« Rusty Nailed? | Main | Maybe I could have run against Chris Clem in '02 after all »
August 30, 2007
The Times Free Press might as well just wear a red ribbon
Today's front-page headline gives it all away. But first, let's back up.
1. Questions concerning City Council member Marti Rutherford's residence arose anew sometime in the middle of last week, after local talk radio host Robert T. Nash brought up the issue while speaking with the Councilwoman on-air. (Ms. Rutherford promptly hung up on him.)
2. I e-mailed a TFP contact last Thursday (8/23) to inquire as to why I hadn't yet seen anything about the story in the paper. The honorable person I contacted, it should be pointed out, does not cover the city beat, but is a person with whom I have a rapport, so I asked. I haven't received a reply.
3. On Friday (8/24), a brief story did appear in the paper, in the Metro section. Michael Davis has, it should be noted, followed up on the story, first writing possibly the most objective story on the subject, on Tuesday (8/28) — somehow, in the rush, I've missed that one until now. It, too, was at the top center of the Metro section, as was the slightly less cutting story on Wednesday (8/29).
4. Today (8/30), however, a story about Marti made the front page, right column. The headline is "Rutherford provides residency document." Or is it? The online version has the wording that caught my eye: "Rutherford provides proof of residency." Does the paper use different titles for different delivery methods? Either wording suggests to the reader that the matter is cleared, and there's nothing more to investigate. The lede is just as emphatic: "Chattanooga City Councilwoman Marti Rutherford, facing criticism that she does not live in her district, rents a "mother-in-law" apartment in District 6 and pays the power bill as rent, according to a document her attorney provided Wednesday." Never mind that criticism. She pays rent. Move along.
What is that about? Why would the paper present such an apparent bias? I'm not saying they "buried" the story (except at the very beginning, and perhaps when it mattered most, during the 2005 election), because the top of Metro is golden. But the one time (so far) in the whole series that they do move the matter to the most visible panel, it's to imply that the issue is resolved, or so it seems to me. I welcome alternative points of view on that. You can't really argue the rest. Let's question it together.
(For those who might not know, supporters of Councilwoman Rutherford's apparently illegal elected status showed up at last Tuesday's City Council meeting wearing red ribbons. Some in attendance were confused by the similarity of those ribbons to ones used in AIDS awareness campaigns. This whole thing gets messier and messier.)
News | By joe lance | 09:03 PM