The Times-Reporter does it again. July 5's editorial should be included in every journalism class which is taught in every high school, college and university in the United States. The ignorance, I'm being nice, of the Editor in publishing the editorial "A demonstration of fiscal restraint," sets a new low in journalism for the Times-Reporter. It is obvious that Mr. Jekel doesn't even read his own paper.
On June 28, in reporting on the New Philadelphia City Council meeting, Joe Mizer stated that the City Council amended a proposed piece of legislation made by the Salary Committee concerning pay raises for elected and other non-union people working for the City. The original legislation, as it came out of the committee, called for a one-percent raise for such people. On the floor of Council, the one-percent figure was, by a vote of four to three, changed to two-percent. At the same time, any pay raise for City Council members was eliminated.
The editorial is an obvious lie in-so-far as its comments concerning New Philadelphia. Why would Mr. Jekel allow such a blatant misrepresentation of the facts be printed in the Times-Reporter? There is the excuse that editorials are not always written by the editor, that they are the result of an editorial staff. It is easy to pass the buck to somebody else, but passing the responsibility for such misleading statements to an underling won't wash. The editor is the editor, and what ever appears in any newspaper is undeniably the responsibility of the editor. Could it be that Mr. Jekel doesn't read his own paper? Joe Mizer got it right, why couldn't the editor? Is checking background information no longer a part of the editorial process.
Could it be that the T-R editor is enamoured with the New Philadelphia Administration to the point that truth and investigation of the facts is no longer a journalistic priority? Why haven't the following questions been asked of the Mayor and other Administration officials?
Is the President of City Council included in the proposed two-percent pay raise? After all, he is not a member of City Council. He is elected to an office which is more closely related to the Administration than City Council.
Who else is included in "non-bargaining" personnel? Are the school crossing guards, life guards, part-time workers, summer help, and others who work part-time for the city?
Why should non-elected, non-union employees get automatic pay raises when they are not evaluated on their job performance? There are no current job descriptions, if any at all, by which employees are judged. Tardiness is not reported nor punished when it occurs. Mid-morning breakfasts at local restaurants, a not infrequent situation, occurs without comment. Late and incorrect city reports from city officials go unquestioned.
Why should Administration officials get a two-percent pay raise when they talked the Clerical Union into taking one-percent in their contract?
In this editorial Jekel states "Kudos to New Philadelphia.....for doing the right thing" because, on a four to three vote, City Council saved the city a maximum of a thousand dollars a year by denying City Council members a pay raise. If City Council gets kudos for that, where was the editorial outrage when union employees received over half-million dollars in pay raises for 2010?
It is obvious that the Times-Reporter no longer understands what is going on in the City. It is obvious that the Times-Reporter is no longer a newspaper which has the motivation to report the news in a trustworthy manner. It is obvious that the editor of the Times-Reporter either doesn't have a clue about the newspaper business, or just plain doesn't have a clue.
Responsibility, as it always does, rests on the shoulders of the editor. Mr. Jekel needs to take a long, critical look at the Times-Reporter and his responsibility to its well-being and reputation. The misinformation, the bias, and the incompetence displayed in this editorial are inexcusable.
On June 28, in reporting on the New Philadelphia City Council meeting, Joe Mizer stated that the City Council amended a proposed piece of legislation made by the Salary Committee concerning pay raises for elected and other non-union people working for the City. The original legislation, as it came out of the committee, called for a one-percent raise for such people. On the floor of Council, the one-percent figure was, by a vote of four to three, changed to two-percent. At the same time, any pay raise for City Council members was eliminated.
The editorial is an obvious lie in-so-far as its comments concerning New Philadelphia. Why would Mr. Jekel allow such a blatant misrepresentation of the facts be printed in the Times-Reporter? There is the excuse that editorials are not always written by the editor, that they are the result of an editorial staff. It is easy to pass the buck to somebody else, but passing the responsibility for such misleading statements to an underling won't wash. The editor is the editor, and what ever appears in any newspaper is undeniably the responsibility of the editor. Could it be that Mr. Jekel doesn't read his own paper? Joe Mizer got it right, why couldn't the editor? Is checking background information no longer a part of the editorial process.
Could it be that the T-R editor is enamoured with the New Philadelphia Administration to the point that truth and investigation of the facts is no longer a journalistic priority? Why haven't the following questions been asked of the Mayor and other Administration officials?
Is the President of City Council included in the proposed two-percent pay raise? After all, he is not a member of City Council. He is elected to an office which is more closely related to the Administration than City Council.
Who else is included in "non-bargaining" personnel? Are the school crossing guards, life guards, part-time workers, summer help, and others who work part-time for the city?
Why should non-elected, non-union employees get automatic pay raises when they are not evaluated on their job performance? There are no current job descriptions, if any at all, by which employees are judged. Tardiness is not reported nor punished when it occurs. Mid-morning breakfasts at local restaurants, a not infrequent situation, occurs without comment. Late and incorrect city reports from city officials go unquestioned.
Why should Administration officials get a two-percent pay raise when they talked the Clerical Union into taking one-percent in their contract?
In this editorial Jekel states "Kudos to New Philadelphia.....for doing the right thing" because, on a four to three vote, City Council saved the city a maximum of a thousand dollars a year by denying City Council members a pay raise. If City Council gets kudos for that, where was the editorial outrage when union employees received over half-million dollars in pay raises for 2010?
It is obvious that the Times-Reporter no longer understands what is going on in the City. It is obvious that the Times-Reporter is no longer a newspaper which has the motivation to report the news in a trustworthy manner. It is obvious that the editor of the Times-Reporter either doesn't have a clue about the newspaper business, or just plain doesn't have a clue.
Responsibility, as it always does, rests on the shoulders of the editor. Mr. Jekel needs to take a long, critical look at the Times-Reporter and his responsibility to its well-being and reputation. The misinformation, the bias, and the incompetence displayed in this editorial are inexcusable.
No comments:
Post a Comment