I've been releasing a a series of reports trying to answer 10 questions posted on IPR for Libertarian National Committee Chair candidate Ernest Hancock. In researching those reports, I've discovered material that I hadn't yet found when I composed those questions. The video below interleaves excerpts from 1) Hancock video and radio shows about Pastor Steven Anderson and 2) a YouTube exposé about Anderson. It asks you to consider Hancock's judgment in what he thinks constitutes good outreach opportunities for freedom-oriented activism.
Update: below are comments I sent to a writer at IPR who considers the above video not to be fair.
My question is simple: with Hancock as Chair, is there a chance that Pastor Anderson is going to show up on LP.org as a poster child for Fourth Amendment rights?
IPR reporters need to ask themselves: is this not a legitimate and fair question to ask in the Chair race?
If the LP were the ACLU, I would of course say that the LP/ACLU should defend Anderson in court. That's hardly the same thing as saying that this is the case around which the LP should build its public Fourth Amendment advocacy -- as Hancock demonstrably does.
Hancock has at least twice run 10-minute video/radio pieces promoting Anderson as a Fourth Amendment poster child, without a single word describing why Anderson is controversial -- even as he says he gave his audience "a little bit of the background of the type of person" Anderson is.
My video forthrightly quotes Hancock's summary of why Anderson is his Fourth Amendment poster child, and then tells you the things about Anderson that Hancock apparently doesn't want you to know.
My video is not reporting, it's advocacy. That's why I posted it on my blog, and not as an IPR news article. Before delegates give Hancock the authority to put Anderson on LP.org as a Fourth Amendment poster child, I think they deserve to know the whole story about Anderson. IPR will have to decide if they disagree.
If IPR reports on my advocacy, it is of course free to fill in any context that they think is missing from my blog article.
If you don't think the delegates and IPR readers should know about both 1) Hancock's promotion of Anderson's story and 2) Anderson's controversial background, then I guess we just disagree.
If you do agree they should know about it, then I'm agnostic about how that information reaches them.
One way to provide context would be to also include the entire Hancock interview of Anderson (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z_tDivKVcQ), and show how Hancock spends 10 minutes talking about Anderson's "character" without mentioning the elephant in the room.