John Campbell Gets Caught Using a Twitter Ghostwriter

By Gustavo Arellano Fri., Jul. 17 2009 at 8:59 AM

Categories: Politics

Pin It

We usually glaze over any posts on Irvine councilwoman Beth Krom written by The Liberal OC, because the woman can do no wrong in their eyes. But that didn't stop editor Chris Prevatt from helping to out Representative John Campbell's Twitter writer: the king of Orange County sock-puppetry, Matt "Jubal" Cunningham.

It was never Prevatt's intention to do this. He was pissed off about the tone of a Campbell tweet bashing Krom and asked Cunningham, who's serving as his campaign consultant in his 2010 re-election campaign for the 48th Congressional District (Krom wants the Democratic nomination for that race) for a favor. "I have to believe that this isn't something written by John's Red County consultant Matt Cunningham," Prevatt wrote. "Matt, can you give someone a call and suggest that the campaign stop allowing TWITS to Tweet for Campbell on Twitter."

Sayeth Cunningham in a comment on the post: 'Twas me. Even though Campbell's Twitter account gives all indication it's him who's writing it, not some blogger-for-hire.

Orange County Register editorial writer Steve Greenhut has already slammed Cunningham for writing glowing pieces about Campbell on Red County; Cunningham's response is that he fully identifies himself as a campaign consultant, so it's okay. Our response? Cunningham is notorious for throwing reportorial ethics out the window for issues or people he adores, and I'm not going to mention his most-famous example because, guaranteed, a commentator eventually will. At which point, I'll write "Bingo!"

In the meanwhile, Matt? Get Chuck DeVore to teach Campbell a thing or two about Twitter...

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

I didn't accuse you of being a sock-puppet for Campbell, Matt/Jubal: that's what you were for so long.. Is that right? When was that? And heaven forbid I take the side of sex-abuse survivors... For which I have never criticized you, despite your implication here otherwise. ...unlike you, who blindly defended pedophile-protector John Urell... And I am not against those victims, as you plainly imply that I am. I did not "blindly defend" Msgr. Urell. What I did was support him in his recovery and criticize John Manley's claims that Msgr. Urell's completion of his deposition was necessary to his clients' cases. You are mistaking your feelings for the truth. ...to the point of rushing an unredacted deposition online to help shape public opinion And as you well know, but always choose not to mention, I had no intention of revealing victims' names. That was inadvertent. But then, you already know that. And my intention was not to "shape public opinion." That's your guess -- and a wrong one -- being presented as fact. I actually have no opinion of you, Matt Whatever you need to say. besides, you're the one who told Moxley you don't like me! Glad to know my personal conversations with Scott are subsequently repeated in the OC Weekly newsroom. I guess his declamations of "this is all off-the-record" were one-way. I'll keep that in mind in the future. And looks like you need to learn to govern yourself better, Gustavo.
Sorry, but when someone says negative things about our colleagues, we at the Weekly tend to share that information with each other. You posted that deposition because you were upset at media coverage of Urell; its posting was very much to shape public opinion, otherwise, you wouldn't have started that Friends of Urell site or carried the conversation into OC Blog. Sorry, Matt, but when it comes to logic on this, I'm sure most readers will agree with me on this rather than the one who committed the egregious error.
I didn't accuse you of being a sock-puppet for Campbell, Matt/Jubal: that's what you were for so long. Is that right? When was that? And heaven forbid I take the side of sex-abuse survivors, unlike you... I am not against sex-abuse survivors, and for you to say that is a lie, and a reflection of your own twisted logic on the subject. I did not blindly defend Msgr. Urell -- that is another lie. I expressed my support for his recovery and disagreed with John Manley's assertions Msgr. Urell's completed deposition was necessary. You are confusing your feelings with the truth. "...to the point of rushing an unredacted deposition online to help shape public opinion. And as you well know but choose never to mention, I had no intention of putting those victims' names online. It was inadvertent. And my intention was not the "shape public opinion." That is simply your guess, and a wrong one, at that. I actually have no opinion of you, Matt Yeah. Sure. That's so obvious from all your posts. but if that's what you need to say here, go ahead. ...besides, you're the one who told Moxley you don't like me! Glad to know Scott repeats personal conversations in the OC Weekly newsroom. I'll keep that in mind next time I talk to Scott.
I didn't accuse you of being a sock-puppet for Campbell, Matt/Jubal: that's what you were for so long. And heaven forbid I take the side of sex-abuse survivors, unlike you, who blindly defended pedophile-protector John Urell solely because he was your pastor to the point of rushing an unredacted deposition online to help shape public opinion (how did that turn out, btw?). I actually have no opinion of you, Matt; besides, you're the one who told Moxley you don't like me! Eh.
A few things, Gustavo: I'm doing some campaign consulting for John Campbell. That's not "sock-puppetry." Try to acquaint yourself with the meaning of the term before tossing it at someone. Then there was laffer: "Cunningham is notorious for throwing reportorial ethics out the window for issues or people he adores..." Not only is that untrue, it's rich coming from someone who serves as an unpaid press agent for people he sympathizes with. You don't like me, Gustavo. Fine. I can live with that. Chris Prevatt's post is simply an opportunity for you to take a shot at me, nothing more.
Mark -- I was actually someone who stuck up to bullies when I was a kid, usually when they picked on smaller kids. That part of me hasn't chnaged. Gustavo - you're correct that you never mentioned OJ in your original post. But you did say this: "Cunningham is notorious for throwing reportorial ethics out the window for issues or people he adores," Let's change it to: "Pedroza is notorious for throwing reportorial ethics out the window for issues or people he hates, " Totally accurate. If you're going to be critical of bloggers for this, myself included, then be consistent and apply to across the board. And you can most certainly provide context to a comment after the fact.
This Dan Chmielewski is a good reason for me to stay away from Orange County. He must have been picked on when he was a kid.
My post never mentioned Orange Juice, nor did your original comment regarding Matt's outing; you can't provide context to a comment after the fact without casting doubt on your original reasoning, at least not in the world of logic. For you to have hijacked this post and turn it into a referendum on Art is bizarre, but it's your choice.
well Gustavo, did I provide enough context for you in the comments of this string? Or do I need to say more? Is leaving the church over this issue enough for you? I did. And with due respect, just who are you to decide what's enough here? And this is still a dodge; you don't hold Art to the same standard you hold Matt. Art, I'm not just a blogger. Really. It's a very small part of my daily life though its likely to only way you get any sense of validation. Glad to know you're still the champion of "out-of-context." And please do run again -- I'll write an even bigger check to any PAC that decides to tell the truth about your record. It's funny Art. For a flier you laughed off, you bring it up over and over again. And since most of the flier's copy were your own words, the truth must hurt.
Dan: Yet you don't provide that context re: moving on when you mentioned it in your first comment above. It's obvious that the mentioning of Matt's outing of sex abuse victims bothers you so that you took the bait. Unbelievable, but hey: don't make your excuses to me. Talk to the survivors who were so pained by that action. Junior: What part of "banned" do you fail to understand? The minute I can delete your comment, I will. In the meanwhile, let the world laugh at your idiocy anew.
Dan, One more thing. I am a blogger - NOT a journalist. Guess what? You too are just a blogger. NEITHER of us are journalists. I embrace what blogging is while you pretend you are somehow better than everyone. Why don't you make peace with the fact that you are JUST A BLOGGER - and very few folks bother reading your tripe anymore...
Dan, Does the bar get any lower than revealing the names of molestation victims - which Jerbal did - and then you say they should just get over it? Amazing. We try to have fun over at the Orange Juice. You and Jerbal have no sense of humor - and I don't know which one of you is more arrogant. You guys are two sides of the same pompous coin. Keep on feeling superior as your blog sinks further and further...
Hmmm, I don't recall any Republican apologizing to me about anything, and I think if this is the only thing you guys turn to to criticize Matt Cunningahm, then deeper imaginations are required. I point out Matt's inconsistencies all the time. I'm not telling survivors to move on, because I added the screeds about the Hoa Van Tran campaign and the Aloha photo along with this example. The comment is directed to the imagination-challenged bloggers at OJ.
Not only did Matt Cunningham reveal the name of sex-abuse victims, but now he has a buddy! "Give that a rest already"...I wish you could've told the priest who raped me as a 12-year-old boy that!
This is what you wrote <a href="http://www.theliberaloc.com/2009/06/25/what-is-it-about-blogs">in this post</a>, about survivors pointing out Matt's outing of Catholic Church sex-abuse victims: "Can we give that a rest already? Matt�s apologize [sic] for it many times." That sounds like telling survivors to move on to me! And "Galisky moment"? HA! Ask Chris about a recent conversation he had with Moxley about that...
There are plenty of other things I beat up Matt about without having to play that card boys. But it seems too often, its the first bullet of your guns and it really should be the last. If you don't think I beat Mat up enough, you're not paying attention. I don't know where you get this idea I'm insisting sex abuse survivors move on either. It was reprehensible that any sexual abuse victims IDs were outing and I don't think the "Covenent with the Faithful" is worth the paper it was written on. I thought the problem is kid-diddling priests was bad in Boston and then found it was here too. But we're chatting about journalistic ethices here Gustavo; you don't hold Art to the same standard as Matt. I'll ask you, is this YOUR Galisky moment? Art -- you're right. You can't win with me. I'll say this for you. You set the bar low.
Dan, I can't win with you. I was endorsed last year by ECCO and Planned Parenthood. My website featured several position papers on numerous issues. But you don't like me because I reserve the right to pick on both Dems and Reeps. Frank and Sean are right. Jerbal and Red County are the enemy. But you spend way too much time getting in bed with them. Shame on you! I am not surprised that Campbell had to hire a twit to post for him. Campbell is a car salesman that lucked into a seat in Congress.
I would hope that John Campbell has the decency and integrity to come out and repudiate Matt's distasteful and tacky tweet. Maybe next time Campbell should consider screening "his" tweets first. I hope that come 2010 Matt will be eating his words.
Dan: Bingo! But you're not going to draw me into your endless back-and-forth with Art; I agree with Frank on that. And I find it strange that you're so insistent sex-abuse survivors move on with Matt's horrific action toward them. You bring up the escapades of Republicans again and again (as you should) even after they've apologized; why so sore when survivors go after Matt?
A question that needs to be asked is why are the folks at the Liberal OC so concerned with covering for Matt Cunningham? You would think that these so-called liberals would relish the opportunity to take a whack at the biggest conservative hack in the OC blogosphere and yet they act as apologists for Cunningham. According to Dan poor Matt has apologized and thus should be completely exonerated for outting the names of Catholic church sexual abuse victims. What gives? Why the free pass for the Reeps?
"If we're going to hold bloggers to certain journalistic standards, shouldn't they apply to everyone equally?" Yes they should and that includes Prevatt. He never includes his affiliation with the OCEA when he writes posts bashing folks opposed to that union or when he is acting as Nick's tool. Also, you guys are quick to demand apologies for perceived slight and yet refuse to give them. Prevatt did quite the hatchet job during the OC Board of Supervisors election last year and yet he never apologized for his actions and lies. You guys need to get off your self-constructed moral high horse.
Gustavito! Great post man! Adios eh? Que lastima, You'd think big Scary gringo Campbell wouldn't need to hire Sr. Cunningham as his curandero...dios mio i mean Consultant. jaja. I think he's afraid his ghostly presence or lack of representing the 48th will end him in this race so he got el mero hombre de los titeres. That's pretty lame of a tweeter though, is that all the good he's done in congress? Hell i could do better, like for a few Gardening gigs in more hoods like his I'd be set for life ;-) ...but no. keep up the good work. Si se puede with Beth!
Read my comments on RedCounty about Matt's post on Campbell "crushing" Krom in fundraising. Energies are focused where they need to be. No messages from you in the queue Frank; try again at posting a comment. Sean -- Art's not fit to hld public office; he's great at pointing out problems but falls short at suggesting solutions. I wish I could have written a bigger check to help fund that mailer. He barely squeaked by a convicted ketchup thief, so the voters certainly spoke, didn't they? If we're going to hold bloggers to certain journalistic standards, shouldn't they apply to everyone equally?
Frank, What you need to understand is that bashing Art and the Orange Juice is priority number one for the folks at the Liberal OC. They cozy up to Matt Cunningham all the time in order to attack our blog and our bloggers. In fact they contributed money to help Cunningham fund a mailer attacking Art in the Santa Ana city council election. The incestuous relationship between Matt and Prevatt company comes to light often when bashing Pedroza and the OJ is the theme of the day.
Dan, You are missing the point. Your petty grudges are getting in the way of the bigger picture ( I would think) of taking the opportunity to focus your energies on Cunningham, Campbell and the GOP antics of incompetence and desperation. Your call. Keep harping on some tired skirmish and you look petty.
Frank -- I'll check to see if you have comments in our queue; but ready the comments to Chris' post on Liberal OC yesterday. I addressed the issue then. You want more!? Gustavo -- still waiting for that Bingo.
Why would an incumbent member of congress hire someone who makes such amateurish moves? I like how on his blog and on campbell's twitter matt neglects to mention the tragedy that struck krom's family could have been a factor in her weaker than usual fundraising #s. Then he tells her "adios" to rub it in her face. That is extremely disgraceful and the tone is incredibly cruel. I'd like to see campbell say if he agreed with that tweet. He is after all putting his name to those words. On top of that, if krom isn't at least somewhat of a serious challenger, why would campbell hire a campaign consultant in the first place?
Gustavo, Thanks for the story and link. Apparently the Liberal OC is having difficulties accepting comments, so here is mine: Why is Dan posting on other blogs about any other blogger, except for Matt Cunningham? He get's served a scoop by Chris and he totally takes his eye off the ball of possibility to nail Red County's dumbest shill.
You mean those were just crocodile tears that Cunningham was shedding during the Krom family tragedy and loss of son, Noah? He was so outraged at the perceived poor treatment of the Krom camp. Campbell deserves as many nitwits like Cunningham on his campaign as possible.
Just to make you say "bingo" could it be went Matt posted the names of child sex abuse victims in the Fr. Urell website he started? I also think Matt's apologized for this over and over again. Are you going to hold Art Pedroza to the same reportorial ethics standard as Matt?