Delegate Smigiel: The Cecil Guardian Promises Fairness but Fails To Deliver

From Delegate Smigiel’s Official Blog —

On Aug. 9, 2010 I wrote a response to the outrageous article appearing in the Cecil Guardian. It appeared here under the title Journalism 101.

Shortly after having written the Article, Journalism 101, I received a visit from the Publisher/Owner of the Cecil Guardian, Mr. De Freitas who was responding to a phone call I had made asking why I had not been notified before the story about Commissioner candidate Ted Kolodzey’s ranting about Senator Pipkin and I wanting to destroy the County was published.

Mr. De Freitas began his conversation with me by trying to justify his article by hiding behind the fact that “it is what Kolodzey actually said”.  I responded that it does not matter what Kolodzey said, the ethical and professional obligation of his paper is to call the parties involved in a story.  I told him that both he and his reporter had an ethical obligation to give the Senator and myself a chance to respond to the spurious allegations.   It should be  the policy of any  newspaper, to call a public official, for comment, who is being accused of  being out to destroy the government they have been elected to represent.

Delegate Smigiel’s article continues here

About these ads

11 responses to “Delegate Smigiel: The Cecil Guardian Promises Fairness but Fails To Deliver

  1. So our “delegate” who fancies himself a blogger can dish it out but not take it? What is said in a public forum is public. The Guardian has a right to say what is said in a public forum.
    It is a joke that Smigiel, who has been guilty of slamming and slandering anyone including private citizens who dare to disagree with him on a public or political issue, now claims to be so horribly wronged.
    wake up, Mr. Politician. You are subject to discussion, criticism and scrutiny by virtue of being a politician and elected official.

    Have you ever heard the saying, “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen?” Of course, you try to throw your power and other things around to intimidated anyone and everyone who is not your puppet.

  2. I am following the Delegate Mike online Journalism 101 class and would like some reference material on the responsibility to follow up on actual statements made in a public forum. Is there an actual Code of Conduct or handbook for reporters?

  3. Now hold on, there. Let’s take a closer look at this so-called newspaper, the Cecil Guardian. Anyone with a basic understanding of how these news products are supposed to work should realize that the Guardian’s big time, attention-grabbing, front page, gotta-read news stories are anything but. These headlined notices are nothing more than self-serving press releases supplied by politicians, non profits and anyone else looking desperately for a free site to place their propaganda. If you attempt to find the experienced news “staff” (reporters) for this pseudo information outlet, you’ll find a paltry list of a individuals—one offers editorial guidance, another deals with advertising and one single “writer/reporter,” and rarely a by-line appears in the Guardian’s stories.
    Delegate Mike is correct in having expected that he be asked about the charges leveled against him BEFORE the Guardian ran its story. However, that paper obviously grabbed the details from an assortment of other news outlets (Whig, local blogs). Then it appears to have tossed them out to the public and made no effort to check their validity with the accused. This total lack of basic, balanced reporting is now called to task by the person who was not asked about the charges made against him. In all, we have a sad lack of professionalism by a Mom and Pop “news” outlet masquerading as the real thing. Actually, for those who constantly complain about the Whig’s local coverage, the Cecil Guardian’s press-release-overloaded content makes the Whig look like the New York Times or, the even more accurate, Washington Times. Finally, in the comment by louise, she seems to be gleeful at Delegate Mike’s annoyance, obviously taking delight at his plight. But she does not address the savvy Delegate’s primary objections about that “paper’s” lack of professionalism, and, finally, the Guardian’s apparent refusal to give his stated response on the subject any ink. I guess the Guardian needs to save the space for more YMCA, Kratovil and Rudolph press releases.

    • Now hold on, there. While following Journalism 101 on Delegate Mike my eyes drifted to the right and I noticed the SPCA topic. I was shocked when I read the posts containing allegations that were subsequently discredited. Talk about “lack of professionalism”. As I recall, the SPCA brouhaha was promoted by Delegate Mike who never apologized to the targets of his allegations when the story collapsed. The “savvy Delegate’s primary objection” seems to be his objection to all criticism, to which he responds with a scorched earth policy.

  4. The Guardian’s article did much more than report of Mr. Kolodzey’s outburst. It also reported a meeting between the candidate, Smigiel, and Pipkin in which monetary support was promised as a quid pro quo. As such, it passed from reporting Mr. Kolodzey’s mere opinion to assserting substantial ethical breaches. It is be obvious to the average individual that charges of such a serious nature certainly should be investigated and that involved persons should receive the chance for rebuttal. To pretend otherwise just shows that your moral compass “points south.”

  5. There goes Zogbby shooting off on something else now

  6. Ms. Arap states that the Guardian article in question “reported a meeting between the candidate (Kolodzey), Smigiel, and Pipkin in which monetary support was promised as a quid pro quo”. I have re-read the Cecil Guardian of August 5, 2010 and found no such report. The article states “Kolodzey said he had aligned himself with Pipkin and Smigiel but had to leave them when he found their financial assistance in his campaign came with strings attached”. I, as an” average individual”, see this as Mr. Kolodzey changing his mind on a political affiliation. He probably recalled the old adage “He who pays the piper calls the tune”.

  7. Mr. Amato, (AKA) Diogenes, as I wrote in my article, I have never met Mr. Kolodzey. There was no offer to run his campaign and thus no offers of money. The Cecil Whig asked Mr. Kolodzey for any details of his claim and he had none, my chief of staff called him to ask where or when we had ever met or spoken and he hung up on her.
    My employee of eight years is running against him, why would I want to finance Mr. Kolodzey against my friend, Michael Dunn?
    Mr. Kolodzey either intentionally lied or was nervous and mispoke, either way, all I expect him to do is to apologize in public.
    The press has a responsibility of due dilegence. The editor owes his readers and his profession more than Mr. De Freitas apparently is willing to provide.

    • Delegate Smigiel (AKA Robert Moore and other names too numerous to mention), I have never met Mr. Amato. I did not offer to run his campaign or give him money. Please re-read the Guardian article. Mr. Kolodzey said “he had aligned himself with Pipkin and Smigiel…”. (Perhaps he meant that in a philosophical sense). Please read my 9/1/10 reply to “Arap” for the balance. Why should he apologize for something he did not say? You ignore the following from the same article: “They will destroy this county,” Kolodzy said of Pipkin and Smigiel, explaining the two are working closely together with the goal of controlling politics within Cecil County. Subsequently, two election slates appeared on front and back of the same glossy, expensive palm card. The Republicans of Cecil Fiscal Conservative Team consisting of Pipkin/State Senate, Smigiel/Delegate, Jay Jacobs/Delegate, Ted Patterson/Delegate, Chris Zeauskas/Commissioner, Mike Dunn/Commissioner, Mike Dawson/Commissioner, Carrie Taylor/Treasurer. On the flip side appears The Republican Fiscal Conservative Central Committee Team consisting of Carillo, Dawson,Dunn, Hutchinson, (Commissioner Jim )Mullin, Ted Patterson, Carrie Taylor, Joe Tropp, Chris Zeauskas. Sure looks like an attempt to control Republican politics within Cecil County . You and Pipkin represent parts of four counties, yet a review of the state Bd of Elections website shows no similar slates in the other counties. Why? I assume that candidates selected for the “Teams” proffered their goals and positions before inclusion on the “Team”. Carillo and Hutchinson are the only “fresh faces”. Maybe Kolodzey didn’t agree with the goals of the leaders when they were recruiting. Maybe he didn’t speak with you directly but through an intermediary. Please clarify the “Team” selection process.

  8. Kolodzey filed as a candidate in early April. Smigiel’s employee Dunn did not file until a few days before the filing deadline in July. So there was plenty of time for discussions maybe via a third party before Kolodzey decided to go his own way. Dunn didn’t get into it until after Kolodzey went off the reservation. So there is more than one kind of payback. I’m sure Dunn didn’t make his decision to run without lots of discussion with his boss, Delegate Smigiel.

    Doth the Delegate protest too much?

  9. I keep checking the Delegate Mike blog for news on the “Tea Party tested Tea Party approved” allegation. Could it really be “Tea Party busted”? In fairness to Delegate Mike, it is probably his turn to keep Chris Zeauskas company in the “safe house” until after the Primary Election.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s