Monday, March 10, 2008
Sue Jonathan Maziarz? I bloody well doubt it.
Well, today, some anonymous, bloviating, Thuggie scumbag is claiming that recently fired Jonathan Maziarz, former editor of the Tribune and Georgian, is about to be sued for some of his actions as editor. Here, you can read it your self:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/kingsland-ga/TV6NJTAARI9AGI0JV/p2#lastPost
A rational, low-down, political dirty trickster would be satisfied with having done Maziarz in anonymously. But we are dealing with the collective genius of the BTW gang here.
It could well be that , much like they dragged poor old octogenarian Ben Jenkins off of the ilsand shoved a affadavit under his nose, and produced two long-time BTW attorneys for him, they have convinced someone - perhaps Vernon Hand - to act as their cat's paw.
At any rate, the truth about the politically motivated "assasination" of Jonathan and probable castration of his publisher will eventually out. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Mr. Hand attends the County Commissioners meetings all the time. I have witness him on several occassions go before the Commissioners and ask very good questions. Although, BTW and/or Mr. Hand may have had something to do with Johnathan being fired.
I have been hearing that it had more to do with the Republicans of Camden denouncing his liberal stance against their chosen representative i.e, Jack Kingston and Cecily Hill.
You can somewhat feel the tone as you read Bert Guys letter to the editor. Remember he is known as the fix-it amongst the Republicans.
Is Mr. hand the thin elderly, white-haired gentlemean who apparently owns property over on Dover Bluff and speaks so haltingly
at the public podium at the CCBOC meetings that you want to reach throught the T.V. screen and pull the words out of his throat?
Here's the Bert Guy letter you reference.
Letters
Kingston reflects true purpose of government
Dear Editor, The League of Conservation Voters published its congressional rankings this week and, thankfully, Jack Kingston scored 0 percent. What this means is that he did not vote to use taxpayer dollars for abortions and he voted to cut gas prices. Judge for yourself.
The LCV ignores votes on important environmental legislation while including votes on liberal issues. Users of the scorecard should realize that it provides a more accurate barometer of an elected official's liberalism than his or her dedication to safeguarding the environment.
Oddly, one of the criteria LCV uses is whether or not a representative voted for an amendment that would remove the ban on performing abortions by agencies receiving U.S. funds. Despite your opinion on abortion, you must admit that it has nothing to do with the environment.
The LCV ignored the Dependence Reduction through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy (DRIVE) Act which would fund alternative fuels research including electric drive technology. This bill received support from both sides of the political spectrum and was co-authored by Kingston and a New York Democrat.
Instead, they would rather consider votes on campaign reform and whether or not Kingston voted to fund a program to recover Mexican wolves. The LCV's scorecard seems to be designed to provide high "environmental" scores to liberal elected officials and lower ones to moderates and conservatives, regardless of their votes on the full range of environmental issues. Even if they, like Kingston, actually did something positive for the environment.
This year we have an opportunity to keep Mr. Kingston in Washington. It's great that Georgia's First District has a representative who truly represented its constituents, not someone else's liberal agenda. Remember, our government is by the people and for the people. Representative Kingston continues to fulfill this ethic.
Bert Guy
St. Marys
Tangentially relevant to firing at best, don't you think? Though I am a Republican, I'm somewhat anathema to local Republican hobbyists so I'll have to take your word for the degree of their group animus vis-a-vis Maziarz,
Jonathan was guilty of being bias. You cannot disagree with that. That is why I stopped caring for what he said. I beleive in posting the news, unbiased objective news. I dont care about your agenda when I read the paper. I did get tired of that. I think he did help your cause Jay, but he hurt himself with his issues. His veiws are not the veiws of everyone, and therfore not "news". That is what I think.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor having a personal bias, so long as news is presented as news and opinion is clearly labeled opinion.
I never saw Jonathan blur that line.
Editorially, he often agreed with Sandy Feller, but that manifested itself only in his opinion pieces -not the hard news.
Sure, he could have let indiviual bias affect decisions as to which letters-to-the-ediotr, but I bekeive that any letter which met the criteria stated in the T&G guidelines was published.
I'm sure you're upset that he published actual news, much of it involving Bill Smith - and therefor negative - rather than a bunch of propagandistic crap which William "Simper Fido" Terrell was always trying to feed to him, then crying on Thug Void's show about how unfair it was that Jonathan would not act as a PR shill for BTW.
Note that on national issues, he was way to "green" and left wing for my conservative tastes, and I have stated that in print, previously. I had not problem with his holdign local elected officials' feet to the fire, however. You clearly did - and will with any successor editor who dfoes not constantly kiss BTW's ass and ignore mis-and malfeasance by good ol' boys in all county elected offices.
You hinted on my views when speaking of national events. The left bled from him. That is bias. That is what I mean. Not the opinion or letter to the editor. Dont twist it all around Jay
Sir, apparently you do not quite understand the difference in any news organization between hard news and opinion. Ideally, they are kept quite apart.
In the case of newspapers, all editorial bias is to appear on the "editorial page" or the opposite (i.e., right hand) page, known as the "op ed" page. The T&G follows that tradition.
Needless to say, the editorial bent of a paper can influence what news stiries are given front page coverage or are consigned to page 13. The New York Times ois the classic example, followed closly by the Washington Post.
While I have stated that Jonathan's Rocky Mountain, pony-tailed liberal views on national politica and the environment were way to the left of mainstream local leanings, I never once saw him drift off of the opinion pages with those opinions. Besides, he was rather like an exotic zoo specimen for some of our locals who might not otherwise a real live liberal.
But when it came to selecting or palcing news stories, I thought that he did an excellent job.
The fact that he did is of course what has you upset with him and rejoicing over his firing. The fact that he did not suppress the stubborn facts coming to light about BTW's long years of increasingly arrogant mis-and malfeasance in office - for which he will likely soon be indicted- is really at the root of your animus. Ditto for his going after the foibles of your good ol' boy buddies on the county commission.
Even with the recent time change, you just can't get up early enough to fool me. I've been closely observing the local tribe for nearly 15 years now.
Post a Comment