thecanessacorner

Kevin,

I appreciate this site for the value of its local news coverage, and even it's national coverage. It's nice to have a website that I check constantly everyday in order to see what is happening in my community. The fact that you go out of your way to write about national stories of interest on the site is not overlooked and appreciated for its "change of pace" type of feel. There are stories that I read on here that I do not not catch on the local news, and that is great. However, here in is where the problem lies. Though your site is on it's way to serving and becoming a staple of news and politics in Hudson County, Bergen County, and perhaps even parts of other Northern New Jersey Towns, you must be careful to keep your coverage, mainly of the election, "fair and balanced".

You often quote Keith Olberman, Chris Mathews, Wolf Blitzer, Tim Russert, all mainstays on networks that are proven to have slanted coverage of the election. MSNBC, in their post-coverage of the debate, point out for an hour and a half that it was a slam dunk for Obama, how he looked "presidential", and took Senator Clinton "to task." They all portrayed her as a whiner, how she finally, "after 19 debates" retracted her Iraq War vote(something I feel she has all but said, when she continually said she would have voted against it if she knew all she knew now, but didn't say "I would take that vote back."). Do you see a difference? I would vote differently vs. I take it back. Same difference. Yet Olberman harped on this point, and Matthews and Russert joked how Russert was responsible for finally getting Clinton to admit to this.

Now I did not solely wirte this post because of the post-debate coverage that was typical MSNBC slant politics. I wrote this in reference to your obvious unbalanced coverage of the Democratic/Republican issues. Two headlines of your blog have been about McCain's alleged illicit affair and Bill Cunningham's racist comments. The New York Times own odbudsman criticized the paper that the reports were not significant enough it to be front page news and have 4 sub-stories about. This is the same New York Times that has run a false story about how our veterans from Iraq are coming home and commiting murders at an alarming rate. That again was a front page story. That has since been proved debunked by several veterans organizations across America, and Bill O'Reilly, no matter how you feel about him, spent an entire show on it to prove it was false. Yet you made sure this article was available to your readers. The article is baseless, with only anonymous sources, yet you see it fit to offer to your readers and possibly sway their vote. Why no blog posts about Obama's connection to "Tony" Rezko? Or how bout posting a video of Michele Obama's speech? Or how about posing excerpts from her Doctoral Thesis?

Finally, you posted about Bill Cunningham's disparaging remarks about Senator Obama. You will not find me defending most things Cunningham says, and he is absolutely borderline racist sometimes. He did go over the top by saying "Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama." But if he wants to write or say Barack Hussein Obama everytime he communicates, that is his right. That is his name. Why do you think the liberal left got so upset? Because it might work. I bet you people would feel uncomfortable, at least in a private moment, knowing our (perhaps) future President's middle name. That does not mean they will tell you in public, or that they are racists. However, in this time of the extreme redical Muslim uprising, and so close to the attacks of 9/11, and Richard Reed, and anthrax scares, and the Iraq war, and Iran being so threatening, people have a right to know Barack Hussein Obama's middle name, and have to right to factor that in to their decision. It should not, and would not be the deciding factor, but if he were first elected, then came public with his middle name, there would have been a bit of an uneasy feeling among Americans, no?

Louis Farrakhan has called white people "the skunk of the Earth." He has called the Jewish Religion a "gutter religion." Also, "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet." Farrakhan endorsed Barack Hussein Obama. It took Obama over a week to "denounce" Farrakhan, and it took over a month until he rejected the endorsement. He finally did so last month when Senator Clinton called him out on it. He was praised by the way, by MSNBC for simpling rejecteing it and staying so "cool." There was no blog post about this Kev.

Listen. I know that there is a divide in politics and that almost always people on opposite sides will argue with passion because they believe something is truly right. However, as the creator and editor of the website, I think you owe it to your loyal readers to present both sides of the story, and then let the reader decide. Sure you can still give an opinion, but at least show the other side of the argument and argue points against it. Thanks for reading this lengthy post but I had to say this, and I think you have an open mind and will appreciate the post.

J.P. Easy

JP Easy,

I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to post this, and for your kind words -- and criticisms.

You know, when you run a blog, there is a tendency to easily fall into the trap of being extremely one sided and completely throwing away the old adage of being objective. You know, the Internet makes it too easy to do that -- and being in control of the site, it's just as easy. But that doesn't mean it's right -- and your post really opened my eyes to that. I could easily say I'd rather this be a left-leaning site -- but the truth is, I'd like to see it become a place everyone of all political ideologies can come for news, discussion, and the like.

I make my promise to you -- and everyone else -- to take a more balanced approach to things. JP, please keep posting -- and when there are ideas or concerns you want covered, let me know either on the board or by sending me an e-mail at kevincanessa@mac.com. I would, of course, respect your right to privacy -- so please don't worry about that if there is an issue.

And, if you have a flare for writing -- and it certainly seems like you do based on your well-organized posts -- consider writing. The pay is, well, non-existent at this point. But the exposure is great, and it's important that it's just not me people are hearing from. That's why I am elated to have David Paszkiewicz, Jon Hart and Steve Rogers writing, too. My invite to you remains open indefinitely if now is not the best time for you.

Again, thanks for keeping me on my toes. I need that. In a sense, you've become the ombudsman of this site -- and that is a good thing.

Talk soon,
Kevin