Kendrick Neubecker, Carbondale:
"...He focused almost exclusively on two small moments that came during the question-and-answer period. Paul Menter was right to deflect what seemed more a personal attack in order to focus on the issues. Maurice Emmer's comments were a small part of the discussion yet occupy nearly a third of the article. And please tell me what the importance of Emmer's having “recently moved to Aspen” is in this discussion? That's irrelevant, unless you are more interested with obfuscating gossip rather than the issues.
Toward the end of the piece Salvail finally addresses some of what the forum was really about, but then only to repeat the falsely reassuring and inaccurate message from the city's side of the issue. The article never mentioned any of the points I made refuting the city's position, nor did Salvail attempt to speak with Menter or me afterward.
There was a serious and rich discussion of the real issues for nearly two hours, all largely ignored by Salvail. Did the article report on the city's mistaken characterization of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's licensing process? No, nor the correction that I offered. Did the article cover the discussion of stream ecosystems and the city's inadequate studies or monitoring program? No. Even the fact that the city has failed to hold up its part of a 14-year-old agreement to install stream gauges was ignored....."
(Read more? Click title. Comment to discuss)
No comments:
Post a Comment