Don and I had a telephone conversation not long ago, concerning an article he'd submitted for publication in Weber County Forum. He wanted to set the record straight about the details of the acquisition of the Std-Ex's new headquarters at Ogden city's Business Depot Ogden, and I was happy to afford him the opportunity to do so. During this conversation we also talked shop a little bit, and he commented about some of the difficulties of running a small town newspaper in the modern age, in which many younger people don't read newspapers, but get their news from electronic media instead. He talked about new approaches to attracting readership, and the necessity of creativity in newspaper publication. I confess I have sympathy for the plight of the local print journalist in this modern age, when anyone on earth can regularly read the New York Times or the Washington Post for free, with only a few clicks of a mouse button.
I've been thinking about what Mr. Porter said, and I've finally gotten around to the conclusion that Don Porter and I are both quite similar in our approaches. What Don and I both do, gentle readers, is post the most controversial, edgy, and cranky stuff possible, with the object of provoking the strongest possible strong readership response. This is what keeps readers coming back. They crave red meat.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Don ran this Fasi Filiaga "guest editorial" last Thursday. This one goes beyond controversial. It goes beyond edgy. It even goes beyond cranky. This one is flat-out preposterous. If Don Porter's intention was to provoke a reader response, he certainly got his money's worth -- if my own Weber County Forum email inbox is any gauge of that. My inbox has been filling up with responses to this over the past couple of days. I can only imagine what's happening with Don Porter's.
In general, the responses have mainly centered on these points:
- There were thousands of Utahns who worked feverishly to drive a stake through the heart of eminent domain abuse; it wasn't just Dorothy Littrell,
- Participation in Ogden city politics isn't limited to lifetime residents,
- Wayne April didn't kill the recreation center project; 'twas bad economics, poor management and contamination killed the beast,
- Mr. Filiaga's ghost writer probably flunked logic 101.
- Mr. Filiaga is the poster boy for everything that's wrong with the current city council.
I will however post one particularly excellent reader response that I received. This one is particularly interesting, inasmuch as it's written by one of the three local citizens whom Mr. Filiaga assailed in his article. I'm also informed that it's one that actually reached Mr. Porter's email box, but was rejected for publication, for reasons that are somewhat unclear. Perhaps I don't understand Mr. Porter's methods as well as I thought, come to think of it. In Don Porter's defense, though, I'll also note that newsprint and ink ain't cheap, unlike web bandwidth.
So at any rate, I'll shamelessly exploit the fruits of Mr. Filiaga's highly provocative guest editorial, and post the reader response that Don Porter refused to print, for the enjoyment of our gentle readers:
DOROTHY E. LITTRELLI can't imagine why Don Porter wouldn't publish this letter. Having been attacked by Mr. Filiaga, surely Ms. Littrell deserved equal space for her retort. I confess I simply don't get it.
228 West 3275 North
Ogden, Utah 84414
801-7822-5906
d.littrell@comcast.net
September 15, 2005
GUEST COMMENTARY
I am the "outsider", that "woman from North Ogden", that Ogden City Councilman Filiaga and Police Chief Greiner give credit to for singlehandedly stopping the proposed Wal-mart RDA fiasco in Ogden.
First of all, my fight was against the use of eminent domain to seize private property from private citizens to give to another private entity which just happened to be the largest corporation in the world.
Second of all, Ogden City officials were going to borrow $2.1 million in order to bring in the wealthiest corporation in the world so private property could be seized with sales tax revenue being pledged for five years to pay off the bribe.
What Ogden City fathers didn't get then, and still don't understand, is that my fight was about citizens' personal rights under the Constitution. Ogden City fathers refuse to acknowledge that citizens have rights. Fortunately, the Utah Legislature understood the constitutional issues and passed Utah's eminent domain law which prohibits such violation of constitutional rights.
I am no outsider. I practiced as a CPA in Ogden for thirty years. I bought property in Ogden when I moved here in the 60's. What is more important is that I am a citizen of Weber County and that all of Ogden's RDA projects are taking away tax monies that Weber County needs badly.
Mr. Filiaga has been a councilman for eight years so I would say that he has helped create Ogden's financial problems by blindly siding with Mayor Godfrey on all the issues that have created the morass Ogden is in.
Why aren't Mr. Filiaga and other City Council members calling for City Attorney Ashton to look into the latest shenanigan of Mayor Godfrey's rehiring Stuart Reid's corporation after Mr. Reid either quit or was terminated and received a financial lump sum payout of retirement benefits? This is a shady deal if I have ever smelled one.
For those of you who don't follow Ogden's incredible financial deals, Mr. Reid masterminded the Ogden RDA for a few years as a "carpet-bagger" from Salt Lake. He created the 25th Street Condo plan which has bombed. He gets credit for the River Walk Project which would have seized more private homes under eminent domain . And I know you have heard of the climbing wall and Gold's Gym proposed for the old mall site.
It is good that Ogden's City election is in process. Please know your candidates and vote wisely because it will affect all of us in Weber County.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Littrell
Perhaps our gentle readers can help me out on this. Comments anyone?
6 comments:
Dorothy should have responded in a "Guest Editorial," rather than a Letter to the Editor, which letters have strict publication rules. One, and the most glaring, is the length. I believe the Standard has a 150 or 250 word limit, and Dorothy's greatly exceeds that. Therefore, "reee-jected," as the graybeard boys say on TV.
Doroth's was well written, portrayed her psoition and really put Fasi Filliage in his place. It's obvious, from watching his participation at City Council meetings, that he's ready for retirement. We should remember, however, that he most likely did his best and gave of himself, but hsi time has come.
Thanks, Enthused Citizen; but if you'll take careful note, you'll see that Ms. Littrell's letter was submitted with the title "guest editorial," so it's obvious that this was her intent.
And while I'm not entirely clear on this, it's apparent from the cover letter that accompanied Ms. Littrell's article that Mr. Porter had rejected it as a guest editorial, suggesting that she "shorten" it, and re-submit it as a "letter."
Perhaps Ms. Littrell can clear up this question. I'll email her and see if I can find out what the situation is.
I did present a Guest Commentary to the Standard Examiner.
The Standard's response was that they would only print a Letter to the Editor and proceeded to compile that letter for me.
I said "No" so they came back with the statement that in the past two years that they had printed seven of my letters or articles and had only printed four for Mr. Filiaga so would I please make my contribution a Letter to the Editor.
I once again said "No".
I believe they have a policy at the Standard that one can only submit a certain number of letters and commentaries in a certain period of time. I am not sure, however, what these terms are and how strict they are as to holding people to them, but perhaps what had happened is that Dorothy had already used her number of commentaries, and that's why they wanted it in letter format.
Thanks for reproducing her letter here, Rudi. Excellent points in it, as usual,
While Porter does usually put out a pretty good editorial page, he still marches to the drums of the Suits of Sandusky. Their only concern and motive vis-a-vis Ogden is how much cash they can extract from our town.
I believe that the naybobs at the SubStandard just flat out do not want to print anything that tells the truth about Filliaga and his fellow gangsters at city hall.
Filliaga can barely stay awake at any of the meetings I have attended. When he is awake he comes across as quite stupid. He usually will mumble on about one subject or another, never making much sense at all. Every vote he makes is in support of the Mayor. He represents the mayor not the citizens that put him in office. He is a disgrace to the American political system.
The SubStandard routinely thrash about and cry the blues that the city lost on the evil eminent domain issue. Any person or paper that advocates the taking of peoples homes to give to rich corporations is morally bankrupt and deserving of only scorn from the honest citizens.
It is a pleasure to see this once fine newspaper fade into irrelevance.
I'll read EVERY word in the future, Rudi. That's what I get for just skimming your fine piece. My mistake....my apology. One can learn much at this fine blogsite. The trick is is to admit that and take those lessons to heart. It might serve one better, somewhere down the pike.
New comments are not allowed.