what you'll NEVER read in donna ragsheets

[Swimmy]

newhartfordnyonline.blogspot.com/2008/10/stormwater-meetings-are.html

[clarencebunsen]

One problem I have with the blog is distortion of someone's view by quoting out of context.

Jerry Donovan's email is in favor of opening the meeting but the short quotes make it seem as if he was among those who opposed it. Donovan wrote:
"I can appreciate the frustration caused by a small group of community activists who often distort and personalize issues, but by shuttin out all taxpayers we let them win by portraying the town board in a less than favorable light. That's the fish bowl in which public policy is made. Public officials need to grow a skin and be more transparent today than in any time in our history given the internet and other forms of rapid communications which are easily accesible today."

What New Hartford On-line quoted was; ""a group of self-appointed community activists who often distort and personalize issues".

and then went on to write: "Amazing, we wonder if that is what Jerome Donovan thought of himself when he presented his rants regarding Preswick Glen to the previous town board? Wonder if that is what he thought when he emailed us and asked that we post his rants on our website? We did so because we believe that everyone should have a voice in how their government is run. Apparently, Mr. Donovan doesn't share our views about Freedom of Speech. According to Mr. Donovan's email he believes in a "...government of, for and by the people...", but apparently only if you are the "right" people."

He's supporting your position but still gets beat up for a single phrase.

Yes, the meetings should obviously be open but, diverting a good argument with a gratuitous person attack on a third party doesn't advance the cause. Instead it makes it easier to ignore the valid points and by extension the entire blog.

[dgriffin]

I don't know any of the characters here, nor much about the issue, but I see your point, CB. It reminds me of what I've read newspapers were like before the the twentieth century (and still, in some cases.) Eventually, as the masses became more educated, they demanded unbiased reporting and businesses responded with such products. Yellow journalists didn't have "come to Jesus" moments, they changed or were forced out of business. Sort of a neat melding of democracy and capitalism.
That mechanism can still work in markets where there is competition. For the print and "over-the-air" media, that's become a problem for readers and viewers, especially since the FCC relaxed their rules, allowing companies to own more stations and news outlets. For cable subscribers, there's more choice. But the Internet is filled with blogs that have no social or financial accountability. I can produce a scurrilous rag sheet and gain quite a following and even be anonymous while still selling vacuum cleaners to old ladies to put food on the table, i.e., financial independence. I believe I can get as close as possible to libel on the Internet, too, without worry of suffering litigation for my attacks on others.
When I'm dissatisfied with a newspaper, I stop buying it, as I have my local paper from time to time. Or I switch channels. On the Internet, I no longer point my browser in that direction, but that doesn't stop the blog. Nothing stops the blog. It's like a voice crying in the wilderness. Thanks goodness it's a huge wilderness.

[Swimmy]

I disagree.

Jerome wrote, "I can appreciate the frustration caused by a small group of community activists who often distort and personalize issues, but by shutting out all taxpayers we let them win..." (emphasis added).

I interpret that to mean he certainly understands and supports the notion of shutting out this small group of community activists, but not the rest of the taxpayers. And he's not supporting the idea that the law compels those meetings to be open, but to open them to prevent this group from claiming a victory over corruption. Quite a different argument than the one put forth by this group.

I think it's insulting to rely on a group to advance your own efforts and then back stab it when it suits you. Yes, he supports opening up the meetings, but not for the reasons those meetings should be open to the public.

But, that is a secondary point that misses the big picture. To focus on that alone and ignore the rest of the blog is interesting...