• You seem to have considered all the ramifications and reached an equitable conclusion. Keep up the good work.

    March 7, 2012 at 2:40 p.m.

  • “Thanks again for prompting me to clear my technical hurdle.”

    You’re welcome Chris – I’m glad my innate paranoia was put to good use! Of course, now some will suggest that you’ve performed your journalistic duties in a sexist, or in at least a chauvinistic way, since her picture is much smaller than her husbands and is placed second, under his photo! Tophat may be right – you might never win this because there will always be a growing abundance of suspicious nuts that will invariably fail to recognize that everything in the paper is not an evil conspiracy.

    March 7, 2012 at 8:14 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 7, 2012 at 5:56 a.m.

  • I think it was a good idea to disclose this early in the election cycle. We do live in a small community and lines often overlap. I appreciate the Victoria Advocate addressing this.

    March 6, 2012 at 8:27 p.m.

  • “If you think we're not reporting on Rangel fairly in any way, we hope you will let us know.”

    Okay, it’s really nice of you to ask! From the blog, it looks like the Advocate supports Rangel and not Alvarez - that’s the way it looks to me since the story was wrote in a way that put a HUGE photo of her in it with no photo of Alvarez. However, there may be nothing unfair about the Advocate supporting one candidate over another. I suppose that if Alvarez wanted equal coverage with a giant photo of himself appearing in a reporter’s blog, he could have married a local reporter too, but he didn’t and that’s just too bad for him.

    There’s also the number of times Rangel’s name was mentioned – I calculated 5 times if you count the caption next to the ginormous candidate supplied photo, where her opponent was only mentioned once. Of course, that piece of information may be more indicative of the fact that I really should find something else to do with my time and not evidence of a media conspiracy. Still, I can’t help but to suspect that this blog entry was more of a call for Rangel supporters to remember to show up and vote on Election Day and warn them of the fact that she’s being challenged. Am I being overly paranoid? Sure I am, but being paranoid isn’t the same as being wrong even though it may eat away at my stunted ability to trust the media.

    Then again, I’m not the only one with credibility issues – I’ll bet that most people have trust issues with what they see reported in the media. Readers suffer from preconceived ideas about the media before they even think to open their papers. All those years spent chasing ratings and readership came with an inadvertent cost – I think that cost has been mainly credibility. However, what you’re doing with this blog, with sharing your editorial meetings online, and with showing up at area restaurants to interact with the community are probably steps in the right direction if the goal of those things is to build bridges, enhance your relationship with the community, and increase your credibility with readers.

    There, aren’t you sorry you asked!

    March 6, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.