As the political season begins to develop, I will be adding to the infographic as new material becomes available. Creating undercurrent and manipulating public perception involves content that is difficult to reduce to an infographic that will make sense as new information is developed. I believe that I have found the best way to simplify the complex and often-wordy content into a simple representation of the entire blog entry to give you an idea of how the blogger treated that candidate. It should also allow us to connect the dots.
Each blog entry requires an explanation as to why I have chosen to classify it as positive, neutral or negative towards a specific political candidate. As I have written previously, it is my contention that the useful idiots act on behalf of their masters to create the necessary backscatter innuendo and rumor mongering to manipulate the public perception to force a specific election result. For those of you that are looking to nitpick my assertion, I want to be very clear that I am not stating that the bloggers unilaterally influence the election outcome but rather that they are part of a concerted effort in which they play an integral part of a larger process.
Presenting the information succinctly is difficult in an infographic but an infographic allows for showing a pattern between different data points. It connects-the-dots, if you will. Therefore, I am combining an infographic with written blog entries explaining my rational for classifying the entry as I did.
Each time I address a blog entry, by one of the useful idiots, I will explain my rational on why I classified the entry as supportive of a candidate, as negative towards a candidate or as a neutral entry for the candidate. For me, neutral entries is a blog post sharing verifiable information about a candidate. For example, a candidate was arrested for a DUI and the arrest is documented through public records. The blogger points to the arrest and comments about it. That would be an example of a neutral entry because although it is negative to a candidate it is not backscatter innuendo.
On the other hand, if a blogger writes that they have it on “good authority” that a candidate was arrested but provides no documentation or none is readily available then I would classify the entry as rumormongering and thus it is classified as a negative posting for the candidate the useful idiot targeted. It demonstrates to me that the candidate is attempting to create an undercurrent and unsubstantiated rumor against the candidate.
Obviously, blog entries supporting a candidate receives a positive mark.
As you examine the layout of the infographic, you will notice that it is matrix that may have multiple entries per row. I designed it this way for two reasons. The first is that the infographic must grow as new information becomes available without it becoming unwieldy. The second reason is that a useful idiot may write a blog entry that attacks several candidates while supporting another one, or more.
As you might notice, the first column has a date followed by columns for each of the city representative candidates. Since I am unable to give you a full explanation on the infographic and the infographic is designed to be updated as new information becomes available the date on the row allows you to read my full explanation of the rating I selected by simply visiting my blog and finding the specific entry by that date. The version date on the infographic is the date the infographic was last updated.
Each time I update the infographic I will add a new row pushing the old ones down making the first row the most current entry. Each new row will be posted on my blog giving you the details and the infographic will be updated.
I believe that this format will allow us to see if a pattern exists on how the useful idiots treat the individual candidates.
Without further delay, here is the first version of the infographic. An explanation follows the image.
David Karlsruher has written that his mother is Rick Bonart’s treasurer. Karlsruher also disclosed on March 2, 2015 that Albert Weisenberger was Karlsruher’s attorney on a driving while intoxicated charge. On his blog, Karlsruher is supportive of both Bonart and Weisenberger, however it is my contention that Karlsruher believes there will be a runoff and wants to see both Bonart and Weisenberger in the runoff. On the other hand, Karlsruher has focused negatively on Peter Svarzbien on various posts leading up to the March 2, 2015 post. For this reason, I’m classifying this first entry as a negative, or an attack against Peter Svarzbein and support for Bonart. I am classifying Karlsruher’s comments about Weidenberger as neutral.
Even Jaime Abeytia agreed that David Karlsruher was making an issue of the Peter Svarzbein campaign process he chose to use for raising political contributions. (I do not know enough about the process yet so I am not taking a positon on it, rather I’m pointing out that Abeytia agrees Karlsruher’s assessment as more than it appears to be at this time.) Other than that, Abeytia has been neutral about the announced candidates, although he is obviously supportive of Claudia Ordaz but has not written anything yet that would require a comment on. Thus, I have not added any Abeytia entries to this version of the infographic.
The MaxPowers character, aka the Forma Group blog, has been silent on the city council elections so far.
As always, I appreciate your comments and if anyone has a better way to track and present the information please feel free to share them with me.