Wave Bias?

For many years, the Wave has been very willing to print my many epistles on various subjects.   Several years ago, I did have a letter returned because I mentioned a candidate's name during election season.   I was informed that the Wave did not allow political endorsements in letters and held a position of political neutrality for elections.

Many people are now wondering if somehow that Wave neutrality has been softened this year.   A few weeks ago, in an 'above the fold' front page article about the first "write-in" candidate in Heber City, the Wave extolled the virtues of the write-in campaign. Newsworthy? - perhaps - but this was a candidate who, a few months earlier, dropped out of the primary election for the same position.

The article even included a large picture of the candidate with his supporters.  No similar article or coverage of other candidates has appeared in print.

A week or so later, in an editorial, the Wave opined that "unfortunately . . . the write-in candidate ...won't be heard that night." at the CornerStone forum, because of their written policy.

Last week, yet another editorial, entitled "Absence Makes Voters Wander" (sic),  again pointing out CornerStones' supposed policy deficiencies and decrying the fact that 'write-ins' were precluded from invites.  The editorial also stated that one candidate "opted to not attend citing family commitments," so "Unfortunately, the voting public will not have the opportunity to evaluate all the candidate on a level playing field."

I must "wander" if the Wave might be showing some election bias in the Heber Mayoral race, counter to their policy.

Also unreported was the debate held on the Impact radio program on KTMP involving all Heber City Council candidates   A synopsis of the comments and a recording can be found at wasatch.blogspot.com or WasatchLive.com

(Letter published online Wed, 30 Nov, but without the 'Managing Editor's Note' to which I would respond) "Thank you so much for your "managing Editor's Note."   You made my point much better than I did.  In your six bullet points on my "fallacies," you were able to include 'write-in's' name five times in the "Letters" column - which was, I believe, counter to your policy.   

And to top it off, you included a thinly veiled insinuation about Alan McDonald as "a candidate (who) is not engaged and visible to the constituents."  

But perhaps it's an subconscious bias.

Again, thanks for your comments.  If you send me an electronic copy I'll be happy to post them on my blog.  Although MY letter is on the Wave website (thank you, 98 views), your 'note' was not.