Disservice
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
I suppose that in order to write editorial pieces for this newspaper one does not need to reveal all the facts about a given issue. And I suppose it's OK, in order to make a political point, to divulge the facts through a skewed political prism. But is that what we need from a newspaper?
In regards to the political hack job written by Gary Gerard about Speaker Pelosi and the plane controversy that at the end of the day wasn't a controversy, first Gary Gerard criticizes Speaker Pelosi for the way she handled her first moments trying to reshuffle the House Democratic power structure. Which, by the way, had nothing to do with the plane controversy. Anyone who follows American politics knows, rightly or wrongly, that this is how things are done by both parties in Washington, D.C.
Gary Gerard then mentioned that the sergeant at arms of the House of Representatives, not the Speaker's office, made the request for the plane to the Pentagon. Gary Gerard explains the reason for this, "Seems for security reasons, the Pentagon provides the speaker of the House with secure transportation. That only makes sense because, after all, the speaker is second in the line of succession to the presidency." The fact that the sergeant at arms made the request, for the reason mentioned above and for related security issues, makes the plane issue a non-issue.
But, of course, Republicans still jumped all over it all as a balm to treat their wounds from a November beat down given to them by the American electorate. And even after the security concerns were raised by the sergeant at arms office, which Gary Gerard himself said were valid, Republicans still accused the Speaker of seeking special treatment. And after the Speaker's office, The White House and the sergeant at arms' office defended Pelosi against those accusations, Gary Gerard still continued to doubt the reasoning. Gary Gerard states, "The speaker's office says that's nonsense. It's a matter of national security because the little plane has to stop to refuel. The big plane can make it coast-to-coast nonstop. Now, I guess I don't understand why refueling is a security risk. Maybe it is," he continues. "I don't know." Now Gary Gerard admits he doesn't know, but he refuses to accept the opinions of those who are paid to know. But this admission does not stop Gary Gerard's attempt at making political hay.
Gary Gerard now attempts to get into the head of someone he does not know and questions the integrity of the Speaker by stating, "She could easily have just said never mind and stayed with the little plane. But, hey, the big plane is really, really nice." This is what is called a cheap shot and a further attempt at trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Now, Gary Gerard concludes his editorial by stating, "with issues like the war in Iraq, health care, the economy, a looming crisis in entitlement funding and an enormous pile of national debt, one would think these people - Republicans and Democrats alike - could find something more salient to argue about." I agree. Yet Gary Gerard decided to write a column about a non-issue. How can we expect our elected officials to focus on the truly important issues when editorial pages fail to do so?
We, the community, have a responsibility to make sure our elected officials stay focused on the issues that matter. In order to do so the community must be properly informed. The press should give us information that is not tainted by political agendas or personal vendettas so that the community can do its job of reigning in our elected officials. I know that I am looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, but the community should expect better from those who wish to work for the press. By wasting ink, paper, and time writing yet another column about another non-issue, and by twisting the facts, Gary Gerard failed to serve the community or the republic. The community deserves better.
Robert Betances
Warsaw, via e-mail[[In-content Ad]]
I suppose that in order to write editorial pieces for this newspaper one does not need to reveal all the facts about a given issue. And I suppose it's OK, in order to make a political point, to divulge the facts through a skewed political prism. But is that what we need from a newspaper?
In regards to the political hack job written by Gary Gerard about Speaker Pelosi and the plane controversy that at the end of the day wasn't a controversy, first Gary Gerard criticizes Speaker Pelosi for the way she handled her first moments trying to reshuffle the House Democratic power structure. Which, by the way, had nothing to do with the plane controversy. Anyone who follows American politics knows, rightly or wrongly, that this is how things are done by both parties in Washington, D.C.
Gary Gerard then mentioned that the sergeant at arms of the House of Representatives, not the Speaker's office, made the request for the plane to the Pentagon. Gary Gerard explains the reason for this, "Seems for security reasons, the Pentagon provides the speaker of the House with secure transportation. That only makes sense because, after all, the speaker is second in the line of succession to the presidency." The fact that the sergeant at arms made the request, for the reason mentioned above and for related security issues, makes the plane issue a non-issue.
But, of course, Republicans still jumped all over it all as a balm to treat their wounds from a November beat down given to them by the American electorate. And even after the security concerns were raised by the sergeant at arms office, which Gary Gerard himself said were valid, Republicans still accused the Speaker of seeking special treatment. And after the Speaker's office, The White House and the sergeant at arms' office defended Pelosi against those accusations, Gary Gerard still continued to doubt the reasoning. Gary Gerard states, "The speaker's office says that's nonsense. It's a matter of national security because the little plane has to stop to refuel. The big plane can make it coast-to-coast nonstop. Now, I guess I don't understand why refueling is a security risk. Maybe it is," he continues. "I don't know." Now Gary Gerard admits he doesn't know, but he refuses to accept the opinions of those who are paid to know. But this admission does not stop Gary Gerard's attempt at making political hay.
Gary Gerard now attempts to get into the head of someone he does not know and questions the integrity of the Speaker by stating, "She could easily have just said never mind and stayed with the little plane. But, hey, the big plane is really, really nice." This is what is called a cheap shot and a further attempt at trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Now, Gary Gerard concludes his editorial by stating, "with issues like the war in Iraq, health care, the economy, a looming crisis in entitlement funding and an enormous pile of national debt, one would think these people - Republicans and Democrats alike - could find something more salient to argue about." I agree. Yet Gary Gerard decided to write a column about a non-issue. How can we expect our elected officials to focus on the truly important issues when editorial pages fail to do so?
We, the community, have a responsibility to make sure our elected officials stay focused on the issues that matter. In order to do so the community must be properly informed. The press should give us information that is not tainted by political agendas or personal vendettas so that the community can do its job of reigning in our elected officials. I know that I am looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, but the community should expect better from those who wish to work for the press. By wasting ink, paper, and time writing yet another column about another non-issue, and by twisting the facts, Gary Gerard failed to serve the community or the republic. The community deserves better.
Robert Betances
Warsaw, via e-mail[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092