Speaking of benefactors, could The Aegis newspaper, Harford County’s community newspaper of record, have been helping the cause of an Aberdeen annexation opposition group behind the scenes last year?
More disturbing details from the testimony of a member of the annexation opposition, as part of the lawsuit that group filed against the City of Aberdeen, indicate the group, formerly known as Say No Annex or unofficially as ‘the redshirts,’ may have had an anonymous “Godfather” pampering them with services, support and cold hard cash – everything the group needed to take on the Wetlands annexation proposal.
It was long speculated such a “Godfather” existed, especially when the opposition group, which consists of Aberdeen and non-Aberdeen resident volunteers, was suddenly outfitted with matching shirts and signs, began distributing information pamphlets and mailers and purchased expensive advertisements in local newspapers.
The existence of a “Godfather” perhaps came to light most publicly during an informational meeting at Aberdeen High School regarding the Wetlands annexation agreement. During the meeting, annexation opposition group attorney J. Carroll Holzer stood and announced there was an interested, anonymous entity willing to purchase the Wetlands property and retain it as a golf course. The revelation drew gasps from the crowd and silence from the Wetlands ownership team. Such a deal never came to pass and the “Godfather” remained veiled in secrecy.
The whispering around the city was that the anti-annexation effort was being funded in secret by Peter Bosworth, a rival Aberdeen area developer who may have been afraid a Wetlands annexation would devour the city’s remaining capacity for residential development – leaving him and his many projects on the outside looking in.
Bosworth certainly contributed funds to a number of candidates running for election in Aberdeen’s Nov. 6 election, but may not be the “Godfather” many have suspected.
During his deposition in Harford County Circuit Court on Sept. 28, annexation opposition group member Bob Price indicated the so-called “Godfather” may actually have been a network of people, entities and other anonymous benefactors.
In his testimony, Price even suggested The Aegis newspaper, which reported almost weekly on the Wetlands annexation and in the weeks leading up to the Dec. 5, 2006 special election ran a string of dueling ads from the Wetlands development team and the anti-annexation group, might have played a role.
But could The Aegis, which covered the entire annexation fiasco in a reasonably unbiased fashion (we should know, we were the ones writing the stories), have impacted the annexation in another way?
Price, when asked by Wetlands Aberdeen LLC attorney Curtis Coon if the Say No Annex group had a “benefactor or a godfather,” replied:
“…I don’t know whether when we took out all those Aegis ads, whether we had a kind of benefactor at The Aegis that decided to give us a very good rate because maybe they didn’t like what was going on.”
So was Price just hypothetically musing that the “Godfather” could have been anyone or is he saying the anti-annexation group got a “very good rate” on its expensive ads because someone at The Aegis wanted to see their side prevail over the annexation attempt?
If so, that’s kind of an odd example to offer up as testimony under oath in your deposition. He could have mentioned, as an example, getting a good deal on the group’s T-shirts because the print shop didn’t want to see the Wetlands annexation approved. But instead Price decided to single out the one entity which is supposed to remain neutral, objective and unbiased in its line of work.
No one would care if the local print shop decided to give the anti-annexation group a price cut, but to say the local newspaper may have done the same thing is a heavy allegation that cuts to the core of the paper’s integrity.
For the record, The Aegis newspaper’s editorial stance was that the Wetlands annexation proposal wasn’t entirely a bad idea, and even had some good points, but it asked for far too dense of a residential component.
But if we’re to believe Price’s testimony, the community newspaper may have taken another route to influencing the outcome of the annexation special election.
Historically, newspapers have always tried to influence political events. Why should the Aegis be any different? After all, newspapers are in business to make money. Publishing the news is only the mechanism for making money. The more scandalous or thrilling the news being published, the more papers sold and the more money made.
The entire idea is laughable.
Really, its laughable. Thats not how newspapers work, and its especially not how the Aegis works. First off, the integrity of the editors at the Aegis is pretty much untouchable. And I know what I'm talking about. As a professional journalist for 7 years now, I've seen what happens when these lines are crossed. Not at the Aegis. I sat in countless editorial meetings working at the Aegis, and the very first idea to consider was whether a story was ethical and a benefit to the community. Look, I'm as paranoid a media critic as you're likely to find, and the Aegis is ethically top notch. True, they sometimes get ahold of a story and maybe run it a little too long, but I think thats more a mark of enthusiasim then wickedness.
Secondly, at most newspapers the ad departments and the editorial departments are separated, both physically and departmentally. It's designed that way just so these conflicts do not arise. It might be fun to think about a dark cabal of "media moguls" meeting at midnight and deciding which fringe political group in one of the dozen two stop light towns they cover gets a slightly better ad rate, but hardly realistic.
And to Aberdeen Voter, journalists are not in business to make money. Journalists make money so they can continue to do their jobs.
When it comes to local, unbiased news coverage, those served by the Aegis and the Record have no idea how good they have it.
joshua, Professional journalist? Are you now unemployed?
Sorry Joshua, That last post didn't come off the way I intended. Are you still employed at the Aegis or are you unemployed?
I am still a professional journalist, but I have not worked at the Aegis since 2004. I work for a daily paper in the Baltimore/DC area. Please, question my tactics away. 🙂
I wish everyone would look at the "big picture" since for the moment we are talking about something other than the APD and the personal lives of the Candidates.
I95 divides this County not only physically but socio-economically. Historically, our side of 95 has been labeled the "other side of the tracks" by those in Bel Air. How do you think those nicknames we have all heard came about "Aberdump, Edgeweed, Havre disgrace?
For those who live here The Aegis and the The Record have turned those perceived images of these communities into reality for many.
Headline: Drug Bust in Aberdeen
Reality: It was on I95 at the exit and the car, driver and drugs were from North Carolina.
This plays in to the politicians hands at the County level. (Not just today's administration but all that preceded them). This side of the County is a cash cow of State and Federal dollars for them.
Take the Community Development Block Grant money the County receives – why do you think there is a partnership between the County and the Municipalities for those funds? Because Bel Air would receive ZERO dollars since the dollars received are on based demographics.
Now along comes BRAC and opportunities for the Route 40 corridor to redevelop itself and change the demographics. No longer the place where they put warehouses and subsidized housing since there are people on this side of 95 who will go to meetings and voice their objections. And, the biggest issue is that the type of employees that will be working on base (which they worked so hard to get) do not want a 1/2 hour commute to work. Which as some may know is what it takes to get from Forest Hill to APG down 22. Don't forget the fact that Bel Air/Forest Hill/Fallston have become so built up that they don't want more either.
My point is that whether the Mayor of Aberdeen carries a gun or once cheated on an exam there are outside forces, developers, politicians(Local, State and Federal) and County residents who have a stake in what happens in and around the Route 40 Corridor.
acrobat,
Some residents made Aberdeen our home, not because of demographics, warehouses or low-rent housing. We came to Aberdeen because we wanted to live in a small town. Maybe Aberdeen was like the town we grew up in. Maybe we didn't want to raise our families in a large city.
I really don't care where these New Jersey transplants live. I want to live in a small town.
All the Simmons supporters write about is how Aberdeen has to grow. Who says it does? Why don't the 'developers' clean up what already exists in Aberdeen. Why don't we start with that boarded-up rat trap at 15 East Bel Air Ave, owned by the one and only Steve Wright. I'm sure he can turn that into upscale housing.
acrobat, you, are nothing but a racist, hell-bent on driving the people who make up the general population of this town out in the next taxi headed to Perrywood gardens.
If people from NJ want to live in Aberdeen, fine. Their needs should not dictate how the population of Aberdeen votes in this election. If they want upity-smupity, let them live in Bel Air.
I believe the point was Observer that regardless of what we want, they are coming and this is going to happen. We have to learn to cope, grow with it, and have our Mayor and Council best fit for this job.
citizen, Just because they are coming doesn't mean we have to increase the size of the town. Havre de Grace already did that, the houses aren't selling and the townspeople are stuck paying the bills.
The condo's are also not selling at the stadium.
Let's take care of what we already had.
And, actobat did say that Aberdeen needs to change its demographics. So where are all the displaced, lower to middle class hard-working residents who can barely pay their taxes and water bills now supposed to go? Edgewood?
They will sell
Joshua,
I apologize if my remarks in any way implied Journalists and Editors lacked integrity and professionalism. Their courage and dedication ranks right up there with members of the military, police and firefighters. Few others are willing to place themselves in such personal danger armed with only a microphone, camera, or pencil and paper. Few others show such determination when defending their rights guaranteed by the Constitution.That said, however, my comments are still valid.
Historically, newspapers, along with other media, have tried to influence political events. In that, they are no different than any other organization. We hear it every campaign as Fox News endorses one candidate, The Baltimore Sun endorses a candidate, the AFL-CIO endorses a candidate, the FOP endorses a candidate or, as posted recently on one of the other sections, The Aegis endorses a candidate. These are all attempts to influence political events. These attempts may be either intentional or unintentional. Historically, major newspapers have thrown their explicit support behind political candidates or parties attempting to influence politics. In The Aegis' case, today's article may be the personal opinion of the individual journalist or editor, but there are people who will say The Aegis is endorsing whichever candidates were listed. And there are people who will say "if it's good enough for The Aegis, it's good enough for me."
As for the business model of newspapers, perhaps I should have said the people/groups who own newspapers are not in business to publish the news, but to make money. Newspapers, and other media, tend to make money by direct sales and by advertising. Even "free" newspapers like The Examiner and The City Paper carry advertisements. A newspaper's success is measured by its circulation, just as a TV station's or show's success is measured by its audience. The larger the circulation/audience, the greater the success. This success translates directly into dollars. The larger the circulation, the more papers sold, the more money made. The larger the circulation, the bigger the potential market seen by advertisers, the more money made on advertising contracts. So it is in the best interests of newspapers to carry those kinds of articles that will increase readership. This concept isn't new. It really reached it's heyday during the late 1890's in some of the circulation battles between John Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst when the papers owned by each were accused of sensationalizing the news to drive up circulation. It's a concept that works and has little to do with the integrity or professionalism of the individual journalists. I, personally, don't care if Britney Spears shaves her head, but put it on the front page of a newspaper and it will sell a lot of copy because there are folks that do.
Aberdeen Voter,
Well said, and I agree with many of your points. With the exception of endorsements aside, I think the main difference in our thinking is the difference between "newspapers trying to influence political events" and newspapers documenting political events. A lot of flack gets thrown at papers because people disagree with the opinions being reported, and mistake them for the opinions of the newspaper. Your points about FOX, Hearst, and others are perfectly correct. Journalism is unfortunatly rife with corruption, in fact that was a point I was making to the Dagger in refrence to the Baltimore Examiner.
Now endorsements are a tricky issue. I can see both sides of the arguement, and have probably made them at one time or another. The idea is that since a newspaper (hopefully) takes the time to examine every issue, and is familiar with the factual and historical context of their community, then they can reasonably recomend the best candidate for a given office. The assumption is that the reader may not have the time or the background to know the candidate, and can rely on the newspaper to fill them in.
Of course, this only works if you can trust the newspaper. Which gets back to my original point, and that is that the Aegis, as old fashioned as some may think it, is pretty trustworthy. The idea that ,as Mr. Price testified, the Aegis decided to give a cushy ad rate to the Say No Annexation group is just not realistic.
acrobat anything goes on the other side of the track.it is a forgotten part of the city'. if that rat trap had been our's the town would have condemed it and had it burnt.as it stand's now. it's a great place to study the pecking order of rat's
Maybe the AFD should use it for a practice burn.
Our gun-toting mayor could take practice shots at the poor rats as they run for their lives. It serves the community far bettter than wanting to shoot a fox at 100 yards with a pistol!
Joshua,
I haven't read The Aegis enough to make a determination on its trustworthiness. However, other media have gotten in lots of trouble when they have tried to "make the news" to increase circulation instead of just "report the news". My guess is you are probably correct in that The Aegis would be walking a very fine line if it did financially support the no annexation group over the annexation group just to have a string of opposing ads in each issue. Additionally, it's not clear from the testimony posted whether Mr. Price definitively stated there was a benefactor at The Aegis or whether someone outside The Aegis was paying the bills.
Considering the very small number of ads I saw suporting the Anti-Annexation group, and the small number of shirts I saw, I don't understand why the big stink about someone helping a group of volunteers especially since this is what makes America….Freedom to express one's views.
I did see lots of large multi color ads supporting the developers, I saw beautiful multi color brochures supporting the developers, I saw a huge number of signs supporting the developers. In addition, I remember hearing about a high paid front person brought in by the developers to win the annexation vote.
In this day and age it costs a few dollars to get messages out to the public. Just because a group accepts a few dollars from someone who supports their view doesn't make it wrong.
Keep in mind that we're talking about ads here. At least as we were told while working as reporters there, the editorial department and the advertising department are kept separate to avoid potential influence. Call me niave, but I don't think we can hold the editorial department in the same hand of responsibility for ads placed in the paper. As Brian and Matt stated, the "entire annexation fiasco"/article was covered "in a reasonably unbiased fashion."
kloh,
That is a good point about "as we were told while working as reporters there, the editorial department and the advertising department are kept separate to avoid potential influence". That's the way it should be, and I'm happy to see the paper taking these steps among it's staff.
However, the problem is that the ads are intended for the consumers, and they do not distinguish between the ad and editorial groups. It's just the paper to them. And if the consumer sees a bias in advertising when it comes to political issues, that will reflect on the entire paper. Then throw in that there may have been special treatment given to one side. Just look at the heat the NYT got recently for the "Betray-us" ads from moveon.org.
I think the point is that Mr Price was testifying, and (from the small sample presented here) he chose to throw out this wild claim that "someone" at the Aegis might have been a money benefactor for their cause. And he immediatly admits that he has no evidence for that, that it could have neen "anyone", even himself (???). So its kind of like saying, "Who set that fire in California? It could have been David Craig! Vi Ripken! Could have been me!"
So the Aegis gets smeared in a roundabout way, and the identity of the real money "Godfather" stays a mystery.
Again , the idea that the Aegis and the Record would give better financial treatment to causes they "supported" is laughable. They are almost ethical to a fault.
And slightly off topic, maybe the NYTimes feels a little guilty about reporting the WMD bullshit and basically justifying the entire stupid war.
I just re-read this because I had sent a friend the links and she was asking about why we did what we did, etc. A few months removed, it seems like the mildest thing in the world. Seriously, we thought hard about what we were doing and stayed largely above the board. If anything, we pushed the envelope on suggesting the ways in which the Aeg might have been the "benefactor" — but that kind of supposition is barely a whiff of the kind of medicine they spill all over the county every week.