Talk:Houston Chronicle/Light Rail Debate

message: Rangerdude: You are consciously removing the word "criminal" in reference to the complaint even though the governing Texas law plainly and irrefutably classifies it as a criminal complaint, repeatedly and consistently using the word "criminal." Why do you insist on watering this fact down?
Katefan0:  Nowhere have I removed information stating that a violation of the statute TTM was investigated under was a criminal statute. I object to using "criminal" as a descriptive adjective for "complaint" because the complaint was neither criminal nor civil in nature. It simply was a complaint, a request for an investigation. Using criminal as an adjective to describe the complaint gives a reader the impression that the Chronicle had a choice in the matter, as with lawsuits where you can either bring suit in a civil or a criminal court. It was a complaint filed about the violation of a statute that happened to carry a criminal penalty (a misdemeanor, by the way, which should also be included in the article -- mine referenced the minimal fine it carried).
Rangerdude: You are simply wrong about the word criminal's use. Per the Texas statute, the complaint *is* criminal in nature. Your personal dislike for the word is no basis to ignore what the statute says. The word "criminal" is used repeatedly to describe the exact type of complaint the Chronicle filed throughout Chapter 273 of the Election Code. And yes, the Chronicle did indeed have a choice in the matter. They chose to file the complaint and they chose to do it through the criminal system! Possible alternative options available to them included a complaint through the ethics commission or through a civil lawsuit, as one of the pro-rail lawyers did (although the prospects of either were equally dim as Texas law simply did not apply the way the Chronicle wanted it to apply). But they chose to go the DA route and used a statutory provision that is self-titled as a _criminal_ procedure to file the complaint. As you will also note, the current version includes "a misdemeanor offense punishable by a $500 fine" thus your request to add this is moot.
Grouse: On the face of it, a complaint filed with the DA would be a criminal complaint. And one for a misdemeanor offense would definitely be one.
*Grouse, I'll defer to your opinion on this -- though I still think using criminal as a descriptor for complaint implies some choice in the "type" of complaint filed on that statute. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
*Johntex: I would prefer to leave out the word "criminal" from the description.  It seems like it is accurate but also redundant.  As an analogy, a speeding ticket is a criminal offense (as opposed to civil) but we don't normally say "criminal speeding ticket".  Johntex 16:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2: The word "criminal"

message: Rangerdude: My version gives the specific chapters of the statute books and the specific designations of groups like TTM for reference. Yours removes these in favor of vague language based on secondary sources. Why water these references down?
Katefan0: Your version cites specific chapters of statute books, which is fine if you're a lawyer and have volumes of the Texas statutes handy. My version explains the statutes in a way that is much more informative and reader-friendly.
Rangerdude: One doesn't need to be a lawyer to understand chapters of the statute books. Nor do you need to own copies of all the statute books to look it up - the legislature has them online via its bill search. Citing specifics from primary sources is preferable to regurgitating vague descriptions from secondary sources especially when those secondary sources are (1) inaccurate, (2) incomplete, and (3) suspect for POV due to being active participants in the very same event they are describing, as is the case for the Chronicle article that you use as the primary source for your description.
Grouse: Most people will have no idea what a 501(c)(6) is or where to look it up. If there is a section of Texas statute that differentiates the treatment given to a 501(c)(6) versus a 501(c)(3) or a 527, then you should cite it, Rangerdude. Otherwise it's really immaterial.
:Wikipedia actually has an article on 501c's and another article on non-profits. If you think people don't know what that is, a simple link to one of those articles would quickly resolve it. Also, it is material because it's status is why the DA threw out the Chronicle's case. It's precisely the fact that TTM was NOT a PAC but rather a 501c6 that the statute's disclosure requirements - which is specific to PACs - did not apply to them. Insofar as we need to state why the Chronicle's case failed, identifying it as a 501c6 is correct and necessary. If you think it would help by adding a link to another article or even an offsite reference stating what a 501c6 is, I am not opposed. Rangerdude 16:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 4: use of 501(c)(6) 

message: Rangerdude: Your version, per its own cited sources, appears to be based primarily on the Chronicle's self-coverage of a dispute it was party to. While their article could be referenced as an indicator of their position, it should not be the main source for this section since it is a conflicted interest in the story itself. To do otherwise is to give favor to their POV.
Katefan0: My version is based on a Chronicle article, the Houston Press and a Knight-Ridder article which contain no conflicting information.
Grouse: It's ridiculous to say that in judging an entity, one should only rely on the opinions and reporting of those opposed to that entity.
*That is a straw man argument as I never said that the Chronicle's self reporting should be excluded. I did however say that the Chronicle's self reporting should not be used as the MAIN source for composing this section, which is what Katefan did. I'll also note that where it is used as a source it should be linked openly (not in hidden text) and it should be disclosed that it is from the Chronicle itself. Rangerdude 16:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 5: Use of sources

message: Well, we've pretty well thrashed ourselves to death it seems.  So far a few of us have agreed on some changes to make.  Ready to make those changes or would everybody prefer to wait for Grouse to weigh in? · Katefan0(scribble) 16:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
===RD's position===
Here are my positions on the status of each of the points as separated out by Grouse. The numbers should correspond. I'll sign each item so if anyone has a response they can put it directly under the passage with proper indentation.
1. Since the word "became" seems to be the biggest issue here, I have no problems with a clarification. I changed it to "remained" indicating that the Chronicle did not change its position. If that's agreeable, let's keep it. If not, please suggest an alternative wording. Rangerdude 17:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK.. 

message: Here are my positions on the status of each of the points as separated out by Grouse. The numbers should correspond. I'll sign each item so if anyone has a response they can put it directly under the passage with proper indentation.
1. Since the word "became" seems to be the biggest issue here, I have no problems with a clarification. I changed it to "remained" indicating that the Chronicle did not change its position. If that's agreeable, let's keep it. If not, please suggest an alternative wording. Rangerdude 17:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RD's position

message: Here's the text of the light rail memo scandal section as it stands right now. If anyone would like to make SPECIFIC objections to a wording or discuss a SPECIFIC change please do so below.
In late 2002, Chronicle website managers accidentally posted an internal memorandum to reporters on its home site, HoustonChronicle.com. The memorandum  outlined a draft agenda of coordinated news articles, editorials, and op-eds to be published by the paper, seemingly to promote a hotly contested mass transit referendum to expand Houston's controversial METRORail system on the 2003 ballot, which was later approved narrowly by voters.  The memo's anonymous author suggested in part:
:"I propose a series of editorials, editorial cartoons and Sounding Board columns leading up to the rail referendum, with this specific objective: Continuing our long standing efforts to make rail a permanent part of the transit mix here. The timing, language and approach of the paper's editorials would, of course, be the decision of the Editorial Board. But I suggest that they could be built upon and informed by a news-feature package with an equally specific focus" 
The memorandum then proposed several "investigative" news stories and editorials designed to examine "the campaign led by Tom DeLay and Bob Lanier to defeat rail expansion."  DeLay, a Houston congressman, and Lanier, a former mayor of Houston, had both actively opposed light rail in the past.
The document was online for only an hour, but long enough to be viewed by some readers. Two days later the Houston Review, a conservative student publication, published the memo's full text and an accompanying commentary that criticized the paper for bias toward rail. The Houston Press, which is sometimes accused of a liberal slant, also accused the Chronicle of having a bias toward rail. Other local weekly and monthly newspapers, including the Houston Forward Times, a local African-American weekly newspaper, seized on the controversy, as did local talk radio stations, bloggers, and the conservative Free Republic Internet forum. 
The Chronicle's response was notably muted. Its only official response appeared in the "corrections" section later the same week stating: "An internal Houston Chronicle document was mistakenly posted to the editorial/opinion area of the Web site early Thursday morning. We apologize for any confusion it may have caused."
Later, the Houston Press tracked down Chronicle editor Jeff Cohen, who gave a statement in defense of the memorandum: "I make no apologies for having a thorough discussion of the issue. We have nothing to apologize for…There was an inadvertent posting of it to the Web site, and I'm sorry about that, but I make no apologies for the contents of it." 
In subsequent weeks several Houston bloggers reported writing letters to the editor about the memorandum, though none were ever published . 
Consistent with the memorandum's position and its historical advocacy of transit, the Chronicle editorial page remained a vocal public advocate of the METROrail referendum in late 2003 and repeatedly endorsed its adoption. As the bond referendum approached rail critics argued that their fears of bias were confirmed by the paper, which they contend became a partisan participant in the campaign. During the campaign the Houston Chronicle made a request to Texans for True Mobility (TTM), the main critic of METRORail, to provide the paper with a copy of their financial contributor reports. TTM declined to do so, indicating that they did not believe the Chronicle would objectively represent their position in light of the memorandum. Among the election-related stories proposed in the memorandum was a project labelled "Ground zero for November" that proposed stories negatively portraying the "funding" behind METRORail opponents.
After TTM refused the paper's request, Chronicle lawyers filed a criminal complaint under chapter 273 of the Texas Elections Code against TTM with Harris County, Texas District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal accusing them of fundraising improprieties. The complaint alleged that TTM had violated Texas statutes requiring PACs to make fundraising disclosures, which is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a $500 fine. The Chronicle argued that the statute applied to TTM's advertising slogan, "Metro's Rail Plan Costs Too Much, Does Too Little."  However, TTM was registered as a non-profit 501(c)(6) organization rather than a political action committee (PAC) and thus not obliged to submit a PAC financial disclosure under state law.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011869/posts] (The separate "Texans for True Mobility PAC" is required to make full disclosure and did so with the Texas Ethics Commission.) Rosenthal dismissed the Chronicle's complaint, finding it without merit on the grounds that the allegedly violated statute did not apply to the case.
Later that year, the group revealed that that their TV and radio ads were funded by $30,000 in contributions made the day before the election by two PACs controlled by DeLay. Rosenthal's involvement in the probe itself came under fire by the Houston Press, which in editorials questioned whether Rosenthal was too close to TTM on account of accepting approximately $30,000 in donations to his campaigns from TTM supporters. 
By comparison with TTM, which was extensively attacked in the paper's editorials and covered in multiple news stories, the Chronicle devoted only a portion of one single article to the finances of Texans for Public Transportation (TPT), the main pro-METRORail group, according to the Houston Review.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011869/posts] The Houston Review further alleged multiple conflicts of interest in TPT's financing. The report involved fourteen METRORail contracters and business interests who stood to gain financially from the project and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the referendum.
===List suggestions here===
# I'll even start us off with the first suggestion - please make the reference source to the Houston Press article entitled "Ties that bind" consistent with the rest of the article by changing it from hidden text to a footnote link. Rangerdude 22:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Light Rail Section Revisions

message: # I'll even start us off with the first suggestion - please make the reference source to the Houston Press article entitled "Ties that bind" consistent with the rest of the article by changing it from hidden text to a footnote link. Rangerdude 22:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List suggestions here

message: I have created a proposal at:  User:Johntex/Proposal.  I hope you will go there to comment on it, but I paste a copy here for your convenience:
I propose:
(1) We create a new article titled Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy
(2) We move the content from Houston_Chronicle#Light_Rail_memorandum_controversy to that page and leave only a sentence or two there to point to the new main article. This is advantageous because:
:(2.1) The overall Houston Chronicle article is unbalanced because there is more information about a few controversies concerning the paper than the paper itself - however, the paper is not famous for these controversies so this is misleading.
:(2.2) This controversy is largely or completely a thing of the past and to keep it occupying such a prominent position on the main article of an ongoing business concern is particularly unencyclopedic.
(3) We move the content from Texans for Public Transportation to Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy and delete Texans for Public Transportation.  I believe Texans for Public Transportation is not sufficiently notable to merit an article here because:
:(3.1) The group was a single purpose organization, organized for a particular purpose in 2003
:(3.2) They have not had a wide impact nor achieved sufficient notability to merit their own article, as evidenced in part by the low number of hits found by searching for "Texans for Public Transportation" on Google (0), Altavista (4 - including 1 at Wikipedia).  I know Rangerdude does not like Google counts, but it is completely reasonable to conclude that a PAC in this Internet-driven era that gets only 4 hits did not achieve much impact.
:(3.3) Due to their small impact, there is little we can say about them.  What we can say about them is really relevant to one specific controversy concerning METRORail
:(3.4) They do not have any presence today so they are not likely to get more interesting in the future.
(4) We move the content from Texans for True Mobility and delete Texans for True Mobility.  My reasoning is similar to Texans for Public Transportation.  Although Texans for True Mobility does have an active web page, and is slightly better known (237 hits on Google, 264 on Altavista), that is still a paltry number of hits for an organization striving to make an impact on events in one of the America's largest cities.  There does not seem to be anything that needs to be said about them that cannot be covered in the new article I am proposing.  
In order to keep all comments together, I hope you will put your feedback at:  User:Johntex/Proposal.  Thank you.  Johntex 23:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Move / Merge Proposal