Tiffany Edwards Hunt running for Council

[Guest]

Again, there sure are some truly warped people here.

It's all a conspiracy!

Now, off to ITO to jump into my black flying machine - and I am taking Obama with me!

[snorkle]

UPDATE!! For immediate release!

Tiffany closed here site down because of your comments? That's pure fantasy. Why would she do that when she can simply block any brainless rantings she wants to? (As is her right on her private site)

As usual, Sativa is delusional and flatters herself.

Sativa and her friend RJ support most everything Graham stands for, but are bitter and frustrated that he is a successful advocate while they flounder helplessly in their own ineffectiveness.

Graham has brought many positive programs to our area; Sativa and RJ stalk the President on Oahu and wonder why they are hassled by the authorities.

Graham works with our representatives in government for positive change; Sativa and RJ sit on their hands and blubber jealously about being ignored by most everyone.

Don't pay any attention to these "Tinfoil Troopers"; Although not many buy into their covetous rants, they are a distraction and impediment to real progress .

[Anxious Messiah]

"For immediate release. Tiffany Edward Hunt took her site Big Island Chronicle (BIC)down this evening in response to a post that I made on a thread about SB 2274."

<snicker>

_________________________________________
Don't speak unless you can improve on the silence.

[leilanidude]

The earlier questions about a politician running a blog makes me wonder... Since Tiffany openly asks for "donations" on her blog, at what point are those donations considered to be political donations and need to be disclosed and tracked? It would be quite a way for her to obtain non-disclosed campaign contributions and/or income. Anyone running against her should have the right to know who is "donating", correct? Side note - does she report those "donations" as income? Is the blog a business or a hobby?

[missydog1]

The blog is clearly a small business, as it takes paid advertising (and I would assume it is reported as such). That is a good question on what "donations" are reported as after they cover the expense of running the site.

Speaking of blurring the lines, I was struck by Tiffany's statement today:

quote:

---

As you likely know, IÕm running for Hawaii County Council District 5. And I have largely kept my campaign business to another newly formed website. tiffanyedwardshunt.tumblr.com. Today I am making an exception to my general rule not to mix my news business with my political campaign.

---

That didn't take long to make an exception to her rule.

Reading this inspired me to go back and find a few other postings I remembered.

March 22
Tiffany announces her candidacy and states that new contributing editor Alan McNarie and other "community contributors" will be covering the campaign on BIC, rather than herself.

http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...istrict-5/

April 1
Cheryl King highlights Tiffany's candidacy in a submission on candidate filings.

http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...ng-report/

April 6th
Tiffany posts an announcement of a meeting covering eruption concerns, but at the same time announces the public meeting will be an opportunity to meet herself, the candidate. Thus turning a community service announcement into a hybrid of a campaign promotion plus news.

http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...-thursday/

April 6th
Tiffany posts piece writing about her candidacy in the third person.

http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...ncil-seat/

April 26th, today, Tiffany posts a Commentary on Community Associations that right out of the gate reminds everyone of her candidacy and posts her political website link.

http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2014/0...ociations/

She announces her general rule of not mixing news coverage on blog with her campaign business. Then she states she is breaking the rule today, but her justification for doing so is not stated.

She could have written a commentary on community associations without mentioning her candidacy or linking her site, but it seems she didn't want to write the piece without including her platform on what she sees as a solution, and how a council member could make a difference.

I somewhat credit her for acknowledging that she had just crossed the line from commentary on community associations to campaign publicity, but this is transparent as a move to deflect criticism.

I can't help but note that the article has no photo of the people in the front of the room presenting. The only photo is of Tiffany in the audience listening. This really turns the focus of the piece into -- "look at me, I went to the community meeting."

No one said she had to make this rule, but as she did make a rule for herself, I wish she would not make exceptions so soon after announcing that she is taking her campaign to her own site and appointing another editor to cover the campaign.

I can see why someone with a successful press medium at her disposal would be tempted to use it as a vehicle for PR. I don't fault her for using it, per se. I don't know that there is any ethical rule saying a candidate who owns a media outlet can't use it for self promotion. The problem comes in claiming to maintain it as a politically unbiased medium during the editor's own political campaign, and then publishing PR written by the candidate and those approved by the candidate.

I am bothered by the way she makes rules and then makes exceptions for no reason. Tiffany thinks she can successfully dance on the lines, but I disagree. If she can't go a month without blurring her own line, then I don't think that bodes well for her integrity as an elected official. Perhaps it makes her a good fit as a typical elected official with blurry ethical boundaries, but it doesn't do anything for her claim to be offering something new and clean.

It will be interesting to see whether her new political editor starts generating coverage on every community meeting attended by other candidates, to balance out the PR being run on Tiffany's doings. So far I don't see anything.

[snorkle]

Kathy says;
" The problem comes in claiming to maintain it as a politically unbiased medium during the editor's own political campaign, and then publishing PR written by the candidate and those approved by the candidate."
____________________________________________________________________

Who says her website is, or has to be, politically neutral? I've always felt she has had a more liberal viewpoint; but still allows differing points of view to both contributors and commenters. If she published her own campaign brochure, would she be obligated to present opposing views?

I don't think it's necessary for her to neuter her site. If she wanted it to be a campaign vehicle, that would be fine. Her sponsors have the right to opt out if they don't like her politics. Her readers have the right to go to an opposition site.

Oh, and the thing about making your own rules;
Rule #1; It's OK to change your mind.

[Rob Tucker]

You missed the point Snorkle. Tiffany said.

[leilanidude]

snorkle missed the real point...

If any candidate for election has any sort of site asking for "donations", they need to be disclosed. Period.
She cannot possibly refuse to disclose "donors' on her blog after proclaiming her candidacy. That is entirely different from advertising. Could you imagine any politician doing so any not running afoul of campaign donation laws? Ethics anyone?

[snorkle]

You miss the point Rob;
It's OK for anyone, even a politician, to change their mind about a strategy. Flexibility isn't a dirty word.

It would be perfectly ethical for Tiffany to change the name of the Big Island Chronicle to; Hunt for Puna

Everyone knows about your grudge with Tiffany. Nobody's perfect. I'm still wondering who is going to be the bigger person, ie.(Let it go and move on).

[missydog1]

quote:

---

Who says her website is, or has to be, politically neutral?

---

Tiffany is the one who made a point about the bringing in a different editor.

I was clear that my problem isn't with open bias. My problem is with trying to score perception points for keeping it unbiased, but not following the protocol she announced she would follow.

quote:

---

Oh, and the thing about making your own rules;
Rule #1; It's OK to change your mind.

---

What does "OK" mean? I think it's OK if it doesn't affect other people and if people don't rely on your behavior having some consistency. Plus, she didn't change her mind about the rule. She tried to do the "I still have a rule, but I'm just making an exception or two" dance.

If the rule is made to score points for a certain type of behavior, then if you break the rule, you can expect to lose the points.

My criticism is that Tiffany is trying to keep the points she thinks she gets for making the rule, but isn't adhering to the standard she publicly set for herself. We all set private standards for ourself that we can't make good on, but it is something else to announce a standard as a candidate for public office and then renege.

To be clear, I don't think BIC has ANY credibility as a neutral news medium. It lost that when Tiffany decided to moderate all comments before publishing them.

It is one thing to do as Rob does here and occasionally moderate visibly pertaining to already posted opinions, in accordance with guidelines.

In Tiffany's case, she can at all times suppress any opinions she doesn't like, by never allowing them to appear in the first place. For example, she will publish opposition that is easy in her mind to knock down, but can censor opposition that she doesn't wish to debate.

Nothing is on the blog that she hasn't personally approved as content, based on Tiffany's arbitrary standards. Of course it is absolutely worthless as any kind of unbiased reporting. It is purely op-ed and commentary and puff pieces sprinkled with a medley of contributor pieces at this point. Editorializing has its value, but lets not call it news.

However, before Tiffany moderated all the comments, I liked BIC, as it was a place the community had a voice just as Punaweb is. Her commentary was open to free expression for or against her POV.

It is a farce trying to appear neutral by bringing in another editor, as long as comments are censored. However, it is how Tiffany announced she would do it to try to appear to be reporting news.

My concern is very simple. I support a candidate who has the ability to play by the rules he or she publicly commits to following. I think a candidate should demonstrate that capacity during the campaign, because there will be much greater tests of commitment once elected.