In the expansive article that followed, the Herald and News tried to steal the election. The opposing candidates, John Elliott and Karl Scronce, didn't try to steal the election.
The Klamath Ag Pac didn't try to steal the election. It was the Herald and News, and it didn't try to "steal it fair and square."
I was brought up the old-fashioned way ... taught that it was OK for a newspaper to state its opinions as long as it did so in the editorial section not in the news section.
When the newspaper "spins" the news to its liking, it is difficult for us readers to know the truth, and eventually it becomes difficult for us to believe anything the newspaper says.
In this case, the subject article was not an editorial, but was in the news section and it purposefully and wrongfully painted the Klamath Conservative Voters PAC as having inadequate leadership tending toward inaccuracies and division. The H&N writer tried to steal the election by painting us, and our ad, as incompetent.
We have acknowledged two errors in our advertisement. Humboldt and Del Norte boards of supervisors should not have been included and we apologize for those mistakes. But the H&N writer failed to mention there were approximately 250 names listed in that ad, all opposing dam removal.
Those two mistakes constituted less than a 1 percent error. That is a far better record than almost anyone has.
Also the ad made important reference to the 138,500 acres of Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Reclamation Project lands constituting only 3.5 percent of the county (possibly benefiting from dam removal) and the 3,788,500 acres of the county (96.5 percent) paying for, but not benefiting from, dam removal. But the H&N writer didn't mention those important facts.
In short, the Klamath Conservative Voters PAC made very few errors in this election, as the results confirm. Look to hear more from us in the future.
The controversy is not the election ad. However, I certainly cannot claim that there has been no controversy at all. The controversy was there, is still there and will continue for years to come. But the real controversy is not the election ad.
The controversy is the fact that important community leaders could conceive of, and then try to get the voters at large to embrace, a plan so extreme that it includes dam removal and that it includes giving 92,000 acres of land to the Klamath Tribes at taxpayers' expense.
The controversy is the Klamath County commissioners did not provide a direct opportunity for us voters to vote on dam removal and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
The controversy is, the H&N is trying to sway the public vote, not through editorial opinions, but through spinning the news.
The controversy is, that neither the county commissioners nor the H&N could "see" that the Whitsett /Garrard Poll (65 percent against dam removal) accurately represented the voters views.
The controversy is, that Bill Garrard and Dennis Linthicum both won the primary election by about 65 percent to 35 percent, the same 65 percent number as the voters against dam removal in the poll.
The controversy is, will the Klamath County commissioners now provide an opportunity for us voters to vote on the dam removal and the KBRA?
The author
Frank Goodson is a board member of the Klamath Conservative Voters PAC, a past chairman of the Klamath County Republican Central Committee, a resident of Klamath County for 20 years and a businessman residing in Fort Klamath.
■ Nothing cynical about the timing. The ad with the incorrect information was in the May 13 edition. We got calls complaining about inaccuracies and we interviewed a variety of people May 14 and published a story May 15. We wouldn't have minded having longer to flesh out the story, but wanted to have a few days buffering publication and election day - it's fair to allow a little time in case clarification is called for (I received no calls).
■ We're a bit thrown off that Mr. Goodson knows of a "fair and square" way of stealing. We only know that stealing is stealing and we don't believe in it.
We are sorry Mr. Goodson, assuming that we'd like to steal an election, wouldn't credit us with understanding the process of Oregon balloting, where "election day" is actually a deadline for turning in ballots delivered to voters weeks before. If that story were meant to be a grab at the election, it was a couple of weeks too late, we'd think.
■ He's right, there are ethical dividers in the business of a newspaper: between news and editorial/opinion and advertising. He's wrong in his assertion that we used our news product to further our opinion. While on the editorial page we recommended some candidates and issues, we tried very hard to not let that affect the reporting we did. Besides, we're not all that tied up by our recommendations; we're generally happy with the results of democratic elections.
It's convenient for people, when being defensive or when gloating, to criticize institutions of any sort: political parties, government, coffee shops, newspapers. You can swallow the swill about us leaning left or right and accuse us of spinning, but we know that we try hard to only deal in the truth. Do what you will with that softball of a declaration.
We also understand how a person as dedicated to the Republican Party as Mr. Goodson is, who supports two good Republicans and doesn't support two other good Republicans, would be very concerned with spin.
■ Mistakes: We can only say we deal with thousands of words and dozens of ethical decisions and judgment calls daily. We certainly admit we make errors. What we try to do is root them out and correct them, but only when we actually conclude that we made an error - not the case here.
■ Finally, congratulations to Mr. Goodson and everyone who engaged in the elections by discussing, running, campaigning, voting. We're proud to be part of a democracy. All the players we dealt with are good people, and at the end of the day, it's a small town and you're bound to run into everyone somewhere around the neighborhood. Best to get along.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml