Ray Clark should be consistent

June 23, 2006, Ray Clark wrote in his editorial:

"But apparently there is a sort of character test for the men and women who run the cameras. At least, Fran Monroe has such a test. She applied it to Paul Proudian and three highly-principled members of the Council decided that he flunked."

It's good that Mr. Clark is outraged that a citizen was allowed to speak against a council committee candidate based on personal or moral characteristics. I agree that it shouldn't enter into it.

But where was Mr. Clark's outrage when his friend Lynn Olson heatedly spoke against an applicant for the CEDC, when Ms. Olson uttered vile inaccuracies on camera? Leona Crooker did the same.

Mr. Clark did not speak out against those people because he is friends with those people, and he opposed the candidacy of the certain candidate.

But now, when the tables are turned, and his friend is spoken against, he is suddenly outraged that moral or personal character is brought into the equation.

Mr. Clark can have all the opinions he wants. But when his opinions change depending on whether his friends are on the line, he loses credibility. Editors should advocate for principles, not for friends. It's not a club. It's the Fourth Estate, and consistency matters.