Chuck,
I actually got just the opposite intent. The mention of his handicap and
community contribution through amateur radio paint a clear, sympathetic
position. The reporter's job is to present both sides of the story. Accurately
reporting the position of an opposing neighbor is required for fairness, and
while the neighbor is obviously not well-versed in engineering principles,
there were no facts skewed by the reporter.
For anyone in the town not living in this thing's shadow, this story will tug
the heartstrings in the boy's direction, not against him.
I have a background in news, and also some experience being misquoted. This
reporter did a way-above-average job of getting it right, especially for local
media in a small market. Most coverage of ham issues villifies us from the
start. We should all hope for something this fair.
73,
Paul, AE4KR
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Mills
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: OT:Antenna height restrictions and PRB-1
The article was written very poorly and the facts skewed to bully a
handicapped child.
“They started off with just a little antenna which was fine then the
monstrosity came about the big tower and that's the one we were really worried
about. We do see it rocking back and forth,” Eric Scott said.
Of course it rocks back and forth...that's what the guy with the PE stamp
designed it to do. I somehow don't see a Pulitzer in that journalist's future.
Sorry again Kevin for the bandwidth here.
Chuck
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:20 PM, wb6dgn <tallins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
