Is the Hollowell ad really neutral?

I think so. Logically, here’s why.

The statement was made in the ad:

“If you agree that our athletes NEED $21 Million more gym space and facilities
please vote YES on April 1st High School Referendum”

Read it like this:

“If you agree that our athletes NEED $21 Million more gym space and facilities, (then) please vote YES on April 1st High School Referendum”

Logically, “then” is implied. If you support the athletic plans, then vote Yes. You also have an implied option to vote no. If you do not agree that our athletes NEED $21 Million more gym space and facilities, then vote no. The statement gives both options – vote yes or vote no. That makes the ad neither advocating for or against the upcoming referendum. It’s as neutral as all of that information you’re getting from the district.

—–

I’ve gotten a kick out of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel milking this event for FOUR stories now. You don’t exactly have to beat the bushes when you have a story that just keeps giving. Don’t forget, they wouldn’t have had much of a story if their advertising department hadn’t bypassed their own rules and coughed up the ad buyer’s name.

—–

By the way, here are the numbers from construction company C. G. Schmidt that verifies the $21 million statement regarding athletic facilities and gym space. (Elmbrook school board added over a million to this version of the HSST recommendation.)

Superintendent Matt Gibson didn’t like that reality in print, remember? He told reporter Lisa Sink, “there was erroneous information in Wednesday’s ad.” She went on to write,

“The information isn’t accurate,” Gibson said.

The flier proves Hollowell was working from district information. Of course, the MJS went on to endorse the referendum. Does that mean accuracy only counts when it doesn’t go against your editorial?

Comments

  1. BrkfldDad says:

    I think Gibson was playing the semantics game here. There’s $21MM in the referendum, but $14MM is new, $7MM is remodeling, which be doesn’t consider “new”. Disinformation’

  2. That’s exactly what Gibson did. He changed a couple of words (new construction) and claimed the ad wasn’t correct. That statement was in fact wrong, because the ad numbers ARE correct.

    Gibson foisted the lower number to foil the damage the ad created. See what $150K a year will buy you!

  3. BrkfldDad says:
  4. I saw that yesterday. It was pretty much old news to me!