Due to Democratic complaints, Republicans say, they've been told not to use several phrases in press releases this year. Among them: newspaper, and a press release on the subject via the
"lack of honesty with taxpayers";
"tax-and-spend liberals";
•"lack of truth in the majority's message";
•"It's not truthful to say this money is being put into reserve";
•And "disingenuous."
The House of Representatives' chief clerk, Rich Nafziger, has asserted that his decision to reign-in commentary statements in press releases and other state-funded communicae dates back to the mid-1990s, when Republicans and clerk Tim Martin controlled the House."“You cannot say Republicans are disingenuous or that Democrats are tax-and-spend liberals because we have rules governing the use of taxpayer resources that say you can'’t use those resources to sling mud, Nafziger said. "“We can'’t censor people. There'’s still free speech."”
The Republicans'’ humorous approach to the dispute barely masks their deep anger about the budget this year. Republicans have been especially edgy about that topic all year, accusing Democrats of wild spending sprees and fiscal irresponsibility at a time when the state surplus has grown to almost $1.6 billion. So while Democrats have claimed they are setting aside close to $1 billion for the next budget cycle in 2007, Republicans have pointed to an ending balance predicted for the state'’s general fund of $238 million; the GOP claims that is the real reserve amount and that $850 million put into other accounts is not really a reserve because it'’s meant to be spent eventually.
More recently, Republicans were resorting to humor to get out their message, including a news release with the domed Capitol exploding from the expansive spending by Democrats. Another warned of a spending tsunami.
Something to note at this point: comments and above-mentioned "forbidden phrases" have been used in press releases and other communicae by both sides of the aisle since the mid-1990s. The issue came to a head this year, when Republicans (the minority party in both bodies of the legislature) criticized the budget proposals by Democrats (the majority party).
Good grief! I don't care which party a lawmaker subscribes to, he or she has the right to give his or her opinion in press releases, as long as there is proper attribution. Attribution is the mainstay for my job in radio news. To say, for example, that the budget proposal by Democrats in the Washington State House of Representatives is "disingenuous" or has a "lack of honesty with taxpayers" is wrong. But for a Republican representative to say that he or she feels or believes the House Democrats budget proposal is "disingenuous" or has a "lack of honesty with taxpayers" relays proper attribution - it's the opinion of the elected official, not necessarily facceptablehat's aseparates. This seperates news pieces from opinion pieces.
Lawmakers are elected by the majority of the voters in their district, and as such, will appeal primarily with the voters that put them in office. For example, an elected Democrat from the heart of the Seattle area will be critical of Republican bills that take voting power away from his consituents, so he or she issues a press release that is critical of such a bill. Criticism of each party's policies is appropriate. Opinions are appropriate, as long as it's properly attributed. That's free speech, I think.
I step down from the soapbox for tonight.
Thanks for reading...
Don't forget to comment on this and any other post on this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment