In looking over the mayors who are not actually in office, I tried to put together how many of those mayors were not actually in office on the day that Bloomberg ran the anti-concealed carry advertisement in USA Today. I did this a while ago in my Mayors Against Guns research, but I completely forgot to note it. I have since updated with more information, and what I found was rather jarring.
It would appear that at least 19 of the mayors whose names ran in the USA Today ad were not actually mayors of the cities listed. At least one was attributed to a city he has never represented while most were long booted from office. That’s not a policy spin dispute, that’s a matter of flat out lying.
Add to the fact that at least two mayors have directly said they never approved their signature to the advertisement, and I would say that USA Today should be asking some serious questions before accepting any other ads from Mayor Mike.
Last night’s episode of Cam & Company featured a spokesman from Buckeye Firearms Association who argues that several mayors he’s heard from or about did not even know they were members since they do not ever recall signing up for the coalition. This raises concern that they did not give Bloomberg permission to print their names in support of his policy position in the USA Today advertisement. That would put the number of names erroneously printed at 24. Two dozen errors on one page is not acceptable in any newsroom, why would USA Today publish such falsehoods as part of an advertisement?
If you are looking to advertise with USA Today, perhaps signing Bloomberg’s name to a pro-gun measure, you can find the specs here. Technical specs are widely available, but ethical specs are apparently optional.
UPDATE: The Mayor of Winter Park, FL is on Cam & Company tonight. He confirmed that Mike Bloomberg never checked with them before signing their name to the advertisements and letters to Congress.
7 thoughts on “Fact Checking Mayor Mike’s Ads since USA Today Won’t”
“Two dozen errors on one page is not acceptable in any newsroom, why would USA Today publish such falsehoods as part of an advertisement?”
Because it’s an advertisement. Are they going to fact check Ford’s claims about the F150 before they run it? No, they’re going to take the money and run the ad. If you want to criticize someone for running false ads, you criticize the advertiser not the paper. Considering how poorly they fact check their articles that are supposed to be true, I have no expectation that they would fact check their advertising copy.
Often political ads are held to a different standard than commercial advertising. It would be unreasonable to expect they would fact check every technical claim that Ford makes about its own product. But when a politician is signing someone else’s name to a public policy statement, it’s a reasonable question to whether they should at least spot check some of them. I mean the mayor of Houston is running for Senate in Texas. That should have raised questions about him denouncing concealed carry holders. If they were to call him in a spot check, then they would have had their first alarm bell go off that maybe all was not well on the list.
Reminds me of when the Brady Campaign sent a petition w/ the names of several LEO’s who never signed it.
It is working. It keeps dropping every day. I looked at their site last week and it was 397. Today its 393. That is a 12.6% drop off their 450.
I wonder how long before they remove the counter.
Feh. USA Today isn’t even suitable for wrapping fish.
Comments are closed.