Send Us Your Tip!

Got a tip about the Albuquerque Journal? Post it on this page.

Please post a comment on this page or email us at abqjournalwatch@gmail.com.

Back

12 Comments

12 Comments so far ↓

  • ched macquigg // Jul 15, 2009 at 2:52 am

    I’ve had my share of trouble with the Journal as well. They’re keeping voters in the dark over the upcoming bond election.

    http://ched-macquigg.blogspot.com/2009/07/and-what-about-journal-our-newspaper-of.html

  • Silvio Dell'Angela // Aug 11, 2009 at 11:37 pm

    On same day Journal article published I sent e-mail to beat writer Dan McKay, Editor Kent Walz, others at Journal-Cc to City Councilors and others asking why they buried story on bottom of page in smallest print? Please sent your e-mail and I will forward copy. Kent is moderator for August 24 Mayoral luncheon debate hosted by NAIOP. Asked how objective he intended to be? I also asked to see deposition and Bode tape using NM IPRA. Journal will no longer print my letters to editor-far too critical on Marty. Spoon-feeding us news. ABQ Journalwatch blogsite welcomed. Also telling TV networks to stop responding to every “get me free political adverising project” press conference dreamed up by his people.

  • Tracy Dingmann // Aug 12, 2009 at 3:33 am

    Thanks for your comment…my email is tdingmann@gmail.com!

  • Daniel McLaughlin // Sep 14, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    After reading the article “Public Option Tough Sell In N.M.” in the September 14th Journal, I began to wonder about how trustworthy the polling company they always seem to use, Research & Polling Inc. , may be. The article gave a few facts about how the polling was conducted, but how phone numbers that were actually called may have been selected was not addressed. Some of the information about the polling process in the article made it sound as though more conservatives may have been called than liberal or moderate voters. Just wondering if you know anything about “Research & Polling Inc.”. Thanks.

  • Tracy Dingmann // Sep 15, 2009 at 5:42 am

    Thanks for writing, Daniel. I will have an item about that very story on the blog tomorrow – I look at a different angle for this particular item, but I do appreciate your questions and I think they are worth looking into. The Journal does have a very close relationship with Research & Polling.

  • Hakim Bellamy // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    I read the article today trying to put Pelosi and the wack ass little spy-glass about “obscene” health industry profits above the fold. The BS in that article (besides it’s placement and the Journals obvious stance against a Public Option) is that they say that the President says that 80 percent of Americans (who have health insurance) are happy with their providers/service and then they attempt to use that little inconvenient stat against him. However, of those Americans strategically polled, was there a follow up question, asking if they would switch insurance carriers or be less “happy” if there was a less expensive more comprehensive option that would get lots of uninsured Americans insured…AND them insured for less money and less bureaucratic hoops to jump through (which includes denied, out of pocket claims)? That would in FACT be newsworthy, if they actually included that side of the survey and not just the side that proves their point.

    Hakim Bellamy

  • Tracy Dingmann // Mar 30, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Thanks Estrella!
    Tracy

  • Consuelo Hannan // Apr 12, 2010 at 7:42 am

    what is happening on the story of the pope and his past regarding pedophiles? of course, he will go on without any consequences as did bush,cheney and company. all animals are created equal except some are more equal than others(g.orwell). great country we live in with all the propaganda from the news media esp. the journal. How about a true prospective. put the journal to task about the truth. thanks for all you do.

  • Jeff Romero // Jun 24, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    The Albuquerque Journal’s silence is deafening. Even though Arizona’s new anti-immigrant law has been making headlines in other parts of the United States, the Albuquerque Journal has completely failed, editorially, to condemn Arizona S.B. 1070. That new legislation authorizes Arizona law enforcement officers, who have a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien, to determine the immigration status of that person. What that law means is that a person may be questioned as to their immigration status based on simply their appearance.

    The problem with this law is that it not only affects illegal immigrants, it also affects U.S. citizens who happen to be Hispanic, including doctors, lawyers, legislators, law enforcement personnel, business owners and thousands of others. In other words, I could be stopped and questioned about my immigration status even though I, (like hundreds of thousands of New Mexicans), grew up in New Mexico, and even though my family, like thousands of families in New Mexico, can trace its history in New Mexico back to a time when there was no United States of America. I could be stopped even though my father fought in the south Pacific during World War II. I could be stopped even though I am a former District Attorney for Bernalillo County.

    When I was 17, just before I started college, I got a job working as a camp counselor at a Salvation Army summer camp for poor kids in southern Arizona. Apart from my amazement that some Arizonans did not know that New Mexico was its sister state, I experienced no discrimination. When the camp season ended, I returned home on the bus to start college at UNM. I had a brief stopover in El Paso before boarding the connecting bus to Albuquerque. As I gave my ticket to the ticket agent standing outside the bus, he hesitated to take my ticket, and then he looked to his side. I thought that was unusual. But then I was confronted by two INS agents who showed me their badges and asked me if I was a United States citizen. At the time, I was shocked and angry. I told them, “Of course I’m a U.S. citizen.” They asked for my drivers license, and I showed it to them. I got on the bus muttering to myself, “who are they to be asking me if I an a United States Citizen?” Except for a few times in the 47 years since then, I had not thought of that experience, until news of Arizona S.B. 1070 became public.

    Apologists for the legislation say that it merely expresses the frustration felt by Arizona by the failure of the federal government to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. But that is just an excuse. The motive behind S.B. 1070 is betrayed by the passage of House Bill 2281 by the same Republican-dominated Arizona legislature. That legislation prohibits public schools from having programs which “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group” and which “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” This law would target classes teaching aspects of a particular culture, its history, its language, its arts, its literature, etc. Even though the legislation allows the teaching of historical oppression of ethnic groups, Hispanic students could not learn that their ancestors explored and settled what became New Mexico and Arizona before the English set foot on Plymouth Rock and Virginia. They could not be encouraged or taught how to explore their ancestry.

    What does the Journal’s silence about these new Arizona laws reveal about its attitude towards New Mexico’s large Hispanic population? New Mexico is a state with an historically high percentage of Hispanics, (45% according to the 2008 U.S. Census update). Arizona’s Hispanic populations is 33%. (L.A. Times, 5/18/10). Numerous newspaper editorials around the United States have condemned the Arizona legislature. The New York Times has called the Arizona law “harsh, mean-spirited,” (4/17/10). Both the Los Angeles Times, (4/16/10), and the Dallas Morning News, (4/26/10), have characterized the legislation as “wrong-headed.” The British publication, The Economist, has editorialized that Arizona is “at risk of becoming a police state,” (4/22/10). Even the Arizona Republic, the state’s largest newspaper, condemned the legislation, calling on the Arizona governor to veto the legislation, (4/23/10), and strongly criticizing not only the governor, but most of its most prominent public officials, (5/2/10).

    But do we hear anything from the Albuquerque Journal? Instead of condemning the Arizona laws, the Journal praises the efforts of Mayor Berry’s new policy of checking the immigration status of only those who are arrested, regardless of ethnicity. (Editorial, Albuquerque Journal, 5/24/10). As stated in that editorial: The policy’s goal is to reduce crime, in keeping with Berry’s campaign promise to roll back Albuquerque’s sanctuary city status when it comes to those who break the law. The focus is on conduct, not status, language or ethnicity.

    That reasoning is based on the faulty assumption that illegal immigrants commit a lot of crime. The reality is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants want to work to support their families and want to avoid law enforcement altogether. If the Mayor’s goal is to reduce crime, how does a person’s immigration status affect that goal? If the person is arrested for breaking the law, they will go through the same due process, regardless of their immigration status. When they complete their sentence, then they are subject to deportation if they are illegal immigrants or even if they have any legal status short of citizenship. What Mayor Berry does on the front end of the process, is already being done on the back end.

    Additionally, if the purpose is to “reduce” crime, the Berry policy works at cross purposes to law enforcement. It ignores that fact that witnesses who may be here illegally will be reluctant to talk to the police or to report crimes for fear of being deported. The policy is not only unnecessary, it frustrates law enforcement.

    Therefore, what useful purpose does the Mayor’s effort serve? It can only be concluded that the Mayor, for political purposes in an effort to be elected, has chosen to exploit and appease the basest of fears and xenophobia of many voters.

    If the Journal does not condemn such misguided laws, I am of the opinion that all New Mexicans of good will, regardless of ethnicity, including Journal advertisers, should join together and raise their voices to challenge the Journal’s editorial policy.

    JEFF ROMERO

  • Tracy Dingmann // Jun 24, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Thanks for your heartfelt remarks, Jeff. Keep us posted.
    Tracy

Leave a Comment