Jamie Mock
When we launched the editorial portion of this site, I assumed I would never contribute to that section. I am a reporter – it is not my job to have an opinion, it is my job to report.
But as I sludged through moderating the comments on this site, I realized that this is the perfect forum me for me to say something I have wanted to say for a very long time.
So here it is, an open letter to the people who post on this site.
Dear Posters:
I am a journalist. I am not a teacher on a playground, breaking up fights between two 6-year-olds because they both want the best toy in the sandbox. Please play nice so I can focus more on my job and less on breaking up fights between anonymous people calling each other names.
Here is a secret: It is possible to have an opinion without attacking someone else. It is also possible to disagree with someone without personally attacking them.
Another secret: Just because some people do not agree with you does not mean they are all automatically the same person, or that they deserve to be personally attacked.
The comment section on this site was intended to be a forum for people to express their views on local issues. It has instead deteriorated to a few people who relentlessly attack any new, or old, poster with opposing views. That does not make for an environment where people feel comfortable expressing their thoughts.
And it goes both ways – I have had to delete comments from the right-wing, left-wing, and the so far out there I don’t even know what wing it is.
There have been times that I have been forced to delete a well-thought-out, well-written comment with an opposing view from a previous comment because at the very end a personal attack was thrown in.
I don’t like doing that. I don’t like censoring people, and I don’t like our site to look like it only allows one point of view.
I also don’t like being personally attacked because I have to enforce the rules of our comments section, and I certainly don’t appreciate being called biased because of what other people choose to write in the comment section.
Here is the deal: I don’t care if you are a Republican. I don’t care if you are a Democrat. I don’t care if you are a “vendor,” a HOA board president, a politician or a community activist. I don’t care where you live, or if you think Tupac Shakur was the second shooter in the JFK assassination.
All I care about is that you state YOUR opinion, and allow others to do the same without resorting to childish name calling and personal attacks.
Who knows – maybe there could eventually be a mature exchange of ideas, and more people will want to join in on the discussion.
Just a thought.
Yes, if we need or want election or voting changes, then call an email Sen. Rodney Ellis or other state officials leaders for election policies! For Rights to vote an elect CAD board officials!!
Keywords…Be Nice…Everyone has a right to want more from their elected officials and yes…it is clear that we can use a change in leadership.
Maybe a ballot initiative for term limits would help kick this off!
Civility is good and to be strived for by all of us. Oftentimes, posters are called “nay-sayers” or “chronic complainers,” simply because they have a minority viewpoint. Does being in a minority justify the abuse that sometimes is heaped upon posters? I personally feel that all viewpoints should be heard and evaluated. Very often posters don’t have all of the information needed because its often buried in City Council Minutes or Agendas.
City officials often pride themselves on their informed status and yet don’t let their constituents know what is truly going on for political reasons. I personally feel that City officials should strive to represent all their constituents, not just those that hold the majority viewpoint. I could cite several excellent examples of this in Missouri City politics. Just because the majority wants something done, doesn’t mean its equitable or even right.
Another place local taxing entities like to hide things is the “consent agenda”. Often times you will find the real business dealings with the taxing entities politically connected contractors going on in that area of the agenda. Usually a pretty good hiding place. Good points dos!
Well said Dos Cents, its everyone’s responsibility to stay informed. False allegations and charges of croneyism do very little except fan emotions.
Also, please remember “Just because the minority wants something done, doesn’t mean its equitable or even right.”
I feel MC Mayor and council has done what’s fair and equitable by everyone.
This reminds me of how the CAD operates. It’s too bad dos centavos that we can’t elect those board members directly rather than have the participating councils, boards and commissions do it. Quite often the wrong people are selected that do not have our best interests at heart.
Yes for freedom of viewpoint an to hold elected officials accountable’is by protesting or voting them out during elections annually May & November.
“Here is a secret: It is possible to have an opinion without attacking someone else. It is also possible to disagree with someone without personally attacking them.
Another secret: Just because some people do not agree with you does not mean they are all automatically the same person, or that they deserve to be personally attacked”
I have no problem with anonymous posting, and I can keep my conversations civil. I prefer to aim my eyes, ears and critical thinking towards the PTB instead of other posters. When you jump into the mud with another poster, then you just end up covered in mud, so I don’t bother.
Nice commentary, but I doubt it will stop those who deal in personalities instead of issues.
The only way for public officials to be held accountable is with a free press that allows freedom of viewpoints by its readers.
Public officials are just that: public. When they run for office, they are subject to criticism for their actions. If they aren’t thick-skinned enough to take it, they need to resign.
The law regarding criticism of public officials is different from what may be said to or about a plain old private citizen. Bloggers need to be careful what they say about fellow citizens who are not public figures.
I am one who thinks that if one has a worthy opinion, it is worthy of one’s name. Requiring real names would stop the pettiness.
“The only way for public officials to be held accountable is with a free press that allows freedom of viewpoints by its readers.”
Very strong points Mary and always appreciated I’m sure. Being a former elected official as you have been makes the advice on “thick skin” all the more valid. Naturally thos elected officials that choose to do their deals in backrooms and away from the public eye are going to need a very thick skin if the media and public are paying attention to it. Keep up the good work!
Good point Mary but many who post here hide behind pseudos so they can spread vicious and false allegations about public officials. Race baiting, false charges etc are over the line by anyone standards. FBN should not tolerate these activities and those posters owe those candidates an apology.
Very interesting that you would say that “Earl” given you suddenly appeared for the first time on the Tom Delay thread poking fun at the real Ronnie Earl and then using it for a login.
I would also say that if lies are being posted about candidates those candidates are owed an apology but if they are TRUTHS and can be easily verified, then good for those exposing these pretenders. Those constantly paying to shield them also need to be exposed. The media plays a part in verification of the truth and most reporters check several sources before including the facts for release. Are you saying attack the reporters and posters who are telling the TRUTH and verifying those facts?
Keep up the great work Ms. Mock and all area reporters who expose the TRUTH about some of our local officials.
My remarks were addressed to Mary and they addressed posters who use pseudos to purposely smear public officials and attack other posters. If you find that offensive, so be it.
I have no problem with anyone exposing anyone including public officials who have broken the law. I do have a problem with unfounded allegations, smears and lies to “get” someone, no matter which party.
No charges were filed against Tom Delay after a 6 years of investigation. I find it repugnant and appalling that anyone could revel in his life being ruined.
Perhaps in the future, we can have a meaningful discussion, however at this time I don’t wish to engage you on any level.
Thanks in advance for honoring my wishes.
No charges were filed against Tom Delay after a 6 years of investigation. I find it repugnant and appalling that anyone could revel in his life being ruined.
-I believe Mr. Delay still faces numerous state charges Ron Earl.
I would have to agree Mary. I think a good example is the $11,000+ owed to the Texas Ethics Commission by Mr. Reynolds for refusing to pay past fines. The district 27 democratic candidate for the Nov. elections and these separate bar sanctions covered in two local papers including FBN make for interesting reading (just search it here and read this from the FB Herald):
“COLUMN: Glossing over
District 27 challenger underplays his State Bar penalty
By Bob Haenel
Published: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:31 AM CST
Let me say up front, I made a mistake in a column on Jan. 27 with the vote count in the 2008 District 27 representative race. I gave incumbent Dora Olivo too many votes, and challenger Ron Reynolds not enough. In actuality, Olivo defeated Reynolds by 147 votes.
A slim margin, to be sure, and the catchphrase of the column “What Was I Thinking?” more accurately described my calculations, which were a regrettable mistake on my part.
However, the premise of that portion of the column still stands.
Reynolds could not defeat the incumbent Olivo despite the presence of a very popular Barack Obama on the Democratic Party ballot.
I had the honor of being one of the panelists at the Fort Bend Democrats Club candidates’ debate last Wednesday, and Reynolds and Olivo were the marquee pair at the event.
***Co-panelist Bev Carter of the Star newspaper asked Reynolds about his sanction by the State Bar of Texas, the “thousand-pound gorilla in the room,” she phrased it.
Rather than being taken aback, Reynolds relished the question, reaching for satchel filled with photos and displays to show his post-sanction accomplishments.
Indeed, Reynolds said it was a mistake by a young attorney, paying little attention to the details. Apparently, he had come prepared for the question.
Carter continued by peppering Olivo with questions about embryonic stem cell research, which Olivo opposed, and legislation regarding required ultrasounds prior to abortions.
Hmmmm. Was it a setup? Reynolds just happens to be vice president of the club…
Doesn’t matter.
Reynolds treated the action taken by the State Bar District No. 4F 12 Grievance Committee as if it was no big deal, but it was. Actually, it was three big deals, and one of them came with a price tag.
Reynolds didn’t just make one mistake, he was judged on three mistakes and had to sit out a year as an attorney, surrendering his law license from April 1, 2005, to March 30, 2006. He remained on active suspension (probation) through March 31, 2009.
That means he was on probation when he ran against Olivo the first time, and is only now less than a year out of hot water. Completing probation was grounds for celebration for Reynolds, but certainly not grounds for a flippant dismissal of the three cases that placed him on the legal sidelines for a year.
Twice, Reynolds lost lawsuits for separate clients because he failed to respond to motions for summary judgments against his clients. Both lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice — meaning thecases can’t be refiled — and he didn’t notify his clients to inform them, either.
In the third case, he repeatedly failed to follow through with his client to inform him of the outcome and actions needed to be taken, including having his client sign a final accounting and distributing of funds settlement statement.
In one of those first two cases, the former client sued Reynolds and his firm, Brown, Brown & Reynolds, Houston, and not only received a jury award of $100,000, but also $50,000 in punitive damages after the jury finding of malice in the case.
Reynolds forgot to pull that out of his briefcase last Wednesday.
Here’s the question: Does District 27 want a state representative whose best claim is that he wasn’t completely disbarred?”
-We need more reporting like this, not less. Also see
http://www.fortbendnow.com/2010/02/09/43842
changing pseudos won’t work. Don’t engage me on any level.
Then you shouldn’t be changing them. I’m not and why would you be engaging me and then telling me not to respond? That’s pretty dumb.
Just wanted to offer Ms. Mock that I agree with much of your editorial but sincerely hope you will continue to report on the stories that the local powers don’t always want out there! Thanks for your efforts.
I want to hear from everyone – especially those who challenge the elected officials. Missouri City officials want us to believe that they have the ability to make an unprofitable golf course become profitable. Not likely. FBISD officials want us to believe we need fewer teachers and more construction. Empty buildings don’t teach. Someone has to challenge the nonsense that we need the GSTC. Thanks for reporting that some of the FBISD trustees and Jenney work for the vendors.
Who doesn’t want to hear from everyone?
Yes, I agree mlee. It is very important for forums like these and the local media to keep reporting the facts. No one else is keeping an eye on things and this free for all has to be checked. I’m tired of paying every higher property taxes each year and if we don’t keep an eye on issues like this then we will continue to get more of the same.
“Isn’t it clear that City Council Members have an agenda that conflicts with the one voters would like to see?”
No.
2nd there’s a big difference between real dissent and chronic complaining often by people who cannot vote in MC elections.
The voters approved the bonds and elected the current city officials. They may not serve your agenda, that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong or bad for the city. In spite a few posters here constantly complaining many residents think MC is headed in the right direction.
Dissent voiced in FBN’s articles has a constructive and positive effect on City Government. Politicians hate bad publicity, especially when it’s true. By criticizing fellow posters we do nothing but play into the hands of egocentric politicians who want to enlarge their feifdoms and power. Many politicians want to see dissent stifled and want mainstream voters to think that government’s direction in their area is what the voters cast their ballots for. Consider the direction Missouri City government has taken lately, spending $15 million for golf course purchases when the voters actually voted for park amenities. Consider then that no park renovation or construction has actually been accomplished with those bond funds. Where is the City headed? Isn’t it clear that City Council Members have an agenda that conflicts with the one voters would like to see?
Excellent points on a free and unfettered press and open comments section dos centavos! Well worth your two cents. Apologists will say otherwise but the constitution readily supports your position. It isn’t a matter of degrees and we have seen the impact the public has had not only here and other forums but at public meetings that are often contrived and directed until the press and public have taken them back.
Keep up the good work and never mind the naysayer! A big well done.
someone much wiser than me said you reap what you sow.