Readers criticize Ormond Beach Observer, claim the newspaper is biased

Note: Of 46 letters submitted from Aug. 2 to Nov. 1, 25 were sympathetic to CANDO 2 or the challengers.

By Guest Author
| 10:00 a.m. November 13, 2018

Ormond Beach Observer
Opinion

Observer was biased and distorted during election

Dear Editor:

Setting the record straight on Walsh's response

Dear Editor:

This response is directly focused on John Walsh's biased article on Page 6 of the Nov. 8 edition of the Ormond Beach Observer wherein he attempted to explain the newspaper’s role in Ormond Proud’s probable violation of Florida election law.

Mr. Walsh continues to be sloppy with the facts, protect his friends and twist the truth. Not a very good track record for an executive who claims to be telling the “whole story.”

Mea culpa does not absolve you of all the wrongs the Observer has been involved with in the past months. This time you used me as an excuse for the misgivings of the Observer. In one short paragraph (a total of two sentences), you screwed up, misquoted or guessed (wrong) on six items. It is bad enough that you mentioned my name two lines below the name Ormond Proud (what a disgusting thought), but by location it made me seems like I derived the Observer pricing by being associated with that group. That is one misgiving not counted in the aforementioned six.

Now to set the record straight with the six incorrect statements or references:

1) I am not a former member of CANDO 2; since March, I have been a very active member and will continue to be until we can right the good ship Ormond Beach;

2) I did not learn of the Observer pricing scheme until I met with the Observer representative;

3) I never wrote a letter to the editor asking readers to donate to candidates supported by CANDO 2;

4) I did not contact a member of your team on Sept. 12; I called the Observer prior to that date, talked with Advertising Manager Jaci Centofanti, who set up an appointment for me with Hallie Hydrick, senior account manager, at 11 a.m. on Sept. 12;

5) I did not ask for the price of a a full-page ad; I knew our budget going into the meeting, and a 1/4 page ad was all we could afford, and Hallie pointed out the cost for same in a copy of the Observer's 2018 Media Kit;

6) Since I did not inquire about the price of a full page ad, one was never quoted to me.

Now, really, Mr. Publisher, even a cub reporter knows the protocol of ensuring that all T’s are crossed, all I’s are dotted, all details are properly presented and all facts are, well, facts prior to going to print.

Then you go further to embarrass yourself even more by making the statement in the next paragraph "and you may find this hard to believe, but had CANDO 2 asked about pricing for 10 full-page ads, we would have been obligated to honor the same rate afforded Ormond Proud." Well Mr. Walsh, I do find it hard to believe. You did not tell the truth in the previous paragraph. How can anyone who knows the background and the details believe you?

As if Mr. Walsh's article itself wasn't enough, the Observer has used its proprietary position to edit (to the point of obliteration) a September letter to the editor and, in October, delayed (three editions of the Observer) printing another to the point that it never got printed prior to election date — perhaps because it was too sensitive.

The endorsements, of the incumbents plus one, by the Observer is, yet, another issue, and the good people of Ormond Beach can read through your feeble attempt of trying to continue convincing the public of your decisions. You view it as justified. The public views it as biased.

The last thing I want from you is an apology. It would just be another attempt for you to try to justify your position and look good in the eyes of the public. I think that ship has sailed! You are not the nice person you think you are.

Ed Kolaska

Ormond Beach

Editor’s Note: Sincere apologies for inadvertently using your name in John Walsh’s Nov. 8 editorial. The name should have been Bob Baumer. No harm was intended.

With regard to the editing of letters: All letters are subject to editing for clarity and length, as well as fact checking. Varying opinions are published weekly, as space allows.

The conduct and tone of Ormond Beach Observer during the entire local election campaign was biased, prejudiced and distorted, to say the very least. “Guest writer” status was often granted to Paul Holub, City Commission members and families for what should have been paid advertising.

The crony political action committee joined with city manager to pull off the OB Life political campaign at residents’ expense. It was too obvious and worthless to be mentioned or attended — and it wasn’t attended.

The Nov. 8 front page was an unprofessional degrading swipe at the worthy challengers — a clean sweep would have been if incumbent trash had been swept away.

The OB Life cult, despite spending 10 times the money and 15 years of cronyism back slapping, pulled only slightly more voters than the new challengers, and Zone 2 would have gone to a challenger but for a straw horse being entered. Lies, smears and denials marked the incumbents’ entire campaign.

There seems to be a rash of dedications of places to all kinds of local politicos; fortunately Ormond has several sewage lift stations to name after the incumbent commission.

Michael Young

Ormond Beach

Editor’s Note: For the record, “Guest writer” status was given to CANDO 2 cofounders Ken and Julie Sipes three times in the span of six weeks. Our practice is to reserve that status is for decision makers or those with special knowledge of local issues.

As far as the accusation of bias, please consider this: A total of 46 development- or election-related letters were submitted to the Ormond Beach Observer between Aug. 2 and Nov. 1. Of those, 25 could be considered favorable to the position of CANDO 2 or the challengers in the city election; 21 could be considered favorable to Ormond Proud or the incumbents. CANDO 2 meetings were covered carefully, as were neighborhood meetings and commission meetings.

Front-page photo was gloating and arrogant

Dear Editor:

Great photo of the grinning good-ol'-boys club on the front of your paper last week! A few descriptive words come to mind: gloating, unsportsmanlike, arrogant. I think the photo is tacky and in poor taste, but perhaps appropriate for the publication. The bias of your paper is obvious and disappointing.

Georgann Meadows

Ormond Beach

Editor’s Note: With regard to bias, please see the Editor’s note on Michael Young’s letter.