Clark is flat out wrong
On April 7, 2006, Mr. Clark wrote:
"Library renovation cost set at $513,000"
”The proposed renovation of the Gray Public Library basement will cost at least $513,000, according to an estimate presented by Port City Architecture.”
BUST: The estimated cost of the library renovations was not “set” at $513,000. The estimate was set for $200,000 by the Gray Town Council. Mr. Clark’s headline and first sentence is wrong.
The $513,000 figure came from an unsolicited report from an outside group, of which Mr. Clark was recently the President. Mr. Clark does not state that the estimate was unsolicited, that the council estimated the cost at $200,000, nor that he is part of the story. All these are gross failures of the Journalism Code of Ethics, which states:
"Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."
"Library renovation cost set at $513,000"
”The proposed renovation of the Gray Public Library basement will cost at least $513,000, according to an estimate presented by Port City Architecture.”
BUST: The estimated cost of the library renovations was not “set” at $513,000. The estimate was set for $200,000 by the Gray Town Council. Mr. Clark’s headline and first sentence is wrong.
The $513,000 figure came from an unsolicited report from an outside group, of which Mr. Clark was recently the President. Mr. Clark does not state that the estimate was unsolicited, that the council estimated the cost at $200,000, nor that he is part of the story. All these are gross failures of the Journalism Code of Ethics, which states:
"Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."
posted by Gray Maine at
6:55 AM
7 Comments:
Ah, deleting comments now I see...
I recall a post from an "Ex-Monument reader" that has been deleted. The Ex-Monument reader" said he/she wouldn't advertise in the Monument newspaper nor would he/she knowingly patronize any company that did. What's the matter, Elizabeth? Hitting too close to home?
If you are going to delete comments, you *really* should delete your responses to those comments. Your post:
"To anonymous saying he will not advertise: I do not own a paper."
now makes no sense.
By
Anonymous, at 11:34 AM
Yes, I delete. If the post contains a swear, it's deleted. if the post contins a reference to 'Lizy' it's deleted. if the post is not at the level of discourse I deem appropriate, I delete it. I have standards, and they are applied on this blog.
By
Anonymous, at 12:22 PM
Good for you. We have seen that a blog can quickly degrade to a slime pit
Don't let it happen here. Continue to present facts. There will be emotional statements, perhaps on both sides, but anything that furthers debate should be OK as long as it is civil.
By
Anonymous, at 1:57 PM
Biasbuster:
The post from "Ex-Monument reader" did not contain a swear, nor refer to Ms. Prata as Lizzy. So I guess it didn't fit your definition of the appropriate level of "discourse".
Care to tell us how it failed to meet your standards?
By
Anonymous, at 8:09 AM
what did it say? it's deleted now.
By
Gray Maine, at 8:34 AM
Ray Clark has a way of twisting words to 'suit himself', he interjects too much of his own feelings into every article; and misleads his readers. His intentions are questionable, he is most unethical, and should remove himself from the Pennell Issue, and anything regarding the GPLA! His Bias is affecting his Credibility!
By
Anonymous, at 7:48 AM
I am hoping to show the facts around your statements through this blog:
For example, when you say: "he interjects too much of his own feelings into every article" I have shown that his using non-neutral words is the way that he injects himself into the articles, with words like "demanded', 'complained', or 'angrily.'
When you say that "his intentions are questionable" that statement can be supported by his participation on the GPLA and using his paper to promote legislation, something that tax exempt charities are strictly forbidden to do. In my oinion the GPLA is in major violation of hte tax exempt status.
"He should remove himself from the Pennell issue": Not only was he on the GPLA and IS on the library trustees, but his business occupied the Pennell lab for many years almost for free! Talk about intimately involved in an issue: hence, his credibility DOES suffer.
By
Gray Maine, at 8:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home