Political Gumbo: A Lesson in Ethical Journalism

On Wednesday, Pasadena Now posted a story on a local candidate for state assembly.

Minutes after the story was posted, the candidate called Pasadena Now and accused us of supporting her opponent and not printing “the facts.”

The candidate claimed that one paragraph in particular was incorrect.

The paragraph appeared to parrot comments made in a column by one of her staunchest critics.  

So, as we have done in the past, we removed that paragraph so we could research its accuracy in more depth.

That is in fact the ethical thing to do. 

Stay with me, here’s where it gets crazy.

While the subject of the piece claimed we supported her opposition, her critics claimed we somehow were supporting her.

Yes, somehow we were endorsing her and sabotaging her campaign at the same time.

Even I can’t do that.  

To the candidates I say this, I am not going there. 

We’re not doing hit pieces.

We will report the facts, without carrying the water of your critics or their agendas.  

That said, here are the facts on that paragraph in the Felicia Williams story.

Williams did change her voter registration, and she did vote against hero pay during the pandemic as the paragraph states.

Yes, those are facts and that part of the paragraph should not have been removed. 

After that things get murky.

We cannot find an on-the-record statement where Williams “opposed” rent control. We found four elected officials who made on the record statements, Mayor Victor Gordo, the late John Kennedy, Jason Lyon and Jess Rivas. 

The first two opposed it, the last two supported it – all on the record officially. 

And that’s what we can use. 

What’s on the record — not what you feel, not what somebody DID NOT say and not what somebody heard somebody say.

Provable truth.

Pasadena Now has to be able to prove it in court. Yes, by the way, you can libel someone in a Letter to the Editor or an Opinion piece.

That’s why some of your pieces have been rejected by us. 

Now about that word “opposed.”

When you say a City Councilmember opposed something we look for a ‘no’ vote or an on the record statement in a reputable news source.  

Couldn’t find a statement in the Star-News stories either, which yes is reputable. 

Respect to my man Larry Wilson and Brennon Dixson.

If there is a video clip out there, send it our way.  

Even if it was in closed session, guess what, it is still not on the record if the action was not reported. 

And those meetings are not recorded. 

The City Council unanimously voted to remain neutral on that matter. 

Now of course some will point to comments made in deliberations.

Those comments can be quoted.  

Councilmembers make statements during deliberations all the time and then vote the opposite. 

The vote trumps deliberations. 

Steve Madison echoed all of his concerns on the zoning code amendment that allows housing to be built on church property. 

I was sure he was going to vote against it, until he voted for it. 

Now if comments were made during deliberations it could be said “she spoke out against it.”

Last Monday for example, Tyron Hampton made a motion and then voted against his own motion. 

Had anyone turned off the TV right after the motion was made or a counter motion been made to table the item, the appearance would be Hampton supported the item.

That assumption would have been incorrect. 

It’s the vote that counts. 

The City Council unanimously voted neutral.

That’s the truth. That’s ethical. 

Williams did vote in favor (with a majority of Councilmembers present) to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance allowing unlimited campaign financing.

But she never opposed a motion to limit how much money candidates can raise during local races because it never came to Council.

This ordinance was originally agendized at an October City Council meeting but the Council ran out of time and pushed that item to the October 18th meeting.  

The ordinance eventually went to Legislative Policy and died there after opponents of unlimited financing made their case.

And of course, that’s their right. 

Of course people will say that if she voted in favor of unlimited funding, she would have opposed limits.

We will never know.

There is no record of her voting to “oppose” campaign limits. 

She did vote in support of the drafting of an ordinance that would have allowed unlimited campaign financing.

That’s a fact. 

No one knows what counter motions or funding ceiling would have come up if there was a motion to oppose.

That’s a fact.

Removing the graph to check for accuracy was ethical. 

We report the facts, and when we discover flaws in our story, we correct them.

As voters, you are free to make your own decision, and we highly endorse each of you exercising your right to vote. 

That’s the ethical thing to do.

And you have questions about our stories, call us.

That’s the ethical thing to do. 

Class dismissed.