A BRAD BLOG 'Conversation' With 'Oviedo Voice' Owner Chuck Noles
An astonishing look inside the American Media Braintrust...
By Brad Friedman on 2/25/2005, 2:42pm PT  

Our previous Toon of the Moment item, recalled a “conversation" we had in BRAD BLOG comments a week or two ago with Chuck Noles, owner of The Oviedo Voice, a small weekly paper in Tom Feeney's (R-FL) U.S. Congressional district down in Florida. The Voice had pretended they were going to investigate and give --- as they said --- "balanced coverage" to the Tom Feeney/Clint Curtis/Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) Vote-Rigging Scandal, but then went on for several weeks to give the Feeney/YEI side of the story almost exclusively.

His paper even went so far one week as to print YEI's official web statement in full in their paper --- without comment, weeks after it had been published and subsequently debunked --- even though we had been in touch with Noles long before and had given him our complete reply to that statement which had included a point-by-point rebuttal demonstrating that they were lying in several areas.

Nonetheless, Noles chose to run YEI's press release as is. Choosing to repeat rather than to report. (And, indeed, one of YEI's statements about convicted Chinese spy and illegal alien, Hai Lin "Henry" Nee, never having worked for them, has since been proven wrong yet again. This time, by Federal agents and the Florida's own Inspector General's office. We don't believe that The Voice has covered that recently published fact in their pages either. We don't suspect they will.)

The following week they ran the YEI statement yet again, but this time, with a comment by Curtis after each point. Fair enough? Apparently not. They followed each statement by Curtis with a closing rebuttal --- each time --- by YEI attorney (and longtime friend, law-partner and contributor to Feeney), Michael O'Quinn. We suppose that counts for the "balanced coverage" that they, in a previous front page item, had faulted cross-town rival The Seminole Chronicle for not offering. They insinuated the Chronicle (or we?) had featured "supermarket tabloid" journalism.

The next week we were out of town. But we were told that The Voice ran an interview exclusively with Curtis. However, as The Voice doesn't post their paper on their website, and Noles did not email the interview to us, as he had the previous articles, we have only his word to go on.

For a bit more background, Noles is in friendly close contact with Feeney himself and his nearby office in Florida. Despite his protestations in the following "conversation", Chuck answers all email sent to Editor@TheOviedoVoice.com. He also seemed like a nice enough fellow, despite his strong rightward political leanings, when we first got to know him prior to his string of hit pieces on Curtis. He even went so far as to call us at 11:15pm (ET) on New Year's Eve from his Yacht Club, apparently to wish us a Happy New Year...and to find out how we'd be spending it.

The paper was started by his father Randy who began it years ago and still apparently serves as Chief Editor. From our one phone conversation with Randy, we found him to be first-rate, a delight, and a long-time avowed Democrat. The apple, however, doesn't fall as close to the tree as the saying goes. At least when it comes to politics and intellectual honesty.

Since the "conversation" between Chuck and ourselves took place in the comments section of an item that ran a while ago, you may have missed it. The item upon which Chuck was commenting was on the The New Times Broward-Palm Beach's article on the Feeney/Curtis/Yang affair, in which Feeney had claimed that he hadn't been in contact with YEI and the Yangs since he ceased being their corporate counsel and registered lobbyist upon leaving his job as Florida Speaker of the House to go to the U.S. Congress in 2002. That, despite the fact that Feeney's own website --- to this day --- shows that his 2004 headquarters (for a campaign during which he ran unopposed, and received thousands of dollars from the Yangs and their attorney, O'Quinn) remains in the YEI Building in Oviedo. Our article showed photographs from the YEI and Feeney websites showing they both had the same address. As they still do today.

Chuck seemed concerned throughout the exchange that he would be banned for his comments or would have them deleted or, at best, that they would never be read by most of you. So, as it's our girlfriend's birthday, and it's our duty to spend most of the day and night with her, we thought today we'd do Chuck the courtesy of reposting that thread here in its entirety so that Chuck's insightful thoughts would not be overlooked by BRAD BLOG readers. He is, of course, more than welcome to comment again in this thread on any of the above...or anything else he wishes. Chuck's comments are always fun, most welcome and enlightening (especially, as we say, in light of our previous Toon of the Moment) as you'll soon read.

The “conservation" between us is reposted here, completely unedited, included typos and misspelings by both of us. Enjoy...



...chuck said on 2/10/2005 @ 10:07am PT...

Feeney is guilty of not taking down or updating his campagin website...... a "good reporter" would be able to figure out that the office moved to the research park a long time ago..... I am sure if having an office in the research park fueled conspiracy theory they would have checked the local phone book.....


...Brad said on 2/10/2005 @ 1:22pm PT...

Just curious, Chuck (Chuck, as his Email address will tell you is the editor of the Oviedo Voice who has been giving Yang and Feeney the opportunity to air their point of view without bothering to print facts and hard evidence that demonstrably shows they are not telling the truth)... If I sent a donation by check to the address given on Feeney's official campaign webpage, the address at 1420 Alfaya Trail in the Yang Building where he encourages supporters to contact him and/or send money, would he get that money?

Was there a cheap sign posted on Suite 103 stating that it was the "Tom Feeney for Congress" office on Dec 20th of 2004?

Or is that too just something that you and your friend Tom consider untrue despite the facts.

Have you considered changing the Oviedo Voice's tagline to "Who ya gonna believe? Us or your lying eyes?"



...chuck said on 2/11/2005 @ 8:38am PT...

My point is SO WHAT! if his campaign office was or is or always will be there? The fact that his office moved long ago (dial 411 and ask) is what I was trying to point out, for whatever it matters anyway, but I suppose that doesnt fuel the paranoia that is nessesary to justify this "news". Wouldnt someone so devious brilliant and evil as to steal our democracy think to take down that site if it meant anything? I think the quality of attention this matter has drawn shows quite clearly "who ya gonna believe"......... and by the way, the article WAS well done and just like our coverage it did not overstep the bounds in any way I could see that would justify a lawsuit. .... unlike the blog-like methods used by another publication which in a front page headline suggested that it was an established fact that there was a "vote rigging scandal" and that feeney was "implicated" not to mention the rest of the article which in my opinion reflected an inexperienced journalist caught up in a woodward and bernstien fantasy..... not that it couldnt be true,.. just that it was made impossible to believe by their overzealous drive to make it be true. much like another we know. In closing, as I have pointed out to brad in private e-mails I believe anything is possible in this story but the fact is that if this was watergate, brad and curtis were woodward and bernstien, then watergate would have been dismissed as a wild fabrication before any talk of it ever reached the public. Sorry, but if anything "real" ever is uncovered and "reported" on in this way you folks become the bad guys best friend....... try to think about it.


...Brad said on 2/11/2005 @ 7:34pm PT...

While we like Chuck and find him amusing, it must be pointed out that as the Editor of Feeney's hometown paper, and a friend of his, the paper blasted the Seminole Chronicle (that's the paper which Chuck refers to in it's tirade) for "tabloid journalism".

They said, in a front page splash, that they preferred "balanced coverage".

Two weeks later they ran the YEI website statement verbatim in their paper without response despite my having supplied Chuck previously with information (hard evidence, like time-reports from YEI) showing that they were not telling the truth.

None the less, the Yang (YEI) statement ran verbatim.

That's the "balanced coverage" we presume Chuck must have been referring to.

After my complaints, he decided to run the YEI statement again the following week. This time in seperate paragraphs where they outlined Clint Curtis' response to them, followed --- in every instance --- by a statement from YEI's attorney (and Feeney's former law partner) Michael O'Quinn who was given the last word. In every paragraph.

Get that "balance" yet?

In the meantime, an email back and forth between Chuck and I still seems to have made it impossible for him to understand that when Feeney says he has had no relationship with the Yang's since 2002 but has received thousands of dollars from both them and their attorney to finance an unopposed campaign and still RENTS (or is given?) OFFICE SPACE for the campaign in Yang's own building...well, it doesn't bode well for Feeney's credibility now, does it?

We don't care where his "other office" may or may not be. The professional association still, clearly, exists.

Unlike our friend Chuck's, apparent, ability to produce "balanced coverage" or opinion.



...chuck said on 2/14/2005 @ 6:12am PT...

Well, just have a moment but,
I explained to Brad that I was not a friend of feeney and even (in response to his written questions) went into exactly how many times I had spoken to him over the years and whether (as he accused) feeney owned the place ,or if we donated money to him....... all the wrong answerers for brad evidently as I have seen no mention of them! Also, pointed out more than once I am not the editor, for whatever that matters, it is the family business and this is our e-mail..... doesnt matter I suppose just another example of seeing and hearing only what you want to hear and see that further erodes the credibility of the rest of the content..... as for the reporting by my paper, brad never mentioned the offer I made for him to write his own col. or letter to the editor did he? Or the fact that curtis was interviewed and alloweed to say whatever he wanted which was also published verbatum did he? It was a series of articles which covered the story completely in a fair and balanced manner, feeney didnt like some of it and brad didnt like some of it. too bad, they should both go get a newspaper of their own if they want to control content otherwise they will just have to hear both sides wont they? Great place here for research and getting an extreme left view to balance your thinking but those of you who depend on it for balance ,or even the whole story, better think about it..... there will not always be someone willing to point out to you the parts left out of the commentary, parts that change the story alltogether . Like I said, I think it should be considered that whoever this site goes after might in fact be thankful that brad is on them because as it is, that pretty much precludes anybody else doing it. The only way that attitude dies and this site becomes effective is that the people reading perk up, stop following blindly, and question, question, question(as brad will undoubtedly claim he wants)...... now slam away and convince yourselves I am wrong but I suspect a few of you are bright enough to see the logic.


...Brad said on 2/14/2005 @ 11:47pm PT...

Silly Chuck...

I'll try to hit only the most notable of your noise. Your comments in italics:

I explained to Brad that I was not a friend of feeney and even (in response to his written questions) went into exactly how many times I had spoken to him over the years and whether (as he accused) feeney owned the place

Are you seriously suggesting that I said "Feeney owned the place"?? Aside from the possibility I was speaking metaphorically (if I actually said what you mention), it would seem someone as sharp as you might have figured that out. As you've told me, Neil Boortz is your idea of a responsible journalist, so drawing from that brain pool, I'd have assumed you'd understand a metaphor. If I even said such a thing.

As to your friendship with Feeney, do you *really* want me to go into details here --- publicly --- concerning what you told me about how you received certain documents directly from him?

or if we donated money to him....... all the wrong answerers for brad evidently as I have seen no mention of them!

And there's much more that is also irrelevant that you told me that you haven't seen here as well, Chuck.

I try to post only what is relevant.

Kinda opposite from when you had my detailed reply to Yang's statement on their website, including hard evidence to prove they were lying, but you chose to simply run their statement --- without comment --- in your paper.

Apparently you had determined that hard evidence showing they were not telling the truth was not relevant, so you didn't run it.

Now why would that be, Chuck? Have you run it today? Like the copies of the weekly time reports showing that Nee worked for Yang in contradiction to their statement? The ones I sent you *before* you ran their statement without comment? (a couple of them are right here in case you'd like to run them in this weeks paper).

as for the reporting by my paper, brad never mentioned the offer I made for him to write his own col. or letter to the editor did he? Or the fact that curtis was interviewed and alloweed to say whatever he wanted which was also published verbatum did he?

Given that your papers website hasn't been updated since the summer hurricanes, it's not likely I'd be able to read that interview. As you likely know, you neither sent me a copy, nor did you add any of the stories to your website. (As you had promised to do after your first report. And *I* even volunteered to do it for you!)

(You're welcome).

As to your offer to write a letter to the editor. I sent you many letters, including the above mentioned reply to Yang. You never ran that.

If time allows, I will try to send a letter to the editor if I ever see the remaining stories you published. You have my address. Feel free to send me a copy.

For now though, the work here reaches far more readers on a daily basis, and is much more important than retreading old, already debunked information printed by a small local newspaper who is willing to re-run propaganda as "news" in their paper.

As you know, I told you that you are free to run any of my pieces on the Curtis story in your paper any time. I ask only that you do so unedited and without comment. As you did for Yang.

Great place here for research and getting an extreme left view to balance your thinking but those of you who depend on it for balance ,or even the whole story, better think about it

I'll let your previous mention of "fair and balanced" speak for itself. These aren't Republican monkeys you're talking to here, Chuck.

But as to the mention of "balance" in the above paragraph, I don't give a rats ass about "balance". I care about fairness, and my work here shows as much, but "balance" is the last hope evildoers hoping that the premise of "balance" will somehow force someone like CNN to show two Bush mistakes and two Kerry mistakes in a post-debate round-up.

Never mind the rather *unbalanced* FACT that Bush made 10 mistakes and Kerry only 2, "balance" of the Fox "News" sort that you pretend to give a damn about, means there will be a levelled playing field to keep the bad guys looking as swell as the good.

Sell it to Boortz and your other wingnut buddies. That crap doesn't fly here, Chuck.

And I suspect it doesn't fly in Oviedo either for some of your local readers who may recognize when a press release is reposted as "news". I have a feeling they may see that as neither fair nor balanced.

Then again...didn't you say Feeney lives right around the corner from you?

I suggest you show some professional self-respect and take this conversation off blog. You know my phone number and you have my email address.

But, of course, you're welcome to continue here if you prefer. But do us all the favor of hitting ENTER every now and again to add a paragraph so it's a bit easier to read your nonsense.



...chuck said on 2/15/2005 @ 6:38am PT...

Wow! hit a sore spot or two huh Brad? I think anyone who reads both entries, (yours and mine) with an open mind can pretty much figure out who is avoiding the issues and who is addressing them, who is making a point and who is ranting. Get some rest and start damage control Brad, I doubt more than 10-15% of the eight or ten people I see posting here will take the time to consider the possibilities and they would just become easily replaceable "wingnuts" in your mind anyway wouldn't they? Now quote me some "hit" statistics if you like but we both know, don't we Brad? Funny you never mentioned that you hadn't read our series before..... Anyone following all you have said about the series would have thought you had read it I bet!. We both know the truth there too don't we? Even if anyone did believe that you hadn't, do you really want those same minions to believe you would rant so much and take such positions about something you hadn't read? Good luck all! Try to devote some thought to all this, I expect my postings will be blocked from now on as it appears difficult to maintain composure for some of us in a public forum.... much harder to just say anything you want I suppose when it might start a "thoughtstorm" and threaten the base followers...... maybe yall should chime in and tell him he is right and righteous its what he needs to hear......Wow Brad.... just try to get some rest and I will try not to be "silly" but I do care a "rats ass" about balance and the distinction you try to make between that and "fairness" as if they have no relationship here is just .. well, "silly" (and I will work on that hitting enter thing too).


...Brad said on 2/15/2005 @ 10:50am PT...

Now you seem to be just babbling.

You sent me the first three stories in your "series". You didn't send the last one where you have said you ran a Curtis interview.

Don't know what to tell you, Chuck, but you sound desperate. No, there's no reason to "ban" you. Why would I want to do that?

You're doing a brilliant job of (forgive me) making an ass out of yourself here.

Keep up the good work! (Unless you'd like, as I say, to demonstrate some personal and professional self-respect, and take your rantings offline. Up to you though.)



...chuck said on 2/15/2005 @ 11:26am PT...

Who sounds desperate? Thats at least twice you suggested this conversation be held where no one else can follow and I did not see a single response to any of the points raised..... "silly" Brad. You were more fun when you felt safe saying anything you wanted.


...Brad said on 2/15/2005 @ 12:19pm PT...

Sigh...was trying to do you a favor, Chuck. You seem to be making a public ass out of yourself.

If you wish to continue doing so here, that's up to you.

As not seeing "a single response to any of the points raised", again, I don't know what you're talking about.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here (hit ENTER twice after each to insert a blank line for clarity, if you would be so courteous) and I will do my best to answer any "points" you wish to "raise" that you feel I have not answered to already.



...chuck said on 2/15/2005 @ 12:49pm PT...

Really dont know how I could be clearer...... I am confident even the most mindless of your followers can read back and see the points raised that you choose to ignore. Not the least of which would be the ongoing commentary on my coverage of the feeney/yang story without having read it. What would you say if someone "not of your political leanings" took such a stand? Gee... I wonder?? What if that same person publicly said "I dont give a rats ass about balance"?? Spin it all you want, hide behind "blogger" if you like but dont try to pass this off as a news source...... when challenged to support your rants it is obvious you are playing out of your league and serving the same purpose for the radical right that the people dancing in the desert at roswell with aluminum foil antennas on their heads serve for those that believe there in no intelligent life in the universe. Sorry to be so harsh, I like you and find you amusing to be sure, its just that I see a brighter future for you in hydroponic tomatoes.


...Brad said on 2/15/2005 @ 1:12pm PT...

Again, no clue what wasn't commented on and apparently you don't wish to tell us. Which speaks for itself it would seem.

The offer is still open to ask me any question you like (provided you use a blank line to separate them so it's easier to follow what the hell you're asking).

It has been made quite clear several times in this thread that my complaints stemmed from your "report" wherein you reposted Yang's website statement verbatim, without comment, several weeks after they had posted it on their website, and long after I had already published information that included hard evidence to directly refute several of their claims.

That, of course, would be in addition to one week's report in which you left out Yang attorney O'Quinn's longtime partnership with Feeney, and another wherein you printed Yang's statement yet again, this time, giving Curtis one short reply to each graf, followed by the "last word" given in each case to Feeney's friend and Yang attorney O'Quinn.

For the record, you have yet to send me a copy of your purported interview with Curtis and as far as I know, it is still not available online, so I cannot comment on it.

I would have no problem with *anybody* who eschewed the absurd Foxspeak of "balanced" reporting. Particularly when they are discussing "news" which is neither fair nor balanced as your coverage has woefully been.



...chuck said on 2/16/2005 @ 7:16am PT...

Looks like you have gotten a little rest and are at least beginning to minimize the ranting and bouncing between subjects a bit...... not quite sure if you are feeling relieved or worried that nobody but us seems to be reading this but if you leave it here a bit perhaps someone will and maybe they will point out the shorcomings of your commentary reguarding my paper before you put up your deaf ear defences. It has all been said, and as you put it so aptly in the beginning of your last comment, you have no clue..... Thats good I suppose but a little sad also.


...Brad said on 2/16/2005 @ 10:23am PT...

So in other words, there were no "points that [I] chose to ignore".

You were as full of hot air then as you were when you stated on the front page of your paper that you "preferred balanced coverage over tabloid journalism".

Well done. You've learned your Bush/Foxspeak well.

The country thanks you for your great patriotism.



...chuck said on 2/16/2005 @ 10:39am PT...

Dont mean to keep upsetting you its just that there are only so many ways I can say the same thing to you before I feel you really may understand and are just trying (in vain) to provoke me for some reason.... I used to think it was just because you thought it would make me mad and I would re-hash more unsubstntiated drivel from this dead end story...... to which the country owes you a thanks in some part at least for bringing it to a possibly premature end..... but now I think you really just dont get it.... dont worry, unless you can find a credible mouthpiece, nobody is listening anyway.


...Brad said on 2/16/2005 @ 7:22pm PT...

:-)

"Upsetting me"? Quite the contrary, chief. Your silly little single paragraphs without substance or point are indeed amusing.

But alas, despite the "so many ways" you are indeed "saying the same thing", you are also *not* saying the same thing over and over.

And that is, what are those "points that [I] continue to ignore"?

You have failed to answer that question so many times, some might start to believe that, in fact, there are no such points.

Now that couldn't possibly be true...could it?

Let me know what I "continue to ignore" or you may, if you wish, continue to use many many words to say nothing at all. You seem to have quite a gift for it!

Up to you.



...chuck said on 2/17/2005 @ 7:12am PT...

Silly Brad, You and I both know, and obviously nobody else is paying any attention (must be a trekkie convention going on) so whats the point of wasting my enegy on you any further. I had hoped some of your followers might read this little series and begin to wonder if the world is really the way you tell them it is but I suppose with 15 active readers and as many pages of "content" as you have going they can only spread so thin. As I said, what I fear about you guys is the damage you might do if anything real ever did fall in your laps..... you are smart enough to know that, and I have seriously considered that it might be your real mission. Anyway, either way it is, wheather your intent is to smokescreen for the bad guys in government or to bring down the government for some socialist utopia to move in is really irrelevent..... You are all alone and impotent, as it should be.
I like the "many many words to say....." thing you said! did somebody write that for you? See, I even made a paragraph fo you for that one!

For the record, we still have no idea what it was that Chuck wanted us to respond to. He has also not sent us a copy of his article in which he claims that Curtis was interviewed without comment.

As we've said, however, Chuck is always more than welcome to clarify and/or ask anything he wishes via phone, email, or here in comments where, as YEI CEO Mrs. Li-Waon Yang once wrote to Clint Curtis, "the door is always open" to him.