On Wednesday, May 2, well before the deadline for submitting campaign related letters, I mailed the following letter to the editor to The Eagle endorsing John Crompton for City Council in College Station. Today--the last day for printing election-related letters--The Eagle's letters column leads with THREE letters endorsing Crompton's opponent (Happ) -- my letter was never printed. Given the Eagle's rather absurd explanation for not endorsing Crompton in its editorial pages (he'll take a vacation!?!), and its failure to print my letter in support of Crompton (one wonders how many others?), I've written to the Eagle demanind an explanation of this blatant bias in a local election of great import to our community.
Editor, The Eagle
P.O. Box 3000
Bryan, TX 77805-3000
May 2, 2007
Dear Editor,
Over the past months hundreds of College Station residents have turned out repeatedly at City Council and Zoning Commission meetings to register their discontent with the poor planning and development-at-any-cost policies that have driven city government's approach to growth in our community for far too long. On May 12 these concerned citizens have an opportunity to make a real difference by voting for John Crompton for City Council.
John Crompton stands for the preservation and enhancement of our existing neightborhoods, and for forward-looking policies on parks and transportation that would make the greening of College Station a top priority. He understands that economic development strategies must amount to more than throwing out the welcome mat for every chain restaurant and big-box retailer that promises job creation and tax revenues while asking taxpayers to underwrite their profits with infrastructure improvements and social services for their poorly paid, largely part-time employees. He would instead support locally owned businesses, and would carefully target high tech, R&D, company headquarters, and start-up firms--businesses that bring real jobs with full benefits to our community. And he is committed to the principle that current
residents should not be required to subsidize new growth.
College Station voters have a rare opportunity in this election--a chance to put someone on City Council who wants to change the way we think about growth in our city. Please join me in voting for John Crompton for City Council.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
David McWhirter's Respnce to the Eagle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The following exchange was sent by David McWhirter. While I'm sure that Borden gets lots of email, this is not the first report of emails sent and not received. I also don't get the sense that Robert was calling the shots on the endorsements made by the Eagle this time around.
Dear Robert Borden,
I will take your word for it that this was an honest mistake, but since the
email never bounced back to me, I have to assume that someone on your end
lost or deleted it. Thanks for your reply.
I might not have reacted so strongly if your recommendations against
Crompton and Maloney had not been based on such flimsy, nonsubstantial
points. I've been an Eagle subscriber for 16 years, and although I sometimes
agree and sometimes disagree with your endorsements, I found your arguments
against endorsing these two candidates to border on the outrageous.
Sincerely,
David McWhirter
Robert Borden
said:
> Mr. McWhirter:
>
> I don't claim anything. It was not received. I have gone back and checked
> and it did not arrive here (In fact, I did so before responding to your
> first e-mail). I am sorry, but I cannot run letters I do not receive. There
> was no bias on my part or on the part of The Eagle and you are incorrect to
> assume so. If you will check over the past several weeks, I have made a
> concerted effort to balance letters for candidates. I would run a
> pro-Crompton letter followed by a pro-Happ letter, followed by a
> pro-Crompton letter and so on, as long as I had the letters to do so. If I
> started with a Crompton letter one day, I would start with a Happ letter the
> next time. I have been as fair as I can be with letters for all the
> candidates. I ran several pro-Crompton letters, so there would be no reason
> not run yours had I received it. We did not recommend Dennis Maloney for
> mayor, but ran far more letters supporting him because we received far more
> letters supporting him.
>
> Again, your letter was not received. I am sorry for that. Had it been, I
> would gladly have run it. Since it wasn't, I could not. I am sorry for your
> anger, but I cannot run what I do not have.
>
>
> Robert C. Borden
>
> > Dear Robert Borden,
> >
> > Below is the letter you claim not to have received. It was emailed on
5/2 at
> > 11:01 PM from this address to letterseditor@theeagle.com, as per the
> > instructions on the editorial page, and was never bounced back to me. I
> > suggest you check your incoming emails and find out way it was ignored.
As
> > far as I am concerned and know, the letter was received by you, and I can
> > only presume bias played a role in your not printing it.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > David McWhirter
If Mr. McWhirter can document that his letter was sent to the correct email address, and the Eagle's computer system mysteriously malfuntioned and deleted it, then it only seems reasonable that the Eagle would hire a computer programer to fix their system and then print the article in the paper ASAP. They have the ability to make those kind of decisions. What is the big deal here?
I have a roofing business, and if something gets messed up, I fix it. That is what honest people do.
DM sounds like an arrogant child. Technology does happen to fail at times, and DM's "respnce" to RB was totally inappropriate. Letters endorsing each candidate have been run for weeks; why is this one such a HUGE deal anyway? There's nothing new here.
Post a Comment