Release Your Notes, Bob
The D News wrote an article on the legal challenge to the ballot language for vouchers. It states, "Urquhart, an attorney, admitted that the new lawsuit's main aim is to get the Utah Supreme Court to call off the Nov. 6 vote." This is false.
Bob Bernick interviewed me yesterday for the article. I have always regarded Bob to be good with quotes and conveying the gist of conversations. He got this one 180 degrees wrong. And, frankly, I don't know how he could have.
I was in a car on a cellphone with the person next to me talking on his cellphone. I couldn't hear every word Bob was saying, so I very deliberately over-explained each response, pointing out that we are in a mess and that the Court needs to clean it up, so that people know what they are voting on. Repeatedly, I stated that people need to know what they're voting on, just like I said in my blog yesterday. When he asked about effects on a vote, I said that the Supreme Court could fashion a remedy, I didn't know off hand what it would be, but that's what courts do. To conclude with a non quote summary that I said the purpose of the lawsuit is to cancel the vote is a fabrication. I don't know how Bob would reach that conclusion or why he would. Maybe it is Lisa (who wrote the story) being careless with Bob's notes.
In any event, it is fiction. The problem with the mainstream media is that they can make things up and never answer to anyone for it. Bob Bernick needs to publicly release his interview notes. Rather than convey that I am hoping an election won't happen, the notes should convey that I spoke repeatedly about cleaning up things for the election.
UPDATE (later): I do not delete or edit my posts (except for grammar/spelling). The blog is a record of how I view(ed) things at the time of the post. On this post, I responded poorly to a situation that displeased me. As I explain here, I called Bob, and he had no hesitation about clarifying the mistake. Life is better when we talk directly to each other on a civil basis.
UPDATE (5/26/07): the correction.
Bob Bernick interviewed me yesterday for the article. I have always regarded Bob to be good with quotes and conveying the gist of conversations. He got this one 180 degrees wrong. And, frankly, I don't know how he could have.
I was in a car on a cellphone with the person next to me talking on his cellphone. I couldn't hear every word Bob was saying, so I very deliberately over-explained each response, pointing out that we are in a mess and that the Court needs to clean it up, so that people know what they are voting on. Repeatedly, I stated that people need to know what they're voting on, just like I said in my blog yesterday. When he asked about effects on a vote, I said that the Supreme Court could fashion a remedy, I didn't know off hand what it would be, but that's what courts do. To conclude with a non quote summary that I said the purpose of the lawsuit is to cancel the vote is a fabrication. I don't know how Bob would reach that conclusion or why he would. Maybe it is Lisa (who wrote the story) being careless with Bob's notes.
In any event, it is fiction. The problem with the mainstream media is that they can make things up and never answer to anyone for it. Bob Bernick needs to publicly release his interview notes. Rather than convey that I am hoping an election won't happen, the notes should convey that I spoke repeatedly about cleaning up things for the election.
UPDATE (later): I do not delete or edit my posts (except for grammar/spelling). The blog is a record of how I view(ed) things at the time of the post. On this post, I responded poorly to a situation that displeased me. As I explain here, I called Bob, and he had no hesitation about clarifying the mistake. Life is better when we talk directly to each other on a civil basis.
UPDATE (5/26/07): the correction.
posted by steve u. at 5/25/2007
Subscribe
2 Comments:
I think asking for a response from Bernick is appropriate, as would be writing a letter to the editor refuting the story, for example, but I think asking a journalist to release his notes is perhaps a little over the top. What would be next, asking legislators to turn over notes of meetings with constituents if a constituent questioned an account of a conversation?
VOU,
You are right. See post above that I'm now composing. My bad.
Post a Comment
<< Home