Another Letter To Celia – Less Snarky This Time
Ms. Cohen,
As the announcement that Michael Castle will be running for the US Senate draws closer, we, your fellow Delaware Political bloggers, urge you to address some concerns we have regarding the objectivity of your reporting.
Specifically, we want you to disclose who is funding your work at www.Delwaregrapvine.com and how much they are paying for coverage on your blog. We think that this would go a long way toward settling questions about your credibility.
We also think that you should disclose any agreements, formal or otherwise, that you’ve struck with your sponsors regarding the content and tone of your forthcoming reporting. Again, knowing up front that Mike Castle has paid “X” dollars for your favorable coverage during an election year would help rebuild your reputation for forthrightness.
Everyone needs to make a living, so we have no problem with whatever financial agreements that you have entered into with Pete DuPont, Charlie Copeland, Tom Carper and Mike Castle. All we desire on behalf of Delawareans who are not familiar with your financial relationships is transparency.
Sincerely,
Jason330
DelawarLiberal.net
Comment by anonone on 14 July 2009 at 1:07 am:
If it is any kind of real compensation other than hot dog weenies at Greenville parties, then it should show up in campaign finance reports. Unless it is illegal cash under the table…
Comment by anon1 on 14 July 2009 at 1:09 am:
If it’s coming from DuPont or Copeland, for example, they’re out of office and not running for anything right now – they don’t have to disclose.
Comment by MJ on 14 July 2009 at 4:55 am:
If the payments are coming from personal funds to Celia instead of campaign funds, then there is no paper trail, except with her IRS filings.
Comment by Art Downs on 14 July 2009 at 6:06 am:
Should a so-called Grapevine be providing a variety of tidbits of immediate interest to citizens of the First State or should it be an adjunct to a campaign?
Has anything been published that created any real controversy or interest?
Comment by jason330 on 14 July 2009 at 6:30 am:
Art,
It is impossible for us to know, that is the point.
Comment by Joanne Christian on 14 July 2009 at 7:44 am:
jason dear, you’re a chestnut! “Objectivity of reporting”,”your work”, “your blog”–it’s a blog big guy, not Brittannica. Her writing is incredible, that doesn’t make it incredulous. Don’t get so pissy. Just get help w/ your spelling (you do have fabulous bi-lines), tighter check of syntax, rid yourself of oversensationlism, and you TOO could be the “Smithsonian” of blogs, and not the “MAD” magazine we’ve all been enjoying around here. Honey, she’s a whole different genre…and it’s OK. We like you–we really do. I bet even Celia likes you. But no one is asking you for your blog pedigree. And they shouldn’t. Remember, it’s the new media darling/outreach/outlet on anyone’s terms. Now stop being the blog Nazi, unless it breaks your stated DL 3.0 rules as outlined. It’s so unprogressive of you–be like your Beatles, and Let It Be.
Comment by jason330 on 14 July 2009 at 8:02 am:
She is getting paid by the people she is covering and passing off the product as objective journalism. That’s all I’m saying.
Comment by anon on 14 July 2009 at 8:06 am:
Just get help w/ your spelling (you do have fabulous bi-lines), tighter check of syntax…
It is always a gem when a lecture on spelling and syntax contains a spelling error within a run-on sentence.
Comment by anon on 14 July 2009 at 8:07 am:
Not that I would want either Jason or JC to change…
Comment by Joanne Christian on 14 July 2009 at 8:10 am:
BINGO anon! Don’t we all miss that edit button? But my sentences, would probably remain the same. Got to keep the red ink flowing!
Comment by Delaware Dem on 14 July 2009 at 8:15 am:
Are you guys still not seeing the “edit” button? Let me check it out.
Comment by Joanne Christian on 14 July 2009 at 8:20 am:
Reduced flight calendar yes, edit button no…can I get “ding” service when a “fab fair” comes through on favorite destinations?
Comment by Nancy Willing on 14 July 2009 at 8:49 am:
I have used the edit button a few times. It just has a different appearance. It is much more efficient, seemingly. Quicker to register and implement.
Comment by anonone on 14 July 2009 at 9:31 am:
Still not seeing the edit button…
Comment by liberalgeek on 14 July 2009 at 9:57 am:
A1,
Get a real computer…
I am still looking into it. I have found a few references to fixing it from a browser standpoint, but almost nothing from a server/theme standpoint.
Comment by Geezer on 14 July 2009 at 10:56 am:
Joanne: For over 20 years Celia Cohen has been the foremost promulgator of “Delaware Way” politics, extolling its virtues at every turn. The News Journal decided it had enough of that more than 10 years ago. People might read it, but not for the prose you find so scintillating. It occasionally breaks insider political stories, along with lots of “analysis” that ought to be labeled “conventional wisdom.”
And, considering Celia refuses to call the Grapevine a blog, refuses to take comments on stories and refuses to answer questions about her funding, I think it’s disingenuous of you to criticize questions about her operation.
Comment by John Manifold on 14 July 2009 at 4:01 pm:
Finally some information about who in the Democratic Party wouldn’t support Adams. It was Democratic legislators:
http://www.delawaregrapevine.com/7-09special19th.asp
Comment by liberalgeek on 14 July 2009 at 4:22 pm:
I find it interesting that she mentioned the dirt that turned up on Parker without actually saying what the dirt was. Only that the guy pulling the trigger was a fellow former-cop.
Also, no mention of the one person that I think was most responsible for the coup… I wonder why she is protecting those people.
Comment by jason330 on 14 July 2009 at 4:28 pm:
Why indeed. In fact who are you protecting…? WHo is the unamed person?
Also….get a load of Venables..
“Joe is a really good candidate, but the candidate we have now has a chance of beating Joe. With Polly on board and with the sympathy vote, I think she’s going to win,” Venables said.
Isn’t that supposed to remain unsaid?
Comment by Geezer on 14 July 2009 at 4:38 pm:
Republicans I know are worried more about Opaleski than Mervine.
Comment by John Manifold on 14 July 2009 at 4:45 pm:
LG: Would you be kind enough to mention that one person? CC doesn’t mention the allegation, logically enough, since it hasn’t been publicly made nor does it appear to be able to be documented. That the oppo operation would have pushed allegation is news.
Comment by liberalgeek on 14 July 2009 at 4:54 pm:
I believe that anyone with access to Police personnel files would be able to find the allegation. Or you could ask around the Fire Hall (That there’s a hint).
As for the pusher, I would look to the VCCB. Methinks there is smoke there.
Comment by liberalgeek on 14 July 2009 at 4:57 pm:
I should mention that the allegation shouldn’t actually be grounds for his withdrawal, but it could certainly paint a picture if they wanted it to.
Comment by John Manifold on 14 July 2009 at 4:59 pm:
LG: Which is to say that no one can authoritatively state the allegation [since personnel files are confidential] except perhaps Norm Cochran, who was superintendent.
Comment by liberalgeek on 14 July 2009 at 5:14 pm:
Perhaps that is true. I don’t suspect that it would deter someone from talking about it or making insinuations in order to scare someone off. You can Betts on it.
Comment by Susan Regis Collins on 14 July 2009 at 5:53 pm:
Geek: ‘You can Betts on it.’…….hahahahahahahaha