Dear Ari Noonan:
Hope all is well with you and your family.
You are probably wondering why the heck is Marcus writing to me — possibly more than to just give salutations.
You are right. Two things. one of which is as you see fit it might be worthy of inclusion on thefrontpageonline.com.
No. 1 Your electronic newspaper
Wasn't much of a believer at the beginning, but being deployed approximately 8k miles from home sweet home, I look forward to checking online (when I can) to see what is going on in our great city. This supplements my weekly reading of the Culver City Observer and Culver City News. Coverage on the School Board? (see more below).
No. 2 The School Board election, Letters to the Editor on the race
First qualification I must make is that I have nothing to do with any of the campaigns. I have personally met only three of the candidates. Each brings qualities to the School Board that would benefit students. While reading about the other three, they, too, have qualities that would benefit students.
From afar (and I mean afar while on deployment) I think I can gather the issues surrounding the race are: sustainability of school funding (e.g. Measure EE, the parcel tax, and/or some other source of PXP drilling revenue), class sizes, and so on (such as quality education for the students).
Lately, I am not exactly sure of the issues from reading the digital versions of the local papers and thefrontpageonline.com, but what I can definitely gather is that this campaign (at least from a distance) is in the top 10 of the nastiest mudslinging and petty media campaigns we have the benefit of witnessing.
Again this is from a distance. I could easily be missing some of the subtleties where this campaign season (through the media) has really empowered the average voter to say I am voting for Candidate X because of his/her position on issues or what positive dynamics that candidate would bring to our School Board.
The Culver City local media has told me a candidate is linked to “snake oil,” or another candidate hasn't attended enough School Board meetings, or we don't need “another lawyer spouting platitudes…” or how another candidate got an endorsement, or a candidate’s Facebook account.
What about the issues? I ask.
Where is the substance in the media?
I know it is there, but it is easily lost when the media chooses to essentially endorse mudslinging through printing (paper or electronically) letters to the editor that are either from campaign supporters bashing another candidate or now, the proliferation of candidates themselves bashing others or the media.
It becomes a vicious cycle when the paper prints an attack on a candidate, then feels compelled to give the attacked candidate an opportunity to redeem him/herself (of course usually a secondary directed attack on top of it).
Food for thought, though election- themed Letters to the Editor increases readership, maybe it’s time for all of Culver City local media to consider whether there is really any value to continuing this practice if this is the best we can get.
Maj. Tiggs, a former City Council candidate serving abroad with the National Guard, may be contacted at TIGGSM@hq.kfor.nato.int
Ari Noonan comments: I was nodding in the affirmative until the last 200 words. Thankfully we have a free press to report what candidates and their supporters say about each other. Otherwise, there would be a gross abuse of the principle of free speech. Where should a line be drawn on candidate criticism? When it is directed at your candidate, but not when he fires back? When your candidate and my candidate get criticized, but not the candidate of your neighbor? Further, if you didn’t print criticism that candidates voice, voters would neither attend their speeches nor cast ballots. If your opponent does not merit criticism, why are you running?
