Topeka — The Republican gubernatorial campaigns of Jim Barnett and Ken Canfield on Monday tangled over an editorial in an evangelical Christian newspaper.
The Chronicle praised Canfield in a piece written by the paper's publisher, Russ Jones. But Barnett's campaign noted that Jones also works as Canfield's press secretary, and he doesn't mention that fact in the article.
"That Mr. Jones would choose to use his recently purchased publication as a vehicle to endorse a candidate and influence votes through an extraordinarily large print run is certainly his own business," said Barnett spokesman Rodger Woods.
"However, to do so as a staff member of the candidate receiving the endorsement, without clearly communicating the situation to the readers, is misleading and unethical," Woods said.
Canfield tried to downplay the incident after a news conference where he and his advisers outlined his economic plan.
"The newspaper did not endorse me. He personally endorsed me," Canfield said. The charges that the newspaper had an ethical lapse "really have no substance," he said.
In the July issue of the newspaper, Jones wrote that he felt if he didn't recommend Canfield to readers of the newspaper, he "would be rebelling against God."
Jones and his wife, Jackie, publish The Chronicle, a monthly newspaper distributed in five cities in Colorado, Texas, Indiana and Kansas, including Wichita and the nearby area.
The paper is free and has a circulation of about 20,000. The July issue, which included a voter guide to the primary elections, had a print run of approximately 40,000, Jones said.
Canfield, who founded a national fathering center, said all the Republican candidates were courting evangelical Christians.
"I don't see myself as the, quote, evangelical candidate," he said.
On the newspaper's Web site Monday, publisher Jones said he should have told readers about his employment by Canfield.
"In hindsight, I should have disclosed my efforts (as I've tried to keep the two roles separate) with the Canfield campaign. It's our goal to be forthright and authentic.
"Having said that - what a blessing it's been to serve along side this man with such an honorable reputation and vision for Kansas.
"It's been exciting to watch Kansans across the state get involved. We're called to be salt and light. Scripture doesn't call us to be objective. A-matter-of-fact, the Bible calls us to be 'set apart,'" he said.
The Chronicle publishers describe the paper as "Your Christian news authority."
In addition to Barnett and Canfield, the field for the GOP primary on Aug. 1 includes former legislator Rex Crowell, attorney Dennis Hawver, former House Speaker Robin Jennison, attorney Timothy Pickell, and retiree Richard Rodewald.
The winner will face Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, seeking her second term.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
pundit (anonymous) says…
I've always said the Christian right are capable of eating their own for breakfast.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
That's the 9th Commandment, right?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
roflmao!!!!!!
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
Let see if I understand this:
The LJW has enough blank newpage to print this story about some shenanigans going on involving a bought mouthpiece for one candidate, and enough space to note last Monday that advance VOTING had begun, but so far has provided readers no unbiased review of the candidates and their backgrounds and positions.
On what basis are primary voters basing their votes? Is it any wonder than the public frequently refuses to vote in disgust or the lack of choice? Is the LJW proud of its laziness?
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Let see if I understand this James:
The LJW is somehow responsible for the information that the primary voters need to be able to make an informed decision. Not to defend LJW or anything but I guess I kind of thought the responsibility to be informed rests squarely on the voters not a newspaper. Then it seems that you are implying that the newspaper itself is responsible for voters to get off their butts and actually vote. Hmmm somehow I just don't believe that James. I think even if (and I actually did or not) LJW printed the info you requested, do you really think there would be a higher voter turnout? Aren't the qualified voters the lazy ones James?
kmat (anonymous) says…
All I can say about these two is that I have noticed around Jo Co that they are plastering their campaign signs near churches. They stuck a ton of them around the business park I work in and crews had to go around removing them (there is a church within site of the business). They are pandering for the Christian vote which makes me ill. I wish candidates would stop the religion bs and focus on real issues instead of the same old abortion/anti-gay rhetoric that the repubs always focus on. How about focusing on jobs, the economy and education for a change and leave the church bs out of it.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Whoops,, I meant to say in paranthesis
(and I actually don't know if they did or not)
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
"I guess I kind of thought the responsibility to be informed rests squarely on the voters not a newspaper."
Via E.S.P., hunting down the candidate at home or what? - reading candidate propaganda ("I favor babies, motherhood, and apple pie. My opponents are unconvicted child molesters.") If you've got Ken Canfield's cell phone number then please share with us. I for one have several questions for him.
Newspapers operated under the First Amendment, not in the abstract, but for the purpose of disseminating information and asking the questions that are people's minds.
Do I believe LJW is responsible for people not "getting off their butts and actually vot[ing]"? No, rather the LJW is responsible for people not getting off their butts and actually voting in anything other than a mis- or un-informed manner.
Personally, I believe citizens should be required to vote, just like they're required to pay taxes or serve on juries. But without information about candidates and the ability to question them, voting is largely a vague exercise in partisan foolishness - not a judgment about an individual's value as an officeholder.
vinividivici (anonymous) says…
Kodiac-
The laziness of some American citizens is rediculous. Who wouldn't want to excercise their right to help decide our nations leaders? How many people who didn't vote in this last election regret how it turned out? All I can do is hope that they change their attitudes for the next election, and persuade my friends who don't vote to do the same.
BUT, as a voter, it is near impossible for me make an educated vote on a candidate. There isn't much info on them in the paper, whats there is biased. You can find info in magazines(also biased) the internet(biased), and be talking with acquaintances(Also.......biased). Forming an educated opinion on a candidate turns into a major research endeavor real quick, and I think James was attacking that, NOT blaming the LJW
oscarfactor (anonymous) says…
This is much ado about nothing, and simply takes up column inches in the LJ-W. Neither one of these candidates has a prayer (yuk yuk) in the primary, much less if they were to somehow sneak in to the general election. There's a reason that GOPers like Moran and Thornburgh didn't run for the guvship - too much money needs to be raised and too much time spent trying to derail the Sebelius train.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Ah,
My apologies to all. There are opportunities of course to talk to the actual candidates if you really wanted to. All of the candidated listed have spoken in various forums over the last year. I saw that 6 of the candidates had a forum recently down in Dodge City which was reported by LJW. I haven't checked this for these guys but most of the time candidates do have emails where you can ask your questions. As far as finding info that is "biased or unbiased", I find it difficult to discern anything that we get from the media is "biased or unbiased". I do agree that it is hard to find out what the candidates stand for and even then, when elected to office, such information does and will change. It also depends on the how visible the candidate has been in the past to the public. Most of them running would have some kind of public record which could be pulled up on the internet. When I search for a candidates name on the internet, I do find actual newpaper articles for those candidates that I had missed somewhere along the way. I think my whole point was that it is ultimately our responsibility to be as informed as we possibly can.
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
"Most of them running would have some kind of public record which could be pulled up on the internet."
Oh, no doubt. Much like ex-Rep. Patricia Kilpatrick. You might remember her - big picture, frontpage position working to get "Jessica's Law" passed in Kansas this last year. Once some enterprising reporter engaging in a obsolete role called "journalist" did a little digging (not for the LJW!), it seems that the Kansas Representative had a long string of lawsuits, bad checks, and some domestic disturbance issues. Of course, those aren't online. Nevertheless, various constituents would have loved being informed with a less sanitized view of the candidate than the typical profile ("single, graduate UMKC, attends First Church, no children").
Perhaps a candidate "forum" on the other side of the state might have provided this information? Tell us, sir, what is Canfield's criminal record? Has he been sued? Police ever called to his home? You went to the forum where he addressed the crowd. No doubt, you've emailed these questions to the candidate. What is a "biased" report of a person's criminal conviction history?
Expecting the public to become election-year 'Sam Spades' is about as realistic as expecting them to do a title search themselves when they buy a home or test out products for hidden dangers prior to purchase or evaluate various cancer treatment options from a brochure.
Adequate information about the character of a candidate is a prerequisite to making an informed choice. What is the point of granting media First Amendment protections if they serve no more purpose than informing us of whether Sean Preston Federline has had another boo-boo?
staff04 (anonymous) says…
I realize that you would like to have had the information on the primary candidates, but let's face it:
Sebelius is as close to being a lock to win this race as there is.