August 18, 2004
(Updated) Francesconi Fulfills Promise To Run A Different Campaign
The Almost-Daily Misleads Of The Mayoral Campaign
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
We don't want this to turn into anything resembling a blatant cheering section for Tom Potter (and, in truth, regular readers know full well that over time we've expressed some concerns about him as well), but then again this item isn't so much about Tom Potter as it is about the... well, let's call them "untruths" about him being told by Jim Francesconi and his campaign staff. And not just the untruths, but the masterful (or is it clumsy?) manner in which his campaign is using manipulative means to give false impressions.
In the event that Potter begins running around telling untruths about Francesconi, or willfully manipulating through advertisements, we will endeavor to do the same sort of "truth squad" treatment in the other direction as well.
Let's begin with that now-infamous negative radio ad that Francesconi aired.
To begin with, we are now not the only ones to say that the ad we've heard does not contain the sounds of gunshots. In a report just aired by KATU's late-night newscast, they confirm that the version heard by people on the radio had very obvious gunshots -- while the mp3 version sent out to the media (mp3, 2.4MB) -- although only upon request -- is missing those gunshot sounds. As KATU pointed out (as did we in our original item on the ad) the version sent out by the campaign was marked as a "revised" version.
Seemingly, we now know what was revised in the version sent out to the media: They apparently removed the gunshots.
Some reports on the ad (including today's Willamette Week) indicate that listeners were coming away from the ad with the impression that Potter reinstated the officer involved in the shooting in question after that shooting. In reality, that's not the case -- there was an earlier situation involving that officer after which Potter did not engage in disciplinary action.
So let's recap: Francesconi's radio ad clearly gives a false impression as to the timeline of events (in addition to leaving out other information, such as the fact that it was a neutral arbitrator who found the shooting justified and reinstated the officer -- something we reported in our original item, and WW reported today) and uses almost-cliche techniques such as ominous tones and -- in the aired-on-the-radio version -- ominous gunshots as well.
In the world of professional politics, none of these things can be considered to be accidents or mistakes. Political communicators know what they are doing. This is all intentionally misleading.
But let's move on to the other untruth, one that so far hasn't gotten as much attention.
As part of the new anti-Potter website set up by the Francesconi camp, they purport to be helping voters understand how much Potter's ideas will cost the City of Portland. Currently, the only example offers the following statement: "Tom Potter supports using taxpayer funds to renovate the dilapidated and dangerous Centennial Mill property."
It goes on to say that such a project will cost $60 million, and uses that figure in its graphic depicting what Francesconi says Potter's ideas will cost the City.
Thus far, the only precise record of Potter's statements on the Centennial Mill land of which we know are contained within the transcript (pdf) of the semi-recent candidates forum on arts and culture.
Well I have talked with some folks about the Centennial Mills project, in fact in my opening statement I alluded to that by saying I think the City and the private sector have to encourage these kind of efforts where we can allow the artists to come together to exchange information, to share their skills and artistry with the larger community, to provide more efforts, to perhaps bring in our children so they can experience, from artists as mentors, the efforts. So I support the Centennial Mills effort. I would not like to see PDC tear it down. I'd like to see it renovated. I think the financing has yet to be arranged but obviously it would require some public and some private participation. I see that as a tremendous opportunity for Portland. ... There's a lot of opportunity with that piece of property and I'd like to see it done thoughtfully and in the best interests of our community. And I'm certain that the Portland Arts Center is a wonderful concept to begin with. [Emphasis added. - Editor]
And there was a recent Oregonian story which delved into the dispute over what Francesconi says Potter said, and what Potter says he said:
At the forum, Francesconi said he was worried about the cost of renovating instead of demolishing the former grain mill, built in 1909, and called Potter's support "a little incredible." In a newsletter and press release issued Wednesday, he noted that the Portland Development Commission says the property north of the Broadway Bridge is vulnerable to earthquakes and puts the renovation price tag at up to $60 million. The budget for demolition of the 11-building complex is $8 million. "There are better ways to spend $60 million in support of arts in the city," Francesconi stated in the newsletter.
In a statement, Potter responded that he never committed to spending $60 million in public money, but that he hoped to find "creative solutions rather than close off options prematurely."
It's important to listen to artists, neighborhood leaders and others who want to retain the historic mill for a maritime museum, an arts center, a community center and other uses, he said, adding: "I would not want to be a mayor who leads by fiat."
The cost of renovation is in dispute. Peter Meijer, the chairman of the Portland chapter of the American Institute of Architects historic resource committee, says the development commission's cost estimates, ranging from $42 million to nearly $56 million, are too high.
So let's recap the basics of this second untruth. Potter indeed has said he supports the arts center proposal for the Centennial Mill property. But he made no commitment to spending $60 million in taxpayer money, which is what is suggested by the Francesconi campaign. Rather, he supports the concept as an example of what the City should consider in order to support arts and culture, and specifically says that the financials would need to be worked out in order for it to happen. In addition, the costs themselves are actually in some dispute.
In the world of professional politics, none of these things can be considered to be accidents or mistakes. Political communicators know what they are doing. This is all intentionally misleading.
After his embarassing showing in May's primary election, Francesconi proclaimed that he would run a different kind of campaign for the general election. In fact, he's said repeatedly that the primary campaign didn't reflect who he really is. It naturally follows from such statements, then, that the way in which he now is conducting his campaign does reflect who he really is.
Francesconi says that this is really just about both candidates needing to put their respective records before the voters for their consideration. If that's the case, we submit for consideration the possibility that voters should also take a look at the record of how Francesconi has conducted his campaign to become the next Mayor of Portland.
Update
KGW is reporting this afternoon that the Portland Police Association indeed has withdrawn its endorsement of Francesconi because of his police-related radio ad. Now, given our candidate biases, we find this important news. But we'd be remiss if we didn't point out that it's not like we haven't had our own issues with the police union, given their opposition to sensible reform measures such as writing reports after drawing a weapon. Nonetheless, this is a critical moment.
Meanwhile, today's Oregonian report on the ad controversies indicates that former City Commissioner Mike Lindberg, who endorsed Francesconi during the primary "is assessing his role for the November general election."
Comments (19)
sarah gilbert on 19 Aug 2004
(can't believe I'm quoting channel 8 news) they just said that Francesconi was the lawyer for the police officer in question - that's odd, hmmm?
and the police union is considering pulling their endorsement of Francesconi.
The One True b!X on 19 Aug 2004
Not for the officer... for the man the officer shot at.
See here, which contains links to today's WW (also linked in this item).
I think it's over for him, realistically.
Spine on 19 Aug 2004
After the primary, Francesconi expressed regret about the way he'd run his campaign. "That's not who I am," he said, according to the article in last week's Mercury.
Well, now what are we supposed to think?
Notorious J.E.S. on 19 Aug 2004
I think that Francesconi will go down in flames in November. He's engaging in a brand of politics that can rarely ever be traced back to a campaign -- because it disgusts people. Knowing it's coming directly from them, he will suffer defeat.
Jeez, Jim wanted to be so out in the open about this, I am surprised that he didn't just narrate the commercials himself.
Cab on 19 Aug 2004
Kind of shows you how out of touch Jim is with Portland. The city just doesn't go for the negative stuff. Potter gets it.
Jesse on 19 Aug 2004
It's sad that at a time when the city needs a nice big adrenalin shot that we're faced with a quite uninspiring mayoral election featuring a slimeball and a man with warm fuzzy talk, but without a plan.
I'm not voting for F, and I'm not excited to vote for P. What's a citizen to do?
Jaimee Mackinnon on 19 Aug 2004
I do believe the Potter camp has also contributed to "dirty tactics" the video clip GoPotterGo posted on their site during the primary re: Diginity Village was taken completely out of context. Oh yeah- that was not Potter, that was his PAC who he has no affiliation or responsibility for- sorry I forgot- he is clean as the driven snow.
Sam on 19 Aug 2004
Jaimee's comment is refreshing. Unfortunately, his view point is increasingly rare here. As a result, meaningful disagreements on this site are becoming almost non existant.
An example that this humble reader observed follows.
Don't get me wrong, my prurient interest was stimulated as well with the outing of Jim Francesconi's kid by the editor. However, fair thinking people may have noticed the meanness that permeated the outing of young Mr. F., apparently with the encouragement of the editor given the glee he expressed in tracking down the source of the postings. I recall earlier postings by F jr that were signed in his name and then were met with criticism and hostility because he was Jim F’s son. Let him assume a pseudonym and then this sites creator led the charge to discover who it really was only to throw him to the lions as the Christians cheered.
While it was entertaining, the editor's treatment of F jr. did not inspire this reader with a sense of journalistic integrity on the editors part.
Opinions should be judged based on the conent of the posting. Would the editor have expended the energy he did tracking down a posting of someone who agreed with him?
Don't except more main stream posters with such hostility shown to anyone associated with not agreeing with the group think thought du jour. Following that thought, do not also be surprised that The Communique does not meet its funding goals.
We liberals are notoriously long on opinions but just as short on cash.
The One True b!X on 19 Aug 2004
Oh, well, let's set the record straight, shall we? Whether you like it or not, the video of Francesconi was pitched into the conversation by a PAC and not by the Potter campaign. It was clearly a negative campaign tactic, to be sure. But just because you want to believe that it's Potter's fault doesn't make it so.
Now for the rest. Was there glee in outing the mystery poster? Of course, just as there was glee in reporting the discovery of other parties that the local utility companies had hired a PR firm to create a fake citizen groups to fight the PUD. Making people accountable for the reality of who and what they are is part of what journalism is supposed to be.
But I engaged in utterly no meanness during that outing. None whatsoever. Neither did I engage in any meanness when Francesconi's son was posting under his own name, nor did I encourage it. To suggest that I did is a smear against me, and I guess completely in line with tactics we've been seeing in the Mayoral campaign itself.
Some readers were mean to Bryan in that thread, yes. But there were also others who rose to Bryan's defense. That's what free speech means -- my readers get to react however they want to.
While it was entertaining, the editor's treatment of F jr. did not inspire this reader with a sense of journalistic integrity on the editors part.
Again, "treatment" insinuates that I attacked him somehow. I did not. What I did was entirely within the purview of journalism, in that I revealed to my readers that three apparently-separate supporters of Francesconi appeared in actuality to be a single one, and circumstantial evidence suggested that it happened to also be the candidate's son. That's what journalists are supposed to do: Give readers the fuller story.
Opinions should be judged based on the conent of the posting. Would the editor have expended the energy he did tracking down a posting of someone who agreed with him?
If presented with evidence that there was deception going on, yes I would. Without question.
Justin on 19 Aug 2004
I have no preference either way between F or P, but I did think b!x went a little far in outing F jr.
The One True b!X on 19 Aug 2004
So it's of no interest to you as a voter to know when a supporter of a candidate is pretending to be three different supporters of that candidate, giving a false impression of numbers?
doretta on 19 Aug 2004
One person was mean to Bryan in that earlier thread and three people immediately defended him--two of us Potter supporters, I believe, and Jaimee. Everyone else just discussed the issues.
Instead of all this bitterness about how no one is saying good things about Jim how about a little realism? Act like a putz and people might well react to you like you're a putz.
b!X is a breath of fresh air after the staleness of the mainstream media all horse-race and no substance he-said-she-said coverage.
I wish the national media would figure out that if one side is constantly misrepresenting, pointing it out does not constitute unbalanced coverage.
Good coverage is reporting the truth and good analysis is telling it like you see it.
I agree that this is yet another misjudgment on Jim's part. I became a Potter supporter because I thought he was a somewhat better candidate this time around. I had nothing against Jim.
After these misleading ads and particularly after the way Jim has defended them, I am very unlikely to ever vote for Jim for anything. Karl Rove is not a hero of mine but he's apparently revered by someone associated with the Francesconi campaign and Jim has signed off on it.
(I hope Liz Kaufman doesn't have anything to do with this turn in the campaign, I've always had a tremendous amount of respect for her judgment and abilities.)
doretta on 19 Aug 2004
Jaimee, do you really think that your sarcasm and repeated focus on Go Potter Go!--which raised a pittance and has been a complete non-factor in this election--is helping your candidate?
(Sorry Adrian, you're another person I have tremendous respect for but it's pretty clear at this point your PAC is more a liability than an asset to the Potter campaign.)
This discussion is one-sided because no one from the Francesconi camp is addressing the salient points in the articles.
Negative campaigning is one thing. If Neil G. were to run for office again his opponent would no doubt point out he's admitted molesting a 14-year-old. That would be negative campaigning but it would also be true.
Outright distortion of someone else's record is another thing entirely.
b!X and others have delineated the distortions in the Francesconi ad. No one has pointed out any flaws in those analyses.
Justin on 20 Aug 2004
B!X: I think you do a great job with this blog. And I sincerely hope you find the funding to maintain it. But I think sometimes you fancy yourself, Nancy Drew. And, I'm not sure that's necessary.
Jaimee Mackinnon on 20 Aug 2004
No Doretta it may not be helping- but I do not see how it can hurt either. I just call it like I see it and in this case I see the pot calling the kettle black.
And to anyone who cares, Im a she not a he :)
doretta on 20 Aug 2004
Jaimee,
Do you honestly see the posting of that video clip by the PAC as worse than the ads Jim is running?
A video clip that consists of nothing but unedited, albeit brief, footage of Jim at a City Council meeting, footage that anyone interested could have seen in it's complete context on channel 30 on more than one occasion? Footage that won't be seen by 99.99% of the voters because Potter has not endorsed showing it and is not spending money on showing it?
That's worse in your mind than repeatedly airing ads that lead people to believe that Tom Potter reinstated a guy after he shot at someone 23 times, when that is not the case?
Jaimee Mackinnon on 22 Aug 2004
Doretta- I never said it was worse- but just because they did not pay $$ to air it on the radio does not make it OK. I have not defended the radio ad once and will not, I would just like to see both sides being told, and that does not happen here. The PAC started the dirty campaigning- if they are made up of Tom's friends ans supporters, he should have put a stop to it. Don't act like Jim is the only one guilty of this sort of thing, it has come from both camps. And with that I'm done on this topic- I feel like I am spinning in circles.
The One True b!X on 22 Aug 2004
I would just like to see both sides being told, and that does not happen here.
This is a lie. I've addressed the PAC actions here, and I covered them and their video and the Francesconi response to it when it happened.
I'm growing a little weary of people getting bent out of shape and pissed off because I can back up my arguments and they can't. I'm far more than weary of people getting bent and pissed and deciding the way out for them is to lie about me.
Jaimee Mackinnon on 24 Aug 2004
B!X-
I was not referring to your articles when I made that comment and I should have been more clear. I know you reported on the Francesconi press conference where they addressed the video clip as you spoke to my friend (the one who Jim helped out of gang life) while you were there. What I was referring to was the comments posted by your readers,which is all too reminiscent of Indymedia (I must say though that EVERY time I post my opinions on Indymedia they disappear within hours and I have never had my opinions censored here). My fault- sorry I was not more clear.