First, the Daily Item published a story reporting on comments from Preston Boop speculating on what might happen at the next meeting of the Union County Commissioners. But it was the coverage on December 16 that the DI really ought to reconsider. I have no problem with their publishing a picture of Yvonne Morgan wearing a pig hat to the meeting. Who wouldn't? It was obviously a good bit of political theater. I do have a problem with this passage:
But it was Morgan’s personal attacks against Showers and Republican Commissioner John Mathias that cast a pall over Tuesday’s meeting from the get-go.
“Commissioner Showers is the husband of a trust-fund child. He may not know what financial struggle is,” Morgan wrote as she called into question Showers’ and Mathias’ financial judgment in considering allowing the county to take over the Lewisburg Area Recreation Authority’s Rail Trail. “John Mathias has financial means to weather the economic storm. Most of us do not.”
That may not include Morgan, the wife of Evangelical Community Hospital general surgeon James Morgan, who also sits on the hospital’s board of directors.
Take a good look at that last sentence. It looks like The Daily Item simply turns Yvonne Morgan's tactic (of drawing inferences based on who someone is married to) back on her. It's not relevant to the story, and it diverts attention from the issues that journalists ought to be looking at. (Note: if this was said by someone at the meeting, it would be relevant, but that's not the way it's reported.) It's legitimate to report on the emotions of the meeting, but it's not okay to try to stoke them.Ultimately, the story ought to be about the merit and wisdom of the project: what do the economic impact studies say, and what do economists who understand such things think about their accuracy? Is there public support for the project in the county as (I believe) there is in the Lewisburg area? What has been the experience of other communities and areas that have put in Rails to Trails system? Finally, is there a strong argument that the county should be interested in the project, or are the potential costs prohibitive? I understand that the DI can't send reporters around the country, but in the age of e-mail, is it that hard to get enough information to write a story about similar projects in other rural areas?
But even if the DI doesn't want to do any background reporting about the project itself, here's what might interest me: Has Yvonne Morgan ever been a public official? How long has she been chair of the Republican Committe in Union County? Does she seem to understand the issues, or is her opposition simply a matter of basic principle (no federal money for any projects)?
Further: What are the known costs associated with a rails to trails system and how much burden might they place on the county and taxpayers? What's the current plan for funding over the long haul? As far as I've seen, the DI has not taken on any of these questions. So here's an idea for the next issue of the Williamsport Guardian: where rails to trails paths have gone in, what has been the result? Have these projects been a net positive or a negative in various locations and why?
I realize that some citizens are opposed to the Rails to Trails project on principle because of the use of federal funds. I respect that and understand the point. Federal requirements mean that the trail will need a larger initial investment than it otherwise might (because of federal standards). I don't see anyone stepping forward with ideas about how to get a trail up and running without those funds, however. Because I think a trail here that is flat, scenic, and convenient would significantly enhance life in many ways, including economically through increased visitors to the valley, I'd like to see that trail built. But first we're going to have to focus on the merits, not on the sideshow.
Posts
