The corruption of our bought & paid-for legislators (with a few honest exceptions) is a well-kept TV dirty little secret, unless someone blows it to the point of a putative wide-stance.

This is why I don’t read spin from agencies, and plan on not getting the HDTV box. When analog goes off the air, it’s the internet for me, where I can watch what I want to watch, with a minimum of the ghastly advertising prevalent on network TV.

They don’t have the time it takes to actually do the job we require of them, so they outsource all functions that smell of work. This clears their schedule for the really important work; passing out goodies to the well connected.

I don’t buy your theory that a politician loses if they speak candidly to the press, and can’t win if they don’t cater to the press.

The press thrives on controversy. There is no problem with that, unless they stoke their own fire. The Statesman may not have been guilty of that tactic during her previous term, but they have done it before. And, who could blame her if she came to that conclusion.

Paraphrasing, If they burn you once, it’s their fault. If they burn you twice, it’s your own fault. Looks to me like she learned her lesson.

Either way, I am sure the Statesman would agree that, regardless of the issue or the politician, they are no longer needed to the degree they once were. The internet was not the force then that it is now.

To the best of my knowledge, Commissioner Ullman is one of the few, make that the only, politician in Idaho that writes her own copy. Maybe you like her policies, maybe you don’t, but at least you know that you are getting the facts the way she meant them. without the filter of the media, or a handler. To me at least, there is great value in that.

Note to Sharon, keep up the good work and get the two begonias you work with to do the Wright thing and dump the PR guy.

Somewhat OT, but given the cutbacks you mention at the Statesman and local TV news, have you considered turning this Web site into a more comprehensive local news source? Certainly the business model to fund such an effort is problematic, but I’m intrigued by talk of using the non-profit structure and soliciting foundation grant money to fund journalistic endeavors. There certainly wouldn’t be any lack of local freelance talent, but without some funding, you get what you pay for.

I think this area needs an alternative, online local news source to replace the dwindling traditional media and I’m just wondering if the Guardian or a spinoff might just be the catalyst for such an enterprise?

EDITOR NOTE–That is why we re offering up the big green DONATE button. With a little “war chest” we can indeed expand coverage. https://boiseguardian.com/2009/03/01/guardian-asks-reader-support-for-citizen-journalists/

Companies of any size have PR or Offices of Information to release information to the public; it’s just efficiency. This is what they do. Policy makers make policies, information specialists disseminate information. These professionals aren’t a waste of taxpayer money, they’re saving it.

This “spin”, as you call it, is just a minor role of many.

In regards to the editors notes, rolling Ms. Ullmans ideals of PR into your response as a point of agreement just lessens your argument. Her disinclination to have either a PR person, nor to answer questions directly herself other than filtered thru her web site is arrogant and you are just enabling her arrogance.

Granted the growth of talking heads surrogating themselves instead of allowing the incumbents to speak freely for themselves is annoying, however no talking head may put his or her agenda ahead of their employer and Ms. Ullman has no problems with putting forth her agendas but has exhibited a complete lack of PR in explaining them.

EDITOR NOTE (2)–Eric, I don’t want to be in a position of defending Ullman–or any politico–but I will bet you a $25 donation to the GUARDIAN you will get timely answer to any phone call or e-mail you care to make.