My first reaction to Wednesday’s editorial in the local bullhorn trouncing challenger Larry Van Elsberg and endorsing Nikki Whitty for commissioner was to take it apart point by point. Once again, the author throws out declarative yet unsupported statements as if the argument is made and irrefutable.
On top of that, the editorial insults the 8,000 plus people who voted in favor of recalling Kevin Stufflebean. Once again the paper ignores the stated purpose of the recall effort and once again I wanted to set them straight. After thinking about I realized it wouldn’t do any more good than the last time because the paper isn’t interested in facts, only power. More accurately, the editor’s worm’s eye view of ‘local’ power.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized what a narrow corner the paper has painted itself into. It can be argued the paper did all it could to keep Stufflebean in office during the recall. The paper’s coverage rarely delved into the obstruction of public process precipitating the road department layoffs and tried to label the effort a ‘union’ issue.
Despite the paper’s efforts, Stufflebean barely survived and his poor showing during the primary indicates the real views of the county. Coupled with the paper’s questionable release of Stufflebean’s late night email rants and his apparent public meltdown the paper has a lot of egg on its face.
As I understand it, Andy Jackson hasn’t responded to The World candidate questionnaire or sat down with their editorial board. Van Elsberg did fill out the questionnaire but his refusal to meet with the paper was part of their ‘argument’ for endorsing his opponent.
Personally, in light of Andy’s apparent disdain, given their ‘criteria’ I am dying to see who they choose, Kevin or Andy. Then I want to see how they contort themselves to rationalize either choice.
In the end, I don’t think people much care who The World endorses. The paper continues to lose credibility when it refers to people courageous enough to run for an elected office as ‘gadflies’ and ‘clowns’. Or when it labels citizens concerned about unsustainable growth or irresponsible resource extraction as ‘anti-development’. Insulting thousands of readers is a bad strategy.
The editor’s tenor frequently reflects the same impolitic and polarizing language used by the president of FONSI and statements made through SCDC. The handful of people associated with these organizations may provide the editor with a false sense of power but his allegiance and alliance to the status quo that precipitated and perpetuates the economic condition of Coos County is hurting the paper, not just the readers.
In the end, I don’t think anyone cares what the paper thinks anymore.
Interesting stats regarding the paper. Controversy sells papers but Walworth appears to go beyond reasoned goodhearted debate into low brow name calling and school yard arguments.
He appears to assume his readers are all dumber than he is.
Coos County can do better but they will have to demand excellence in an indirect way because Clark doesn’t listen to direct statements. Like Andy and Larry more people will have to place their advertising dollars elsewhere and ignore requests to sit before their ‘editorial board’. Eventually, the paper will have to learn to play nice if it wants to be considered a newspaper.
I have probably written this somewhere on this blog already but I believe SCDC should be ended. This quasi-public group receives funding from public coffers and then lobbies our local governments on behalf of private corporations.
Often this lobbying is in direct conflicts to the rights and benefits of the very taxpayers who fund SCDC. ORC, Jordan Cove and the pipeline are all examples of this. Why are public monies used to lobby the government on behalf of private corporations? ORC, Jordan Cove, etc… should hire and pay their own lobbyists. Then they want a property tax exemption on top of it.
Grrrr
Attagirl!!! Anything to increase circulation! The potential market for the paper is about 60,000 homes and businesses within their sales distribution area. Last report was that they are publishing about 11,000 papers daily – and daily means 6 days a week unless they decide it’s a holiday. And, not all 11,000 are sold. There is a reason why the paper home delivered sells for less than 20 cents daily. There is reason why advertising pages are so slim. There are reasons why, with a large staff of reporters, much of the page content is retread AP stories. People don’t want that thing masquerading as a newspaper.
I am voting none of the above in both commissioner races. I am in the camp that thought both Larry and Kevin got sandbagged by the World paper at recall time. The World was merciless – and unprofessional – in their personal attack on Kevin. The reporterette of those days is now gone. No great loss! The World paper was not alone. Larry would agree that the League of Women Whiners debate was a setup against him. Kevin has given us every reason not to vote for him this time. But, a close look reveals that he may still be the best of the worst. And yes, it’s a waste of time to attempt to change the World paper. The publisher went on record years ago as being for local LNG – you are not – you are not a friend.
Regarding SCDC – isn’t it time that the people said ENOUGH? SCDC has spent more than $2 million of private and public dollars to create jobs. They have. The director of SCDC and her helper. And, the people we elect keep sending our money down the rat hole.