I was there wrote on Jan 9, 2008 12:17 AM:The Press Enterprise refused to agree to participate in a citizen/journalism monthly round table. That about says it all. The council was adamant that the paper present ALL the facts to the residents of Temecula who deserved to know the whole truth. When asked if they thought intentionally omitting parts of a story in order to ilicit a certain response was fair to readers, the Press Enterprise defended their right to edit the facts as they see fit. EDIT THE FACTS??? If you want stories with ALL the facts, read the Californian. It was clear the PE wouldn't particpate with the residents' round table OR commit to printing the whole story. The council did the right thing and should be commended. The Press Enterprise was arrogant.

Tim V. wrote on Jan 9, 2008 12:30 AM:This is a good decision. They did the right thing, but the paper should now clean up its act. We know that papers leave stuff out in order to spin a story. They should quit doing that and be fair now that the olive branch has been offered by Temecula.

Zygo wrote on Jan 9, 2008 3:08 AM:Having read the articles from the P.E., it would seem the oversight committee should be about the ethics of the city council persons.

must be nice wrote on Jan 9, 2008 5:54 AM:So Temecula has now solved all of the problems in its own backyard and will take on the problems in journalism? An
independnt oversight committee"? Are they going to spend time reviewing local (and national?) media and reporting on what was right and wrong? How about fixing the traffic and crime problems first?

Poor Al's Almanac wrote on Jan 9, 2008 7:15 AM:To Zygo. You first Mistake was reading the PE. You would get more facts and truth fron the National Inquirer. The PE is a political paper pushing a politcal agenda through their news reporting.

I was there too wrote on Jan 9, 2008 7:19 AM:Okay, councilmember, we know you were. What's wrong? You don't like the facts given to the public? Is that why the Californian refused to run this article after PE did? This paper does not report all the facts or omits them, too. Why isn't the article in question reprinted here? We would all like to see the slant this paper puts on it.

What is in a good read? wrote on Jan 9, 2008 7:36 AM:The truth! We are seeing to much spin in the media. What is the purpose of an open government? One of the major purposes is to keep the folks who elect the decision makers honestly informed of the doing the work of government. That is not happening now as every one has a personal agenda both the government elected officials and the editors of the news media. Both have to work in an envirorment of trust, the officials are telling the truth and the media folks are telling the true and honest facts. Trust, but verify. The great thing about this country we are allowed to look at both sides of an issue. That is the roll of the news media, honest facts without spin to keep the people informed on the workings of the electedd.

Temeculan wrote on Jan 9, 2008 8:10 AM:Good decision - the lawsuits have now been put on hold. As is usually the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The facts are undisputed about the direct business relationships certain members of the City Council have with Rancon. The facts are undisputed that after election to the City Council with some campaigns funded by developers, a former toy salesman and a former code enforcement officer became President and CEO of Rancon and owner of a development consulting firm, respectively. These individuals are smart enough to understand how the system works to be able to manipulate the necessary separation to ensure their business dealings are technically legal, and the public is smart enough to understand the difference between legally right and morally right.

Seriously disturbed wrote on Jan 9, 2008 8:13 AM:I hope that readers of both papers recognize the dangers of a city government trying to enact controls on the ways the media gathers information. As a long-time reader of both papers, I know the P.E. is a thorough news organization dedicated to good journalism. Perhaps the spotlight should be focused more closely on the City Council that put forth the suggestion. I smell something fishy.

"“A free press can of course be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom it will never be anything but bad. . . . Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better, whereas enslavement is a certainty of the worse.” --Albert Camus

What's Not Being Said wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:37 AM:The Californian prints friendly neighborhood/community news. It usually does not print the bad except for murders, gangs, the like.
The Press-Enterprise prints what it finds, and does not print "only the nice stuff".
After going online and reading the news article about the conflict of interests of the Council Members with real estate... I can see why they might not have enjoyed the news reporting. This was good journalism

Interesting wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:39 AM:What I found interesting is the fact that Councilman Roberts, the one who asked for the agenda item to be on the calendar, was not present... Hmm... The Temecula city council can say what they want, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck!!!

Come on people, the city council is in no capacity to be telling the PE how to do their job, or any journalist for that matter. If they truly had a problem with what was being printed, then they should defer all comments to the cities PIO, thats what they are there for. Singling out a publication because they didnt like what was printed is childish, and the fact that they didnt push forward with that bogus policy is proof that the city knew they were wrong, and they chose to save face by trying to rebuild their relationships!! What a joke. If the city council has nothing to hide, then who cares what the PE had to say!!

Concerned-1 wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:53 AM:Again, I reiterate my point that innuendo rules today's media. If you want to know the facts about this story, go to the city website and watch the meeting. See how the PE attorney responds to comments made by the council. Listen to what City Manager Shawn Nelson says. Do some independent thinking before jumping on the innuendo band wagon.

Son of Liberty... wrote on Jan 9, 2008 11:36 AM:Temecula city council members, like all elected and appointed government officials, take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. So, how does this kafka-like proposal to muzzle a newspaper fall into line with these city council members' oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution? Our Founding Fathers created our republican form of government to safeguard our freedoms and liberties. It sounds like the Temecula city council was thinking about borrowing a page from Vladimir Putin's vision of Russian democracy. Just think back over the past year or two...in Russia - remember the assassinated investigative journalist and the radiation poisoned political activist who were exposing corruption and repression within the Russian government. Far fetched? Maybe. But why would local government officials even suggest something that even has a whiff of muzzling or cracking down on the press? If city politicos don't like the free speech of the PE, then they should counter the PE's free speech with their own free speech. If the city council members are embarassed by appearances of improprieties, then they should give press conferences or write their own columns or letters to the newspapers to clear the air. The only way to counter free speech is with more free speech! For someone on the city council to even propose this scheme just illustrates the hubris and venality of too many of Temecula's city council members. The whole situation reminds me of the addage 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Temecula city council...you need a reality check!

Here's My Take wrote on Jan 9, 2008 11:57 AM:This issue is another fine example of the council attempting to publicly spank an organization, in this case Press-Enterprise, using their favored media source, i.e., The Californian. The audacity of this council trying to control the news! There is certainly more to this chess game than meets the eye, but no checkmate yet Council.

To Concerned 1 wrote on Jan 9, 2008 12:14 PM:Innuendo or thought provoking facts? They are one in the same and both need further factfinding. Placing this press policy on the agenda was a strategic move to take PE to task in public and in the council's arena and by their rules. The council meetings are video taped, yet another way to use their media sources to get their side if the story to the public. Cunning! Get an audience with the PE at a council meeting, take them to task and then offer an alliance. Brilliant but predictable! The council has used that "bogus agenda item" plot too many times.

On the other hand, the ol' wolf in sheep's clothing has its merits to fool those who don't know any better.

Daddy of Liberty wrote on Jan 9, 2008 12:38 PM:The PE got spanked by the Temecula city council. The COuncil exposed that the PE thinks truth is what ever they say it it is. The PE would not even agree to participate in an ethics panel. The PE has turned into a politcal news paper in their news reporting. They wagged the dog on a recent Birth Choice Story and even today in their paper they failed to report that the council gave specific occurrances of out right lies.

Concerned-1 wrote on Jan 9, 2008 12:52 PM:What a bunch of self-righteous zealots! You too Ed. Read the stories! Check the facts in the public record! The City Council was attacked by the PE on behalf of self interests.

Concerned-1 wrote on Jan 9, 2008 1:00 PM:Go Daddy! They won't post my comments, even though I attribute my sources. Neither paper reported this story objectively. So much for the Fourth Estate!

Concerned-1 wrote on Jan 9, 2008 1:04 PM:Innuendo or thought provoking facts? What? Can you tell facts from non facts? If so, I suggest you read the PE Stories. The facts presented are intended to provoke a certain type of response. Unfortunately, in today's world that is way too easy.

Old School wrote on Jan 9, 2008 1:20 PM:The media should be taken to task for what it prints. They too often jump on the bandwagon of whatever floats by their proverbial news window. Global Warming! Storm of the Century! Developer Sues City! Foreclosure Rates...Recession, Depression, Repression, Racism...and the beat goes on.

The Council Blinked wrote on Jan 9, 2008 1:33 PM:It was an idiotic proposal to regulate news Temecula deems fit to print. The city spanked itself. It is the job of the Fourth Estate to ask questions and inform the public. I'll side with a free press over government control.

Help for Concerned 1 wrote on Jan 9, 2008 2:00 PM:To Concerned 1...And you don't think NCT writes in a certain way that provokes readers to believe the council is this glorious protector with no self interests? There are plenty of facts which I'm sure the PE will provide to readers. If NCT chooses not to report these facts, so be it. Freedom of the press, ya know.

SAYWHAT! wrote on Jan 9, 2008 3:00 PM:I don't believe that the PE said they would not take part in a meeting. They asked the attorney to answer for his client and we all know that he can't until he talks to the client. I do think that the media puts slants on alot of stories they print. I have had things that I worked on reported on and both local papers gave the wrong impression about the subject. I think they both lack teeth to most there stories and go soft as to not offend anyone. The differance here is they finally did a complete story and gave proof. So maybe the lesson to learn on the papers side is to alway be tough,give the fact and let the chips fall where they may. As for the city they need to talk a good hard look at in the mirror. If you have to calculate every move you make you will get it wrong eventually.

Bible Lesson wrote on Jan 9, 2008 3:07 PM:The Press Enterprise reminds be of the the Roman Governor Pontious Pilot when he asked Jesus "What is truth?"

According to what the PE said last night there is "more then one truth". What a complete and utterly absurd statement

watch your leaders wrote on Jan 9, 2008 4:01 PM:I have read each and every story the Press Enterprise has published They are full of legitimate questions that beg real answers. This City Council needs to be held to account on many issues. Blaming the media is getting to be a little irritating to me. Don't always blame the messanger, sometimes blame the source.
,

To Bible Lesson wrote on Jan 9, 2008 4:30 PM:There are religions who do not believe that Jesus existed. You obviously do. Is it still an utterly and absurd statement that "more than one truth" exists due to different perspectives, or is it still valid because someone is lying?

Curious wrote on Jan 9, 2008 5:12 PM:I did a little research after reading PE articles and have to say that my facts from legitimate government records is incriminating. I hope some council members can explain their financial ties before campaigning for the next election. That's assuming they will run for re-election. I've always thought the council was doing a fine job, but I've learned a few things about certain activities by 4 councilmembers that is very troubling. How might one connect with each other to share our findings?

Even More Concerned wrote on Jan 9, 2008 5:27 PM:I read the PE articles and followed up with a phone call to the staff writer. He was pleasant and open to discussion. My main concern is the issue of council members receiving paying jobs that under no circumstances they would be able to secure from developers if they were not in a perceived position of local power. This worries me and many others.

knucklehead wrote on Jan 9, 2008 5:41 PM:The PE is a tabloid rag that will print anything to stay afloat. Thank goodness we have a council with the cojonas to take them to task. I think the council should put on its agenda every single article in which the PE refuses to tell the truth. I watched the meeting last night. While pledging to tell the truth, the next day they report that "no specific alegations...." were mentioned. Come on..how much more do you need to see. Go City Council!

Do Da wrote on Jan 9, 2008 5:43 PM:The council needs to investigate if there is a link between the PE and Liberty Querry.

To Knucklehead wrote on Jan 9, 2008 5:45 PM:I know! There about 5 or 6 specific lies presented with proof! And then they turned around and lied the very next day!

Rambo wrote on Jan 9, 2008 5:46 PM:I made my fortune selling hookah pipes on the mean streets of Clearwater and I know the damage caused by misinformation. While seeling my wears in '69, a reporter did a story on my hawking skills and said that I was successfull because I had a beneficial connection to a local councilman. The papers reported that my pipe sales increased because of my friendship with the councilman and that the councilman was given free pipes by me for his support. Nothing could have been farther from the truth.I would of sued the local press but it wasn't worth it. The Temecula City Council should not have backed down on their idea to blacklist the PE--in fact, they should approve a new policy that calls for the arrest of those newspaper writers who print lies or anything else that upsets the American people. Denocracy gives people like the councilmen the right to associate with whoever they please and if they make a few bucks along the way--that is the beauty of capitalism!!

Quarry wrote on Jan 9, 2008 6:12 PM:I agree with Do Da. I know that Al Rattan is a big supporter of Liberty. He was also mentioned as contributing to the article containing mis-truths that the PE wrote. I bet that Al or Liberty fed the PE the "facts". Beware Temecula, Liberty Quarry wants their people on your Council!

Poor Al's Almanac wrote on Jan 9, 2008 6:33 PM:Rattan also did not get his hands on city money. Poor Al...he not happy and he found a friend in a dishonest press and gravel querry. He is selling out Temecula

Fallacy Master wrote on Jan 9, 2008 7:03 PM:Knucklehead, do you have cojonas envy? Rambo, too many drugs in '69 dude! Quarry, your Red Herring fallacy, aka Smoke Screen and Wild Goose Chase, is a fallacy in which your irrelevant topic (Liberty Quarry/Al Rattan)is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue (conflict of interest by councilmembers). Your basic idea is to "win" this argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. Good try!

Lady Liberty Quarry... wrote on Jan 9, 2008 7:09 PM:Liberty Quarry doesn't need anybody on the Temecula city council! The quarry site lies outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of Temecula. The rest of the Inland Empire wants the quarry. Perhaps the sooner we open the quarry, the sooner the Temecuila city council can fill up all of those potholes in the city streets. It takes gravel to do this.

Poor Al's Almanac wrote on Jan 9, 2008 8:19 PM:To Lady Liberty....you know the council is annexing that querry land....stop acting like the PE with mis-leading comments

Fan of Rattan wrote on Jan 9, 2008 11:14 PM:Al Rattan is up front about the issues. He found out the goods on the Temecula city council, now they're trying to cover their tracks- but its too late. They got greedy and got caught. Great job Mr. Rattan, keep up your honest fight against corrupt city politics.

JUST THE FACTS wrote on Jan 10, 2008 1:44 AM:Conflicts of interest? NOT. Even the PE says that no legal conflicts exist. They spun a cagey story to try and make it APPEAR as though something ilicit was going on, but the council called them on it! Do you think if there really was something going on that the council would have wanted all this extra scrutiny?? Of course not. There's nothing questionable going on with this council. But the Press Enterprise sure has some explaining to do. They out and out lied about one innocent council member as was pointed out during the meeting. They didn't answer about that. So what else are they lying about? Don't be fooled. If there was anything going on with this council, it would be all over the news and in the courts. That's why the California hasn't printed anything about it - THERE'S NOTHING THERE!

Concerned-1 wrote on Jan 10, 2008 8:58 AM:Wow, there are a lot of allegations coming out from under the rug! Be that what it is, the fact is the city council members have done nothing illegal. And has Rancon, the developer in the story, profited from its relationship with the council? I believe you will find that the answer is unequivocally no. So where is the wrong doing? Where are tax dollars being misused to help the developer? I would look forward to our local media pursuing the real story behind the scenes. Unless there have truly been crimes committed in this regard, I say forget about it and let's move on. Temecula has certainly done well during the past decade and its citizens should be proud and thankful.

HUH wrote on Jan 10, 2008 9:12 AM:Covering their tracks? They agendized the issue for the world to see! This is the most honest dynamic council in California! Any one of these guys could be CEO's

To Huh wrote on Jan 10, 2008 1:30 PM:I agree. Temecula is the most well run city in Riverside and probaly in the top five in the state. So what that council memebrs are great businesmen! Who do you want running the city anyway? Bad businesmen? No businessmen? Oh my goodness...this is not Perris or Hemet or Elsinore THIS IS TEEE MECULA! The premier city in the region. How do you think it got that way? FYI beware of Liberty Querry. All they need is three votes on the council. This current council has shut em down!

Your Reality Check Bounced wrote on Jan 11, 2008 11:16 PM:Temecula is perfect and has no problems. You think your hummers, breast implants, religious stickers, and McMansions make you better than other folks. Come back to Earth people. Your kids are on drugs, your mortgage is about to explode, your marriage is a sham, and your council is for sale. Keep living with your head stuck in the sand.

look below the surface wrote on Jan 12, 2008 10:05 AM:The real issue brought to light by the PE articles is being lost in all of the rhetoric. The issue is whether it is appropriate and acceptable for people who are elected to public office to use their new connections and networking opportunities to enrich their personal lives. Public office holders can have many new doors of potential opportunity open to them. Sometimes it can be legal but not ethical to take personal advantage of those opportunities. Voters should ask themselves how (financially) and what (occupationally) members of the council were doing prior to election and what they are doing now. If there are vast differences, then there may be cause for concern on everyones behalf. We don't elect people for them to acquire great wealth. On the other hand, just because someone is elected to public office, it shouldn't keep them from becoming wealthy. The question is whether that wealth would have been accumulated if the person hadn't been elected. If the answer is no or probably not, then it needs further consideration. And it appears that is what the PE has been doing. Giving people the opportunity to answer this question for themselves. And the defensiveness with which the Temecula City Council reacted to these articles speaks volumes.

look below wrote on Jan 13, 2008 3:52 PM:I totally agree with your comments. I don't think the article was all that damaging. It didn't accuse anyone of breaking laws, it just pointed out the facts.

Most of these people were poor struggling folks prior to taking office. Most had nothing to do with development prior to obtaining a position of power. Most of their campaigns were subsidized the mentioned developer.

I believe the article was fair, honest and thought provoking. People of Temecula were left to do their own research and make their own decisions of their council.

I do have to say, even if they placed their own pocketbooks and the developers interest 1st, they left Temeculans with a wonderful city and place to live. Not to say it was right, just that we are all very lucky to have not been taken to the cleaners

Bob wrote on Jan 14, 2008 8:05 PM:I love how the news director at KZSW doesn't want the council coming after her people. What people?! Didn't your station lay everyone off?

KZSW wrote on Jan 16, 2008 8:26 PM:WOW! I thought the closed the doors. Lets see, it's the 16th. They will probably be covering this in the news soon.