Might we have our own version of Faux News? Don Roberts recently proclaimed:
We do not “cherry pick” letters for publication which contain opinions with which we agree. Our readership does not consist “only of people who are opposed to Mayor Johnson”, however the majority of our readers who write letters on that topic, seem to be opposed to Mayor Johnson …
… In fact, we publish virtually all of the letters we receive and those small numbers that have not been published are predominantly redundant from anti-Johnson, anti-megaplex, anti-growth, and anti-traffic readers.
It didn’t take long to dispel the myth about Don publishing virtually all of the letters he receives. Here’s one letter I received from a reader that wasn’t published. And there’s also the small matter of Don rewording a letter (so as to actually change the intent of the original!) without prior consent from the writer!
If there are more such letters, please add them to the comments.
From: Mark Irons
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:55 PM
To: Don Roberts
Subject: Len’s letter.
In his Wake Up Alamedans! letter Len Grzanka labels the elected leadership as “entrenched interests” and failed candidates Pat bail and Tom Pavletic as thwarted “reformers”. Len claims that the reformers will always loose to the powerful entrenched interests because of their unfair advantage from campaign funds supplied by people like developers who expect quid pro quo. I think this is simplistic and in specific ways inaccurate.
For example, Pat Bail’s failure was not for lack of campaign funds, as she far out spent any other candidate for office with her own money. She could afford a Tramatola, and is not above it. At a recent CMFA meeting she recommended prospective candidates do so. As for Len’s claims of “innuendo, lies and outright slander” being used by the entrenched against the reformers, he should be specific. Lacking specificity makes Len guilty of the very innuendo he complains about. Pat Bail has said, “I have no proof, but I think the City Council are in the developers pocket”. Without that proof that comment sounds slanderous to me.
Grzanka is not only content about being indifferent to development which he feels doesn’t directly effect him, in his comment about Target he seems to brag about it. Unlike Len, many Alamedans feel it’s important to take a systemic view to the health of the community and accordingly even concern ourselves with issues which don’t directly effect us. That’s why I didn’t vote for Bail or Pavletic. Pat sees everything through the lens of Measure A, while Tom is what I would call a libertarian ideologue. I prefer leadership with a broader outlook. I’m ready to vote reform, but in my view they don’t fit the bill.