No credibility
I got a couple of emails from folks saying it was irresponsible of Blake to include the statement by Kelly Girtz regarding vegetarianism in his article on the NABF forum this past week, and, I'll be honest, initially I was tempted to side with those folks.
However, as I've gotten more information about what happened, it's clear that Blake wasn't to blame for this thing, but rather the moderator of the forum, who cherrypicked passages from Girtz's letter to deliberately distort his view and make them appear more friendly to FAQ's cause.
Girtz's letter, which includes excerpts posted here, goes through a detailed and quite considerate analysis of the pros and cons of the issue at hand. The moderator and the FAQ crowd would have none of that, with several attendees in the crowd that night confirming to me that he was dismissive of Girtz's work, choosing instead to characterize it as 'long and rambling' and focus on
This isn't Blake's fault. For starters, he was under deadline, so there's that. Second, if a commissioner had made such bizarre statements that equated an increase in vegetarianism to a decrease in terrorism, then, well, that should get dropped into the story. The fault lies with the FAQ crowd and this moron of a moderator who apparently doesn't enjoy having grown-up conversations.
Listen, there are perfectly logical questions and concerns to have over NABF - water usage, impact on the environment, transparency in the process - but it's important to talk about this issues in a rational and analytical manner. What doesn't do any good is to completely just make up stuff and then attribute these fictional tales to NABF.
We kinda already knew the FAQ folks didn't want to have a logical discussion about NABF, but it turns out that now they don't mind flat-out lying to get their way either. Their arguments are pathetic, and, more to the point, their character is questionable.
However, as I've gotten more information about what happened, it's clear that Blake wasn't to blame for this thing, but rather the moderator of the forum, who cherrypicked passages from Girtz's letter to deliberately distort his view and make them appear more friendly to FAQ's cause.
Girtz's letter, which includes excerpts posted here, goes through a detailed and quite considerate analysis of the pros and cons of the issue at hand. The moderator and the FAQ crowd would have none of that, with several attendees in the crowd that night confirming to me that he was dismissive of Girtz's work, choosing instead to characterize it as 'long and rambling' and focus on
This isn't Blake's fault. For starters, he was under deadline, so there's that. Second, if a commissioner had made such bizarre statements that equated an increase in vegetarianism to a decrease in terrorism, then, well, that should get dropped into the story. The fault lies with the FAQ crowd and this moron of a moderator who apparently doesn't enjoy having grown-up conversations.
Listen, there are perfectly logical questions and concerns to have over NABF - water usage, impact on the environment, transparency in the process - but it's important to talk about this issues in a rational and analytical manner. What doesn't do any good is to completely just make up stuff and then attribute these fictional tales to NABF.
We kinda already knew the FAQ folks didn't want to have a logical discussion about NABF, but it turns out that now they don't mind flat-out lying to get their way either. Their arguments are pathetic, and, more to the point, their character is questionable.
posted by Jmac at 3:31 PM
6 Comments:
Well-said. Although I do think as a journalist, the reporter in this situation had a journalistic resonsibility to seek and study the letter in question BEFORE reporting on it. The reporter in this case was lazy in that he relied soley on the moderator's read or interpretation of the letter and didn't bother to verify by getting a copy of the letter before he submitted his story. His actions weren't evil, just sloppy.
Re the water issue. This is a non-issue --the facility will use 60-100k gallons a day. It sounds like a lot but is less than 1% of ACC water use on a daily basis at present. Plus, if you follow the FAQers' logic, given that most industrial/ econ dev opportunities would use water in this realm of quantities, then they're essentially saying that we can't have any economic development in ACC --which is really what they want.
The FAQers and anti-NBAFers are completely grasping at straws, hoping to stir up enough paranoia and sling enough mud in the hope that some will stick and they can get folks riled up (which they appear to be doing), since they can't debate on the merits of the project. And people are falling for this crap. Btw, Kathy Prescott, one of the FAQ leaders, couldn't even answer the question about how much water NBAF would use when it was asked of her at the FAQ event a few weeks ago at the GA Ctr!. Is it that hard to actually know what you're talking about before excoriating it?
Here's hoping Tue night will have a little more credibility.
Reggie
JMac - You are trying to bring logic and reasoning into an emotional (to some) decision. That will never work when the advocates (either for or against) start their position so far from the center.
Personally, I think FAQ is just a tangent offshoot of the typical NIMBY groups that pop up around this town on just about any large scale zoning or land use issue, major infrastructure project, or UGA activity.
I give them as bout as much creditability as I given McDonald's website telling me who makes the best burger (see previous post).
We kinda already knew the FAQ folks didn't want to have a logical discussion about NABF, but it turns out that now they don't mind flat-out lying to get their way either. Their arguments are pathetic, and, more to the point, their character is questionable.
McGinty, can't you just say, "it's not cool for the moderator to distort the thrust of Kelly's letter" without attacking everyone's character? You know some of the people who have put together FAQ, and, while you may disagree with their approach (as do I, in some cases), they're not rotten human beings.
"they're not rotten human beings."
No, they're composting human beings.
There is a difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home