Arizona Republic Loses Respect of Readers for Pushing Agenda of Redflex and ATS


We’ve seen this before. The AZ Republic seemingly couldn’t exist if they didn’t find some industry shill for.

For the past 4-5 years since the last economic boom-bust in AZ, the Republic has been the mouthpiece of the ticket camera industry in Arizona which appears to be the next bubble ready to burst. It really shouldn’t be any surprise given the fact that Redflex has embedded reporter Michael Ferraresi for a few years now.

In that time, photo tickets have gone from a 90% pay rate down to less than 30% and freeway camera systems commissioned by both the city of Scottsdale and the state of AZ have been an utter failure. Redflex has gone from revenue in the $100’s of millions down to near zero profit. Their cameras as well as those of ATS have been shut off, by voters and legislative action, in huge numbers while millions of tickets are going unpaid.

After an expose last year, Ferraresi’s name has not been seen on an article about Redflex since, but his influence over the angle the Republic takes on photo enforcement remains.

It would be naive to think that a daily newspaper like the Arizona Republic wouldn’t sell out to corporate interests, especially in a time of economic turmoil that has been responsible for the demise of publications much older and more respected than our local “daily.” However, the reports about Redflex, ATS and police statistics are becoming more and more delusional and shrouded in mystery.

Last week, there was a report about traffic stats coming out of Mesa which suggested red light camera installations and crash data could be interpreted with a positive correlation. However, the study was not available to be viewed by the public and calls by CameraFRAUD volunteers requesting a copy of the study went unreturned. This is bizarre behavior by both Mesa PD and the Republic. The absence of any type of fact checking or public disclosure at all is very disturbing.

Another article appeared last week that seemed to be a glowing PR piece about the business of photo ticketing expanding throughout AZ and the entire country, but had no mention of all the places that have completely banned camera ticketing. There was no mention of the battles in Missouri, Texas, Ohio, Washington, California, Maryland, South Dakota, South Carolina and Tennesse and only briefly mentions Henry Bentley who owns banthecams.org in Florida. There was no mention of others who are pushing a state-wide ban through Florida state legislature.

This article also casts the current AZ referendum as a mere nuisance, but at the same time says that Arizona is a “hot bed” and has critics “among the most vocal.” While the voices coming from this website do carry weight, any meaningful research of 2011 photo ticketing industry news would show that Missouri is currently the most embattled state with the most vocal opposition. Again, the Republic fails to do their diligence.

Of course, they couldn’t help mentioning the IIHS study, which includes the city of Chandler. The writer interviewed a spokesman from that institute, but either didn’t bother to contact the city of Chandler or didn’t include their input because it didn’t serve the purpose of his spin. Several major media outlets in the Phoenix area were told last month by city representatives from Chandler that the numbers from the study were clearly bogus and not relevant to where red light cameras had actually been placed.

The photo enforcement industry isn’t the only topic that the AZ Republic keeps blinders on for, or is co-opted by corporate interests, but this may be the most blatant.

Expect to see more puff pieces and cheer leading for Redflex and ATS as SCR 1029 moves towards a vote in the AZ House, which would place the all out ticket camera ban that Arizonans have been asking for on the ballot.

If newspapers are meant to be predictable and biased towards special interests, the Arizona Republic can be very proud.

18 Responses to Arizona Republic Loses Respect of Readers for Pushing Agenda of Redflex and ATS

  1. First one to call this website predictable wins a cookie!

  2. CFisBS says:

    It’s ironic and terribly hypocritical that CF would make the statement in this article “If newspapers are meant to be predictable and biased towards special interests, the Arizona Republic can be very proud.” when the “newspaper” that CF quotes and refers to the most often to back their position is http://www.thenewspaper.com.

    1. Camerafraud is a special interest group.
    2. http://www.thenewspaper.com is as biased as any periodical could be.

    So if it’s bad for a newspaper to run articles that have a bias towards special interests, CF should immediately cease referring to the FAR more biased http://www.thenewspaper.com.

    I also find it amusing that CF takes umbrage with camera companies using “AstroTurf” techniques, i.e. creating websites and/or other media in favor of a specific agenda without explicitly stating their relationship to the organizations they represent. This is funny because http://www.thenewsaper.com is an “AstroTurf” site, solely created and maintained by CF and other such organizations in the attempt to lend greater credibility to their opinions. Camerafraud.com can’t retain credibility when they employ the exact same tactics and techniques that they deride as dishonest. If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.

    If newspapers are meant to be predictable and biased towards special interests, http://www.thenewspaper.com can be very proud.

  3. CFisBS says:

    *Note, this is the second time I’ve posted this same comment on this same article. A camerafraud admin deleted my comment the first time. Let’s see if CF is really committed to the ideals of transparency and honesty that they so often profess.

    I find it ironic and terribly hypocritical that camerafraud.com would state in this article “If newspapers are meant to be predictable and biased towards special interests, the Arizona Republic can be very proud.” when the “newspaper” that camerafraud most often quotes to back their position is http://www.thenewspaper.com.

    1. Camerafraud is a special interest group.
    2. http://www.thenewspaper.com is a biased towards the viewpoints of camerafraud as any periodical could be.

    By their own reasoning, camerafraud.com should immediately desist referring to http://www.thenewspaper.com

    I also find it hypocritical that camerafraud takes umbrage with camera companies using “AstroTurf” techniques, i.e. creating websites and other media that backs the agenda of an organization without explicitly stating or divulging their ties to the organization. http://www.thenewspaper.com is an “AstroTurf” site created and solely maintained by camerafraud.com and their associates.

    Camerafraud can not expect to maintain any credibility when they consistently employ the same techniques and tactics that they deride as being immoral or dishonest. If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.

    If newspapers are meant to be predictable and biased towards special interests, http://www.thenewspaper.com can be very proud.

  4. ted says:

    *Note – if this third attempt is deleted I will alert all local media of the actions of camerafraud.com and the fact that they fear their readers seeing the truth about those actions.
    *Note, this is the third time I’ve posted this same comment on this same article. A camerafraud admin deleted my comments the two previous attempts. Let’s see if CF is really committed to the ideals of transparency and honesty that they so often profess.

    I find it ironic and terribly hypocritical that camerafraud.com would state in this article “If newspapers are meant to be predictable and biased towards special interests, the Arizona Republic can be very proud.” when the “newspaper” that camerafraud most often quotes to back their position is http://www.thenewspaper.com.

    1. Camerafraud is a special interest group.
    2. http://www.thenewspaper.com is a biased towards the viewpoints of camerafraud as any periodical could be.

    By their own reasoning, camerafraud.com should immediately desist referring to http://www.thenewspaper.com

    I also find it hypocritical that camerafraud takes umbrage with camera companies using “AstroTurf” techniques, i.e. creating websites and other media that backs the agenda of an organization without explicitly stating or divulging their ties to the organization. http://www.thenewspaper.com is an “AstroTurf” site created and solely maintained by camerafraud.com and their associates.

    Camerafraud can not expect to maintain any credibility when they consistently employ the same techniques and tactics that they deride as being immoral or dishonest. If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.

    If newspapers are meant to be predictable and biased towards special interests, http://www.thenewspaper.com can be very proud.

  5. To whomever was posting long comments with a bunch of links: Your comments were filtered as spam. Better luck next time.

    TheNewspaper.com has been around much longer than CameraFRAUD and is operated completely outside of our control.

    Yes we are a special interest group. You will find that fully disclosed all over our website, twitter, facebook and meetup.

    Please do alert the media (as you threatened) that we hate ticket cameras and don’t agree with people who like them or who work for Redflex or ATS. I am sure they will all be shocked to hear it!

  6. Photo Enforcement Companies Accuse One Another of Deception:

    ATS and Redflex sue each other in federal cases over false claims.

    http://thenewspaper.com/news/34/3434.asp

  7. B-HonestYaLL says:

    “Whomever” is me. You’re being dishonest when you state that my comments where filtered as spam. My comments posted successfully to your site and I have screen captures to validate that fact. The comments were removed by a camerafraud admin. In regard to your statement concerning “a bunch of links” being in my post, the only links in the post were to “camerafraud-dot-com” and “thenewspaper-dot-com” (I intentionally didn’t write the site URL’s in this post so that you couldn’t propose the questionable claim that my post was blocked due to imbedded links. I state your claim is questionable due to the fact that many other comments from non-admin users on your page have never been “filtered” due to their use of functioning links, let alone the length of the post).

    Why is it that camerafraud commented on the existence of my post without having the nerve to post the comments that they’ve now rebuffed? If you’re going to counter my position at least have the wherewithal to allow the public to view my comments, in their original context. If the viewpoints of camerafraud are beyond reproach, and more importantly, if the administrators and followers of camerafraud believe in the concepts they propose, such as honesty and integrity, what fear should they have of entertaining a dissenting voice? Isn’t the dissenting voice precisely what your site extols just two posts ago? You know the one entitled “rEVOlution is here”, from 3/16/11? After all, your “wayseers” are encouraging me to dissent. With that being said, I’ll repost my previous banned comments in a subsequent post. Please do the right thing, in the name of civil discourse, and allow the post. I will continue to capture screen shots of any activity counter to such and if my comments are again banned it will look all the worse on camerafraud when viewed by the scrutiny of the media and local populace.

  8. B-HonestYaLL says:

    Here is the post, again. There should be no reason to remove it.

    I find it ironic and terribly hypocritical that camerafraud.com would state in
    this article “If newspapers are meant to be predictable and biased towards
    special interests, the Arizona Republic can be very proud.” when the “newspaper”
    that camerafraud most often quotes to back their position is
    www-thenewspaper-dot-com.

    1. Camerafraud is a special interest group.
    2. www-thenewspaper-com is as biased towards the viewpoints of camerafraud as any
    periodical could be.

    By their own reasoning, camerafraud should immediately desist referring to
    www-thenewspaper-com

    I also find it hypocritical that camerafraud takes umbrage with camera companies
    using “AstroTurf” techniques, i.e. creating websites and other media that backs
    the agenda of an organization without explicitly stating or divulging their ties
    to the organization. www-thenewspaper-com is an “AstroTurf” site created and
    solely maintained by camerafraud.com and/or their associates.

    Camerafraud can not expect to maintain any credibility when they consistently
    employ the same techniques and tactics that they deride as being immoral or
    dishonest. If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.

    If newspapers are meant to be predictable and biased towards special interests,
    www-thenewspaper-com can be very proud.

  9. this is pretty damaging. more on this to come

    • Sure says:

      Who knows what else the scummy Scottsdale police are doing. God forbid you are a woman and have a run in with these slimebags.

  10. Sure says:

    They don’t like protestors in Glendale

  11. Top “article” on AZ Republic online at the moment is some fictional speculative tale about “what life in PHX might be like in the future.”

    http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2011/03/27/20110327middle-class-decline-future-scenarios.html

    I guess when you’re terrible at printing the truth, it’s best to just write about imaginary stories in your head.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: