Saturday, May 23, 2009

Greg Fox Partisan???...!!!!!

One of these days I will read the Howard Section of the Baltimore Sun and not turn red.  What they don't seem to realize is that even Democrats want to see honest discourse in their paper.  The blue-blind approach to the Sun's coverage will only diminish readership.  The absolute ONLY reason I still subscribe is the Sports section.  There is no better feeling in this world than reading the hard print of a Ravens victory the Monday after it happens.

Here's a letter I sent into the Sun in response to a "Political Notebook" entry that is not available online.  Just trust me that it was baaaaaad news...literally.  Please feel free to poach some of the facts and make your own letter.  They should be sent to,

It is interesting to me that Councilman Greg Fox’s suggestion to scale back Healthy Howard funding in the face of underperformance is called “partisan” while the lock-step support of four Democrats to a program sponsored by a Democrat Executive is somehow given the color of fair-minded political poetry (“Some Cry Partisanship in Fox Fight with Health Plan,” 5/24/09). Healthy Howard was projected to serve 2,000 citizens in its first year at $500,000 operating costs.  The program was only able to recruit 200 citizens, but sought to re-up that original $500,000, even with a projection of only 950 people by the end of the fiscal year.  One can presume that a significant majority of this funding will go towards a public relations campaign aimed at convincing people that they need this program.  From the overwhelming positive press this program has received in the press, Healthy Howard’s greatest success has been to redirect citizens to programs that they already qualify for, which would suggest a hefty price for a match-making service.  We need political opposition in our government.  It is galling to me that under the circumstances noted above the word “partisan” would be put in print anywhere near Councilman Fox’s name.  How about “Acting Chairman of Common Sense”?


  1. This is a great letter. Very good point.

  2. My thoughts exactly. Not sure whether the reporter was slant pushing, or if the democrats came up with this on their own, but the Ds certainly look more partisan.

    Regarding slant pushing, I was once the naive sheep in a slant-push article. I hang my head every time I think about how the reporter characterized me, cast as a role in her "story". Claims that lack of unbiased reporting have nothing to do with decreasing circulation seem to be missing a reality check.

    What customers want from papers and TV news is starkly different than the journalist job description. We want investigative reporting, facts and leave the commentary for the editorial pages. But most reporters are not investigative journalists. I'd argue that the investigative people are those who've had the highest degree of impact and who are safest after the bottom falls out of news reporting.

    I see this going the direction of news contractors who post to sites snips of stories for sale, and I see tiny news organizations that only fact-check and print/broadcast. Investigative reporters who build a reptuation will be handsomely rewarded, as there will be copywrite restrictions and bloggers will have to point to the story in a published form more stringently.

    The question remains, will the publisher charge for access or take ads only? I believe that if they have a print version, they'll charge, but if they have internet only, they will take ads only.

  3. You peak my interest in your true identity more and more with every post. Ha ha.

  4. Moi? or FM? You already know who I am. I'm