It’s hard enough to run against an incumbent but Gus Uht, a progressive running to represent Cumberland in the state legislature against conservative Karen MacBeth, feels like he’s running against the local newspaper too.
His campaign says the Valley Breeze has not only displayed an editorial bias against him, but has also not run advertisements in the paper and online that he paid for.
“I would like to think it’s not deliberate,” said Robin Dionne, who is managing Uht’s campaign for him. “If it were an isolated incident I would think it was an oversight.”
She said Uht paid a premium price for his ad to appear on page 2 of the paper three times but it only appeared there once. Uht’s campaign paid 25 percent more for the ad so that it would be on page 2 of the Valley Breeze but instead was on page 18. Instead, his opponent’s ad was on page 2. There were also instances of his ad not appearing online, which was part of what they paid for.
“It was an oversight by the person involved,” said Valley Breeze publisher Tom Ward. He said Uht’s campaign was refunded money for the oversight.
Dionne said the campaign would have preferred the ad to the refund.
She also said the paper has shown an editorial bias towards MacBeth.
“I would say they definitely aren’t acting as an impartial news source,” Dionne said. As evidence, she offered this article from August 15, and this one published today.
Today’s article describes Uht’s campaign as “offering what may be the most unusual of candidate qualifications” while MacBeth is described as “touting a strong record on pro-business votes.”
Valley Breeze editor Marcia Green said she did “everything I could” to be fair to both candidates. Publisher Tom Ward said it is the paper’s policy to be neutral.
“There are no politics involved,” he said. “We do all we can to be as fair as possible. We knock ourselves out to be right down the middle. I’m a conservative guy, but if you think I play it that way with my business, I just don’t.”
Dionne also said the Valley Breeze has run more press releases from MacBeth than it has from Uht. Earlier today, she said there was no press release online this week from Uht but there was one from MacBeth. Green, the editor, said there was a press release online. Dionne said it was uploaded after the Valley Breeze was contacted by me for this story.
Both Uht and MacBeth are squaring off in the Democrat primary but are vastly different as candidates. Uht is campaigning on a progressive platform of income tax fairness and jobs. MacBeth calls herself a fiscal conservative but she is best known for being one of the most conservative members of the General Assembly when it comes to a woman’s right to an abortion. She sponsors the annual bill that would require women to have an ultrasound performed prior to an abortion.
Dear Mr. Plain: First, on the charge of editorial bias by my paper, let me respond by quoting Mr. Uht in his e-mail to our editor, Marcia Green, on Aug. 25. His quote was regarding our Aug. 16 story on the race. Mr. Uht wrote: “Thanks for the feature article on the District 52 race! Most people who read it liked it and thought it was pretty balanced.”
In the four weeks in which we’ve accepted candidate press releases, both candidates have had four in our paper. We are grateful to Uht’s campaign manager, Robin Dionne, for letting us know about a computer snafu that apparently did not upload Mr. Uht’s press release to the web this week. It was corrected immediately.
As for the ads, I wish Ms. Dionne had been as prompt to alert us about our error after the Aug. 16 as was placed improperly. Mr. Uht paid for premium placement (Page 2) for Aug. 16, 23 and 30. His ads did not receive that placement for the first two weeks. It was our error. When we were informed of our mistake, it was corrected immediately and his “upcharge” money refunded. You report: “Dionne said the campaign would have preferred the ad to the refund.” Rest assured, all here would have preferred that, too.
Finally, Mr. Uht’s campaign requested page 2 for today, Sept. 6. In keeping with our “first come, first served” policy that is outlined on our web site at www.valleybreeze.com/election2012 , that page was sold to Rep. Rene Menard in April.
We wish all candidates well in the days ahead and on Tuesday.
Tom Ward, publisher, and Marcia Green, editor
The Valley Breeze newspapers
Tom Ward’s comments only confirm what most honest readers know about media in the Blackstone Valley – A strong Right Wing bias against reality. One has to suffer through horrid political commentary to get to what is generally decent local news coverage of schools and local sports.
And we’ll ignore the fact that Gus is running with a platform of getting more fair funding for the urban schools. That would mean less funding for his own district in Cumberland, on top of the fact that Cumberland has been getting shorted of its’ “fair” funding for years.
So go door to door and tell the people who will vote for you that you’re in favor of their children getting *less* money in school funding so the Woonsocket and Providence kids can get more. Doesn’t seem like a solid strategy to me.
I think both Gus Uht and Tom Ward are correct so far as they each go.
It is well known that Mr Ward represents the views of the extreme wing of the Rhode Island Republican Party, and his editorials reflect that. Gus Uht simply is not his type of candidate, and the coverage in the Breeze has and is going to reflect that. Karen McBeth, like so many of her Democrat colleagues, is really a Republican in everything but name. She represents the kind of God-fearing, red-blooded right-winger that the Valley Breeze loves.
Having said that, though, it must be conceded that, by and large, Mr Ward is limited in the amount of mischief his political misdemeanors can work on his readers. The Breeze covers a fairly wide swath of northern Rhode Island and is available in nearby Massachusetts towns like Attleboro. Its readership is, to say the least, diverse in its political outlook. It is, by all accounts, fiscally “conservative,” but does not much like government meddling in peoples’ personal lives. And it is fair-minded enough to see through many of the inanities that mark political op-ed pieces in the Breeze and elsewhere. So, the damage that Mr Ward can do to maverick campaigns like Mr Uht’s is not as great as that candidate fears.
So, yes, Mr Uht, the best of luck to your campaign. You may have to run again, though, and remember next time appeal directly to the voters. The press here in Rhode Island is never going to love anyone who stands up for workers and the poor or the suffering majority in general, so in a word: get over it.
Louis Godena
Hmmm… Is RIfuture.org the most irresponsible site attempting to report about Rhode Island yet lacking in any journalistic integrity? Perhaps, based upon this bogus article.
Let’s see, Bob Plain “worked as a reporter for several different news organizations both in Rhode Island and across the country” but apparently doesn’t know enough to properly assess such a claim being made by the Uht campaign before “going to press”.
Gus Uht is a neo-marxist radical that espouses planks of the communist manifesto like progressive taxation for private property and redistribution of the wealth from well-run communities to poorly run towns and cities.
He has spent almost 30k to buy this general assembly seat and he will fail miserably.
Honestly, I am ashamed that Gus actually lives in our community.
Mr. Plain, are you supporting his platform? Seriously? What about his past writings about population control?
If so, can we conclude that you are also a neo-marxist/progressive?
Or, are you simply envious of the success of The Valley Breeze and related publications?
The Valley Breeze is an asset to our community. It has won awards for journalistic integrity.
Has RIfuture.org? Do you want to be an asset to the Rhode Island community or do you want to shoot from the hip with unsubstantiated allegations of bias?
These claims against Tom Ward and The Valley Breeze are outrageous.
I hope you seek to do a better job in the future. We will be watching you!
Your English is god-awful, but I’ve spent some time re-reading your post, and I think I now have the gist.
I mean: “the most irresponsible site attempting to report about Rhode Island yet lacking in any journalistic integrity”–really? Do you know what this phrasing actually means?
Illiteracy aside, there’s this: “Gus Uht is a neo-marxist radical that espouses planks of the communist manifesto like progressive taxation for private property”
First, ‘who’, not “that”.
Second, the Communist Manifesto calls for the abolition of bourgeois property and the application of a progressive income tax.
Third, we already have a progressive income tax. Only slighty progressive, but it is progressive. To call for a progressive income tax, then, means merely to call for the tax system we already have.
But you seem as confused about the word ‘progressive’ as you are about the word ‘communist’: “a neo-marxist/progressive”.
Bob is an avowed progressive. When you think yourself to be making a bold challenge to Bob, daring him to call himself a progressive, you’re actually just making yourself look ignorant of the most basic facts of RI Future.
Further, Marxists and progressives are vastly different from each other. A progressive believes the system we have can basically be made to work; the system is salvagable; the system could deliver a good, just life to everyone, if we could only find a way to manage it properly.
A Marxist believes our system is doomed to failure–catastrophic and well-deserved failure. A Marxist believes the system cannot be made to work.
In other words, in some ways, progressives and Marxists are diametrically opposed.
Now, unlettered as you obviously are, none of this is going to educate you. Such is life among conservatives. Nonetheless, you have provided the impetus for a teaching moment, and, in this way, you have done some good.
That said, I must remonstrate you for the following: “We will be watching you!” What, exactly, the hell is that supposed to mean, Mr. DeCoucy?
@TURBO, clearly you lack the intellectual capacity to understand my sentences. And you obviously didn’t read Mr. Uht’s comments in The Valley Breeze.
Furthermore, we will have to disagree with your assessment that progressives and marxists are diametrically opposed.
That is simply left-speak so that you can distance yourselves from the egregious and heinous acts for which the various forms of marxism are responsible.
The purges and the pogroms. The lies and the hypocrisies. It is alive and creeping!
The oft repeated quote crushed the term liberal because it represented a derivative of marxism called socialism. Once that cat was out of the bag, the new and favored term became “progressive”.
Progressive = Neo-Marxism. Marxism (in all its forms) = Fail.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
Your methods have exposed all of you. No matter, saul alinsky has left the building! Thank GOD!!!
“we will have to disagree” We?
“The purges and the pogroms.” ‘Pogrom’ refers to attacks that took place under the Russian Empire, not under communism.
“The lies and the hypocrisies. It is alive and creeping!” It?
“That is simply left-speak” No. I made a case, which you have not addressed.
“The oft repeated quote ” What oft-repeated quote?
“ Progressive = Neo-Marxism” You’re re-stating your position, rather than aruing for your position. You have not presented an argument.
“Your methods ” Which ones?
“saul alinsky ” Would you like to buy some gold?
@TURBO, once again you have proven that you lack the mental intellect to understand a relatively simple message.
I have no more time for this nonsense.
You are using the typical alinsky methods (rules for radicals) so I can only conclude that you are a radical, not unlike Mr. Uht.
Mr. Uht is calling for a progressive property tax whereby those that manage their money properly or earn more through their profession, hard work or even a second job must subsidize their neighbors. This is the redistribution of our hard earned wealth!
If you don’t believe that is radical, then you are utterly lost and clueless about what the US is all about.
So, in your high and mighty opinion, how many planks OR A VARIANT THEREOF, do self-proclaimed “progressives” support the following:
1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.
The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868) to give the government far more “eminent domain” power than was originally intended, Under the rubric of “eminent domain” and various zoning regulations, land use regulations by the Bureau of Land Managementproperty taxes, and “environmental” excuses, private property rights have become very diluted and private property in landis, vehicles, and other forms are seized almost every day in this country under the “forfeiture” provisions of the RICO statutes and the so-called War on Drugs.. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913 (which some scholars maintain was never properly ratified), and various State income taxes, established this major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago. These taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of the American economy and greatly reduce the accumulation of desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job creation, and salary increases.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Another Marxian attack on private property rights is in the form of Federal & State estate taxes and other inheritance taxes, which have abolished or at least greatly diluted the right of private property owners to determine the disposition and distribution of their estates upon their death. Instead, government bureaucrats get their greedy hands involved .
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
We call it government seizures, tax liens, “forfeiture” Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a “national bank” and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States. This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective. Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
In the U.S., communication and transportation are controlled and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission (established by Congress in 1887), and the Federal Aviation Administration as well as Executive orders 11490, 10999 — not to mention various state bureaucracies and regulations. There is also the federal postal monopoly, AMTRAK and CONRAIL — outright socialist (government-owned) enterprises. Instead of free-market private enteprrise in these important industries, these fields in America are semi-cartelized through the government’s regulatory-industiral complex.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
While the U.S. does not have vast “collective farms” (which failed so miserably in the Soviet Union), we nevertheless do have a significant degree of government involvement in agriculture in the form of price support subsidies and acreage alotments and land-use controls. The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920′s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot…The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
We call it the Planning Reorganization Act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.
People are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” .
“If you don’t believe that is radical, then you are utterly lost and clueless about what the US is all about.”
Um, Jefferson proposed just that, which I note you’ve conveniently ignored. So apparently the author of the Declaration of Independence was also “utterly lost and clueless about what the US is all about.” Of course if you don’t believe that Jefferson and many of the other Founders were radicals, you really don’t know what the U.S. is all about.
See “The Jefferson Cyclopedia”…
hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b3841203?urlappend=%3Bseq=785
“mental intellect” As opposed to…what kind of intellect?
“ I have no more time for this nonsense.”
Ideally, you should place this statement at the end of your reply, before you spend more time replying.
“Mr. Uht is calling for a progressive property tax”
So? What does this have to do with the Communist Manifesto? I note that, later in your screed, you quote the Communist Manifesto. The quotation disproves your assertion.
Look:
“1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.”
Uht has not called for the abolition of private property in land. When you say that ”Mr. Uht is calling for a progressive property tax”, you should be able to see that he is calling for neither the abolition of private property, nor a progressive income tax.
“This is the redistribution of our hard earned wealth!”
You don’t know if it’s hard-earned or not.
”how many planks OR A VARIANT THEREOF, do self-proclaimed “progressives” support the following:”
Face-plant grammar aside, progressives support two of the planks you cite:
– A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
– Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form.
Neither plank is at all controversial. Your point?
I love this one…
“Gus Uht is a neo-marxist radical that espouses planks of the communist manifesto like progressive taxation for private property and redistribution of the wealth from well-run communities to poorly run towns and cities.”
Reminded me of a quote from a well known “proto-marxist”…
“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
–Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.
Mr. Plain and others:
I have know Tom and Marcia for a number of years, Marcia much longer than Tom. In all those years I have never observed anything other than unbiased report and printing of a quality weekly paper that Cumberland is very fortunate to have. There have been a number of accusations made in Mr. Plain’s story and posted comments that I would address as Karen’s campaing manager.
First, mistakes can happen with placement of ads, including the visibility of ads through the online version of the paper. On more than one occassion leading up to the primary we also had ads which did not appear online….but we don’t go making a federal case about and and claim that there is some bias in play on the part of the Breeze.
Second, as for the placement of the ads on page 2, again mistakes happen but perhaps Mr. Uht should take personal responsibility for not being proactive in contacting the Breeze the day this first occured. Or perhaps he should consider terminating the services of his $750 per week campaign manager, Ms Dionne, because it appears that she may fallen asleep at the switch. You can ad that $750 to the refund that you received from the Breeze.
Finally, there was an accusation that Mr. Uht’s press release for today’s edition (9/6) was not online or in print. I can assure you that it is in the hardcopy version and it is certainly in the online version and was there at 5:00 AM today when I logged onto their website to review the ads and political press releases. This again coming from his $750 per week campaign manager that is making the accusation? Ask for another refund Mr. Uht!
“Honestly, I am ashamed that Gus actually lives in our community.” Well then EDeCoucy you are free to move to another community or are you so unashamed of the pitiful treatment of a viewpoint different from yours that you will decide to stay and support Ward’s “newspaper”?
Frankly I want to hear many different viewpoints, as much as I may and often do disagree. Your “labels” may or may not be accurate, but your “We will be watching you!” and your other words appear to say more about your character than they do about Uht or RI FUTURE for the moment. I hope there is much more to you then reflected here and realize this is just a small sample of you, so I will reserve conclusion.
Thanks for the yuks, Righty!
“…a computer snafu…”
PRICELESS!
Mr. Ward,
Regarding the ads which we paid you to run: the VB was contacted immediately (early Thursday morning) when we realized our ad appeared on page 18 rather than the location on page 2 that we paid a 25% premium to secure well in advance for the first two weeks of the three weeks it was to run. Instead, Karen Macbeth’s ad appeared in this place. When I made the call to ask why the ad was in the wrong place, your staff member Aimee told me they were not aware that the ad was in the wrong place and would look into it. “Bad news- the ad will not appear on page two next week, either. The computer says it belongs on page two, I guess I should have made sure it appeared in the right place and followed up better” was the response I got when Aimee called me back after I left three messages with various people over the course of a week.
During that time, we also realized the ads had never made it to the web version. Another oversight that the staff was not aware of, we were told when we made yet another call to the VB office.
We never requested or expected to have the ad run on the second page of the September 6 edition. You are mistaken. What we did expect is to receive what we paid for, without problems, and without having to make a half dozen calls to your staff to resolve it.
Who pays a campaign manager the equivalent of $39,000 a year for an elected position that pays $14,000 a year? Wow.
Good question Patrick! I see that you received only boos and no intelligent response. Typical!
Uht:
“Property taxes keep going up and up and you have people who’ve lived in their houses for decades and now they’re on a fixed income getting squeezed. It comes to the point where they have to sell.”
I would ask this, with all the exemptions and deferments that Cumberland already has for the elderly, disabled, and veterans, are property taxes really going up for people on fixed incomes? Are they really selling because of property taxes?