Robert Pratt
The TX19 race has been fun for me as I host a show focused on political news and commentary, that’s what I do, and listeners understand such is the purpose of the show. But the TX19 race became even more fun when one of my broadcast partners pointed out that a local newspaper reporter has become obsessed with my coverage.
Apparently the reporter finds it odd that I’ve penned many commentaries about the most important political race in the region and finds consistency of opinion suspect. I guess the young whippersnapper thinks I should be writing mostly about the Tyler-area’s state senate runoff race or the race for Harris County GOP chairman.
Like many of his generation, the reporter seems unclear as to the difference, and let’s use the terms of his industry so that he’ll be less confused, between editorial and news pages. My commentaries, or editorials if you will, are due every weekday of the year and inherently contain my opinion. (Hint, it’s sort of like his paper’s editorials except they have a staff of differing writers.)
What a shock! About 18 percent of my 160 daily commentaries have been about the biggest political story in the region!
And yes I am consistent in my opinion, I don’t back one candidate one day and then his opponent the next. That would be a bit odd wouldn’t it? Doing such would make my show as irrelevant as many newspapers have become. Also, I’m apparently not supposed to back candidates who buy ads on my affiliate stations but the last time I checked, his newspaper endorses candidates who buy ads.
So yes, young obsessed employee of the out-of-state owned newspaper which has endorsed Arrington, I’ve written about 16 commentaries opining upon your buddy Arrington since the race began in October of last year and about 30 in total regarding the TX19 race. What a shock! About 18 percent of my 160 daily commentaries have been about the biggest political story in the region!
Yeah, that is a real shocker – well, only to a moron.
Robert, it’s articles like this why no one takes you seriously. You attack a journalist, his newspaper, then call him a moron. Ad hominem at its finest. What a disappointment you turned out to be.
Real commentary takes an open view at both sides. There is no doubt some things Arrington did or said are disagreeable, but the same goes with Glen. No one is asking you to back Glen one day and Jodey another — just don’t be such a condesending, biased writer and learn to look at both sides of the story. You sure love to write about how Jodey spent money for his office at TTU or all that other cr*p, but you sure never mention the fact that Glen pulled a gun on a civilivan out of road rage (talk about lack of judgement?), how he attacked a decorated war veteran (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0XUpWufp2Mc … talk about lack of civility), how he was directly involved with Citizens Tower by purchasing two adjecent properties while Mayor, or how he failed on his promises to cut taxes and decrease spending…by raising taxes and increasing spending.
No one? What a shame. And the story was not about Robertson or Arrington per se, but about a reporter who has taken to counting my commentaries – do you count AJ editorials?
Apparently you missed the point of the story but then again, it doesn’t matter because no one takes me seriously – certainly not seriously enough to read what I’ve written and then take valuable time to respond in writing!
By the way, you are not the Corey Williams writing letters to the editor supporting Arrington are you? http://tinyurl.com/proarrington
The reporter is a moron because the claims made are silly given that his paper issues opinion in support of people from whom it takes advertising money. That means his inability to see such, which is a sign of being a moron, is the issue I was addressing and thus it isn’t ad hominem.
Oh and by the way, your definition of “commentary” is quite unique.
Wait a second, pot calling kettle. One of your “official sponsors” is a BUSINESS OWNED BY GLEN ROBERTSON. Is it a coincidence your “commentary” is biased, unscrupulous attacks on his opponent?
Additionally, just about every one of your commentaries contains ad hominem attacks or other blatant logical fallacies. Based on the attacks you have launched, you are either intentionally trying to mislead people or you are truly ignorant of facts. I am hoping it is ignorance, because nothing is more wrong, or ineffectual than attacks that can be easily deconstructed with minimal research.
Specifics please.
I had an opponent announce to run against me for Abilene City Council, Pratt openly supported him. He, too, owned a business that’s an “Official Sponsor” on the Abilene station. That fact never made it in Pratt’s “commentarynews”
Actually you are quite wrong Kyle. Belle’s is not an “Official Sponsor” of Pratt on Texas. The business is a Word of the Day sponsor (our smallest item) and such is self-disclosing to the audience. Have you read a newspaper editorial board explaining that a candidate they endorse is an advertiser in the paper? No, it’s not important and it is self-disclosing. Intelligent folk understand that. And by the way, your opponent ended up not being on the ballot so why are you going on about it here?
Some of you are silly in your concerns over advertisers and ignorant in your suggestions.
First, your claim needs to be consistent in all races across all media to have any validity. Newspapers endorse people for office who are advertising with them all the time.
Second, you ignore the self-disclosing nature of advertising meaning nothing is hidden – that’s why you know about it. Thus there is nothing nefarious about such.
And third, you don’t know your history. How does your claim stand-up to situations when I’ve endorsed a candidate or position not in-line with my advertisers?
I endorsed against Randy Neugebauer despite the fact that an “Official Sponsor” of Pratt on Texas on KFYO at the time (our BIGGEST form of advertising) was Randy’s political chief’s husband’s financial business in town.
That firm canceled the account in a huff. They are the only one to ever do that by the way – others are mature enough to know I may take differing position from them and understand their ads are to reach the audience not expresss agreement with me.
The problem with you lot is that like Democrats, you know so much that isn’t true.