Political hit piece or fair reporting by the AZ Daily Sun?


Some have asked me which Arizona Daily Sun story I keep referring to on the radio and social media. A story that many have referred to as politically biased against Mayor Nabours and I.

RELATED; Joe Harting calls out the Daily Sun on Thursdays show.

Here is a segment from that story. The beginning (link to story) gives some background over the protests and who opposed SB1062. Notice the strange transition though when they talk about Mayor Nabours and I.
——————————————-
Flagstaff protests grow as hundreds gather against SB1062, Feb 25
By SUZANNE ADAMS-OCKRASSA

“I just thought it would be a great way to get people together and harness that energy,” Barotz said. “Flagstaff is a very inclusive place. We pride ourselves on it. I just think this was a very ill-conceived idea. A lot of people and businesses here are opposed to it.”

At least two other members of the City Council donated to the campaign of one of the House Republicans representing Flagstaff who voted for the bill.

Mayor Jerry Nabours and councilmember Jeff Oravits donated to the campaign of Rep. Brenda Barton, R-Payson, in 2012. Nabours gave $175 and Oravits $150.

Nabours said he did donate to Barton’s campaign and pointed out that the bill is not specifically aimed at the gay or bisexual community.

“I think it was trying to balance the religious rights against discrimination rights,” he said. “What comes to mind is the pharmacists who were opposed to giving out the morning after pill because of their religion.”

Oravits said he did give to Barton’s campaign, but “I’ve donated to a lot of Republican candidates. I think it’s really important for Flagstaff to have good contacts with people in the Legislature.”

Barton was one of three co-sponsors on HB2153. The bill had 17 primary sponsors, including Rep. Bob Thorpe, R-Flagstaff. Sen. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, who also represents Flagstaff, was not one of the sponsors but did vote for the bill.
—————————————

What did contributions have to do with the issue at hand?

Why did they not point out that Jerry and I have supported politicians opposed to SB1062?

Why did they mention two of my colleagues were at the protest yet failed to mention the Mayor was there?

Why did they not mention the Mayors opposition to SB1062?

The Daily Sun can be contacted at
rwilson@azdailysun.com


2 thoughts on “Political hit piece or fair reporting by the AZ Daily Sun?

  1. I would like to know if those 2 rally rousers even knew there was a religious freedom act introduced by Chuck Schumer in 1993. With the same wording as SB1062/
    . That “rally” showed me how they only think of themselves and their re elections. Did they even know about the 2 Muslim truck drivers who refused to carry beer, were fired and then the co. was sued . They ultimately won their jobs back.
    Once again, when one rallys with a hysterical cause, in this day and age , that rally takes on a mind of its own. It would be an eye opener to find out how many of those in the protest actually read the bill or the history of religious freedom and business.
    Lee Harsh

  2. Take it from someone who lived in it: fascism is alive and well; it has many facets, and most of the media are willingly feed it. Regardless of its – or any other evil’s – manifestation, conscience and principles are not required to appease it, compromise with it, pat it on the back, or tolerate it.

    In the hysteria over SB1062, even if it specified homosexuals, no one offered the converse of their argument: should anyone have the right to demand goods or services, even employment, from providers without considering the rights of those providers? Shouldn’t it be their burden to prove that their belief does not infringe on someone else? Freedom is a malleable thing, because its interpretation depends on the agenda behind it, up to, and including tyranny. The various special interest mafia better understand history before the beast they create comes around and bites them in the ass.

    It is shameful that a clearly written Bill of Rights needs further legislation to protect IT from today’s tyrant wannabees. The Constitution is supposed to be guiding and protecting legislation, not the other way around.

    Keep standing firm, Jeff. Thank you for your efforts!
    Gabor

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