Sunday, October 01, 2006

Who is John Salah?

John Salah wrote this pro-Reed letter to the editor today.

He donated $100 to Reed's campaign. (12/31/2005)

Dan Salah donated $500 to Reed's campaign. (1/10/2006)

Janet Salah donated $150 to Reed's campaign. (3/17/2006)

That's all fine and dandy: My only question is...

Why on Chuck Reed's contribution disclosures does it list John Salah's job as "Manager - Mercury News"?

Click here, download the pdf and look at page 38, row 4 to check it out for yourself.


At 7:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No joke - I saw him listed as a Mercury News employee!! They truly are biased. What a ****ing joke! They claim to be objective? You can't deny their coverage has been pro-reed.

At 8:39 AM, Anonymous Recall Jacquie Heffner said...

...and this blog isn't biased?

Why don't you post with your real names?

At 9:36 AM, Blogger SJ Rookie said...

If you want to compare the most dominant and prominent news media in San Jose to a fun little blog run by 2 teenagers, then go ahead. It says a lot regarding the de minimis journalistic standards that readers such as yourself expect from the SJ Mercury News. Perhaps it has been these minimal standards that has allowed the paper to slip so far to where it is today.

You're right that the idea of true impartiality is non-existent. But a professional news org like the Merc should set the gold standard.

We have always been upfront about the fact that our articles are coming from our angle and our perspective. We've never claimed to be absolutely objective. Besides the function of a blog is commentary FIRST and news SECOND. Commentary and objectivity generally are mutually exclusive goals.

Our position on anonymity has been covered time and time again. We are not involved in either campaign and therefore do not feel like additional disclosures are relevant.

So why does should Mr. Salah be called out then, you might adroitly inquire?

When the MANAGER OF THE MERCURY NEWS makes a donation to the Chuck Reed campaign (if that is actually the case), it is newsworthy and it should trigger additional examination.

At 9:37 AM, Blogger SJ Rookie said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 9:37 AM, Blogger SJ Rookie said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 9:50 AM, Anonymous d.h.k. said...

Good post. I have searched all over for "Salah" and cannot confirm he is an employee of the Mercury News.

Your link, however, is accurate: the Reed campaign did list John Salah as an employee of the Mercury News.

Can anybody find any external confirmation?

At 10:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is Keyser Sose?

At 10:13 AM, Anonymous phillip s. said...

I can't imagine that this guy is actually working for the Merc.

The Merc couldn't be THAT dumb...


At 10:35 AM, Anonymous banksy jr. said...

The Murk-ury News has time and time again found ways of bashing Chavez. This story from Sunday is exactly what I'm talking about. How is a 16 hundred dollar reimbursement similar to a 38 thousand dollar reimbursement? How do they get off putting those two in the same article and HIDE the TOTAL amount that Reed has been reimbursed for?

If candidate X punched someone, it wouldn't justify writing off candidate Y killing someone because "both candidates are violent". Reed's abuse were systematic. Don't let the Murk obscure those facts.

I have never seen that name Salah on any of their staffs or whatever. But that's what it says on Chuck's filings. It doesn't surprise me that someone from the Murk's staff donated to Reed. They're doing everything they can to hand him City Hall already.

At 11:44 AM, Anonymous Recall Jacquie Heffner said...

You say:

We are not involved in either campaign and therefore do not feel like additional disclosures are relevant.

Yet, Jacquie Heffner, your SanJoseLady blogger, is clearly is working on Chavez's campaign. Give us a break!

Let's look at all the lobbyists that gave money to Chavez's campaign.

At 1:55 PM, Blogger SJ Rookie said...

...and Jacquie Heffner is not anonymous!

Remember what your argument was, mr. anonymous:

* we said we are not involved in the campaign, therefore, anonymity is legitimate

* you said that jacquie heffner is involved...therefore, she should not be anonymous? (hint hint: she's not anonymous!)

Oh yeah, and why is it okay for you to be anonymous but us not? Especially you - someone who apparently HAS worked in a City Councilmembers office?

Let's get back to the point underlying the post: HAS A MERCURY NEWS "MANAGER" DONATED TO CHUCK REED'S CAMPAIGN?

At 2:01 PM, Anonymous almaden dad said...

I remember the name Salah. I think he's a fellow Almaden-er. I don't think he ever worked for the Mercury news.

At 2:49 PM, Anonymous concerned dem said...

It looks like the Merc has some 'splaining to do.

A lot of people have been wondering where the Merc's bias against Cindy / in favor of Chuck originates. Maybe this is the tip of the iceberg?

At 5:45 PM, Anonymous l. fitzy said...

Anonymous/Recall J.H.:

You're dumb. You got served. Pretty dumb argument.

You wanna talk about lobbyist donations to Chavez? Let's talk about 'em. Post 'em moron.

At 5:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

why was a comment deleted, mr. free speech?

At 7:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is more likely to be influenced...

Merc said...
Although the reports are not detailed enough to calculate an exact figure, roughly 3 percent of the $708,000 Chavez raised came from lobbyists, including the money Head and Morley rounded up. About 2 percent of Reed's $413,000 came from lobbyists.

Include the developers and unions too, and We The People lose with Chavez. Follow the votes.

Fitzy, I sure hope you are not old enough to vote.

At 7:15 PM, Anonymous Sal Pizarro said...

A few of you have been calling for an explanation from the Mercury News, so here it is. I'm stepping out of my regular role as a columnist at the paper just to set the record straight on this issue.

John Salah isn't an employee of the paper nor has he ever been from what anyone can determine. He is, however, an employee of Mercury Interactive, a software testing firm. So I'm told we certainly didn't break any of our own rules about printing Mr. Salah's letter.

We don't know how he ended up being listed on Chuck Reed's campaign disclosure forms as a Mercury News employee, but it's a good guess that someone, somewhere down the line mistook Mercury Interactive for Mercury News. We've certainly been mistaken for worse.

I hope this clears up this little mystery, or at least explains the Mercury News' lack of a role in it!

At 8:22 PM, Anonymous Ben Watson said...

Anonymous, are you saying that you hope fitzy isn't old enough to vote because you think his comment was immature? If so, I suggest you take a look at some of your previous comments. Setting aside the fact that you're too afraid to use your real name, every comment you have put on this side has been less respectful than the previous. Your personal attacks and your clear obsession with trying to out San Jose Lady even now that she has said who she is, show that you obviously have no points about the campaign to bring up. If you and your friends over at Reed camp have a coherent argument, post that, but don't continue to waste our time with the same redundant garbage every time you sit down in front of the computer.
-Ben Watson

At 8:51 PM, Anonymous l. fitzy said...

Hey anonymous, thanks for actually posting something substantive. You are really, really stupid. But it's good of you to actually post something based on fact.

Keep in mind what the article itself said about the study: "While the reports illuminate one aspect of political fundraising, they provide only a partial picture. No such disclosure is required of anyone else who scoops up donations for a candidate, such as businesses whose executives do not have to register as lobbyists, or professional fundraisers or other elected officials."

Yes, maybe Cindy received a lot of $ from lobbyists. But Chuck's $ comes from special interests who fall under the radar because they don't need to be so marked.

Remember what Chuck did:

1) He received money from his client Los Esteros properties as his lawyer.

2)He then voted to allow his client to sell alcohol and groceries.

You have circumstantial proof of undue influence in the Chavez camp. And you ignore the direct proof of undue influence in the Reed camp.

Chuck's vote has been bought and sold. It will be bought and sold again... regardless if it is bought and sold by someone who qualifies as a "lobbyist".

At 9:02 PM, Blogger SJ Rookie said...

Hey Sal,

Thanks for the post...even though you're not Sal Pizarro.

It was nice of you to check our site and then take the time to do some additional research...even though you're not Sal Pizarro.

Anyway, you've definitely helped shed some light on an issue that might end up being heavily contested. Keep on posting...but maybe use your actual name next time?

At 10:22 PM, Blogger SanJoseLady said...

I think Anonymous must have a "thing" for little ole me...

Again Anonymous....I am go play with the kids your age, the grownups have work to do.


Post a Comment

<< Home