Answering the call (out)

I’M CALLING YOU OUT!!!!!

That was the Facebook group Jonathan Velazquez posted in to attack us Monday night. The text read: “I’m calling you out the (sic) Houston home journal for cropping out the only candidate who is running against current Warner Robins mayor, how is this okay? It’s unprofessional, the last picture is everyone who was on the panel for this election November 4^th.”

The picture he’s referring to is the one that was originally with the article entitled: “Residents hear from mayor, candidates at NAACP meet and greet.” Initially the article – on Facebook – had the picture he’s referring to, and yes, his brother, Fabian Velazquez, was not in it, only the current mayor and four councilmen. The one in print did not have the picture. It was taken out by then as well as the one on Facebook (a snapshot of what the front page “was” to look like.) 

I’ll elaborate in a second.

First, here’s what mayoral candidate Fabian Velazquez posted to get his brother riled up: “Incredible. They cropped me out but kept the councilmen who are unopposed. The media clearly has a favorite and it’s Larhonda (sic). They don’t want what’s best for you.”

Okay, so …

Did he — they — reach out to our managing editor, Brieanna Smith, to express their discontent? She was up, for sure. She texted me at 5 a.m., “Please don’t send the front page (to be plated and printed). I woke up to a situation this morning.” I came in at 7 a.m. She had been here since 6 a.m. She took out the picture, redesigned the front. The pages were late to the press. Your paper dearest reader was later arriving than normal.

Did they reach out to the person who wrote the article, Sandra Hernandez (who, by the way, wrote a 2,044-word feature on him back on April 17?) She was up, for sure. Read her article on this page. This is the behind-the-scenes of what she’s alluding to. Notice the hurt in her voice as she was falsely accused.

Did the two of them go to them, two of the sweetest ladies you’ll find in the business, both who would have acknowledged their concerns and would have fixed it on a dime? (And indeed, did but not before they created a firestorm. Read on before you judge our integrity. Meaning: “Oh, it was only because they called you out.”) 

Did they reach out to the source of the photo, the NAACP? Yes, it was a “contributed” photo. It said so in the credit line. Did they reach out to them? Their number is in the phone book (online) to just maybe, you know, find out why they sent what they did? I’ve shot a lot of photos – hundreds – and there have been times I simply had been made to stand here or stand there – Air Force public affairs do that to you from time to time – and I was too close to get everybody in the picture. 

I’ve shot photos where, yes, I could get everybody in, but to do so I would have to step way back and even with the best of Nikon cameras, it still wanted to be out of focus. 

Above the article there’s a picture of Gov. Brian Kemp cutting the ribbon for the 36^th Annual Georgia National Fair. There’s a bunch of people in it, but I would bet the farm there were a number not in it. Funny how none have turned up on social media to protest – to my knowledge. 

This was actually “part two”. The first part had the Perry and Centerville candidates. We were only sent a picture of the Centerville candidates. Funny how none from Perry complained. 

Were they even the slightest bit curious about the evolution, the details behind the photo? Were there some underlying reasons? Constraints? I’m not saying there were. I’m not saying there weren’t. I’m asking were they even interested in researching? Investigating? 

No! They were interested in drawing their own conclusions. Developing their own conspiracy theory, then racing to Facebook where they could play the victim. Where they could claim bias and favoritism and even insinuate we were in bed with the mayor. 

Libelous statements when you consider the fact they have absolutely no evidence! In fact the evidence suggests exactly the opposite. That “he” was the one who received special treatment. He is mentioned, referred to directly or indirectly or quoted verbatim in 10 paragraphs in the article. 10! And most of them are pretty “meaty,” meaning they have a lot of substance. (i.e. talking about what he believes, what he stands for, et cetera.) Patrick had seven. Only four of them, I would say, containing real substance.

I would love to know how they would spin that to support their claim, their agenda, of oppression and wrongdoing. (P.S. If anybody should be upset, it’s Keith Lauritsen and Derek Mack. They only got one paragraph. Or Clifford Holmes! He didn’t even get a word!)

The picture was removed. They were appeased. They took down the posts. The problem is people know how to take screenshots. People know how to forward them, and in this culture and drama are eager to share them. Hence we are dealing with the ripples of the damage they have caused us and continue to cause. Like the Spanish radio station that messaged people on Facebook. Like folks tagging the Facebook page of one of the TV stations in Macon, of all places. Like advertisers asking our advertising folks for an explanation, and with the possibility we might lose advertisers over it.

Further, there is still residue on our Facebook page.

Brian Shantz: “Thanks for fixing the mistake … let this be a fair election … we need change.”

Warner Robins Memes: A meme of Leslie Nielsen in his Naked Gun role, with explosions going on in the background and him saying: “Nothing to see here. Please disperse.”

Brenda Hines: “Looks like they corrected their mistake.”

Russell Brand: “Congratulations Houston Home Journal.” (I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that’s sarcasm.)

For the record. In case there’s any doubt. Who we aren’t: CNN, Fox, MSNBC. Who we are: unbiased truth seekers. Do we have opinions? Yes, but we know where they belong. In “opinion/editorial” pieces, not in a news story. Further, unlike the media mentioned, we are committed to telling both sides of an issue. Both! That’s true journalism. We do not spin. We do not have motives and agendas. We simply have a heart and desire to tell the community’s story.

My plea is that this column does nothing to sway your vote. That you do the homework and you vote for the person you feel is best suited to lead Warner Robins into the future. Truth be told, he and I share some of the same beliefs/passions: The importance of the north side of town and that redevelopment of Commercial Circle is going nowhere. My vote is still to be determined.

Proverbs 22:1 says: “a good name is more desirable than great riches; favor is better than silver and gold.” I’m here defending our name and the integrity of our staff. We have committed no wrong. If we did, if we do – we aren’t claiming to be perfect – we will be the first to admit it, because we hold ourselves accountable.

Now would be a good time for them to humble themselves and to go on public record and do the same.