Responding to Lighthouse's 9-point statement : LUSENET : 1998 Guam Elections : One Thread

The Calvo-Gutierrez power combo has made a farce of our island's media and goes against the very concept of democracy. Don't know about the Calvo-Gutierrez combo?

The Calvo - Gutierrez power combo - surely it exists. But against the concept of democracy? Hmm. A weak argument.

1) The Calvos receive numerous contracts from GovGuam and stand to receive many more if Carl is re-elected. One of many examples includes the Calvo's Harmon bldg that GPA has been leasing since last yr but only recently started using. And it spent thousands to renovate THEIR building! Nothing new or extraordinary about this statement. Calvos have received contracts from the government for numerous years. They stand to receive many more no matter who wins. As far as the Harmon contract - that is basic lease obligation existing in every other long term lease contract. I agree - may not be the best decision, but it is perfectly legal - and it is not unique. The Calvos are a very big company. They meet numerous needs of the government. It is impossible to exclude them from GovGu contracts. Although their possible favorable treatment would not be a coincidence, that is the nature of politics. If you scorn through all government contracts in previous administrations, you will find the same connections. As long as the contracts are procured properly - you have no point to make here. 2) The Calvos donate to Carl's campaign. Check it out at the election commission.

Again, another statement putting forth no new news. Calvos have contributed to candidates in every election in the past twenty years. Nothing extraordinary about this. Every large corporation, both locally and stateside, understand the political processes. Donations to political candidates is rooted in our democratic history.

3) The Calvos have bought into Carl's incinerator project. They're now investors in his stinking incinerator company. Look it up in financial records. The Calvo's son-in-law, the slippery Peter Sgro Jr., is a rabid supporter for no apparent reason of the incinerator, which will cost us millions and threaten our health.

There are two sides to this issue. Although I agree with idea that an incinerator would not be in our best interest, literature supporting both sides exist. Incinerator projects elsewhere have both succeeded and failed - which support and disclaim both sides of incinerator controversy. As for your claim that Sgro is supporting the project for "no apparent reason" - misconstrues the obvious. Sgro is a supporter of Carl. Is there something unusual about a supporter publicly standing by his candidate on a controversial issue? Certainly does not go against democracy. He is speaking his mid - for whatever motive he may have. If it is business-related - so be it. The project has financial potential. What is so unusual for a business to invest in a project with financial potential? Nothing - happens all the time. (Even for controversial projects dealing with the environment). Businesses look at the pros and cons - and make their decisions from there. 4) Speaking of Sgro ... he's on the board of directors of the Marianas Variety, which has opened a Guam office to support Carl's campaing. When one reporter didn't want to run a pro-Gutierrez story (pretty much an ad), Sgro threatened the reporter's job.

This statement sheds more light on the misleading statement you made regarding the relationship as being against every concept of democracy. Media organizations have absolutely no limitations based on democratic principles to control the content of their organizations. The free speech or free press clauses you may be alluding to have no reference to this situation. These democratic principles were established to ensure that the government does not abridge the free speech or press. In this situation, as you allege, Sgro obviously has the green light to take the means necessary to ensure that the content of the organization reflects its goals. Just because their goals are related to supporting Carl does not make it any more unique than other media actions. Look at the headlines of PDN in previous election years. It is clear that PDN is biased towards stories reflecting their goals. You never seem concerned about those biases that have existed for years. The liberal control of media in the mainland is even more obvious. Such bias cannot be accomplished by asking employees to politely refrain from certain stories. The fact is - the media owners can demand anything they want from their employees - this does not go against the concept of democratic principles established.

5) The Calvos own KUAM, Island News, and Isla 610. They don't let their news team or talk show hosts work freely, as they should. Read on.

Same response as #4. The media is a business. They have just as much right curtailing the content of their news a certain way - as Kings restaurant has in forcing their chefs to cook their fried rice in a certain manner. If a Korean Chef wants to add Kimchee to the fired rice - and the owner does not - the chef must oblige. The key here is that democratic princliples are not abridged unless the government (in this situation) is forcing and abridging the free speech and free press. Your allegations clearly show that this is not the case. These are decisions made by the OWNERS and managers of the organizations. Right or wrong - it occurs in just about every media organization throughout America. Read on.

6) The Calvos fired Carmen Ulloa when she refused to run a "news" story on a Gutierrez Fil-Am golf fundraiser for his campaign. Actually, they just demoted her from news director and cut her salary in half. She quit that day.

Same response. If any media owner dislikes the content that will be expressed, they have every right to ensure that it is not expressed. When Jeff's show was canceled - he rambled on about the political interference that occurred. He made it sound, as you do, that Carl is making the direct decision to cancel shows or curtail content. The fact is - the owners here have every right to do so - with whatever motive they have. If I were Lee Holmes buying MCV - I would not have continued the services of "pro-democratic party" talk show host. Sure it would obviously be biased, but isn't this the control and power that is part of the inherent desire to own a media company in the first place. Obviously so.

Don't forget what is important here - the CALVOS demoted Carmen - THEY decided to demote her. Who, why and what is the reason is immaterial when democratic principles are concerned. As long as they willingly decide to demote someone - the reasons for doing so - whether it be their hair, their attitude, or their political biases - is not as important as the fact that they have the ability to FREELY decide. This is Free Press. 7) The Calvos fired Chris Iarossi, former reporter and then station director for Isla 610. Iarossi simply wanted to run a standard disclaimer (this is a paid political ad) before some Gutierrez campaign promos, but she got canned. Ok ok , lets get down to the bottom line. Any media company can fire any of its employees if they feel that their work goes against their beliefs. Is it a right way to run the business? That is another question. But is it their right? Yes. Does it go against the concepts of democracy that you state? No. In fact, the free decisions that the Calvos, PDN, K-57, and all others make, the matter which side of the political fence they are on - are evidence that the principles of democracy, namely free speech and free press - are preserved.

8) The Calvos fired Chris Barnett recently, because he talked about politics. They told him just a few weeks ago not to talk about politics, but of course his callers kept bringing up politics. One idiot started ranting about how Tom Ada wasn't on island after the typhoon, and how he's no leader. All Chris did was say that he, personally as a voter, wouldn't use something like whether someone was on island after a typhoon to make his voting decision. Joey Calvo, GM for KUAM, called and asked why Chris was DEFENDING Tom Ada! That's no defense! Joey said he'll talk to Chris the next day, and when Chris came in he soon found out he was "cut back." Then he finds out he's blacklisted at K57 and Jon Andersen, who is obviously soft on Carl.

Again - same issue - same response. Contrary to popular opinion - a talk show host or DJ does not have some inherent right to talk freely about whatever he wants to. Moreover, a listener such as me or you does not have any inherent right to listen to reports or talk shows which are biased to the left, biased to the right, or unbiased. The right to free press concerns the ability of OWNERS, not employees, to make any decision they want without such decisions being abridged. Read 9 for more explanation of your next argument. 9) After Chris Barnett was fired, Tommy Boy Gutierrez ("alleged" drug dealer) went around bragging about how he got Chris fired. He actually told people, "No one can f*** with me!!!"

This statement alleges nothing more than the influence that political officials or connected officials have on media organizations. Now, if you want to allege that Tommy Boy told Joey to fire Chris or else the government is going to sanction or affect some legal right that KUAM presently possesses, then you would finally have some allegation that if true - would be against the concept of democracy, or in this case, against the free press clause of the first amendment. However, you do nothing of the kind. All you are alleging is that Tommy Boy has a lot of influence ono Joey and KUAM, and that he is immature enough to brag about it. None of these allegations rise to the point of going against any concept of democracy. The fact remains, Joey made the decision to fire Chris. If it was indeed because of the warnings made to Chris about the political content of his show - than so be it. Having the right to control directly the content of a show - is protected - not prohibited. Still the one, Carl? Still the one who controls everything like a gangster. But that's not as catchy a slogan.

Lighthouse, you have put forth arguments in favor of supporting someone other than Gutierrez. They are good and decent arguments against the increasing influence that the Governor has over KUAM. I am aware of the consequences that such influence has when media is involved. However, your statement that it goes against the concepts of democracy are unfounded. I actually wrote this because as a democrat, the media on Guam has consistently been biased against the causes we have - albeit indirectly against the politicians which represent us. Although to put it succinctly, "it sucks" - it certainly does not go against our principles of democracy. The ideal situation is an unbiased media. But I think we always need to keep in mind that we have absolutely no right to an unbiased media. We can only hope for new media outlets that abound which either reflect more favorably on our own political or social beliefs, or at the very least, an organization which tries their hardest to be in the middle. I believe that any such a triumph of "being in the middle" would reflect the power and self-control of the owner - rather than the lack of any political influence. There is always political influence in the media. Your concentration on Gutierrez's efforts, in my opinion, reflects a more compelling story: That story is KUAM's decision to oblige - rather than Gutierrez's efforts to influence.

Good forum.

-- Electronic Culture (, October 03, 1998


Electronic Culture,

Thank you for the decent reply. I've been waiting a long time for one. However, I'd have to disagree with your main argument, and I think most intelligent supporters of democratic principles would as well. Your idea of democracy may be a little different from mine, but I'll get into that below.

Your arguments, put succinctly, seem to be: 1) King Karl and the Kalvos have definitely made financial deals, but that happens all the time; 2) KUAM may be firing reporters and talk show hosts for not being pro-Gutierrez, but KUAM's 1st amendment rights are not being violated by the government; and your main argument, 3) Because the 1st amendment rights have not been violated, the deals to control the media don't go against the concept of democracy.

If I've misstated those arguments, please correct me. But that's how I understand them, and I'd like to address them.

First, your points 1 and 2 must be combined to see what I'm driving at: that the Karl-Kalvo business deals are steering, controlling, manipulating the news. Attacking them separately is attacking two weaker arguments, but by combining them you can see the whole picture. Karl has made deals with the Kalvos so that KUAM and 610 AM will run pro-Gutierrez stories and the truth about what is going on in our government won't come out. Thus, the voters won't have anywhere near the information they need to make the best choice at the voting booth. Any reporter or talk show host who gets in the way of this Karl-Kalvo deal gets canned.

Now for your main point: Because the 1st amendment rights have not been violated, the deals to control the media don't go against the concept of democracy. I disagree vehemently.

Let's first state that there are two very different concepts of democracy. One is that the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information, so they can make informed decisions, are open and free. The other concept is that the public must be barred from managing their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled.

While the second conception of democracy is what has been in practice in the United States, through very strong propaganda techniques, I think most of us would like the first idea of democracy. I think this is what we love, what we strive for, and no matter what the practice is in our country, it's what we should always fight for.

The Karl-Kalvo deals to control the public's means of information is only one example. I've listed many others in this forum: Karl's influence on MCV, on Cable News, on Marianas Variety, on the PDN, on the Legislature, on the Kuentos election forum. Let me emphasize: EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC FORUM OR MEANS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD TELL US WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR GOVERNMENT IS BEING CONTROLLED OR MANIPULATED BY KING KARL IN WAYS WE SHOULD NOT TOLERATE.

Karl seems to know that if the public had full access to information about what is really going on in his administration, he'd never be re- elected. So, in just the last year, he has made a concerted, powerful effort to make sure this doesn't happen. It's being done on a scale unimaginable in the United States.

No, Karl has not violated the First Amendment by passing a law that restricts the freedom of the press. Instead, he has controlled our means of information in ways that may not be illegal but are incredibly dirty and unethical, and that violate every principle of a free democracy.

We've put up with this for too long. I say, no more.

-- Lighthouse Keeper (, October 03, 1998.

Not a whole lot to add to Lighthouse Keeper's response. Its impossible to make an informed decision in the voting booth without knowing what the people you elect are doing and the press is the only source of that kind of information for most people. Because of that enormous responsibility there are a higher set of standards for journalists than for restaraunts or other regular businesses. Another minor point: your assertion of a liberal national media bias is completely unsupportable and seems to indicate that you are a dittohead.

Hope I'm wrong about that, RTT

-- RTT (Rat@tat.tat), October 04, 1998.

oh, i see. if king's restaurant doesn't like carmen ulloa's fried rice, they can fire her, because they only want pro-gutierrez fried rice. now everything is clear. because fried rice is the foundation of democracy. oh, wait. i mean a free press and free flow of information is the foundation of democracy. my mistake.

but carl didn't violate the first amendment so he must not be violating democratic principals, cuz the first amendment is the only paragraph in the world that is democracy. no, sorry, my mistake again. the first amendment is just part of democracy. there is much more to democracy, you say? that's hard to imagine.

i guess if carl wants to pay the calvos to fire carmen ulloa and run good stories about him, we should all just say, thank you carl and the calvos, for exercising your rights under the constitution. because you rich guys are what matter, not us voters. nope, it's more important that you all do what you want with your businesses and money than it is for us to know what's going on in the govt. yeah.

ummm...let's all vote for carl! because he thinks we're dumb and we can't figure out that he's ripping us off while running our govt into the ground! he's the greatest! he's the best thing since hot buttered toast!

-- Si Juan (juantootree@tilla.hun), October 04, 1998.

They did not fire Carmen, they just demoted her, then she quit.

-- correction on Ulloa (, October 17, 1998.

You have to remember that so much of this controversy centers on what is "fair". The concept of "fairness" is interpreted by each individual. Because a reporter feels that their story is "fair" doesn't necessarily mean that it is. It is the ultimate responsibility of the "licensee" to see that the coverage is fair. Lighthouse Keeper is not the ultimate artibor of fairness anymore than any other citizen. Just because YOU don't feel something is fair doesn't automatically make it unfair. There are many instances in this forum where allegations against Gutierrez (or KUAM or the Calvo's) are believed with very little corroboration and absolutely no proof (I'm not saying these thing didn't happen, just that there is no "proof") yet allegations against anyone else are held to some higher standard. The news MUST have something to back up what they print or air. KUAM's recent story about GEDA loans should not have run anymore than Antoinette Quitagua's allegations (also uncorroborated) should have run. If YOU feel a certain media is unfair, don't listen, read or watch them. If YOU feel more media outlets are needed, start one.

-- Truthkeeper (, October 17, 1998.


Your post was excellent, and you bring up some very good points about fairness. Allow me to offer a different, although perhaps similar, perspective:

Fairness is indeed a central issue in this debate over KUAM and the Kalvo deals with the governor. But we also have to remember that what is fair for most businesses isn't the same in the media business. The media is much more important to a democracy than is a restaurant or stationary store. Therefore, you must have higher standards.

To have a fair media organization, you must separate the news side from the business side. This means that the licensee, which is the Kalvos in KUAM's case, should *not* be the judge of what is fair. It should be the news director or managing editor. The ultimate judge of fairness is not me, as you correctly pointed out, but actually the public. If the public thinks a media organization isn't being fair, they'll stop listening, watching or reading it, as you suggested doing. What I was trying to do is provide some information to the public that wasn't getting out so they could make a more informed decision. It's difficult for the public to judge fairness of stories that aren't running -- if KUAM never does stories on the incinerator, how can the public judge the fairness of the stories?

In the case of K57, Jon Anderson is a biased talk show host and the arrogant president of K57. But according to K57 reporters, Jon doesn't interfere with the news team other than suggesting interesting stories he's heard about.

In the case of PDN, Lee Webber has very strong opinions. But according to PDN reporters, Webber has no input into news stories nor does he edit stories. His contribution is in the editorial page, where PDN takes an opinion.

In the case of KUAM, the Kalvos, who are in business with Karl, take a very active role in the news side, telling the news director not to do stories that make their businesses or Karl look too bad. They stop stories from running if the stories violate this rule. This is not how a media organization should be run. The proof you ask for is in eyewitnesses, corroborated by almost 10 other witnesses. Almost any current or former employee of KUAM has said that the things I allege and much more has actually happened. Of course, the Kalvos aren't dumb enough to leave documented proof, which is why they also don't have the documented proof of their claims that they fired Chris Barnett because he wasn't doing his job, was politically slanted, or had no businesses that wanted to sponsor his show -- they gave him no warnings of these things.

In the case of the Marianas Variety, Peter Sgro, a staunch supporter of Karl and brother in law of the Kalvos, is not only on the board of directors but also dictates news on the Guam side and even writes stories that don't have his name on them. Variety reporters are eyewitnesses of this.

It's almost impossible to have a fair media organization when the news is being influenced by the business interests of the organization. And this is very important to a democracy, especially on a small island like Guam where there is a limited number of media organizations and limited means of information to the public. It's important that the public know about what is going on here, because otherwise they might believe the stories that KUAM puts out and cast uninformed ballots. I'm trying to make sure that doesn't happen.

As for allegations against Karl not having proof or corroboration, that may be the case in some instances, but the allegations that I have posted can all be backed up. If you have a specific allegation you'd like proof or corroboration for, please let me know. Sometimes I incorrectly presume that the things I'm saying are common knowledge and therefore don't need evidence cited, but I'd be glad to clear things up.

This has been an interesting discussion, and it's very important that this discussion take place. I would just want people to remember that the business side of media shouldn't control the news side, otherwise we, the public, won't get a fair reporting of what's going on. That's what's happening now, and people should know about it.

-- Lighthouse (, October 23, 1998.


Congratulations that was a good posting. Let us take the high road and understand that we must break down the barriers between knowledge and needs and continue to remove these barriers to humanize our lifes. So long as we refrain from name calling and concentrate on the internal good then we are moving in the right direction.

-- (, October 23, 1998.

Lighthouse; Thank you for the interesting response. I indeed enjoy this exchange with you. It was pointed out in another forum that although the business side should be separate from the news side of an operation, the ultimate liability (legal and otherwise) of an inaccurate or libelous story, would rest with the business side or owners. They are the ones who would have to pay millions or thousands of dollars should the company be found liable in a civil case. And, what are the owners or the business side as you describe it, to do if they feel that the news side is being unfair or is slanted. This happens too. News directors and reporters have their own biases and favorites as well as enemies. As far as I know Jeff Evans, the news director for KUAM is no friend of Gutierrez. If he were to start running anti-Gutierrez stories and pro-Ada stories don't you feel that management should step in with their input? It appears to me that there as many pro and con stories about each candidate on KUAM. I question their judgement at times but usually on the side of conservatism. I don't think either the Antoinette Quitagua story or the Joe Ada - Bank of Guam story should have run. One was pro- Gutierrez and one was Anti-Joe. The recent story about GTA paying for government furniture certainly made the Gutierrez administration look bad yet it ran first on KUAM. It is, indeed, difficult for a big business to operate a news operation without the appearance of a conflict of interest. Look at CBS and the tobacco story or NBC with the exploding car story that was staged. Even if there was no intentional manipulation of the news by management the appearance is there because their interests are so diverse.

-- Truthkeeper (, October 24, 1998.

Please allow me to correct an error in my last post. I meant to say that one story was Anti-Gutierrez and the other was Anti-Ada. I apologize for the error.

-- Truthkeeper (, October 24, 1998.

With the terrific talent and energies together as one I think we can make a significant difference in the improvement of the quality of life on Guam... our medical care, education, govt. and private functions and so forth. However, we bash each other with our free wills in support of Carl or Joe. We continue to kill each other and accomplish nothing for our people. A small community like Guam can't afford to waste it's resources in this manner. For this reason that we should put an end to the hate and try to understand and accept our differences. Peace and Love to all mankind.

-- (, October 24, 1998.


You correctly state that: " although the business side should be separate from the news side of an operation, the ultimate liability (legal and otherwise) of an inaccurate or libelous story, would rest with the business side or owners."

This is true, but fairness is completely different from libel, which is a legal matter. The legal issue of libel does not mean that owners should mess with the news side of their media organization. Owners have to hire a news director competent and trustworthy enough to run a fair and accurate new show. If there are any questions of libel, the news director must seek legal counsel and notify the owners. But this does not give the Kalvos free reign to dictate what stories should and should not run. If libel is the question, then legal counsel should decide. If libel is not the question, and fairness is, then the news director should decide. If the news director screws up in either case, then owners should fire him. Micromanaging in a news organization has much more drastic effects than in other businesses -- it means fairness is destroyed, as in the case of KUAM.

News directors and reporters can indeed be biased -- but again, the owners must hire a news director who has a good journalism background and who is trusted to ensure that reporters don't slant the news. The owners cannot meddle in deciding which stories run and which don't run. And they cannot dictate which reporters are hired and fired -- this is the news directors job. The Kalvos violate both these rules.

Jeff Evans a year ago was very strongly against King Karl. Since then, he was sent to jail, fired from his Cable talk show, and jobless for awhile before he came to the Kalvos. They gave him a show with a good salary, and then made him news director with the understanding that they could dictate news when they wanted to. And they have, repeatedly, in the last year.

The first obvious example was with a weekend fiesta down south, where reporters had to interview numerous people who supported Karl, talking about how Karl dominates the village. Then they did stories about how Miller Lite (a product the Kalvos want to push) dominates the fiestas.

Then there were all kinds of stories about Karl at groundbreakings and other minor ceremonies. Then they started covering Karl's fundraisers, including a Fil-Am fundraiser for Karl that Carmen Ulloa objected to. After Carmen ran stories about AHRD workers painting 98 signs, she got demoted and her salary slashed. The Kalvos have stopped stories about tobacco bills, about Bill 475 that would give them millions in their investment at the Hyatt, about the incinerator, about their sweet Two Lovers Point deal with the government, about the sweet deal with GPA to lease their failing Harmon building, about Tommy Gutierrez's drug busts, about Angel Santos, and much more.

You say there are as many anti-Gutierrez stories as pro-Gutierrez stories. A few points to make here. First, this couldn't have been said before I, along with many others, started objecting to the incredibly biased news coverage a couple months ago. To compensate, KUAM started running some mediocre anti-Karl stories without covering the real meat -- failing government finances, obvious campaigning on taxpayer dollars, incinerator deal, education problems, rising ice use. The second point is that when KUAM knows that other media are running stories, they have to run the stories or they look obviously biased. The GTA furniture story, by the way, ran in PDN a day before it ran on KUAM. The third point is that Bernadette Stern, the only real reporter KUAM had, was the reason for some of the anti-Karl stories, including the Antonette Quitugua story you keep referring to. The Kalvos couldn't control Bernadette completely. When she did a second story on Tommy Gutierrez, interviewing attorney David Lujan, Joey Kalvo not only stopped the story from running but he gave the tapes of Bernadette's interviews with David Lujan to his buddy Tommy Gutierrez. If the story is slanted or libelous, the decision should have been made by the news director or the legal counsel (who in this case is a Kalvo -- the lawyer shouldn't have a business interest or a family relationship with the business interest, to preserve any conflicts).

We both agree that it is difficult for big business to run a media business, because of the appearances of conflicts of interest. This is why it is so important that the business stay completely away from the news side, so that any accusations of impropriety could be met with the truth and with examples of fair coverage of all issues. This is not the case with KUAM and the Kalvos, and the public has a right to know about this.

-- Lighthouse (, October 24, 1998.

I remember well the very slanted fiesta story that contained obvious references to Miller Beer, another Calvo company. Could that be why that particular reporter, Grace Lee, is no longer anchoring or reporting news but is now only doing her "magazine" show, Island Focus? She also did 2 very pro-Gutierrez shows. One where she drove around with him all day and praised him for his hard work and another where she devoted about 3/4 of the show to Gutierrez and only a few minutes to Joe Ada. A friend of mine called KUAM to complain and was told by the news department that Island Focus and Grace Lee are not part of that department. Whether that is true or not I don't know, but that is what he was told. I will call KUAM and find out.

While I have not expressed any particular preferences for a gubernatorial candidate in this forum, let me say that I do lean toward Joe Ada mainly because I agree that the current governor is involved in too many shady deals and too many accusations have been made for them all to be false. I say that because, even feeling the way I do, I was offended by some of Bernadette Stern's (or is it Sterne?) reports. She never missed a chance to take a shot at the government, even when it wasn't necessary. Perhaps it is the job of an investigative reporter to dig for dirt but it appears to me that she over-dramatized several stories to make them seem more important than they really were. I also never really cared for Carmen Ulloa as a news reporter. Perhaps part of this feeling comes from her very poor question to the greiving family member after the KAL crash, "how do you feel?" At the time I didn't realize she was the news director but I also noticed that several Republican's were part of the news on an almost daily basis but very few Democrats. Perhaps this is because they were in the majority. I remember Jeff Evans a couple years ago saying to a caller that he was a Republican but had a lot of Democrats on his show because they controlled all the committees.

I think the truth in this context is, as I said before, it is very difficult for a big multi-faceted company like Calvo's to dabble in media. I think they are probably doing a worse job than I think and a better job than you think. Somehow, either through pressure from you and others in the community or because of pressure from the news director, the stories do seem to be getting out. I think the voters will have adequate information to make a good decision this year.

Thank you for your time.

-- Truthkeeper (, October 24, 1998.


As usual your discussions are like 1/2 baked chicken meat. Unworthy and handled so badly. You have never been able to establish your facts and you fail to be clear and substantial in any of your concluesions. No wonder why you live in the dark ages, you think like one.

-- (, October 24, 1998.


I think I agreed with just about all of your last post, so I don't have too much to add. A couple things:

I can see what you are saying about Bernadette Stern, but in her defense she was one of the few reporters with the guts to do any hard hitting stories. My real point in my previous post was that there were some stories (like the Antonette Quitugua story) that were anti- Gutierrez that KUAM ran only because Bernadette did them, not because the Kalvos were being fair. She's gone now.

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement about big companies having difficulty running a media organization. In most cases, these companies and the public as well think that a media business should be run the same way as other businesses, where the owners have a say in anything they want. If you've studied democratic theory, you know that the media is too important to a democracy for big business to be able to control the flow of information. The public should know about this control, and should say something about it. Unfortunately, in most cases in the U.S., the media is controlled by very large companies with very strong interest in what the public knows about their companies. On Guam, the Kalvo ownership and dabbling in KUAM news is even more dangerous, because of the small number of media outlets and the limited means the public has to information. This situation can't be allowed to go unnoticed, and hence my posts to this forum.

Thank you for the interesting dialogue, Truthkeeper.

-- Lighthouse (, October 25, 1998.

It used to be, every evening I would put everything aside to watch to the news and I would have everyone sit down and watch with me. Now I have boycotted the news and don't even care to get the newspaper. I am not an advocate of Ada and neither for Carl but I do believe that the goings-ons of our island should be public and the people of Guam deserve only the truth from these so-called reporters. The reporters that I see on the news are WEAK and have no scruples and don't deserve the title because of the very fact they are not putting out the TRUTH. Where do we go from here and what choices do we have when it comes to finding out what is going on in our Government. Is the FBI going to put out special News releases and where would they do this if they could? Will PDN run stories about the Government and corruption beause KUAM certainly will NOT.

-- HI (, October 25, 1998.


I agree with you totally. I was surprised PDN did a piece on the FBI and Ghengis Khan.

-- (, October 27, 1998.

Yeah and who ever controls the press will have a better chance to win the election... so what wrong with that meatheads.

-- (press@victory.four), October 27, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ