Methow Valley News "Clarification" 10/25

[Fun CH]

I choose not to be bitter and to try to engage in a respectful public policy debate.

People pointed out to the MVNews publisher that the newspaper misrepresented facts in a lead story. The paper printed a clarification.

I'm OK with the result. It doesn't mean that I agree with everything printed in the newspaper.

If there is a beef with reporting in the local news, bring it up with the publisher/editor.

It appears likely that Proposition 1 will be voted down by local voters. That seems to be the objective shared in this discussion board.

If there is something else in play, please take it somewhere else. I, for one, don't care.

Steve Oulman

Well, you seem to care if Methownet locks a thread and bickered about that fact here and there. They do have a no politics policy that you don't seem to respect and questioned their value as a community BB. Did you personally contact Jeff or Maria to seek understanding?. I have, several times.

You took exception when you thought the FOP attacked you in a letter to the MVN editor. I didn't read it that way. You didn't take that personal issue 'somewhere else".

How is that any different than me taking exception to a news paper editor who disrespects my community in support of a political issue I oppose.

I just disagree with you about the journalistic integrity of a local newspaper that leads with an attack on community members.

Or don't you have think calling your neighbors 'paranoid" is an attack?

And I wouldn't be so sure about prop 1 failing. We shouldn't pat ourself on the back just yet. They are playing politics very well and had no problem getting 1500 signatures to get this issue to the ballot.

In other words, I'll speak out as I please, where I please and respect when you do the same.

[SOulman]

I choose not to be bitter and to try to engage in a respectful public policy debate.

People pointed out to the MVNews publisher that the newspaper misrepresented facts in a lead story. The paper printed a clarification.

I'm OK with the result. It doesn't mean that I agree with everything printed in the newspaper.

If there is a beef with reporting in the local news, bring it up with the publisher/editor.

It appears likely that Proposition 1 will be voted down by local voters. That seems to be the objective shared in this discussion board.

If there is something else in play, please take it somewhere else. I, for one, don't care.

Steve Oulman

[Fun CH]

I appreciate that Don clarified the record.

I stopped by his office a week ago as papers hit the streets, but he was out. I subsequently wrote him to point out that the news story was wrong.

This has been a heated campaign with statements flying back and forth. It's good that our hometown newspaper is dedicated to journalism and is willing to correct the record.

Steve Oulman

you mean journalism that called the 78% of us who defeated the 2014 Metropolitan Park District ballott issue, "paranoid"?

Don set the tone of this debate early on in his editorial. And what was that QAnon reference in his last editorial supposed to imply?

And when he reported signs being stolen signs on both sides, I would expect some facts to back up such accusations reported in a local newspaper.

It was reported here that opponents signs were stolen and the sheriff was notified. Plus a witness reported seeing no on prop 1 signs in the county landfill dumpster. It was also reported here that the FOP in an email directed no on prop 1 to be removed from intersections and we know they removed.

[pasayten]

I have a Letter to the Editor already accepted by Don for next weeks paper as it will be November 1...

[SOulman]

I appreciate that Don clarified the record.

I stopped by his office a week ago as papers hit the streets, but he was out. I subsequently wrote him to point out that the news story was wrong.

This has been a heated campaign with statements flying back and forth. It's good that our hometown newspaper is dedicated to journalism and is willing to correct the record.

Steve Oulman

[Fun CH]

Here's what the FOP wrote in the original webpage narrative which Ray copied here.

viewtopic.php?t=1211

FOP quote

"How will this impact low income, fixed income households?

"This will be a general levy and subject to property tax exemptions for those individuals and households who qualify. Currently there are 189 individuals and households in the district who qualify for this exemption. We encourage anyone 61 and older or who have a disability to see if they qualify and apply for exemptions."



First of all the FOP calls the MPD levy a "general" levy. That's wrong. The prop 1 MPD will impose a "regular" tax levy . Seniors on the top tier of that program still pay the entire regular levy. That just a fact.

And here are the facts of that senior tax program.

viewtopic.php?t=1286

[Fun CH]

All you have to do to convince someone who wants to be convinced is to give them plausible reasoning and facts don't matter.

They will spread that false narrative like wildfire.

Or put another way, there's a sucker born every day.

Just look how one of the first letters to the editor bought into the senior property tax program means low income seniors won't have to pay taxes to support the MPD created Mega MAC. All the FOP had to do was mention that program on their website and let bias take over.

Or put another way,

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

[pasayten]

MVN had screwed up the description of the governing Board for the Metropolitan Park District last week.

This week they posted a clarification...

They also had 3 pro Proposition 1 letters to the editor... Some claiming we are giving out "false information"... lol... What a hoot!