Dear Daily Camera:
“There were spots in Sunday’s editorial where facts were misstated, assumptions were made, or solutions were proposed as actionable when they have been vetted and rejected as non-viable … I therefore encourage you to consider retracting this editorial. If a retraction is a bridge too far, then I believe the next best thing would be to issue a robust correction, including needed retractions/corrections, but also increased transparency such as disclosing who all participated in the listening tours (including their depth / degree of involvement), and citing sources for assertions.”
— Councilmember Rachel Friend
Dear Friend:
I am writing to you personally, as the editor of the opinion page, to retract the entire opinion called “CU can be the hero in this story,” and issue as you say, a robust correction, right here, on these opinion pages because indeed I did give you far too much credit in the editorial and there was that one incorrect number I let slip through and of course the cardinal sin of questioning the preemient wisdom of Councilmember Rachel Friend.
I am sure you are thinking, woohoo! And just you wait.
I think first in order is to answer your Twitter feeds. You ponder, “ What is required for an editorial board to issue a retraction? I’m looking at a piece that contains 1 or more flagrant errors, 1 statement about me that relies on an incorrect assumption, and myriad dubious leaps of faith.”
You are so right on, the fact we had one number wrong is certainly grounds for a full retraction of our entire Sunday editorial.
And that seriously flawed, incorrect assumption — where we say,” … Mayor Sam Weaver and Councilmember Rachel Friend, who have been putting in long hours, are understandably determined to represent the voices of these neighbors who want a solution and right now.”
I cannot believe that our newspaper actually had the gall to give you kudos for listening to the people at Frasier Meadows Retirement Community who want flood work. What an appalling thing for us to write. It’s not like that’s your job as a City Councilor, to actually listen and then respond, or anything.
The absolute worst thing of all, wait for it … we absolutely crossed the line when we thought for ourselves and issued an opinion!
If we had only just gotten in line like good people and promoted what you desperately wanted, what CU wanted, and said hip, hip, hooray, well, that would have been so much better for us, and especially for you, because what you want is our priority. In fact, I think we could work out a deal and save the city a ton of money if we just combine this editorial page with the city newsletter, and then we don’t need to double our efforts! Won’t our readers be thrilled?
I mean, how dare we. How dare I, listen to any other ideas floating around out there, it’s not like the city wants to hear them, right? Like an easement so Boulder can take the time to plan development around a sensitive riparian zone? What a bunch of liberal environmental hooey. That expert and independent easement attorney we consulted, who said it was unusual, but could be done fast if all parties were willing, is a weasel. Not to disparage weasels, I like them.
And we should never have listened to those wackos, such as Ruth Wright. It’s not like she was a brilliant leader or pioneer who helped define what matters most to Boulder. Oh wait, I see she was the second woman ever to become the House Minority Leader in the Colorado Legislature. And she wrote the initial draft of today’s height-limit ordinance as her law school dissertation. Well, she is largely to blame for the fact we have open space, so we have that against her.
And then there are those sketchy people like the late CU Boulder physics professor emeritus Gilbert White and CU’s Gustavson distinguished professor emeritus of geography Al Bartlett. They are long gone, so why should we care what they stood for?
All of these people are so 1960s.
Paul Danish is still alive, I think, but his name sounds like a pastry. Ron Stewart said we should come up with an “ecologically sensitive” plan. Really, who is this guy?
I mean, what really matters is how many hours you sat at the table with all the lawyers. And the annexation agreement has so many strong words in it, like the city can “collaborate” and CU can “consider” what Boulder wants when it comes to building 750,000 square feet of undefined development. I think we are good. We don’t want CU to experience the pain of having to go through an actual city development process.
And what does a leap of faith get you anyway? When Al and his friend, CU math professor Bob McKelvey, took off one afternoon, wandering across our wildlands, to map what would become the Blue Line —the elevation point at where the city cannot pipe in water, hence no houses — that was totally insane, wasn’t it? City Council at the time certainly thought so. Too bad 76 percent of voters in a ballot measure thought otherwise. Why does this sound so familiar?
Blue Line Schmue Line.
In regards to your most excellent Twitter suggestion to your peeps, that you “cld do a public, thorough, sentence-by-sentence article fact-check, listing all persons consulted and cites for every assertion,” actually, I could do you one better.
Let me just first check with the ones who write my paycheck, as well as standards for a free press and see what that all says about being accountable to a city councilperson.
And I can send you what I ate for breakfast, too.
— All warm wishes, Julie Marshall
"Opinion" - Google News
August 28, 2021 at 07:53AM
https://ift.tt/3gDBUJw
Opinion: A ‘robust correction’ well, not exactly - Boulder Daily Camera
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment