Saturday, December 11, 2004

What a Difference a Decade Makes

I think I'm somewhat more mellow than I was ten years ago. My wife, Cheryl, tells me I'm more focussed and pro-active. My mom tells me I'm "cuter," but then, she's my mom.

Other than that, I'm pretty much the same Chris Medlock that I was on January 8th, 1994. So what has happened since the Tulsa World endorsed my election in a special election for the SH69 seat?

Maybe it was that I was considered the least conservative Repubican in a three-republican field. All I know is, I didn't win the race and I can't count on my fingers the number of people that told me in subsequent years that they were going to vote for me until I got "that Tulsa World endorsement."

I believe I'm more mellow, flattered Cheryl thinks I'm more focussed and hope I'm cuter (thanks Mom). I recognize ten years of life experience and reading has probably made me more conservative. and be amazed at the contrast of opinion about my opinions from our friends on the opinionated Opinion Page. On January 8, 1994, the World editorialists wrote in part:

"Of the three GOP candidates, Medlock is the clear choice. At 35, he is a well-educated marketing and research analyst for the T.D. Williamson Co.

He has impeccable party credentials, serving on the GOP county executive committee, the county leadership council and the state and county platform committees. Medlock also has served as a precinct chairman and is chairman of Mainstream Republicans."

They went on to say:

"Medlock, a graduate of Charles C. Mason High School here, earned a marketing degree from Northeastern State University at the University Center at Tulsa and then a master of business administration at the University of Tulsa. He is intimately acquainted with the need for adequate higher education facilities for Tulsa. He has been a staunch supporter of public school reform and new business development.

"He also will provide Tulsa with another strong voice against crime. Articulate and knowledgeable on legislative issues, Medlock is exactly the kind of young person Tulsans should be encouraging to enter the political arena. "

The voters in District 69 should have no hesitation in voting for Chris Medlock."

Hmmm...maybe its not ME that's changed.


Anonymous said...

The Tulsa World's endorsement could be what is called in Mafia circles as "The Kiss of Death".

What has changed in the 10 years since the World endorsed Medlock for State House of Reps?

Well, for one thing, it's been TWELVE years since the Tulsa Tribune folded. The Tribune forced the World to work harder to get the facts, get the story, and tell the truth. It was a COUNTER-BALANCE to the World, and did a lot to keep the World honest.

Since the Tribune folded, that balance factor is GONE.

The Tulsa World has steadily worked on advancing the Lorton's agenda, i.e.:

"Them's that Got,Get; and, if you ain't Downtown, you ain't sh_t."

It's hard to catch The World in out-and-out LIES. However, they are the Master of the Half-Truth, the shaded truth, and the omitted central facts. They commonly bury news they don't want to cover on Page A-14 of the least read edition, the Saturday paper. Conversely, they love splashing a story, cause, or idea that they WANT to promote on the Front Page of Sunday's paper.

I really started clearly seeing how biased they'd become by the time of 1997's Tulsa Project I, and the 2000 Tulsa Project 2 Repeat defeat. Terribly unbalanced reporting. No objectivity. No attempt at "fair and balanced". Rather, they were "fairly unbalanced" in their reporting.

Then, the Tulsa World went absolutely WILD on Vision 2025, losing ANY semblance of balance in their coverage of the TWO sides. TWO sides you wonder? Yes, there were actually TWO sides to the Vision 2025 issue. Except, you couldn't tell it from the World's coverage.

The Sunday before the Tuesday election for Vision 2025, the Tulsa World REALLY outdid itself in bias:

Multiple "news articles" unabashedly supporting
Vision 2025: Vision 2025 was going to "cure" all of Tulsa's ills, cure acne, unemployment, raise the Dead, feed the world's hungry, and create a enormous BOOM downtown, including probably bringing Renberg's, Froug's, Clarke's Good Clothes, Harrington's, Woolf Bros., Vandevers, AMOCO, Amerada Hess, Cities Services, Getty, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Main Post Office back to downtown. Helllllloooooooooooo?

The "news" articles were synchronized with a totally Over-the-Top Editorial supporting Vision 2025, 5 Letters to the Editor Supporting Vision 2025, 2 guest "Points of View" from Vision 2025 supporters, and a complementary half-page photograph focusing on a Yellow & Blue "VOTE YES" campaign sign while intentionally blurring an out-of-focus shot of a Red & White "Vote No" sign. Surprised it didn't win them the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary (except it's supposed to be NEWS).

And, the Tulsa World gave in-kind Advertisements to promote these downtown Tax-and-Spend Projects. How unobjective can you be when you're donating $$'s to a cause you're also covering??

Of course, like a good City Council Robot, Medlock supported Vision 2025, marching in synchronized lock-step with the Eight other city councilors. He even debated city activist Michael Bates in a Two-Against-One debate where he was masquerading as an Undecided voter. A few days latter, he dropped the Masquerade, and came out of the closet for Vision 2025.

However, when he stopped being a 100% team player this year, the local power establishment declared War on Chris.

They've got him earmarked to play the principal in this Spring's Passion Play, especially relishing the Crucifiction part.

Wonder if Chris could sour their sugar-tit a little more by coming out against the proposed $250 million Street Bond issue?? Maybe, some question along the line of:

"Why does this bond issue need to be TWICE the size of the last street bond issue?"

Chris Medlock said...

Your comment is much appreciated, but I do feel the need to clarify a couple of things with regard to my participation in the Vision 2025 debate that you define as a two-against-Michael Bates.

That debate was sponsored by the Tulsa County Young Republicans, and was held in the Aaronson Auditorium in the Central Library. The other participant was mayoral aide and former city councilor, Clay Bird.

I was asked by Jeremy Bradford of the YRs to participate, because of my support for some of the package, but not all four questions. They were wanting to make the point that a voter could support some of the package...because I and several others were successful in getting menued questions, rather than a single up or down vote...without supporting or opposing everything.

I have definitely learned from the experience. What I learned was, never take a middle position in a debate...even if that is your true stance. I just ended up getting pummelled the next day by the Tulsa World that took a joke I made, and turned it into a definitive statement that I was "fence riding" in order to not get hurt politically. I am still getting blasted by Vision opponents for piling onto Michael Bates.

The other point worth making is, that at the time of the debate, I was still not sure if I would support Packages 1 (Boeing) and 3 (arena and higher ed). I eventually came out against Package 1 and begrudgingly supported Package 3 (although I stood before the Board of County Commissioners at the meeting they certified the vote and requested--unsuccessfully--that they sever the higher ed items from the more contentious arena project).

Had they done so, I would've supported the higher ed and opposed the arena.

Just thought it deserved some clarification.

Chris Medlock said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Chris: At last: I can now forgive you for supporting Vision 2025.

I admit, I wasn't even at your "Two-against-One" debate vs. Michael Bates sponsored by the GOP JungVolk. Just relying on error-prone hearsay spread around at the time. Sorry if I mistakenly slimed you.

You are right about the tone/slant of the Tulsa World's next day news article after the JungVolk debate forum. Althought you were really doing the Vision 2025 cause a favor by being the "Undecided" voter, they did liberally roast you and tried to make you appear like a idiot.

Stalin called the American commie fellow travellers "useful idiots". You were Useful, but you are no idiot. That mean old Tulsa World is so ungrateful for past services rendered.