It appears that Channel 5, the U of A’s Chancellor, and the Boozman campaign have conspired to fraud the electorate. The ad WAS NOT pulled as reported, and the Chancellor went to great lengths with Channel 5 to distinguish that there was a “friendly disagreement” between the U of A and Boozman over what, if any, permission was given. Am I to believe that the Chancellor didn’t know the ad was going to air, again? Clearly, he was talking to Channel 5 about the ad. Am I to believe that Channel 5 didn’t know either?
From a very plain and ordinary view, each entity – the U of A’s Chancellor, Channel 5 and Boozman – appears to have created a symbiotic and controversial buzz about the ad ( and furthered it last night on air) but for what purpose? An assistant U.S. Attorney used to say “in for a penny, in for a pound” with regard to conspiracy. Why didn’t they just run the news story tonight, if the ad was simply “still in the server” and ran automatically, which was the quote I got from Channel 5 last night when I called them about this very issue.
At best, the Chancellor appears to be an impotent dupe with regard to the power necessary to manage assets under his charge (i.e. the U of A copyright). At worst, they all conspired to endorse Boozman, effectively.
As a U of A alumnus, I am upset, obviously. Moreover, I do not appreciate the Chancellor’s complicity in this matter. Alternatively, I question his savvy when dealing with the media…and so should you!