Community

Distorted Headlines- Just the Facts

By  | 

By Dave Freneaux

Last Week’s Central City News front page headline reads:

“Watts Tells LoBue: Resign”

Fact: This headline is simply NOT TRUE.  In his letter the Mayor ASKS (not Tells) Lobue, “I am asking you to graciously resign…”  The headline also has led people to believe that Mr. LoBue was asked to resign from his position on the Council, when it actually refers to his chairmanship of a Mayoral committee.  An accurate headline could have read:

“Mayor Asks LoBue to Graciously Resign From Committee”

Another headline in last week’s Central City News reads:

“LoBue Attacked for Protecting Public’s Right to Know”

Fact: The “Attack” apparently referred to is an article in CentralSpeaks.com containing a simple and verifiable list of facts concerning LoBue’s unauthorized release of confidential records, and the article contains no opinions.  The article reflected negatively on LoBue NOT because he was “Protecting the Public’s Right to Know”, but because it demonstrated that he took an action in direct contradiction to the unanimous vote of the very City Council on which he was elected to serve, and against the advice of the City’s Legal Counsel.  A factual headline would have been:

“Facts Show LoBue Acts Against Unanimous City Council Decision”

Another misrepresenting headline is found again on the front page of last week’s Central City News and reads:

“Mayor Blocks Further Review of Legal Services”

Fact: This committee was assembled by the Mayor to gather research for the Mayor’s consideration.  The legal issues raised by Mr. LoBue’s release of confidential records prompted the Mayor to “temporarily suspend the activities of this committee.”  The Mayor further stated in a press release to both local newspapers “Once all legal issues are resolved I will likely request this committee to resume its research.”  The City Council has the right to study legal services or even to put together a committee to review legal services.  The Mayor’s decision does not block further study.  A more accurate headline would have read:

“LoBue’s Release of Confidential Records Temporarily Halts Work of Mayor’s Committee” 

40 Comments

  1. jason

    May 5, 2011 at 9:29 am

    All I can say is that I read both newspaper and this one has now lost a lot more of my respect. What are you a paper that comes out a week later just to respond to Central City News. You are obviously showing bias throughout your article. In your other article you call a competing newspaper a “tabloid.” If it is a tabloid then you sure do take it seriously. I do not see a newspaper that goes behind the National Enquirer every week citing “facts” about why a celebrity is not impregnated with an alien baby.

    If you want to call Central City News a tabloid in your editorial then fine put it there. That is where it belongs, not in the middle of a “non-editorial” article. To me your newspaper has just been discounted to an obvious bias and slant. Central City News is clear about where it stands and presents the articles in an accurate way. Do I follow it and trust in it’s editor 100%, no I understand all people have a bias. He does however do a better job of hiding his than you are doing.

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 10:07 am

      “A tabloid is a newspaper with compact page size smaller than broadsheet, although there is no standard for the precise dimensions of a tabloid.” – Refers to paper size. That is not an opinion relegated to an editorial, it is a fact. Central City news and CentralSpeaks.com are both tabloids.
      Is this a “response”? Absolutely. I will no longer let misinformation go unchallenged in the City where I live.
      Thanks for listening and for caring enough to comment,
      Dave

  2. concernedforcentral

    May 5, 2011 at 9:50 am

    Jason,

    Provide specific examples why what Dave has printed about the headlines is not 100% factual.

  3. Mike mannino

    May 5, 2011 at 10:32 am

    Concerned,
    No disrespect but you are in that small group that will never get it.

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 10:37 am

      Mike,
      No, I think he gets it. I hope everyone does.

  4. Keith Kepper

    May 5, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Wow Mike I would say Concerns group is not all that small and we get it very well and have been for quite some time. What I also get is that when others have a differing opinion and it’s supported publicly by a media source it kinda put’s the shoe on the other foot, doesn’t it? Simply assuming your group is large does not make it so!!

    And Jason, if you enjoy being deceived that would surely be your choice. I tend to like to see others opinions clearly and up front. Is everything in a tabloid false? no. Mix enough perfume with crap and you don’t smell the crap anymore!! Thats what I call deception… it’s still crap!

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 10:56 am

      I see the comparison, but let’s not let the waste matter analagy get out of hand.

  5. jason

    May 5, 2011 at 10:55 am

    concerned..you want an example look at the first one Watts did tell LoBue to resign. Central City news printed a fact, they left out the “graciously from a committee,” but is this not what Dave did when he posted about Lobue letting the lawyers bills out. Dave most graciously left out the fact that he gave them to a committee looking at legal services in the city of Central. Dave made it seem like he handed them to regualar citizens.

    Dave – you and I both know that the use of the word tabloid was not meant as a paper size. In fact previously you have referred to Central City News as a newspaper and CCN refers to Central Speaks as a newspaper. Of course you can hide behind the “fact” that technically your definition is a tabloid, however we all know the intention of the word when you published it.

    I was glad to see another paper come out and to see what could be brought to light to help our great city. Now I see one paper that presents a specific point of view and another who whines and complains because the other one does it better and responds to everything the other does.

    REPORT THE NEWS QUIT REPORTING ABOUT ANOTHER NEWSPAPER. The facts will come from news reporting.

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 11:09 am

      Jason, read the letter from Watts to Lobue. The words read “…I am ASKING you to graciously resign…” ASKING, not TELLING…words mean things.
      You seem to believe that serving on a committee gives one citizen rights not afforded to all citizens. Not correct. They are indeed “regular citizens.”
      Let’s compare a factually correct description of a Tabloid style of newspaper to an assertion that “..the Mayor and his allies have started a competing newspaper…” Where is your OUTRAGE over that patently FALSE statement??? Mine, at least, is true, and I readily state that CentralSpeaks.com is allso a Tabloid style newspaper.
      I am not comparing newspapers, I am only asking that everyone report the truth.
      If another publication “Makes News” by telling the public something is true when it is not, I will REPORT the truth. Is it in response to the misinformation? Absolutely! And it will continue as long as my friends, neighbors and family are being given misinformation.
      Please don’t take this debate as anything personal between us. It is not. I will just passionately stand up for what i believe, and you have the right to disagree. I will never make this personal between any commenter and me.
      Thanks,
      Dave

  6. jason

    May 5, 2011 at 11:02 am

    Keith,

    I can read between the lines and form my own opinion. I do not form opinions based off of newspaper’s alone. As I know you do not do the same. You make great comments and I do respect your opinion. I follow both FB groups and both newspapers and you are very respectful and knowledgeable.

    Again both papers have their bias, but I would call neither crap. The problem is if Central Speaks continues down this path, it is going to lose a lot of readers because the CS bias is painfully obvious.

  7. Kay Lynn Fox

    May 5, 2011 at 11:18 am

    I agree with you completely Jason. Its gets old reading one papaer spend so much time downgrading another. I am capable of reading both newspapers and performing my own opinion and researching my own facts when needed. Central Speaks has become CCN’s greatest free advertisor. If people didn’t read the other paper before they will be sure to read it now. As I have said in the past write your own papar and improve on what you have started and people will follow. Your comeback with your tabloid defination was pretty good. Its hard to believe that your original statement referred to paper size and was not directed to the other paper since tthe statement had nothing to do with the article. That was a deception that as a editor you would know the majority of readers would not know about. I would like to think there is more going on in Central to write about than the 5 letters you wrote about today refering to the other newspaper.

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 11:47 am

      Kay,
      If telling the truth is downgrading to the CCN, that is not of my doing. My preference would be that you help me understand what I have printed that is not true. My second request would be for you to address whether you feel it is appropriate, fair or true for CCN to claim that that Central’s Mayor and his allies started MY paper. If you are going to expresss disappointment that I choose to point out misinformation by using the truth, you could at least express the same or greater disappointment that the CCN uses untruths to attenpt to damage my reputation and readership. Let’s be fair about this. As I said to Jason, the Tabloid reference is at least true…CCN’s jab at me is patently false and unsupportable. If you want to have a foundation to suggest that I alter my approach, it has to start by being equally critical of both papers. I can’t abide the double standard of allowing CCN to blatantly spread misinformation with no call for accountability while I am chided for the accurate choice of the word Tabloid. I would truly like for you to help me understand why I am held to the very highest of technical standards while the CCN is not questioned at all.
      Any help?

      PS, there is ALOT going on in Central. There are 36 articles in this weeks paper totally unrelated to any newspaper.
      Dave

  8. Another Central resident

    May 5, 2011 at 11:18 am

    Stop Jason you are making too much sense. That is not allowed in Central. You are not falling in line with the regime that is running this town.

    You need to accept that CS is the one true paper/facts and CCN is just propaganda. Why, because you were told so and that should be enough.

  9. Mike mannino

    May 5, 2011 at 11:19 am

    Keith , we agree that everyone has their right to an opinion. But to continously print only part of a story, or do as this paper, accuse the other paper of bias, is like the pot calling the kettle black. As Jason points out and I have many times, there is a bias in both papers. The main difference I have pointed out is that CCN backs theirs with cold hard facts. Many opinions on here are masqueraded as facts when in reality, its the editors presentation designed to paint a certain picture. It is ludicrous to now accuse the LA Press association of printing half facts or untruths. This is a very respected organization of State Reporters that will back their claims. We are not dealing with average Joe Central citizen that knows nothing as we have been called. This is high power and I will bet they will step in on this series of articles. Its high time we admit that maybe we are learning out here and improve from our mistakes. To continue to defend some of this stuff is just plain ridiculous. Its one thing to say what you print is 100% fact, quite another to say you print all the facts and that where the rub comes in.

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 11:52 am

      Mike,
      I have consistently requested that if you are going to make the claim that I print less than all the facts, you tell me what facts I have omitted. Facts, not suppositions or opinions. As for the LA Press Association, they probably printed what they were told were facts. They certainly did not make them up out of the blue. However, the examples I raised are definitely not true. It would also be execllent if you could please hold all newspapers in Central to the standard you seem to have set for me.
      Dave

  10. Jason

    May 5, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Dave,

    Of course I would never take it personally. I am sure you are a good man who is standing for what he believes in. We just do not see eye to eye on what you call the facts and how you are reporting in your paper. I am merely giving an opinion on which direction I see your paper heading.

    And if my boss asks me to resign, the writing is on the wall if I do not he is going to remove me. I believe the same thing would have happened here, but what has happened. Does this committee still meet to make a determination? I honestly have not been able to follow that.

    As for the “regular citizens” comment I mean come one where is common sense in all of this. It was a committee formed to determine how legal services are being handled by our city. They need the “facts” to make a decision. How can they have the facts to make an informed decision without these bills? These were not regular citizens they were appointed to this committee. In fact a person of the media, yourself, was unable to obtain a copy. Lobue made a wise choice to inform members of a committee what is the situation but keep it out of the public. I do feel he could have put a restriction and only allowed viewing at the actual committee meetings. We both have seen the debate over these bills, multiple people have ruled that there is nothing in them that would violate attorney client privelage.

    There is always more than one way of looking at a situation, hence we have 2 papers in a small town and multiple political parties.

    This debate is off base as to the reason I left the original comment. When you started your paper you did a very good job of presenting facts and an opposing point of view of another paper without appearing bias. You have gone away from that. Report what is going on, put the factual information in there, but leave the competing paper out of it. It makes your paper look petty and would make it easier to read for myself.

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 12:08 pm

      Jason,
      I will continue to linit any opinions I express to an official “Editorial”, probably on page 2. I suggest anyone who does not want my opinion, or the opinion of a citizen who writes a letter to the editor, not to read them. I respect that not everyone wants to know about Central’s political growing pains. You and I are going to have to just disagree on the release of legal records. The purpose of the committee was to review the expenses of our legal representation, not the details of the cases and legal discussions. The City Council, including LoBue, voted unanimously to keep five items in the legal bills confidential under attorney-client privilege due to potential litigation. The committee only needed the number of hours and the dollars spent in each category of legal advice. That could have been compiled for the committee by City staff and handed out in summary. Let’s also remember that about half of the records handed out had never even come before the Council or City Attorney for a determination of possible legal issues that could be compromised if handed out.

      My personal opinion is that Mr. LoBue simply did not stop and think about the confidentiality of records when he handed them out, but I can’t know that because he has yet to state whether the release was an error or a truly knowledgable ignoring of the Council’s vote. I hope it was an error in judgement and not a defying of the vote of the Council. Still does not make it acceptable, just understandable. Can you IMAGINE the flap that would have ensued if the Mayor had done the same thing?
      I will leave the other paper out of my paper ENTIRELY if the public does not get a dose of misinformation on the weeks when the CCN publishes. You have to know that, from a pure business standpoint, I cringe every time I print the name of the other paper in CS, because it DOES give them visibility. That is how passionate I am about my friends and neighbors NOT being misled.
      Thanks for the comments,
      Dave

  11. Jason

    May 5, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Dave,

    Listen to the tone of your comments. It sounds like “poor pitiful me, nobody does this to the other paper just mine.” Dave you started the paper and make money off of it. People are obviously going to give you their opinion back. Write your articles stand for them and quit worrying about another paper or what people think of another paper. CCN receive comments and flak from their articles. I have sent in concerns to them also and they have responded with facts that I understood where the article came from. Do I always agree? No, I am not the editor so I am not going to always agree. However when I read the articles I can clearly see where the editorial is whereas your articles can contain editorial comments in actual articles.

    You ask why you are held to a higher technical standard. I personally believe it is because of the tone of your writing. You present articles as “just the facts” as if there were no other possibilities or dissenting opinions allowed. It is a bad branding choice for a newspaper. Then you present facts based off CCN’s last issue in basically bullet form. Tell the story and include your facts, it will be harder for people to argue.

    I will continue to read your paper, it is always good to see other opinions but today I felt you should know one readers opinion.

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 12:35 pm

      Jason,
      Not my point at all. No “poor pitiful me” here. The point of the issue was to get people to open thier eyes and question ALL media. I WANT to be held to a high standard, but I want ALL media to be held to that same high standard. I want these things because I believe Central deserves a news source that aims for a lack of bias.
      Dave

  12. Kay Lynn Fox

    May 5, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    My point is for you to stop doing the same thing you are accusing the other paper of doing. Keeping with the “he says” “she says” is very childish on all parties involved. My personal feelings is that you just write your facts and truths as you see them and not worry about the other paper. We do not need you or anyone else interpreting what somebody else writes. You feeling the need to call others liars is unnecessary and discredits the truths you are trying to state. Trying to prove a particular group of people and their followers as liars and irresponsible is not your responsiblity. Just state the news and facts and keep your paper honest and trustworthy. Stay away from the bait, it usually has a hook in it. Give the citizens of central enough credit to read between the lines and form our opinions. Consistantly being on the defense is not a good thing. Im sure as a professional your paper can state the news in a way that has nothing to do with the other paper. And as far as comments the other newspaper doesn’t post daily where comments can be written to my knowledge. When you open a comment section you must be prepared to have both positive and negative reactions. How they are handled says alot. Sometimes too much.

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 1:26 pm

      Kay,
      I appreciate your take on the issue. I can tell you that if what is printed in Central is true, I will feel no need to talk about anyone else’s publication in CentralSpeaks.com. This, for me, is not about newspapers, it is about the people of Central being given the truth.
      Thanks for your comments. I understand your advice.
      Dave

  13. Mike Mannino

    May 5, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    Dave,
    Im going to dance with you one more time on one example that I have gone over previously.

    You state in one of your articles that Mr Lobue defied the vote of the council. What you dont go into, which CCN did in great detail last week, is that 1) The City Council cannot supercede state law. 2) It is your opinion, that Mr Lobue released documents that he shouldnt have. Again, I reference CCN last week for the definition of “Public Records”. These documents, in MY opinion are public. But both of our opinions carry no weight, nor or they facts. 3) The vote you keep referring to was held last August to deal with my public records request and was not a blanket ruling and the Council really has no power to make this ruling for these records. ( My opinion based on all the information I researched last year and CCN published last week)

    I could go through many of your articles where you either leave out facts, or you call your opinion facts. Its OK to be biased, its your paper. But people are starting to figure out slowly but surely that you are so dont try to cover it with ” Half the Facts”

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 1:44 pm

      Mike,
      First, I have to accept that the actions of the Council are, for the time being, correct and appropriate actions. If someone wishes to challenge the authority of the Council to protect the records, they are welcome to do that. As it stands, and as I reported, Mr. LoBue took an action against the unanimous vote of the City Council, and HE was one of those votes. If a baseball player runs outside the basepath to avoid getting tagged out, and the umpire calls him out for running outside the basepath, he is out. For the runner then to argue that the rule is unfair and object to being called out would be silly. We agreed to play by those rules when we started the game. If you want to change the rules, lobby to change the rules. If Tony wants to have the Council vote to waive privilege on all legal invoices, he has the power to call for such a vote. Until then, it is against the rules set by the Council. None of us get to decide what is legal. That is for a court to decide, and then only when someone challenges the current authority making the decision. In my article I never gave an opinion as to whether the records in question should be kept confidential, I simply reported that the Council has decided that they were. If they are public records, why bother to go around and quickly retrieve them?

      You have presented no additional facts in this matter, and you have not shown anything I printed as a fact to be untrue. Can you please give me the facts that you say I omit. Your entire argument is based on the CCN interpretation of what a public record is. Note that the courts have yet to agree with that position in the CH2 lawsuit. Central’s City Attorney has advised that items do fall under attorney-client privilege, and the Council voted to redact those items, and I am certain the Mayor is in agreement. So we have the Legislative and Executive branch of our City government in unanimous agreement with the City Attorney. Seems like that is the rule in this case, until someone gets it changed. I am not even weighing in on whether the rule is correct. I am simply saying that the rule was broken, like the guy running outside the baselines.

      Dance?
      Dave

  14. Daniell

    May 5, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    After readingall these comments I fail to see how Dave has done anything more then defend his paper,and post the truth. Most of these comments are accusing him of “he said”,”she said”,correcting the missinformation provided by CCN to the LA press. You are putting accusations in Dave’s aricle. All he did was tell you what really happened. Yes the citizens of Central are smart enough to make their own decissions, but they deserve the facts, which is what Central speaks is good at. Read the articles as they are written and stop assuming Dave ment his articles in any other way then they are written. And honestly I dont believe he started this paper to make money, I truely believe Dave started this to present facts that CCN is known for leaving out. Thank you Freneaux and Fussel Family for all the hard work you do , and i look forward to reading your paper/tabloid in the future. You are doing a great job,despite what your tuffest critics say. Thank you again.

  15. Keith Kepper

    May 5, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    Mike, are you really going to sit here a tell us that CCN backs up all they say with cold hard facts???? Even their headlines are not factual and I quote “Mayor Watts Tells Lobue: Resign” Facts? Really? He Asked Lobue to resign?? Asking is not Telling!!! But I’m sure that is just an oversight on Woody’s part…just an oversight that perpetrates a slanted image of the Mayor. Give me a break…cold hard facts my butt!! You want to call Dave out as bias, and un-factual, then point them out just as myself and Dave have about Woody.

    Jason, I greatly appreciate the respect of my opinion and if you have been following a few of my opinions you will recognize my ongoing concern for the way information is fed to the public, me and you being part of that, by CCN. There is great power in words, especially when you can use them however you want and no one can correct you. Woody, as I have said on many occasions, is a life long politician that has found a better platform than politics to spread his rhetoric and push his personal agenda. I appreciate that you read between the lines, but what lines would you read between if there was but one line and it was Woody’s. You would accept it as factual. My involvement here is the direct result of slanted mistruths and yellow journalism that myself and those I love read in Woody’s paper. If I know you and someone says something about you that tarnishes what I know about you in front of a group of people, and I know what they have said is false and sheds a poor light on who you are, well I’m going to stand up for you… even if some of the others want to believe the lies.

    Kay Lynn, there may be other news but I hardly think any of it is of greater consequence than the news that one paper prints complete falsehoods and gives false information concerning our city to the state and national press. Did someone catch a big bass or open a new hot pocket restaurant? I’m sure there is room to cover that breaking news as well!! And although Daves definition of a tabloid is correct… my definition is a paper that purposely misleads the reader by providing information that the editor knows is false but renders is up as factual. CCN fits my definition in my opinion.

  16. Mike Mannino

    May 5, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    Keith,
    Depends on how much of the article you read. It is quite detailed and does state the whole story. The reader is left to judge themselves. So selectivly pulling out segments and calling foul is not quite fair. On the other hand, you can read all the way through CS and still not get all the information.

    Second, I think you dont give the “public” enough credit. If all the information is presented, they ( we)are quite capable of figuring out what and how it applies to the given scenario. If all is not presented, that is what I call factual but not complete. Quite a difference in intent and the way the public may view it if all the data was there. I am glad we have 2 papers, but quite honestly for either to claim they are the ultimate authority on some issues is presumptious. Only the courts can decide.

    Lastly, I would use your last paragraph with one itsy bitsy change. Substitute CS for CCN and you hit the nail on the head. Subjective, and I know we disagree……..

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 3:10 pm

      Mike,
      In response to the article eventually containing enough detail to explain away the headline, what would be your opinion of this statement?
      “Some people just have headlines stick in their head, and they don’t always read a text in its entirity. But I would think that you would also print a solid, complete truth without misleading anyone in how it is written in the headlines as well.”
      Dave

  17. Another Central resident

    May 5, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    I know this is from a fictional character of a movie but the quote can be used for either side (CS or CCN).

    “Who’s the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?”
    ―Obi-Wan Kenobi

  18. Pablo Bandito

    May 5, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    Mike,

    When was it decided that it is “OK to be biased”?
    As I was taught, a news outlet’s purpose is to fairly report the news in fact form and remain objective in all aspects of reporting. Opinion and bias have only one place in a newspaper, the editorial page. My honest belief is that no news outlet should have an editorial page either due to the fact that once a reader has read an editorial connected to a news outlet, that reader will now perceive a bias in any article published by that news outlet, regardless of actual bias content. Editorials and “letters to the editor” belong in magazines and clearly satirical works of journalism. In order for the readership’s perception of a news outlet to remain pure and uninhibited, that news outlet should abstain from all forms of opinionated publishings.

    Having said that, I do understand that there is not one truly 100% objective news outlet as all humans are infallible. I am simply stating that it should be the goal of all reporters to be as objective as possible. Having read both of Central’s news publisher’s work it is blatantly obvious that one of them makes no attempt to cover his opinion, while the other does strive to provide Central with honest fact- based reporting. Neither is perfect, but when both are available I would rather have the Porsche than the Pinto if you know what I mean.

  19. Pablo Bandito

    May 5, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    Correction: All humans are NOT infallible. My gramatical oversight serves as illustration to my statement.

  20. Ted

    May 5, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    To Jason, since you say that Dave wait’s for Woody to print and fire’s a bullet, please give us some example’s.

  21. Mike Mannino

    May 5, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    Cant disagree Pablo. By nature, we all have some bias. Try as a reporter may, it will show through and thats just the way it is. And Dave your comment is true and its a technique reporters use, they do it all the time on teasers on TV before a commercial. Then when they finally get to the story, you say I waited all that time for that ?

    Dave I will say once again,nobody can take away from you the credit you deserve for the improvements to this paper. I sincerely made a suggestion, its your paper and your choice. Doesnt stop me from reading it by any means. But as you can see from a couple of other posts, some others are suggesting the same. Not being critical, not being nasty, just commenting.

    @ Jason, dont waste your time. Ted has a problem understanding teh obvious.

  22. Ted

    May 5, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    Yes Jason, do not waste your time providing fact’s that prove your point. I mean, why should you, Mike surely does not. LOL

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 8:15 pm

      Guys. Please keep it civil.

  23. Mike Mannino

    May 5, 2011 at 8:03 pm

    TED, LOL, LOL < LOL.

  24. Kandi

    May 5, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    Wow!! So much fun in here. I am amazed and in awe. I have friends on both sides of this crazy whatever this is. I can and do respect any and all who choose to roll up their sleeves to get the info. I am still beyond concerned in the people who choose to judge Dave with different standards! When have you EVER seen Woody have an open conversation about what he is printing? If you are not bothered by some of the things Dave feels he needs to point out…that’s great! Prob means it didn’t personally impact you or your world. If you were offended at word one of the paper? Maybe you are happy sitting back and blaming others for government wrongs…shady dealings…distrust of elected officials. Closing your eyes tight and pretending that all is well doesn’t make it well! Perhaps if it were your family..brother, father or friend that you felt was being defiled..well then you would want someone screaming from Hooper and Sullivan for the good people to demand truth and at least make it harder for it to happen again. Thanks Dave for making us all look hard at what is going on…being said! Your right…. words do mean things. For too long they have been thrown out as daggers..and actually they are. They cut and can destroy. How long would you sit back and let those you love get cut before you would step up and demand accountability for what is being printed? Hmmmmmm looks like Dave is being accountable here.

  25. F. Morgan

    May 5, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    Thank You Kandi and AMEN! I have been reading Central Speaks for a long while now and appreciate the honesty, integrity and interest of all the articles in this publication. I’m thankful for being able to rely on the truth because these days there is precious little of it being published. Thank you Dave, Beth, Mia and others who contribute to CS. We are ALL held accountable for our actions… some sooner than others!

  26. kyle

    May 6, 2011 at 1:09 am

    Thank you Dave for your interesting articles today. It always amazes me how Woody’s stories are one-sided. He will blatantly attack certain people in this community, and he will never give them the chance to respond or tell their side of the story. So, how can we ever trust that he’s telling the truth when we never get to hear from the other side? That is not professional journalism. At least the Advocate will say “we attempted to contact so-and-so, but they were unavailable or had no comment”. Woody never gives the people he attacks that chance. That’s the way he’s always been his entire political career. I guess you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
    Dave, thank you for helping our community out with your paper!

    • dave

      May 6, 2011 at 3:09 pm

      NOTICE: If you choose to post without using your real name, you are not allowed to comment “about” anyone, even public figures. You may speak about public policy, political theory, social concerns or the price of gas. You may speak about the reasons you disagree with someone else’s theories, but you may not comment “about” the person, even if they are an elected official. You can say that you disagree with a Council Member’s stance on an ordinance and then explain why and explain your stance, but you may not say it is because he is unqualified for his position. I believe this will make these comment sessions healthier and help keep us focused on the issues. Even if you use your real name, you may not make this comment session into a platform for individual arguments. You all have email addresses and facebook. Please go settle your differences in private.

      I will exercise the right to enforce these rules without much explanation. I will delete what needs deleting and replace it with a comment like “Use your name if you want to talk about that” or “please settle your personal differences privately.” If I fail to enforce this policy, email or text me and hold me accountable. If you have a better idea of how to focus the conversation, let me know.

      Thanks,
      Dave@CentralSpeaks.com
      413-1616

  27. kyle

    May 6, 2011 at 1:18 am

    Thank you, Dave, for exposing the truth here. Woody is a crafty former-politician. He knows how to word things just right to trick the public. Apparently, some people are falling for it and can’t see the truth. Thank you for this interesting article. I’ve always wondered….why is a Baton Rouge politician who doesn’t live here so interested in Central? Why is he trying to play games with the Central community? It really makes me wonder why he defends one councilmember in particular.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *