A recent piece in the El Paso Times was about how our local refining chief might have met with someone that works for a group that might oppose the affordable health care act.
My initial reading of the piece left me upset because of what I perceived as unfairness in the piece. I calmed down and read it again and saw that there were parts of the piece that balanced the coverage, at least partially.
This post is not intended to be about how the Times is probably upset with our local guy for allegedly not sharing the Times’ political position.
Interesting
What I also found interesting is that the Times (whose factual, grammatical, and spelling deficiencies are legion) chose to try to correct some language that they found in an online comment. The Times published:
“This is an organization ran (sic) with money from the Koch brothers (.) (T)hey do not have your best interests in mind…”
While there is no code of federal regulations relating to the use of sic (that I know of), common usage indicates that “sic” should be contained within brackets and italicized. The term indicates that the quote or phrase was printed exactly as originally written, including any errors.
Muckraker
elpasospeak 
Okay, so the content of the article was not your focus, but you opened the door.
Critics of the article need to take a deep breath and consider the fact that the Marty Schladen did attempt to give Foster the opportunity to comment. It is certainly Foster’s right not to take Schladen’s calls or comment to reporters, but think of all the many stories and photos Foster and his wife have participated in when the coverage was publicizing something which they wanted the Times’ help with promoting.
So why did Foster avoid commenting? One of the biggest issues for Foster, one which was ignored in the article, was the possible public relations conflict. It is problematic for a guy who proudly put his name on a medical school to then turn around and align himself politically with a bunch of wealthy guys who spend their money to oppose a program that is intended to provide affordable healthcare and more specifically affordable healthcare insurance.
LikeLike
The Times has absolutely NO ONE that would have been able to connect that dot (Koch) to that dot (Health care reform) to that dot (Medical School) Reality Checker.
Foster probably connected the dots himself, and said ‘What if they ask me about supporting the medical school while at the same time supporting cutting back on health care for poor people?” in which he operably had no real answer.
He needn’t worry however. Schladen would have never made that connection. That would have required creativity and critical thinking, something the EPT lacks on all fronts.
LikeLike
Although the original point of the post was an editing error I can’t let these responses go like they are fact.
It has yet to be shown that the “affordable healthcare” law (which President Obama continues to illegally change to suit his and his party’s political goals) will do anything to help poor people. I hope it does, but I believe the Times article was asking this question: Should someone in a respected position like Chairman of the Texas Board of Regents participate in a political strategy group? These types of groups are legal and exist among liberals and conservatives alike.
Personally, I think it’s ok. Also, Foster was not Chairman of the Regents at the time he may have participated in the Koch meeting. People in high positions take political stands all the time but can still head boards in a non-partisan way. Look at any board in the nation from educational to corporate and you’ll find powerful, wealthy people who take political stands. Being wealthy and prominent should not stop someone from having political opinions.
I think the question is a good one and despite the editing mistakes I’m glad the Times ran it. Content and editing are important in a newspaper. Content is higher on my priority list, but a first-class newspaper pays attention to both.
I still agree with Brutus that it’s Foster’s hypocrisy that is the issue. I believe that real conservatives do not believe in corporate welfare.
LikeLike
If you re-read my response carefully, you will see that I said: “…a program that is intended to provide affordable healthcare and more specifically affordable healthcare insurance.” The operative word was “intended”. I did not say it would be effective. I chose my words carefully.
Personally, I am opposed to the unchecked spending of PACs regardless of their political affiliation or ideology. Wealth should not enable a select few to exert inordinate influence over elections, especially when the tactics of Super PACs are heavily directed toward misinformation and the manipulation and disenfranchisement of certain demographics. The money that flows into PACs is also intended to buy influence with individual politicians, who then later make legislative decisions that help those donors at the expense of taxpayers.
LikeLike
I agree with you on PACs. I have little hope our system of elections and buying of influence will change any time soon. Until then, I accept that wealth is power and that wealthy individuals will sit on boards and head boards. Chances are these individuals will lean one way or the other on the political spectrum and there should be no problem unless they begin to press an agenda. Paul Foster’s political beliefs, however hypocritical they may be, should not disqualify him from being Chairman of the Board of Regents.
LikeLike
Good dialogue. Unfortunately, I do not trust that people with strong political agendas will honor their fiduciary responsibilities when serving in what are basically public service roles, particularly when they were granted those positions largely due to the pay-to-play system that is so blatant and prevalent in our state and rewards people for their campaign contributions. A person’s beliefs do not disqualify him/her from serving, but one has to question whether people with strong political agendas and are the best choices for public service roles. It’s not as though they are the only ones qualified to serve in these capacities. I know patronage is not a new thing, but it has grown too new levels that have corrupted the integrity of our political system and government institutions.
LikeLike