[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