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
4 comments:
I fired off a letter to the DI after the Dec. 16 article. It's not in today's paper, but we'll see if they print it tomorrow. Here's what I said:
I can understand personal differences of opinion about the Rails-to-Trails Project in Union County. But I cannot fathom why any organized political party would want to take a stand against this project, effectively giving all the credit to the other party for what will surely be a popular attraction that everyone can enjoy when it is finished.
I used to live near Ridley Creek State Park (in Delaware County), the central feature of which is a 5-mile-long, multi-use trail. People come from miles around to that park from dawn until dusk, rain or shine, because they are desperate for a nice place to walk, jog, bike, or walk their dog or stroller. You would think that only people who live in “the suburbs” of a big city would need such a dedicated place, but the truth is that we do too. Most of our neighborhoods (outside the boroughs) don’t have sidewalks, or even a shoulder on the side of the road where you can safely walk. People are always walking or jogging in the middle of busy roads such as Stein Lane, and it’s a wonder more people aren’t run over by speeding cars. A safe place for people to get out of their cars and enjoy a little physical activity is not going to be a frivolous “luxury” for a select few, it will be a real asset and benefit to the health of our community overall.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that what the DI really needs is to report some facts/analysis about the Project itself and not just people's opinions about it. But I'll confess I was amused by the passage you quote. There was a distinction between what Morgan was insinuating (i.e., that someone with "financial means" shouldn't be making financial decisions for the county?--which isn't logical) and the paper pointing out hypocrisy. In other words, she was clearly using language painting herself as a victim of financial struggle. Maybe she is, and the paper was wrong to infer (based on her husband's occupation) that she isn't without a higher standard of journalistic verification. But I think their error was different than simply "turning the same tactic back on her."
I also confess that I fell down laughing so hard when the article, after mentioning the pig hat, mentioned "several hatless people" in the next paragraph.
LOL--I missed the "several hatless people" comment. I guess my thought was that the DI ought to point out its own hypocrisy first. Just because she opened herself to unfair criticism didn't mean the DI had to pile some on (wasn't that picture enough?).
In any case, I appreciate your comments. I think it's the $3.7M figure that has people so worked up, but even if it were $50,000, people would still try to argue it's not worth it. They'd be wrong, but how long do the economic projections say it will be before the $3.7 million would pay off? Even at $100K of use per year, that's still 37 years, and there's also ongoing expenses. Is the potential yearly economic impact much larger than I'm thinking?
christian louboutin christian louboutin shoes christian louboutin discount handbags MBT Shoes designer handbags louis vuitton handbags gucci handbags discount handbags replica handbags Herve Leger ugg classic tall UGG Classic Short UGG Ultra Tall christian louboutin boots discount MBT Shoes UGG Classic Cardy cheap MBT shoes cheap christian louboutin louboutin shoes ugg boots chanel womens shoes Louis Vuitton shoes christian louboutin pumps christian louboutin wedding shoes christian louboutin slingback pumps Tory Burch Shoes louboutin sale christian shoes louboutin shoes tory burch reva tory burch reva ballet flats tory burch ballet flats tory burch ballet shoes
The DI did finally run Jove's editorial (along with some others saying that more than a "couple hundred" will use the trail once it is done).
Looks like we have our first bit of SPAM posting in the tag words above!
Post a Comment