[Lnc-business] Publishing links to candidate articles with some platform deviations
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Tue Mar 27 20:58:05 EDT 2018
Well, I'm clearly outnumbered, and it's situation-dependent, but as a
general matter, I think I'd rather not do it than use a disclaimer (but I
favor running things without the disclaimer, and if we can't do that, then
just not running it - and, given our current system, I'm happy leaving that
decision to the APRC and staff). There are probably circumstances where
I'm fine with the disclaimer, and circumstances where I'm less fine.
Joshua A. Katz
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:08 PM, <erin.adams at lp.org> wrote:
> 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
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=y+with+whichever+direction+the+LNC+&entry=gmail&source=g>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+223
>>> 14&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
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
Well, I'm clearly outnumbered, and it's situation-dependent, but as a
general matter, I think I'd rather not do it than use a disclaimer (but
I favor running things without the disclaimer, and if we can't do that,
then just not running it - and, given our current system, I'm happy
leaving that decision to the APRC and staff). There are probably
circumstances where I'm fine with the disclaimer, and circumstances
where I'm less fine.
Joshua A. Katz
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:08 PM, <[1]erin.adams at lp.org> wrote:
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
[2]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][3]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 comfortabl[4]y 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][5](202) 333-0008 ext. 232, [4][6]wes.benedict at lp.org
[5][7]facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
Join the Libertarian Party at: [6][8]http://lp.org/membership
References
1. mailto:[9]wes.benedict at lp.org
2.
[10]https://maps.google.com/?q=1444+Duke+St.,+Alexandria,+VA+223
14&entry=gmail&source=g
3. tel:[11](202) 333-0008 ext. 232
4. mailto:[12]wes.benedict at lp.org
5. [13]http://facebook.com/libertarians
6. [14]http://lp.org/membership
References
1. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
2. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
3. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
4. https://maps.google.com/?q=y+with+whichever+direction+the+LNC+&entry=gmail&source=g
5. tel:(202) 333-0008 ext. 232
6. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
7. http://facebook.com/libertarians
8. http://lp.org/membership
9. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
10. https://maps.google.com/?q=1444+Duke+St
11. tel:(202) 333-0008 ext. 232
12. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
13. http://facebook.com/libertarians
14. http://lp.org/membership
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list