All the news not fit to print

(Mercury News, Nov. 5, Mercury News Editorial)
Get California back on track
"Opposition to Measure A has been funded largely by real estate interests, which should tell voters all they need to know. The county needs this measure's protection before it's too late."



No.... that's not all we really need to know. We voters could use just a wee bit more information.

The Measure A campaign paid around $136,000 to the Mercury News for its advertising. That was a significant portion of PLAN's expenditures for the campaign. A strategic move, for sure.

The Mercury News never did an in-depth story on Measure A. They treated all Measure A news superficially, as superficially as PLAN's (People for Land and Nature) feel-good slogan, never addressed conflicts of interests, or the absence of impact analysis, or the corresponding similarities and differences to "related" initiatives, and on and on. They actually chose not to print a lot of information. A lot. Just like the supporters of Measure A, most Mercury News articles focused on the real estate interests funding the opposition. An easy scapegoat, to force a focus while avoiding any discussion of the means, or issues of fairness. Not ONE Mercury News article asked, or even wondered, who was funding the supporters? Not one article, not one sentence.

Recently, on the San Jose Inside discussion boards, the answer to who was funding Measure A came to light. A lot of interesting information came to light, by way of a board message directing readers to visit http://www.measurea.blogspot.com/

That's the great thing about blogs. Blogs churn up information; the rest is left to investigative fact checking, which is easily done by accessing public records, like campaign disclosures. None of this information was important to the Mercury News. Mercury News never asked who funded the supporters of Measure A.... nor did it ever wonder how many farmers tend to have venture capitalists friends.