UT San Diego busted for violating campaign laws (2013, prices)

[Think4Yourself]

I saw this on another site and thought I'd share it here:

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/apr/05...l+Headlines%29

We knew that when conservative Doug Manchester bought the Union-Tribune he was going to use it to promote his causes, including serving as a cheerleader for the GOP agenda and Republican candidates.

In the last election the paper charged a lower ad rate to candidates and campaigns for causes it endorsed and quoted a higher rate to candidates it opposed. But when a newspaper does this, the difference between the discounted rate and the standard rate - which it quoted the candidate it opposed - is an in-kind campaign contribution and must be reported as such to the California Secretary of State. UT San Diego failed to do this, and that is a violation of state law (the California Political Reform Act). The newspaper will be fined by the Fair Political Practices Commission.

The sweet justice of this is that the two Republican candidates the UT San Diego endorsed, and violated state law to support, both lost to Democrats the newspaper openly opposed.

[Think4Yourself]

Mysteriously Doug Manchester's paper failed to report about the story of their own criminal law breaking. I wonder why?

Or at least I couldn't find it on their website and it certainly wasn't in their headlines but maybe they wrong a tiny piece which they buried in the back some where.

[hitman619]

What's different from Liberal papers like,The New York Times/San Fransisco chronicle supporting democratic candidates

[oddstray]

Originally Posted by hitman619

What's different from Liberal papers like,The New York Times/San Fransisco chronicle supporting democratic candidates

No difference at all. If the liberal papers had equally failed to report rate differences they would be equally in trouble.

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by hitman619

What's different from Liberal papers like,The New York Times/San Fransisco chronicle supporting democratic candidates

Except they don't. They actually follow the laws which require a paper to charge the same rate for all candidates. If you bothered to read the NPR report (from KPBS) you'd know that already.

Or more specifically this is a state law (which most states have) and is a rule required under the journalism code of ethics; which is something the UT routinely ignores and that is the primary reason the UT is a joke of a paper and not a real news source.

[bloom]

Boo to creepy Papa. His cartoonist Breen appears anti-semetic too.

[tonyinsd]

Originally Posted by hitman619

What's different from Liberal papers like,The New York Times/San Fransisco chronicle supporting democratic candidates

First of all, to call the New York Time liberal is a bad joke. How many articles did they run which were pretty much puff pieces for the Bush administration during the runup to the Iraq invasion? Anyone who had reservations, such as Bush Sr, was pretty much labeled a crank and wacko.

I mean, it was only perhaps the worst foreign policy mistake since at least Vietnam and the New York Times was cheerleading for it.

Now, having said that, if the New York Times discounted its ad prices for Obama and didn't do it for Romney, then that would be a violation. But there's no evidence they did.

On the other hand, there is that the toilet paper formerly known as the Union Tribune did.