New Haven Independent

Posted by: cwhig | January 18, 2008 1:08 PM

This is the note I put on the "branfordtaborrecord" website this afternoon:

"Re the article in today's NH Independent: Having temped at Burson-Marsteller, I know how PR works. That doesn't make it right. Duby, you need to put a stop to this kind of misrepresentation. It corrodes our democracy and poisons public discourse."

Posted by: scjerry | January 18, 2008 3:01 PM

I'll simply document one well-known source of information on "contingency fees". Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_fee.

Basically, no perform-no get paid.

The Branford public should think about the likes of Doyle and the Marcus law firm, and the fact that their inaction (with Morris) resulted in debilitating limitations on the Towns efforts to present both financial and environmental expert witnesses.

Many beleve that there was illegal and imoral complicity involved between defense and plaintiff legal staffs.

Witness the fact that NEE plaintiffs got 4 weeks for their arguments --- the Town got 4 days.

Bergenn et.al. has launched a sophisticated campaign to coerce the Branford electorate by using assertions and "facts" that were never subjected to the tests of a competent legal process under a competent trial judge.

In a condescending comment, Bergenn lauds the intellegence of the Branford residents, yet seems oblivious to the fact that this very intellegence is capable of devining the attempted scam motivated of ego and money that are in play.

In conclusion, Duby McDowell has clearly not done her homework. She has, by becoming a hired gun, damaged her reputation as a journalist. I can't possibly understand Tanya Meck's involvement in this fiasco, except to evoke the obvious.

Follow the money!

Posted by: REGS | January 19, 2008 1:24 AM

All that is obvious to me is that Duby is Shipman & Goodwin's PR Agent and that Marcia Chambers performs the same service for Unk DaRos. Doesn't change a thing.

Posted by: Gil Kelman | January 19, 2008 9:53 AM

Since when has BPA allowed commercial broadcasting and an promoting an outfit that might be involved in litigation against the taxpayers of our town?

Posted by: Spoonman | January 19, 2008 1:24 PM

I agree its all a bunch of marketing. However, If the town took the property because of health and safety issues, Why are they proposing but govt. buildings there? I mean if they took it because, the officials thought it was too polluted for housing, how can they justify putting people in harms way? I don't understand. Somethings either wrong with the town or wrong with the original taking.

Posted by: Pam Fowler | January 19, 2008 9:31 PM

What's obvious is that Duby McDowell prostituted her reputation in the service of Shipman and Goodwin. And for what? If S&G's position is so solid, why engage in the charade?

Pam Fowler
RTM-4

Posted by: Spoonman | January 20, 2008 5:06 PM

Well I hate to say this Ms. Fowler, but in case you haven't noticed, the town has $25 million judgment against it...I know we are appealing it but still isn't that a little bit disconcerting? Nobody has answered why now we can built building on the property when it was too polluted before?

Posted by: REGS | January 20, 2008 6:09 PM

Pretty harsh words from the RTM-4: A Public Relations agent is a hired gun. I don't think anyone expects otherwise. S&G put up the branfordtaborrecord.com website to offset the disinformation that has been spewed by the RTM, various "reporters" and past and current Town politicos. What fascinates me is: wherever before have we actually been able to see trial exhibits and actual trial testimony? I don't need anyone else's interpretation of what went on and who knows what. I can read it myself and draw my own conclusions. That conclusion is that the Town acted on the advice of its former Town Counsel, Penny Bellamy, and has been dancing around the issue ever since.

Posted by: New Haven Tea Party | January 21, 2008 11:30 AM

The thrust of this story is not the factual basis of the court decision - it's the dishonesty of the presentation. The titles of Duby and Meck were chosen specifically to mislead and enhance their credentials as uniquely qualified to interview the winning lawyers in this case. Neither has any expertise in this area of the law or in this type of dispute. Duby's expertise is not even public relations - it's politics. Meck's sitting on a P and Z board in West Hartford is equally thin and is akin to running a daycare center and using that experience to claim expertise in child development.

This type of info-mercial really doesn't belong on public access. It would have been better if Duby had simply stated her name, the goal of the program and then proceeded to allow the lawyers to pontificate their positions and urge taxpayers to put pressure on town leaders to pony up or otherwise resolve the dispute. Even if the titles are factually accurate, the setting and use of them is not and therein lies the problem. It's parsing the truth rather than just telling the truth. There is a difference. One would have thought that Duby, with her years as a journalist, would have appreciated that point of integrity.

Dishonesty in publc discourse especially in matters of public policy always leads to a greater greater level of distrust and at the end of the day, the public, who they are trying to sway, are always poorly served from manipulative attempts like this.

Posted by: doug | January 21, 2008 11:31 AM

I can understand, sadly, the necessity faced by reporters today. I don't know what Ms. McDowell's financial situation was like, but many reporters eventually realize that they can no longer afford to continue working in the field of journalism. That's a fact of life. Journalists don't make much money, and that in itself is part of the problem with corporate control of the media. Good reporters eventually have to move on to new careers.

However, it's important to make the distinction that most of the reporters who do move on are honest about it. If you're in PR, tell people you're in PR. It's extremely disingenuous to use in a PR production your former title as a reporter or even analyst - which you became because of your reportering experience. Ugh.

Duby! Turn away from the Dark Side!

Posted by: Pam Fowler | January 21, 2008 11:54 AM

No one expects less from a PR consultant but one does from a journalist and that's the capacity in which Ms. McDowell presented herself; hence the harsh words.

However, the more interesting aspect of the story is why Shipman and Goodwin feels it needs a PR roadshow in the first place. They've gone to extensive ends to make a public appeal for what?

As attorneys for the developer, I wonder if this crosses an ethical line for S&G?

Pam Fowler

Posted by: regs | January 21, 2008 3:40 PM

What does it matter why Shipman & Goodwin put the video on? I guess BPA needs filler time. The fact is that the lawsuit was lost, the appeal will NOT bring a new trial but a review of the existing record. When the Town Counsel missed filing deadlines, that case was lost. When Kelo and Queach went through the process there were many hearings and a lot of public input before actions were taken. This charade was concluded in minutes before the RTM, based to a large degree on a "report" from a consultant that was edited (for 3 hours according to her billing record) by the former Town Counsel. This is where the real issues lie. Everything else about PR, marketing and the like is window dressing and posturing. Filter out the blather, and focus on the facts.

Posted by: Spoonman | January 21, 2008 7:04 PM

I don't know S&G motive for airing the video and you know what I don't care. It is irrelevant to the fact that a jury awarded the plaintiff a major victory and all I hear from our representatives is complaining about some stupid PR video. People, the house is burning down and we're complaining about the curtains.

Posted by: walt bradley | January 22, 2008 9:13 AM

You know, BCTV (the correct name of branford's access station) IS a public access center. That means anyone who lives in Branford may either take the free production class and do their own program with thier own counterpoint, or may produce their own video and submit it to be played on the station. Fortunately, unlike most media sources, there is an option that is both possible and effective. And free.
I strongly advise the disenfranchised people to look into this opportunity at BCTV, and i encourage the people of new haven (and hamden & west haven) to look into citizens television. there is a CTV link on the left side of the independent's home page.

Posted by: mindoflen | January 22, 2008 4:37 PM

For shame. Duby, you know better. Why dump mud on a shining career for a few bucks? Yes, TV stations are using PR videos and many are not citing them as video press releases, but that doesn't make it right.
Duby, you need to apologize. Nobody says you can't make a living in PR, but you need to separate the PR from the news. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, which makes it all the more shameful.

Posted by: E. Cleveland | January 25, 2008 3:09 PM

Duby McDowell should also stop using the ribbon that identifies her as a WFSB political analyst. In fact WFSB ought to realize what a hypocrite she is and stop using her for political analysis altogether. She can't have it both ways. If I were a company looking for a PR group to hire, I would stay away from her company because apparently her ethical standards are for sale to the highest bidder, and there is no accountability.

In this country the press enjoys more protection for freedom of speech than most places in the world. With this protection comes the responsibility to be truthful, and most journalists take that very seriously. So when we come across one who sells out, like Duby, and pretends to be a journalist when she is actually acting in a commercial, we feel particularly angry and ripped off. Not only do members of their own profession turn against them, but so does the public. Look at Judith Miller...look at Fox News. Duby has just put herself in that same company.