On second thought…

This just in from reporter Amanda Baumfeld:

I found this to be pretty interesting…..

Councilwoman Mary Anne Saucedo-Rodriguez was set to discuss a possible limit on campaign contributions at an Oct. 8 meeting. It was an listed under her council oral but for whatever reason she opted not to discuss it.

The agenda for Wednesday’s meeting is out and I thought Saucedo-Rodriguez would have moved the item to this week. But it happens to be left off the agenda.

Perhaps the councilwoman gave the idea a second thought

  • Food for Thought

    Maybe she (Mary Ann)would end up cutting off her own nose with limiting campaign contributions! Food for thought.

  • The Commish

    It’s so easy to say things while under the cloak of anonymity. I wonder if Mr. or Ms. Anonymous is so outraged that they would say the same thing to Ms. Chatila’s face. I am curious to know, however, if the above statement is true, how does “smoking out” make her a “liar” and a “cheat.” To me, it makes her a kid who made a bad decision and got caught… So “Anonymous” has never made a mistake? I find that very hard to believe.

  • Anonymous

    Commish:

    I tend to agree with you but don’t you think this is same type of gotacha accusation that gets leveled by the managers of this site and the commenters.

    Yes, most of the criticism is about politicians and politicians work with our money etc. etc. etc.

    Still, you could argue that reporters who have a platform that few of us have should be held to the same standard as politicians.

    If a politician made a bad decision early in life, why is that somehow more onerous that a reporter doing the same thing.

  • anonymous

    ….because the damn politician is in charge of conducting OUR business and spending OUR money – not simply writing for a paper.

  • Anonymous

    But papers shape peoples understanding of issues and are often peoples only window into the workings of government.

    If you cannot trust the people who are providing you with information about government, isn’t that about as bad as not being able to trust those in government.

    Understand, this is not an apology for bad politicians, but rather a call to reporters to hold themselves to the same standards of honesty, trust and integrity they…and you hold others.

    Again, if a politician is guilty of wrongdoing, especially wrongdoing that relates to their public work, that is of course news and should be reported.

    What a politician did many many years ago in an isolated instance or what they do in their private lives that does not rise to the level of criminal wrongdoing should not be reported because it is NOT NEWS. It is simply muck racking. It serves not purpose other than to tarr people needlessly.

  • anonymous

    “papers shape peoples understanding of issues and are often peoples only window into workings of government.”???? I guess I have a different view of the role of papers….they are business operations designed to sell papers thus generating advertising dollars. I don’t expect them to report in an unbiased fashion, and in the real world, they don’t.

    A reporter’s background should be a concern to their employer, not me. On the otherhand, the background of a politician who is seeking to handle the average citizen’s business and oversee the expenditure of their tax dollars, is important to me. I want to know what “they” did years ago and about their private lives if it sheds light on their decision making ability and character.

  • Chatila defender

    If you are so convinced that she has a criminal record, why don’t you look it up? Oh, what’s that? You can’t find it? That’s because it doesn’t exist.

    Obviously, she struck a nerve with one of her stories and “balls-out” anonymous has to fall back on making childish accusations, which, by the way, can get you sued.

  • Anonymous

    I think when the print media says unsubstantiated falsehoods about people it’s call libel.

  • anonymous

    And last time I checked, none of the reporters at the paper have been served a lawsuit for libel……