Clarifying Maupin’s Comments on Mayor Competition
November 5th, 2009 by Steven GardnerReaders, including candidates, who question my use of the word “said” in the story about second-day election results have reason to do so.
When the new election numbers came in on Wednesday, I called both Bremerton mayor candidates, Bremerton City Councilman Will Maupin and former county commissioner Patty Lent, to get their reactions.
In my conversation with Maupin I asked his reaction to the second-day numbers, which showed he had lost ground, and what he would do now.
Maupin answered that he had no idea, that it was too early to
figure that out. “I’m very concerned about the city of Bremerton. I
don’t think we’re headed in a good direction,” he said. “I will try
to figure out what to do
to best serve the city.”
Before I heard that comment I had no inclination to think that Maupin might consider leaving his seat. But that comment made me wonder if that was what he was thinking about. So I asked him specifically if “try to figure out what to do to best serve the city” meant he was considering resigning.
He did not say, “Yes.” He did not say, “No.” He did say he had to think about what to do — that it was “way too early” to be talking about what’s next.
I didn’t want to write a story saying that Maupin was open to resigning from his council seat unless I was certain he was really was open to it. So I asked him again. I received the same answer. In response to one of those questions, he said, “At the moment I don’t feel good about working with the person who appears to have been elected our new mayor.”
In neither case did he deny that he was open to resigning. My error was in writing that Maupin “said” he was considering resigning. He did not specifically “say” that.
I inferred from his comments, which were made in response to two specific questions about a possible resignation, that he was considering it and in the story wrote that he “said” it.
Had I written that “he didn’t rule out resigning,” or something akin to that, I wouldn’t feel a need to count this as a mistake. My inference may have been incorrect, but given two opportunities to be clear about that with me, Maupin wouldn’t deny that resignation was one of the possibilities.
The problem, to repeat an earlier point, was in the improper use of “said,” because he didn’t say it.
Even when we paraphrase someone instead of quoting them, “said” should mean what it says, that he said it. He didn’t. He implied it, maybe. He didn’t rule it out. He made it seem like a real possibility. But he didn’t say it.
I was incorrect in writing that he did.
Loading ...
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
November 5th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
He most certainly implied he might leave…thanks for the clarification…
Sharon O’Hara
November 6th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Implied or not, it was not said. Behold the power of the media. Leading questions twist for a story. What a tiring scenario. At least we have this retraction of sorts. Perhaps those readers who rushed to judgment in earlier comments feel as foolish – but I doubt it. I am impressed to see this printed however.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:49 am
Kind of like Bill Clinton debating what the meaning of “is” is.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:57 am
If he had a pure heart when asked the question by Mr Gardner,
Maupin would have said: ‘Well, I’m going to go back to work on the Council and give the New Mayor my full support.’
But he didn’t do that…He sniped at the Victor!
It just showed his lack of grace and class!!!
Mr Gardner, you shouldn’t have had to clarify anything!!!
November 6th, 2009 at 6:03 am
Maupin should take some lessons from Katherine Quade…
a real class act!!!!
November 6th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Mr. G.
I agree that using “implied” is a good word in this case.
When saying that someone ‘said’, this or that, it might be better to give a direct quote, such as, so and so “is quoted as saying”, or by asking how specific do they want to be in print, especially, when relating details about a person’s job.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:05 am
I have no real stake in the outcome or this election and obviously didn’t vote in it, but this whole incident reflects extremely negatively on Maupin — and it shouldn’t. The news isn’t what someone didn’t “say.” Meanwhile the usual naysayers have been all over him in the comments, when they had no business doing so, and wouldn’t have if this had been reported correctly.
In my view, you’ve done Will Maupin some irreparable harm, so stop playing CYA and offer him the apology he deserves.
LFC
November 6th, 2009 at 8:31 am
You put words in his mouth. And then you printed it. Very shabby journalism.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Respectfully, I think you are wrong here Larry. I consider what Steven has done in this post in the way of an explanation is more than enough. Mr. Maupin is a big boy and a long term elected official. He has played in the political sandbox for quite some time and knows exactly how to handle himself when it comes to speaking to the press. Knowing that he is being interviewed and what he says will be reported on going in, it is just as much his responsibility to make sure his comments are clear and exact as it is Steven’s to get the words right.
You have dug your heals in at times using explanations instead of apologies when you have been criticized on some issues. I am not saying that is wrong, but you have. We all have at certain times in our lives. Also, when it comes to the Maulpin naysayers, they are naysayers. It is their business to comment about it and would still be naysayers regardless of how this story should have, could have, or would have been reported. You and I both know this to be true. We both have our own contingent of naysayers to deal with because we are willing to put ourselves, our advocacy and our views out there. That said, I do appreciate your willingness to comment as an elected official.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Colleen,
I agree with you. The explanation here is enough.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Glad to have you back Elliott! And thanks!
November 6th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Colleen,
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Will Maupin will be remembered for this – in spite of the fact he didn’t say it, and will be used against him – unfairly – in his political future. I still believe Steve, while trying to explain, still clearly owes Will an apology.
LFC
November 6th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
When I first saw the article I was dismayed–I had not viewed Will Maupin as an “I’m going to take my ball and go home” sort of guy if he did not win the election. And that was the implication of the article.
Given this additional information, I see Will saying in effect that the results were surprising to him, and he’d need to sit back and reflect on his options.
Will tends to be more transparent than many politicians; he’ll say what he means and let the chips fall where they may. Any reporter who’s been following Will’s candidacy would have been aware of this, and interpreted Will’s comments more literally.
The reporter mischaracterized the comments; that is not responsible journalism.
I agree with LFC; an apology is in order. The article demeaned Will’s character.
Both mayoral candidates have strong credentials, albeit in different areas. If in Will’s mind the worst should happen, I can see his continuing in office to be in Bremerton’s best interest. Diversity, coupled with deep knowledge, can be a powerful force for good.
And if that decision is necessary, Will has the maturity and integrity to choose that path–should he agree that that path is his best option for bringing about our City’s future success.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Bravo Steve for owning up to what was a simple misjudgment in attribution. Sometimes someone says something that seems to clearly imply something else and it becomes, “he said.”
An honest mistake I’m sure.
You’re years of consistent and accurate reporting on local politics is a sound enough record to show this.
-C
November 6th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
““At the moment I don’t feel good about working with the person who appears to have been elected our new mayor.””
The IMPLICATION here is that he MIGHT leave. And that is what I thought when I read his OWN WORDS.
Steven need not have ‘said’ anything – the implication is there in Maupins own words.
“The article demeaned Will’s character.”
Are you kidding?
‘Will’ demeaned his own character with his own words…see above. I had attributed the comment to the heat of the moment… but, maybe, Karen is right.
Sharon O’Hara
November 6th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
So I asked him specifically if “try to figure out what to do to best serve the city” meant he was considering resigning.
He did not say, “Yes.” He did not say, “No.” He did say he had to think about what to do — that it was “way too early” to be talking about what’s next.
He answered the question: it’s too early to be talking about what’s next. Perhaps not a yes or no response, but enough to print and get off his back about it. Who needed that sort of answer immediately?
Clarifying what occurred is reasonable but it’s fair to say more care should be given to report what was said, not inferred. To often the initial story hits the front pages whilst the correction lands in the back or on a blog. Still, it’s a bit of a stretch to say Steve had compromised Will and owes apology. I like and respect both he and Patty, but was surprised he made the comments he did make. Yes, we’re all human, but we’re talking about seasoned leadership. Sour grapes isn’t the way to go about exhibiting this.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Why would you spontaneously bring up the subject of resigning and then keep asking the same question if it was already answered? You (Steve) were clearly LOOKING for an answer and kept pressing Will until you got something close to what you wanted. Is that journalism? Really?
When I was younger I attended the graduation of a good friend who had earned a degree in journalism. I was a kid and didn’t think twice about the news (be it in paper or tv form), but the keynote speaker’s speech stuck with me. He emphasized that this new generation of reporters (this was in 1996) would be repeatedly pressed to produce stories that sell, and that it was up to them, as JOURNALISTS, to not give in to that pressure and to simply report the news as it happened. Even if it was a little boring sometimes.
Here’s a different angle. If you are in a stressful situation and say you are trying to ‘figure out how to best serve your family’, should I repeatedly ask you if you are planning to file for divorce? Should I keep pressing and then print something that says “Steve Gardner not ruling out divorce!”, even if that word never came out of your mouth? Hmmmmmm…..
I’ll be you could have come up with a lot of other things that Will hadn’t ruled out that evening:
“Will Maupin not ruling out ordering a pizza for dinner!”
“Will Maupin not ruling out changing the oil in his car next week!”
“Will Maupin not ruling out getting a puppy!”
But your spontaneous selection “Will Maupin not ruling out resignation!” probably got more readers; for a couple minutes, anyway.
Good luck un-ringing the bell. I choose to think of Will as a dedicated hardworking Councilman.
November 7th, 2009 at 12:59 am
I don’t think there is any implication of resignation on Will’s part. I’ve come across many people that have said they don’t feel good about working with someone in a new position. Those people still gave 100% to what they do. I don’t think one would run for mayor if they didn’t have a passion for the city they live in and a vision for making it better. So would it really be hard to think that Will could’ve meant or implied that he has to think about moving forward with a different approach to help make Bremerton a better city to live in.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
It really dose not matter with some of the
bremerton resident because some areas we cant vote how dose that happen. who mad the ruls on were to vote any.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I agree half the city did not have a right to vote.dont we have a say so for Mayor?
November 9th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
ms lewis and jana,
The rules are pretty simple, while it may still be called Bremerton, you live outside Bremerton city limits and therefore not eligible to vote for city wide elections.
Living in and out of the city limits have their own benefits. Yes you don’t get to vote but you also don’t have to pay the taxes and utility rates those of us that do live in the city limits have to.
Think of it this way, if/when the car tab fee gets shoved down our throats (you didn’t get to vote for that one either, did you?) you won’t have to pay it either.
It is unfortunate that you want to vote for mayor but don’t have the option but it comes from the geographic location you live in.
My suggestion is either relocate into the city limit or work with your community to get annexed.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I have been at the receiving end of Mr. Maupin’s lack of listening to residents concerns for re-zoning by his statements at Council study sessions. His unbeleivable arrogance was quite evident. I wonder why persons outside of our voting district believe they have any say in the matter. When you live within the City of Bremerton voting districts and pay the bill on decisions made in your name your opinion carries weight, until then it does not.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Jane says (Not the song title). “I wonder why persons outside of our voting district believe they have any say in the matter.”
I live in Bremerton but not within the city limits. The decisions made by the council, mayor et all do affect me. My property value is partially decided by being part of “Bremerton”. Potential buyers see Bremerton and immediately associate the house with issues related to the City of Bremerton proper. Fortunately for me I am for the development of downtown Bremerton and like the change that has occurred. Not to mention the Port of Bremerton has my negative attention right now anyways.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:25 am
@Ezra, Decisions made in King County affect me however I do not pay property tax and associated fees and do not live within the King County voting district therefore I have no vote.
You pay a much lower tax rate by living in an unincorperated area. You don’t have a say in how residents of Bremerton request how our tax dollars are spent. Unfortunately the past administration and many of the senior staff in Bremerton have been listening to those who do not pay the bills. You can ask to be annexed in and start paying for upgrades and then you begin to have a voice.
There are plenty of folks who have lived within the voting (and taxing) district for years, I hope City Council will begin to listen to those voices first. You probably live within the Port of Bremerton voting district so you certainly have a say in matters with the Port of Bremerton..
November 12th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Fortunately, people decide for themselves whether or not they have a say in things or whether or not it carries weight. An example is those who have businesses in Bremerton, whether they live there or not.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
It is pretty obvious that since I do not live in the voting district I do not get a say (vote). But that doesn’t mean I have to ignore the issue and proceeding that happen in districts surrounding me, and in an indirect way affect me. I closely watch what is going on in Bremerton. I would hate to be in line for an annex and have to begin research from groud zero. With the links between Bremerton, the County, and Port of Bremerton it would be foolish of me to not keep an eye on what is going on.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:56 am
Well, Maupin bungles it with the press again. Here…
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/dec/19/bremerton-fish-statues-create-outcry-but-also/
Mr. Maupin is the one who opened up the significant debate at the council meeting on whether or not it should be the fish catching the fisherman or the fisherman catching the fish. Instead of taking the opportunity to proceed with the conversation opened up by Mr. Runyon and Mr. McConnell about spending the money on more practical items that would still be allowed within the restrictions of the existing funding.
It is easy to see why he could not defend either his vote or his position during the interview with Mr. Monson.