Does editorial license, license dishonesty and corruption?

The role of the press in a democracy really doesn't require
any more explanation or defense. The consensus is, they have
a responsibility as the fourth arm of government to fully
inform voters on issues and candidates.

Editors, if my understanding is correct, are given license to
offer opinions. For example, they might write; we recommend that voters vote in favor of the $650M bond issue, next February. But can they surreptitiously affect the outcome?

Are they given license to deliberately skew the truth?
Are they given license to change the outcome of an election
by means of deliberately misleading voters?

If you read the Journal editorials this morning, link, you will
find a piece on the APS, Winston Brooks, and his goal setting.

I think you would agree that the overall effect of the editorial
is that voters will have a warmer and a fuzzier feeling about
the APS when they go to the polls next February.

Recently, the Journal has give a great deal of space to APS'
goals and goal setting . The coverage has been positive;
more warm, more fuzzy, link. The true picture is less rosy,
link.

It is a major breach of the trust of Journal readers.

The Journal editorially and otherwise, steadfastly refuses to
investigate and report upon credible allegations of an ethics
and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.
The steadfastly refuse to investigate and report upon;

• their abdication as role models,
• their cover up of the lack of prosecution of criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators; misconduct the Journal itself, reported upon, link,
• their steadfast obstruction of any impartial audit of APS standards and accountability in the administration of the public trust and treasure in the APS,
  
• their ongoing denial of due process to whistle blower complaints, and
• their lowering of APS student standards of conduct.
  

Whomever at the Journal who is ordering this cover up, is not honestly accountable for their misconduct. There is no where you can go and file a complaint and expect due process.

Rules that govern journalists, like rules that govern every aspect of life, apply more to the great unwashed, than they apply to the "upper class".

The good ol' boys at the Journal are about manipulating
the outcome of a $650M bond issue election, and there's
not a damn thing anybody can do about it.