[Lnc-business] Publishing links to candidate articles with some platform deviations

erin.adams at lp.org erin.adams at lp.org
Tue Mar 27 20:08:58 EDT 2018


I am comfortable with this





On 2018-03-27 18:55, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
> I favor this method. As it allows for highlighting a candidate, while
> simultaneously alerting readers that the LP platform differs somewhat.
> 
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 
> On 2018-03-27 15:14, Whitney Bilyeu wrote:
>> What if we just ask staff to include in the blog post a disclaimer of
>>    sorts with any such link....acknowledging that there may be 
>> specific
>>    opinions held by the candidate that are not 100% our own...?
>>    Whitney
>> 
>>    On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Wes Benedict 
>> <[1]wes.benedict at lp.org>
>>    wrote:
>> 
>>      Dear LNC:
>>      I'm bringing this to your attention now, because it has not been 
>> an
>>      issue for several months, but likely will come up again soon 
>> given
>>      that we have lots of candidates and will be writing lots of blog
>>      entries about candidates this year.
>>      Staff works to publish articles that comply with the LNC Bylaws 
>> and
>>      Policy Manual. The Advertising Publications and Review Committee 
>> is
>>      tasked with ensuring publications comply.
>>      I'd like to point out that I think Staff and the APRC have had a
>>      pretty good working relationship for at least 3 years and perhaps
>>      even longer than that if I think about it. So, this is not meant 
>> as
>>      a complaint in general about the APRC, Staff, or the overall
>>      procedures. Most things are fine in that area, in my opinion. I 
>> just
>>      want to focus on one issue.
>>      Nevertheless, it should come as no surprise that various members 
>> of
>>      the APRC and various staff don't always agree with each other on
>>      what constitutes a violation.
>>      A particular area of uncertainty has been articles with coverage 
>> of
>>      candidates where the articles include some positions that violate
>>      platform.
>>      I'll use public schools as a hypothetical, and the article below
>>      from the imaginary "Alexandria Beach Times."
>>      ====start article====
>>      [Sentence 1] John Doe, Libertarian candidate for Congress, says 
>> he
>>      wants to cut taxes, cut spending, end the war on drugs, and bring
>>      our troops home from overseas.
>>      [Sentence 2] When asked about public education, John Doe says 
>> "I'd
>>      like to use some of the savings from those cuts to increase 
>> spending
>>      on public schools."
>>      ====end article====
>>      I think most of the APRC and Staff would feel it's okay to write 
>> a
>>      blog and to quote Sentence 1 of the article above. Most of the 
>> APRC
>>      and Staff would probably feel it's NOT okay to quote Sentence 2.
>>      The area of likely disagreement is whether or not we could 
>> include a
>>      link to the source article in our blog entry.
>>      If there was an article where 50% or more of the content about 
>> the
>>      Libertarian candidate had platform violations, probably most of 
>> us
>>      wouldn't want to publicize it.
>>      There can be a great article about one of our candidates where 
>> 90%
>>      of the coverage is positive, but if 10% of the article includes a
>>      platform violation, we maybe should not link to it, or maybe we
>>      should.
>>      I used public school spending as an example above, but all kinds 
>> of
>>      things have come up in the past, such as opposing legalization of
>>      hard drugs (or letting the states decide on that), the Fair Tax,
>>      welfare, some regulations, and so on.
>>      I would like direction from the LNC on whether or not it is okay 
>> to
>>      publish things like blogs that links with some positions that 
>> might
>>      violate the platform.
>>      Based on feedback, I might float a suggest amendment to the 
>> Policy
>>      Manual for you all to consider at the upcoming LNC meeting.
>>      I can work comfortably with whichever direction the LNC might go 
>> on
>>      this particular issue, but I think it's an important enough issue
>>      that has come up quite a bit in the past, that it should be
>>      considered by the LNC.
>>      If the LNC prefers to leave the decision up to the APRC, that is
>>      another option I'm comfortable with. In fact, I think that's the
>>      status quo right now, however, given recent changes in the APRC, 
>> I
>>      could not tell you how they'd rule on the above issue.
>>      Thanks,
>>      --
>>      Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>>      Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>      [2]1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
>>      [3](202) 333-0008 ext. 232, [4]wes.benedict at lp.org
>>      [5]facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>>      Join the Libertarian Party at: [6]http://lp.org/membership
>> 
>> References
>> 
>>    1. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
>>    2.
>> https://maps.google.com/?q=1444+Duke+St.,+Alexandria,+VA+22314&entry=gmail&source=g
>>    3. tel:(202) 333-0008 ext. 232
>>    4. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
>>    5. http://facebook.com/libertarians
>>    6. http://lp.org/membership




More information about the Lnc-business mailing list