Roanoke Times responds to attack ad controversy

By Mollie Halpern
Investigative Reporter
Published: May 7, 2008

Controversy continues over an attack ad in The Roanoke Times that ran in the days leading up to Tuesday’s election.
According to city councilor, Brian Wishneff, the ad was placed by Sue Osborne from Citizens for Sensible Decisions over the internet using a credit card.
The ad questioned Wishneff’s opponent for Roanoke City council, Court Rosen.
Rosen will take Brian Wishneff’s seat on council.
Wishneff gave a fake name after he claims he was pushed to do so by the newspaper.
Investigaive reporter, Mollie Halpern, looks into who is accountable.
An article in The Roanoke Times states that the newspaper had concerns about an attack ad it received because some of the statements could not be substantied.
And as a result, the content of the ad was changed.
WSLS 10 On Your Side checked to see why if the newspaper made the effort to change the content of the ad, why it also didn’t make sure to publish the correct name of the person who bought it?
The ad ran with a fictitious name, Joe Smith.
Brian Wishneff says sales rep, Preston Lewis, told him it was ok to use an alias.
He says he was on speaker phone at the time and others can also attest to Lewis’ comment.
Brian Wishneff of Roanoke City Council says, “and they said I don’t care if you make up a name, but we have to have a name with it, and i said ok, joe smith and they said fine.
According to the Virginia code, “The person accepting a “paid advertisement” for the newspaper, magazine or periodical shall require, and for one year shall retain a copy of, proof of the identity of the person who submits the advertisement for publication.”
The code also says that “Proof of identity shall be submitted either in person and include a valid Virginia driver’s license, or any other identification card issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth....or other than in person, in which case, the person submitting the advertisement shall provide a telephone number and the person accepting the advertisement may phone the person to verify the validity of the person’s identifying information before publishing the advertisement.”
Wishneff says the paper couldn’t get in contact with Sue Osborne, but didn’t, so called him instead.
Mollie: “Did the paper ask you for her (Sue’s) phone number?”
Wishneff: “No”
WSLS doesn’t know whether the paper ever managed to contact Osborne, or verify her identity as the code mandates.
Either way, the ad ran.
Mollie says: “The Roanoke Times did not grant us an interview instead it asked for a list of questions it would review.
But it is not the policy of WSLS 10 on your side to provide questions in place of an interview.”
After several unaswered phone calls, The Roanoke Times issued this statement very late today.
“The Roanoke times disagrees with Brian Wishneff’s account of the transaction and re-emphasizes that its actions in the transaction followed a manner consistent with the newspaper’s acceptability standards.”
WSLS does not know the details of those standards, because the paper won’t tell us. But, a brief summary of it’s political ad policies are listed on the paper’s website.  If those policies change, the paper says it will communicate them to its customers.
The paper might be in contact with its customers soon, because it tells us that it is re-examining it’s political advertising policies in light of the recent incident.
According to Virginia code, a newspaper employee who does not get proof of the identity of a person who submits an advertisment, can face a fine of up to $50.00 or a misdemeanor.