Yesterday I noted how the Baltimore Sun failed to note the party affiliation of Democratic Mayor Sheila Dixon, who is under investigation for corruption.
To be fair to the Sun, I thought I'd note that Dixon's party allegiance is referenced in a June 25 story in the second paragraph:
Companies linked to a developer questioned in the state investigation of Mayor Sheila Dixon have made nearly $500,000 in political contributions in the past decade, state campaign finance records show.
The 57 limited liability corporations named in court records as having possible ties to Doracon Contracting President Ronald H. Lipscomb gave $487,000, almost entirely to Democrats, including tens of thousands to Dixon and Gov. Martin O'Malley.
A two-year investigation into City Hall spending has accelerated in the past week after prosecutors conducted a search on Dixon's home, more city employees were subpoenaed and a document obtained by The Sun showed that investigators are examining Dixon's relationship with Lipscomb.
Today's article was co-written by Sun writer Lynn Anderson along with the writers of the article I critiqued yesterday, John Fritze and Doug Donovan.
Of course this may only be a fluke and not any indication that Dixon's party affiliation will be mentioned in future Sun articles.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I would like to think this note
June 25, 2008 - 10:18 ET by JTPI sent to John Fritze yesterday may have helped.
Deer John
It is very informative.
However, I can not find in your piece if mayor Dixon is a Republican, Democrat or Independent.
I do not live in Baltimore so I am not familiar with your mayor.
Please advise.
Thank You for your help,
But I doubt it.
I received a response from Mr Fritze today on the same question
June 25, 2008 - 15:09 ET by Mr_PriestMr Frtze: I've got to assume you're from out of town. Every elected official in Baltimore is a Democrat. It's been that way since 1963 and every one here knows that. I also have to chuckle a little at the suggestion that this story somehow represents bias in favor of Democrats. Wouldn't it have been easier for the paper just not to spend two and a half years looking into these allegations and breaking stories such as this one rather than going through all that trouble just to cover up her party? Also, did you notice that we named the party of the state senator, who is a Democrat and who is also under investigation? How does pair with your theory?
My response: No need to get defensive, a simple "I didn't realize anyone from outside the city would actually read my article" would suffice. Yes, your correct, I'm a Midwesterner, we have equal representation from both party's here which makes it common practice for journalists to include party affiliations.
The latest pole says that 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
At least you received a response...
June 25, 2008 - 15:34 ET by JTPI have received nothing in response to my question...
But I am glad you touched upon a nerve.. Maybe they may start looking over their shoulders prior to hitting the print button.
One could hope anyway.
Still, the Label and Name Are Not Side-by-Side
June 25, 2008 - 10:57 ET by EricTheRedI guessbetter late than never, but notice how far away the label "Democrat"is from "Dixon."
In D.S. Hube's account yesterday of theBoston Herald's story on Jessica's Law, Democrat Rep. James Fagan's party isn'tmentioned at all, but later says "Rep.Karyn Polito, a Republican from Shrewsbury".
Is this intentional or am I just being ultra-sensitive? Let'skeep an eye on that ...
http://VocalMinority...
JewishAND Republican?? Oy gevalt