Days before the election, voters in the 35th District got a mailer comparing the experience between incumbent Democrat Bill Eickmeyer and Republican challenger Randy Neatherlin.
Press play on the link here to see what some people believe they noticed.
Feel free to leave your thoughts.
Here’s how the Dec. 10 story addressed it:
And in the days leading up to the Nov. 7 general election, voters in the 35th District received a mailer, paid for by the Washington State Democratic Central Committee, that some Randy Neatherlin supporters believed included a doctored photo of their candidate.
While the photo clearly was taken from his official campaign portrait, Neatherlin supporters looked at the eyebrows on the shot and said it looked altered.
Michael King, spokesman for the state Democratic Party, said if there were any changes to the photo, they weren’t intentional. He said when photos are reproduced they sometimes undergo small changes. “Sometimes if you shrink a picture the face will look a little fatter too,” he said.
“There is no doctoring that happened here.”
A Neatherlin supporter sent a complaint to the Public Disclosure Commission, but officials there said there’s no law that would address the problem if there is one. “There’s nothing in the law that says you can’t put in a bad photo of someone,” said Lori Anderson, a spokeswoman in the PDC office.
Anderson said there are laws about making false statements, falsely indicating incumbency or suggesting endorsements that don’t exist. As for photos, the biggest one in an advertisement has to have been taken within the past five years.
“Those are pretty much the only restrictions,” she said.
The second or reproduced photo clearly shows what might be a skin or health problem…the red blemishes stand out and make the person in the photo look unhealthy.
Or a drunk. Some alcoholics have similar red blotches.
Why would voters vote for someone looking unwell or a heavy drinker?
The people who let the changed photo pass did not do him a favor.
I ‘work/play’ with photo’s and would have cleaned it up…more importantly, the Kitsap Sun has good professional photographers…what do they say?
We could also compare the other original photo’s against their published picture in the same publication and compare the changes if any.
The picture did not influence my vote…it was mailed in a week or so earlier…nor is it likely to have influenced my vote.
If a candidate has a visible skin disorder or disease he/she should mention it as it could be mistaken for something else – something negative in a candidate… a drunk.
I am not sure Sharon understands who put out what picture. The second picture is clearly doctored. In her zeel to say it had no impact, Sharon showed what impact it had. The second photo was put out by Randy’s opossition. They made Randy look Evil and as Sharon pointed out, also gave the apearence he is a drunk. There is no way this is an accident. A common tactic is to scream “we want a clean fight” as they are kicking you between the legs. The only thing more sad than the tactic is how eager we are to accept it.
Actually the issue is one step higher than doctored/not doctored. Gardner’s Sunday piece on negative ads was a usual hatchet piece aiming toward the status quo and making out allegations as ill founded.
For example, allegations about Brown were never that he got a degreee from a diploma mill — clear misstatement of the issue. The issue was whether Brown had the degree he represented in Urban Planning all over his campaign pieces and in his presentation. Furthermore questions remained whether Brown was in fact senior consultant to key Fortune 500 companies as he listed. It is convenient and telling for Gardner to misstatethe issue as a strawman and then to deflect it saying it backfired on the Hamilton campaign.
The clear fact is the Sun engaged in manipulation of data, stories, timing of stories in the Brown campaign. That is the story, Steve and not one you are likely to cover.
Lary Coppolla, editor of the Kitsap Peninsulala Business Journal, and a Democrat, stated in his December editorial that the Sun clearly manipulated the Brown story. (www.kitsapbusinessjournal.com Editorial page)
You can debate doctor/not-doctor photo but remember this is one of the issues Garnder raised to laugh at candidates.
And by the way, Steve, the listing of Rolfes claim that the PDC violation called in against her was political — DUH !@!! Of course it was political, she was in a political campaign for political office and had regualtions she apparently was unwilling and/or unable to abide by.
How about working on the story of Democrat newspapers carrying water for candidates. That is a story that would get some attention from Scott Ware’s office.
Quite right, Steve, I did not understand.
I understand the picture was too late to have influenced my vote…but you are probably right that it might have.
That anyone or group would deliberately distort a picture to put a negative blotch on the candidate amazes me.
Does the Sun misconstrue and manipulate information…I think so.
I also think they have the right to do so…it is their paper and they are in the business to sell newspapers, online or off.
I’m particularly thinking of the recent Opinion Page regarding the foot ferry endorsement by Jim Campbell….the next to the last writer on this paper I would have believed would slant an opinion or try to persuade by distortion.
He indicated that closing the transit voting area was okay because that would help ensure the vote went the right way…to allow taxation for the foot ferry.
He then likened the fact Kitsapers would pay tax they did not have the opportunity of voting on because if shoppers went to another county they would pay that county tax on their purchases.
How does shopping in Kitsap County for Kitsapers equate to Kitsapers shopping in another county? The fact is Kitsapers should be allowed to vote on something they are forced to pay taxes on…that most Kitsapers recognize the need and benefit of passenger ferries as part of our highway system and will vote to have them….I will vote for it if given the opportunity.
It is a sad day when an image of a person running for office influences some people to vote one way or another. This might be a small clue as to how much voters know about the person they are voting for. If that is true, how sad for the democratic system. People should vote for a candidate who best express’ that voter’s hopes for thier community, state, and country, not because of thier looks. And yes, that photo has been manipulated. what poor character from those responsible!
Of course people ‘should’…. all sorts of things.
On reflection…I think a candidates appearance is part of the political package they present to voters and much as I would like to think otherwise…
Why do you think this newspaper and others question candidates in person? They could get the same answers about the issues over the phone or by email.
Does Playboy sells magazines based on pictures of attractive or unattractive women?
As an employer..wouldn’t you hire an attractive, well groomed, charismatic salesperson over an unattractive one…all else being close to equal?
Yes, unfortunately…a candidate is more than the issues s/he espouse..
Do we know for a fact the photo was deliberately altered? It could well be many of the candidate’s photo’s were changed from the original.
Newspapers are familiar with such things…. have such photo changes ever happened to the Kitsap Sun?
I hope you didn’t mistake me for Steve Gardner. I believe there is a huge bias against Republicans in the press but this year it is the same all over. It took some guts for Steve G to do this video comparison. I feel it clearly showed what the Democrat party did. To Sharon, watch this video again and you will see how much was done. They blackened or shadowed his teeth to make them look pointed. They darkened the bottom of his beard to give him a more devilish appearance. They reddened his face to make him appear a drunkard and they moved his eyebrows down in the middle to complete the evil look. Everyone seems to be missing the point. If they did this, what else did they do to this man and his reputation throughout the campaign. In the Mason county paper he was accused of being a deadbeat dad, a Tax dodger, a thief and even said he was involved in a domestic dispute and used a firearm. They were trying to insinuate he was an abuser. All these things were eventually proved wrong but not before the damage was done. I know this because I was one of those who believed it and voted accordingly. At the time it all seemed feasible. A couple of weeks later, Randy was able to clarify the issues and prove his innocence. First he proved that he could not be a deadbeat dad because he raised his daughter by himself. He was a single father. He had to make public his taxes. He published a letter from his old teacher disproving the theft accusations and the domestic disturbance with a firearm turned out to be when he saved someone’s life from a knife attack. it turns out Randy was a Bodyguard in his youth. None of these accusations were done by accident and we are fooling ourselves to believe they are for even one moment. We have many problems with our election or political processes. We need some answers but I am not the one with them.
Oops, wrong Steve.
How did it take ‘guts’ to put the video together?
It took time but Steven is a reporter…its his job to come up with ideas and report.
“…he was involved in a domestic dispute and used a firearm. They were trying to insinuate he was an abuser….”
Well, I believed it…the details – the newspaper said the domestic dispute was with his wife before they were married… how can any paper deliberately print lies?
They check, doublecheck then check the ‘facts’ again and first on the doublecheck would be to talk with the person being slammed.
There are a couple things Randy can do that would be helpful with his appearance…in my opinion. First on the list…hire a good stylist to get his appearance – beard, mustache – evaluated into a new look .., a more ‘open’ appearing ‘look’.
It may be that Steven is the one to play with the video to get a reaction???
Otherwise I think we would be reading about a lawsuit.
Who is the real a manipulator of facts, Mr. Eickmeyer?
Mr. Eickmeyer called Randy’s supporters mudslingers, liars, and “silly”. Yet not one of the allegations against Mr. E. have yet to be proven false.
– He has been absolved by the Legislative Ethics Board because his withdrew septic tank legislation that would have benefitted his lobbyist son’s benefactor.
– He has been absolved by the Legislative Ethics Board because legislation he supported that would have permitted slot machines in his bingo parlor didn’t make it to the floor.
– He was not fined, but MAY BE hiding behind his legislative aide, Ms. McMilan’s skirt about 85 hours of phone calls from his legislative office to his campaign manager, Linda Thomson (paid $17,000 by the Eickmeyer campaign) and to Sound Institute of Family and Children’s Services, whose bookkeeper was paid $1,500 from his campaign warchest as a bonus at the end of OCTOBER 2006.
– He blamed the Sound Institute’s former bookkeeper for stealing from under his nose (no keen eye for the obvious, has he.) He s a VICTIM! He’s on record as saying so.
His campaign manager is no dumb cookie either. In debate class in high school, you learn if you can’t refute the facts, obscure the opposition’s record with innuendos that cannot be disproved and away from the real issues of the debate.
He didn’t run on a record of achievement for his 9 years of House experience, that’s for sure.
And now, $$$ that may have been “dumped” into Hood Canal will be for the most part “siphoned off” for the benefit of Puget Sound in total, with 35th district residents getting the short end of the stick AGAIN.
Thank goodness the D’s are so large in the majority that they can pigenhole Rep. E. in some dark corner of the State House. He was in the last row last session. Will his seat be up in the bleachers with us taxpayers? And now we only have 2 legislators working for us.
Sharon,
The candidate who had the domestic violence incident involving a former wife was a different candidate.
I have been hearing about this video all over. I do not believe it’s real. If it were we would have seen a big article in the paper or on the news. This is not funny. Someone is trying to make my party look bad. Fake or made up someone should be fired. (PJ)
No. It is, of course, a conspiracy by the liberal media to smear the candidate. Oh, wait, didn’t the Sun actually endorse Neatherlin over Eickmeyer? Well, now that’s a little embarrassing…
There is no liberal media. Get over it. Neatherlin lost because he was actually a worse candidate than Eickmeyer, and that’s saying something. Sorry, dude, “I M 1 Of U”? Who are you, Prince?
Thank you, Steven.
“…Randy was able to clarify the issues and prove his innocence. First he proved that he could not be a deadbeat dad because he raised his daughter by himself. He was a single father. He had to make public his taxes. He published a letter from his old teacher disproving the theft accusations and the domestic disturbance with a firearm turned out to be when he saved someone’s life from a knife attack….”
__________________________
Isn’t that something…
__________________
“…Randy was able to clarify the issues and prove his innocence….”
__________________________
…too little, too late. ‘Someone’ apparently went to great effort to discredit him.
Why didn’t the newspaper check the information before printing it? How can any newspaper dedicated to giving truth to its readership be so irresponsible?
Is a newspaper accountable when their misinformation likely cost the candidate the election?
As I see it, the newspaper owes the candidate the cost expended to run the campaign, an apology and explanation how such misinformation came about. Secondly to explain their new policy of safeguards so such a thing can never happen again to anyone.
An apology is owed their subscribers as well.