Meet In CommonNews

Local

Party affiliation error

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: Salish Current

To the Editor: Readers have valued Cascadia Daily News as a local paper of record. That trust makes it important for CDN to address promptly and transparently a serious oversight: a full-page campaign ad for state Senate candidate Dr. Erika Creydt ran on Oct. 16 without her party affiliation, which the Public Disclosure Commission requires in a partisan race. Notably, Dr. Creydt’s ads in other news outlets included the required party affiliation. This raises a critical question: how did the missing “R” occur only at CDN? I submitted a letter about the ad to CDN on October 30, which was spiked, and then corresponded with Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Martin. He eventually published an editor’s note, but not until Nov. 6 — after the election. The ad ran more than two weeks earlier, and readers had raised questions before the election. I understand that newsrooms cannot publish every letter they receive, and I am not writing to challenge that decision.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at Salish Current

Featured places to meet in Palo Alto, CA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

Yutori

Yutori 3375 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA, 94306 US

Cafe Riace

Cafe Riace 200 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, CA, US

City guide for Palo Alto, CA

Community Poll

Automated tools should be tested with the people expected to use them.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

Software says a student cheated with AI. Is that enough to fail the paper?

A teacher suspects several essays were written with AI. Detection software marks one student's work as highly likely to be generated, but the software is known to make mistakes and the student denies using it.

How should responsibility be assigned when evidence is powerful but unreliable?

Explore this quandary