Letters – Reader blasts Post-Register for election coverage
To the Editor:
I am writing today to express my sincere disappointment in your newspaper’s obvious double standard. On Feb. 15, I sent an email to you requesting the publication of a resource for voters to gain useful information on local candidates. No candidate was mentioned by name in the resource article, and each party was represented equally.
On Feb. 16,
I received a message from you stating, “… under our publishers’ elections policy, we cannot run this as a news item. Any and all information disseminated about candidates within six weeks of an election must be submitted under the category of paid political advertising.”
I don’t understand how this applied to the voter’s resource, as it was not promoting any candidate. However, I took your excuse, knowing your paper’s reputation for reporting only information that serves your purpose.
Then, this week’s paper came out and I couldn’t believe the front page article on candidate spending. Candidates were not only mentioned by name, but a detailed list of where they spent their money was listed. To further my disappointment, you didn’t equally represent all candidates.
If I had any respect for this paper, you have officially lost it. I have subscribed in order to keep up on what is going on locally, and to support a local business. However, we get much more pertinent and correct information from the Luling News Boy. Many people told me this would be the case when I subscribed to your paper, but I wanted to give you a chance.
Not one time in three years have I been impressed with your paper. You waited until early primary voting was almost over before printing the sample ballot, you covered the Democrat candidates well enough but a gaping hole was left from the Republican and Independent sides.
I hope that you will address the inequities listed above and take action to better your publication.