Glenn,
I can see what Tony is describing as a matter of proper reporting.
Forgive me for speaking out of line, Tony, as I'm not a journalist by
profession, but have always found that journalistic norms or standards
should be upheld. What people say, what people mean and finally what
reporters quote or report are often not indicative of the same meaning or
intention.
Just because John didn't cooperate with the UCD internal investigation,
doesn't mean he isn't either cooperative in general or cooperative with his
co-workers at UCD. It just means he didn't want to and therefore didn't
submit to an interrogation by Lewis Wendell. It's actually his right to not
cooperate with such an internal investigation, if he has no legal
protection/guideline in place via a work contract and internal code of
conduct procedure in place. It's still factual to say that he didn't
cooperate with UCD's or Wendell's investigation of the Malcolm X Park
incident, but it again doesn't mean he's being generally uncooperative. Also
remember that the words "not cooperating" or "did not cooperate" came from a
journalist interviewing Lewis Wendell, so these are Wendell's well-chosen
words and one might go further to say his intentions were to somehow prove
John Fenton to be uncooperative. From a journalistic standpoint, there's
nothing factually wrong with what Tony is saying, he just happens to be
repeating words that were already put in place by earlier reporting of the
Wendell response.
What we need now is a balancing measure in the news, we need a
statement from John Fenton's point of view to counterpoint Wendell's and put
the issue(s) in proper focus. Right now all we have is a one-sided argument,
unless you count Councilwoman tirade in support of John Fenton, and that,
I'm afraid, is not the same as John speaking for himself or through an
attorney. Until that happens, all of us in UC and on this list are just
spinning our collective wheels and blowing a lot of hot air..
My Two Cents,
Mario Giorno
36 S. 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19139
On 7/19/07, Glenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "University City List" <UnivCity@list.purple.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:23 PM
Subject: [UC] BIDs in the news
> Ray,
>
> That Fenton did not cooperate with the investigation is not a judgement
on
> cooperativeness of his character, and I did not write: "Fenton is not a
> cooperative man," which would be a true ad hominem argument. It was just
a
> statement of fact. He did not cooperate with this investigation. No one
> has disputed this claim with a conflicting account that alleges
> cooperation.
Statement of fact!!!!
Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell reported that Mr. Fenton had been ordered to
resign, keep silent, and had a six-month severance package to back it up!
Your "fact" has indeed been "disputed" with a "conflicting account." You
are
again calling the Councilwoman a liar in front of everyone who attended
the
Penn meeting. You're even denying it happened at that very public meeting!
This is not journalism in which you are engaged!
You and Melani have a weird second "press release" from Mr. Lewis Wendell
to
prove this "uncooperative Fenton" spin. You and UCD want to make this case
that Mr. Fenton refused to cooperate and now you deny that Blackwell gave
this contradictory public account.
How can Fenton or any UCD employee cooperate while under a gag order? How
can you refuse to report this conflicting account while asserting this
"fact?" Yeah right, Mr. Wendell's "documented" calls. Who do you think
buys
this "investigation?" Where are these documentation records?
There appears to be no limit to your arrogance! You are an embarrassment
for
the FOCP and The Public Record.
Those of us at the Penn meeting know that Mr. Wendell had every
opportunity
to deny the facts of the Councilwoman's account. He refused to confirm or
deny anything when he had the opportunity.
No reputable journalist would take such an obvious dispute and call it a
fact. At no time did you follow-up on the only account delivered publicly.
Now you deny it occurred! You engage in the most obvious yellow
journalism
I've ever seen at close range.
Mr. Moyer
He may have had wise, legitimate reasons for not
> cooperating. Knowing John much better than you do, I am sure he had good
> reasons.
>
> You write that my second article was "an attempt to legitimize BIDs by
> presenting them in a positive way." Quite the mind-reader, you are! BIDs
> don't need to be "legitimized"; they are creatures of law. I explained
the
> process of successfully establishing a BID. To study that, one needs to
> look at a BID that has been successfully established. I was quite
> surprised, though, to discover how free of opposition the Mt. Airy BID
had
> been. I did not "make a case" for it; that case had just been made,
> entirely without me. I pushed hard to look for dissenters, looked under
> the usual rocks, found none. So a fact emerges: some BID proposals are
> more popular than others. Make of this fact what you will. And read my
> third article, while you're at it. Get out of your parochial cubicle on
> Locust Walk and check out the rest of the city you live in.
>
> If you have a tip on a BID in the city that is experiencing significant
> opposition or dissent, please let me know. I was the first writer in the
> city to publish the opposition UCD ran into from Blackwell.
>
> I can hardly have any dependency on "UCD or its proposed BID." Its
> proposed BID specifically excludes me and has no relevance to any
> community activism I engage in, so I have publicly declined to take a
> stand on it. The company that pays me to report couldn't care less about
> UCD or Penn or FoCP or Ray Rorke; none of the above has ever been worth
a
> plug nickel to us. We're interested in stories that shed light on
citywide
> issues of governance, and local service districts in general are
> increasingly important players. Perhaps you find this bad news. Still,
> it's news you have a right to learn.
>
> -- Tony West
>> ucd's statement was: 'UCD has made numerous documented attempts to
>> contact John Fenton asking him to respond to the matter under
>> investigation. Our calls and letters have gone unanswered.' that's a
>> statement of fact. in your article, you state: 'fenton is not
>> cooperating with the investigation.' that's a judgement on your part
>> about fenton, not a statement of fact. there are any number of
>> legitimate reasons fenton might not have been able to communicate with
>> ucd, reasons that you might not have known about, reasons that had
>> nothing to do with cooperativeness. you might take more care, when
>> writing for public newpapers, to avoid the ad hominem.
>>> In that article, I wrote nothing at all about UCD's proposed BID,
>>> because it bears no relation at all to Fenton's activities or the
>>> subject of the story. UCD at this time is an SSD, not a BID.
>> your article was entitled "Blackwell Battles Penn Over Services
District:
>> First in a Series." at the end of the article we learn that it's the
>> first in a series of articles about "how different neighborhoods tackle
>> the challenge of supplementing public services."
>>
>> your next article, "What's in a Bid? More Local Services or Just
Taxes?"
>> makes the case for a 'winning bid' in mt. airy, and is an attempt to
>> legitimize bids by presenting them in a positive way. as we all know,
>> the legitimacy of ucd's proposed bid took a big hit when the whole
fenton
>> affair blew up and blackwell publicly voiced her alienation with
>> ucd/penn.
>>> Yes, you, Ray Rorke, are befuddled. Q.E.D.
>> ergo: I can see clearly what you, tony west, cannot. how dependent
you've
>> become upon ucd and its proposed bid, how that dependency is
tenaciously
>> defended, how intimately it's wrapped up with your personal need to
>> control focp...
>>
>> [aka ray]
>
>
> ----
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
> <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:
> 269.10.8/906 - Release Date: 7/17/2007 6:30 PM
>
>
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
