Print this page | Close Window


https://n2v.almanacnews.com/square/print/2014/10/15/a-delivery-vehicle-for-real-estate-ads-or-a-news-publication

Town Square

A Delivery Vehicle for Real Estate Ads or a News Publication?

Original post made by Mike Lanza, Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park, on Oct 15, 2014

[Post removed. There is a word in the news business for what Mr. Lanza is accusing us of: prostitution. Letting advertising influence your editorial judgment. Sorry, calling us or anyone on these boards a prostitute crosses the line of our terms of use.

In deciding whether the Almanac has attempted to let both sides fully air their views on Measure M, I would ask you to examine, not our advertising, but our editorial content -- the news and Viewpoint columns in the paper and the many vehicles for comment on our website.

I think you will find that we have given vastly more space to proponents of Measure M -- and the opponents -- than we have given to our editorial views.

Also, I would point out that our editorial on Measure M actually supports many of the Save Menlo objectives to reduce the scale of the proposed developments on El Camino Real. We just don't think that Measure M and the council challengers are effective means for achieving those goals.

Disagree with us vigorously and we will give you space to do so. But don't be callin' nobody a prostitute.

Richard Hine, editor, the Almanac ]

Comments

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2014 at 5:06 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The Almanac's No on M editorial was balanced and articulate - too bad that Lanza cannot respond accordingly.

Instead the default Measure M response is if you don't like the message just attack the messenger.

Email Town Square Moderator      


Posted by Roy Thiele-Sardiña
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 pm
Roy Thiele-Sardiña is a registered user.

Mike,

Really? This is your response to the endorsement of No on M?

By now you, Perla, Patty should recognize you made a mistake. All the endorsements are NOT politically motivated. Balanced journalism is a hallmark of the writers and editors you are now vilifying.

You didn't complain when they published stories in your favor early in the campaign......

Measure M is a Mistake
Vote NO on Measure M

Roy Thiele-Sardina

Email Town Square Moderator      


Posted by Gern
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Oct 15, 2014 at 5:39 pm
Gern is a registered user.

Roy and Peter's notion of balanced journalism, as sponsored by Greenheart: Web Link

Gern

Email Town Square Moderator      


Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2014 at 5:45 pm

Mike:

you're positive they would go out of business without real estate adds? Really? Have you seen their books. Honest to god Mike you and the rest of the measure M folks ought to try actually bringing something factual to the discussion instead of attacking the messenger.

Email Town Square Moderator      


Posted by Roy Thiele-Sardiña
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 6:50 pm
Roy Thiele-Sardiña is a registered user.

Mike,

For the record Menlo Park Deserves Better also placed an ad in the Almanac. We are NOT developers....we also placed one in the Daily Post.

Just doing our civic duty.

Measure M is a Mistake
Vote NO on Measure M

Roy Thiele-Sardina

Email Town Square Moderator      


Posted by Straight from the Mike
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2014 at 9:32 pm

For my money, there has never been a better reason to vote No on Measure M(istake) than Mike Lanza. The guy boycotts the Specific Plan process because he's too busy, what, blogging about playgrounds? And then when he wakes up, he comes in shouting at the Council and disparaging the professional consultant (even though Vince Bressler picked them!). Seriously, this is just one council meeting at which he let it fly - Web Link

Email Town Square Moderator      


Posted by Virginia Slims
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2014 at 10:34 pm

We need to have Measure M valid for 30 years because we just can't trust the City Council to do the right thing or the stupid voters who voted for them. We know better. You should listen to us.

Email Town Square Moderator      


Posted by Follow the money
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Oct 15, 2014 at 11:13 pm

Pretty funny, making personal attacks on Mike...and then accusing HIM of attacking the messenger. At least he's not anonymous, like most of you cowards.

Point is, this election is being bought and paid for by corporate interests. The forces against Measure M are solely concerned about their own personal finances, not about the welfare of this city or its residents. And that, my friends, is unethical if not illegal.

Why do you suppose you will never see this newspaper investigate the corruption? The answer is pretty obvious, and even our neighbors in Atherton have enough fingers to figure out that 2+2 usually equals 4.

Email Town Square Moderator      


Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 16, 2014 at 7:07 am

"At least he's not anonymous, like most of you cowards."

Says the anonymous poster.

Email Town Square Moderator      


Posted by Roy Thiele-Sardiña
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 16, 2014 at 7:14 am
Roy Thiele-Sardiña is a registered user.

@Richard Hines

Thanks Richard, I was aghast at the vitriol......

Roy

Email Town Square Moderator      


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 16, 2014 at 11:11 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Richard,

Thank you for your editorial, your coverage of all sides of Measure M and your justified anger at the original posting.

Email Town Square Moderator