The Voice and Viewpoint piece attacking District 4 City Council candidate Dwayne Crenshaw was homophobic. It was vitriolic. It was contemptible. Journalistically, however, it wasn’t the most sinister thing published about Crenshaw last week. That award goes to Voice of San Diego, for “The Candidate and the Troubled Non-Profit.”
Say what you want about the Voice and Viewpoint piece (I’m using four letter words), it was an endorsement of another candidate, and labeled as such. Voice of San Diego (VOSD) has “The Candidate …” piece listed under the “Community” tab. Beyond that, it’s hard to figure out what it is meant to be, except a conveniently timed hit piece on Crenshaw.
It certainly wasn’t news. Nothing in the piece happened after 2009, with the possible exception of when VOSD obtained quotes from Crenshaw. (Turning a settlement into “Very sweet lemonade” was probably off message whenever it was said.)
Could it have been investigative reporting, or a feature? The timing and content suggest otherwise. VOSD had already done a profile of each of the major candidates, and it included a discussion of the same issues, sub-headed “Crenshaw’s Achilles’ Heel.” Why rehash it five days before the election? If prior difficulty with a community non-profit deserved more in depth coverage, how was Crenshaw’s time with San Diego LGBT Pride not relevant?
To be fair, VOSD did run additional pieces on other candidates. Myrtle Cole got a fact check that even-handedly knocked down a negative claim, but questioned a positive one. Comparing the pictures used, however, says more than 1,000 words about how VOSD wanted the candidates to look. VOSD is entitled to its opinion, but it should write an endorsement and label it as such, not use suspiciously timed “news” to sway voters.
I’ve made no secret of my support for Crenshaw. I’m also biased toward VOSD because of exceptional journalism they have done in the past, so I hope I’m wrong about their motives. They are well worth a second look, but the allegations against Crenshaw were not. Anyone willing to place themselves under the microscope that is candidacy deserves better, as does San Diego.
I’m a freelance journalist and regular contributor to VOSD. The writer of the VOSD story (and the photographer) are colleagues and friends. With that disclosure out of the way…
The story itself is relevant and revealing. The quotes by Crenshaw say plenty about him. And his experience with the non-profit is definitely worth exploring. How could it not be? He ran something, had all sorts of conflicts, and lawsuits popped up all over.
But yeah, I would like to know more about his experiences with Pride, what kind of success he’s had in fund-raising and management, what kind of budget he oversees, etc.
As for the timing: VOSD ran a whole bunch of stories in the days leading up to the election. That’s when people are paying attention. This wasn’t a day-before-the-election hit piece. Also: VOSD has run several critical stories about other candidates and overall devoted a tremendous amount of resources to this race, more than any other media.
Finally: You’re right, the photo is unflattering and shouldn’t have run with the story. However, I’ve been working for VOSD for a long time now and am familiar with what it does right and what it does wrong. I know that the folks there don’t play favoritism games with photos.
-Randy Dotinga