Of course, only the Democratic and Republican candidates were invited. Radio was on the whole much better than television, but that is not surprising.
I think what will be more interesting to note is the voting patterns for East Los Angeles on 226 - I don't think we know that yet. I think that 226 carried even there because this measure was called "English for the Children" and because of the lack of opportunity overall with English as the pancea. In fairness to the LA Times - it was the governor's race that got more people out to vote than these reprehensible initiatives.
At 12:58 PM 6/3/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I thought it was interesting, when I tried this morning to find information
>about the Prop 226 vote -- which arguably was the biggest union win since
>the UPS strike -- that the LA Times did not headline the Prop 226 vote and
>apparently ran a wire story inside, the San Francisco Chronicle did not run
>a story with it on the front page but ran one inside and the SF Examiner,
>in its Wednesday morning election follow-up, did not lede a story or
>commentary on Prop 226, at least according to their web sites. Does anybody
>think the story would have been played differently if the corporations had
>won that vote?
>
>To California listmembers: How did the TV stations cover the election? I
>hear the pre-election coverage was dismal to non-existent.
>
>-- Jim Cullen
Thomas E. Mertes, Administrator 4355G Public Policy Building Center for Social Theory
and Comparative History Box 951484, UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90095 office (310) 206-5675 fax 206-4453