Note: Of 46 letters submitted from Aug. 2 to Nov. 1, 25 were sympathetic to CANDO 2 or the challengers.
Observer was biased and distorted during election
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.
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
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.
Editor’s Note: With regard to bias, please see the Editor’s note on Michael Young’s letter.