It is no secret The World editorial board and MGx do not see eye to eye when it comes to reporting or editorializing upon matters involving taxpayer investments and economic development, amongst other things. Nonetheless, it is possible to let the paper slide on perceived biases in its reporting because media is regularly accused by both sides of a divisive argument of betraying a preference for one or the other. It might be safe to say that the better part of the paper’s reporting makes a fair effort at presenting all sides of a story even if it omits details many of us believe are relevant.

The editorials, however, are a disaster. It isn’t just that I can’t abide the paper’s conclusions. Everyday I read well written opinion pieces I ultimately disagree with but they are crafted such that it is possible to determine how the author arrived at these opinions. An argument is built from which conclusions are drawn and the essays are enjoyable to read whether or not you agree with them.

All too often, in the absence of fact, the editors resort to name calling, “clowns”, “gadflies”, “natterers”, “bands”, “critics”, “haunts”, to name but a few. In its zeal to support the beliefs of a handful of “tenured”, entrenched local leaders who have presided over thirty years of failure, the authors substitute opinions delivered in the form of declarations as a replacement for facts and building any type of valid, measurable, supporting argument. In doing so, the paper assumes the reader shares the same biases but is this really the case?

For example, a recent editorial endorsed three candidates for Coos County commissioner because they have “requisite” business experience and dismissed another candidate for being a long time government insider. There are at least three overreaching assumptions here. 1) Even though county government and business are two very different things, the paper believes the reader agrees that business experience is necessary to be a competent county official. 2) The paper assumes the reader believes government experience automatically disqualifies a candidate from becoming an elected official and 3) that government is bad.

All experience is invaluable but does owning a business automatically make someone more competent to run a government agency than someone with years of experience running a government agency? A fresh perspective is always good but business folks are just as prone to tunnel vision as any government worker. One advisory committee member, Al Pettit, like to talk about how Curry County plans to outsource many of its services. This may make sense to a someone who doesn’t understand what government does for citizens everyday but do you want your next call to the assessor to be routed through India? Privatizing services will not save the county money because the corporate alternative must first produce a profit for its shareholders requiring it to either raise rates, reduce wages and therefore local spending capacity, or cut back services. The more likely answer is all three will occur over time. Read how privatization affected one county here

Regardless of where you stand on the latter two, the paper by propagandizing ideological themes that public servants are somehow incompetent in their jobs and therefore their experience is not only worthless but disqualifies them from holding office, is insulting the more than 4,220 federal, state and local public servants employed in Coos County. That is 16% of the workforce and 12% of the voters including law enforcement, fire fighters, health inspectors, judges, clerks, Coast Guard, military and other vital service providers. Contrary to the editors’ obvious bias, government employees tend to be better educated than their civilian counterparts, which means they actually can read and reason for themselves. When does acting as the propaganda arm for a few business leaders start to become a bad business move for parent company Lee Enterprises’ shareholders?