So, where's the retraction? - UPDATED
UPDATE - As Michael notes in the comments, the N&O published their story about the non-endorsement this afternoon at around 3:20. I was out picking blackberries, and missed it.
So, you all followed the shitstorm that erupted on local blogs and listservs yesterday after it emerged that Fairway Outdoor Advertising had misleadingly presented a member of the City-Wide Partners Against Crime to the media on Wednesday and claimed that the entire Partners Against Crime community endorsed their proposal to have Durham's current billboard ordinance overturned to allow them to install flat screen TVs on highways and roadsides all over town.
Turns out that City-Wide PAC didn't have a valid vote to endorse the proposal, as one of its supposed members didn't represent the PAC she claimed to be representing (see below). Turns out that one of Fairway's attorneys (we can only assume he was from the firm of K&L Gates until we hear otherwise) pushed the City-Wide PAC facilitator to hold the vote over the objections of several of the members because "there was not more time" available to discuss the issue.
Wanda Boone, who was the spokesperson presented by Fairway, has apologized for her role in the fiasco.
So how come there's nothing in the Herald-Sun or News & Observer about this yet? If you rely on those two organs for your coverage of Durham events, you're still thinking that Partners Against Crime wants digital billboards in Durham. And you'd be wrong.
So, you all followed the shitstorm that erupted on local blogs and listservs yesterday after it emerged that Fairway Outdoor Advertising had misleadingly presented a member of the City-Wide Partners Against Crime to the media on Wednesday and claimed that the entire Partners Against Crime community endorsed their proposal to have Durham's current billboard ordinance overturned to allow them to install flat screen TVs on highways and roadsides all over town.
Turns out that City-Wide PAC didn't have a valid vote to endorse the proposal, as one of its supposed members didn't represent the PAC she claimed to be representing (see below). Turns out that one of Fairway's attorneys (we can only assume he was from the firm of K&L Gates until we hear otherwise) pushed the City-Wide PAC facilitator to hold the vote over the objections of several of the members because "there was not more time" available to discuss the issue.
Wanda Boone, who was the spokesperson presented by Fairway, has apologized for her role in the fiasco.
So how come there's nothing in the Herald-Sun or News & Observer about this yet? If you rely on those two organs for your coverage of Durham events, you're still thinking that Partners Against Crime wants digital billboards in Durham. And you'd be wrong.
Labels: local media
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
4 Comments:
Well, there's one online now.
By
Unknown, at 5:06 PM
Witness once again the awesome power of Dependable Erection!
By
Barry, at 5:28 PM
"She later apologized, in an e-mail to all the PAC lists, for 'any misunderstanding, confusion or seeming misrepresentation.'"
Crock. Of. $hit.
By
Joseph H. Vilas, at 10:25 AM
I'm willing to accept that Wanda Boone is simply incredibly naive about how Fairway and K&L Gates manipulated this situation. She does need to do a little more research about the relationship between underage drinking and the billboard industry, though, if she wants to maintain whatever credibility she has left.
By
Barry, at 10:51 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home