence that the incumbents get the upbeat phrases.
Off Leash, Angry Poodle, Wendy's dog bias,etc.
Is something going on here I need to know about?
And yea! The Plaza's back on the agenda...
Here are the official ballot labels and order for all the candidates (totally bi-lingual ballot this time):
Francisco: Engineer, writer
Litten: Doctor
Barnwell: Incumbent
Scheider: Santa Barbara City Council member
Hotchkiss: Realtor
Hansen: (blank)
Williams: City Councilmember/Teacher
Giddens: Mother/Business Owner
Cooper: Dentist
*****Doctors and Dentists ALWAYS do well. And Cooper has officially dropped out but will still appear on the ballot, most likely garnering substantial votes just on his title.
Notice two incumbents refused to identify themselves with that loaded word. Barnwell put a bullseye on his head when he did.
Franks Hotchkiss says that we should vote for new candidates. How are we gonna know who to vote for if we don't know who the new ones are?
Bill Carson's agenda seems to be to make ridiculous accusations on the flimsiest, most absurd basis possible.
Dave's sarcasm comes as no surprise. I made it clear that the choice of labels is a small thing. Whatever.
If it's a small thing, then why did you make it the basis of a charge of people having an agenda, and why are you still blathering about it?
Das listed himself as a "teacher". What and where does he teach?
Election rules require any official ballot designation means it is current and a substantial and recent part of one's employment. (California Elections Code)
I thought we gave the city council a raise so they would be full time city council people WORKING FOR US.
What gives with Das choosing to be a full time teacher instead? Or did Das cynically try to manipulate his ballot desgination for political gain? I never heard Das ever talk about being a teacher.
Somebody, will you please explain. Thank you.
Das teaches a class at Antioch University.
What's the subject of his class? Anyone know if he's good at it? A class is a very revealing index of a character's character.
The structured approach you speak of leaves the "hosts" free to rephrase whatever any candidate said so it's fits the Off-Leash perspective. It's a pretty hideous spectacle. When the interviewer is nodding rapidly in agreement with her favored candidates, what's the message being delivered? Is this what "clean" elections are supposed to look like?
I actually watched the TV show and I think it is fabulous that someone local actually knows the issues and asks these council candidates some tough questions.
I read their web page and their point obviously was to set up a venue for people to compare the candidates. That worked very well the way it was edited.
What's with all the hostility JQB? You should work on your anger issues.
Dave and Cathy are supporters of the status quo. They support Measure A, and they support the current council. They post candidate interviews on public television and give the impression that their efforts are objective in nature. In reality, they have a strong agenda that is anti-challenger. But most viewers don't know this. Their Off Leash production, or whatever they call it, fails to disclose to the viewing public that they support the three incumbents. Watch and listen closely and you see and hear their bias in the videos.
The general public is looking for objectivity. Not Dave Pritchett's view of the world.
JQB...stay mad at me if you want, but stop for a second, take a breath, and open your eyes a little bit. You just might begin to see things more clearly.
I enoyed these specific questions and the format. Thank you Kathy and David and all the candidates for this two part chew. The interview locations on the top level of parking garages downtown illustrate to me that it is a waste of space for cars to sit and enjoy the view. In hind sight the city would have been much better off putting a 20/80, parking/housing mixture downtown.
I actually watched the show too. Tough questions? You're killing me!
David's nasty attitude and personal attacks on those who disagree with him do not help advance his agenda.
Some one needs to look up the Elections Code requirements for ballot identifications.
Just "teaching a class" most likely does qualify as a proper ballot designation under the specific terms of the Elections Code to allow that identification. I believe the identification requires it be your primary occupation.
Must check this out. Or, are some rules just not for some people?
How is Measure A the status quo? It changes elections from odd years to even years and nearly doubles voter turnout. That's hardly the status quo.
NO ONE can prove you will double the votes for the city candidates and issues when you include them on a lengthy state and national general election ballot. NO ONE!!!
Get over it, fake Pro-A people. We are NOT buying that fake argument.
It is called ballot fatigue and the worst thing that could happen is to dilute city issues which should be stand alone ballot issues only. I always thought this was ENLIGHTENED political process to keep them separate and a critical reason Santa Barbara has carved out such a unique environment.
If it ain't broke, DON"T FIX IT!!! And it ain't broke!
Progressives have become synonymous with meddlers and that is not a good thing. Leave us alone.
"When the interviewer is nodding rapidly in agreement with her favored candidates..." she nods her head w/dale. You think she endorses him? I don't.
Although higher voter turnout is true during even-year elections, how can anyone know if voters have the attention span to spend two more minutes to vote their way down to the bottom of the ballot where City election items are?
Voting is not that hard. This downballot dropoff effect does happen to a highly limited degree, where voters will vote for President or Governor and other items at the top of the ballot, but not vote as consistently for local items towards the bottom of the ballot.
However, this downballot dropoff effect is extremely minimal in Santa Barbara, as verified in a July 2007 report by Billie Alvarez, the County Deputy Registrar of Voters. That report analyzes election returns from Carpinteria, Lompoc, and Santa Maria for the 4 even-year elections since 2000, and concludes that voters did not bother to vote for something on the ballot only about 5% of the time, but which contest or ballot item (local or not) was subject to this undervote still is uncertain.
That discrepancy for a 5% undervote is a tremendously smaller difference when compared with the nearly double or 78% increase in voter turnout (37.8% boosted to 66.8%) during even-year elections in Santa Barbara, based upon the past 12 years of voting information.
Therefore, even if all the downballot dropoff and undervote were for a City election item, which they are not, the increase in voter turnout still should be approximately 73% higher (78 minus 5) during even years.
Downballot dropoff and an undervote during the even-year elections actually is much more likely not to be related to a City issue but rather to something on the ballot regarding an obscure or confusing State Proposition or a Judicial election of unknowns.
Anons questioning the "nodding."
The nodding is an encouraging promt by the interviewer to keep the interviewee speaking. "She" nods with most of the candidates.
The nodding is frowned upon by those who actually practice journalism, but so is the news press since the two of them are doing a opinion show and are not journalists then its not really a problem. If they choose to spend the time and effort and it gives a few viewers a chance to check out the candidates then kudos to them.
What's with all the hostility JQB? You should work on your anger issues.
Your ad hominem response that avoids addressing my points is not unexpected.
Cathy Murillo is not a journalist?
Did someone Anonymous just come out of hibernation that started 12 years ago?
Journalism can include both news and public affairs.
This is rather bizarre how all this interpretation and psychoanalysis goes into how an interviewer may nod in understanding when an interview subject is speaking.
JQB is always angry. Get used to it.
I think it's great that we have all of these media outlets for the candidates to enlighten us with their platforms. I grew up in a city that was about the size of SB and we had nothing like this. Even if these outlets are not of the highest quality, they do serve an important purpose, and that is that the information is out there if you know where to look. Higher turnout at the polls is NOT a bad thing, and the voters are better off with these outlets covering the candidates. Thankyou to Sara for condensing all of these outlets for her readers.
"JQB is always angry."
Just repeating the silly ad hominem. But what's relevant is that Carson and McC are always wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home