Let's lay to rest for all time, in the first time (ever) that her very own personal view has ever been expressed without the 'cover' of "shock-jock style" commentating, what she really thinks of John Colson and his chosen line of work.
She could care less what John Colson chooses to do with his time or his career. Has no personal view one way or the other on any of it. The guy has never bothered to introduce himself, ask for an interview, or for that matter...ask one question or investigate the 'other side of the story' of 'SandBox Nanny'. Even with that dismal track record revealing his diligence and competency in his chosen field; she really (sincerely) doesn't care anything at all about John Colson's personal choices in his career. Isn't it amazing what factual truths one can learn about big stories when the simplicity of basic facts come out into the light of day?
'SandBox Nanny' does have, in her actor's role as 'SandBox Nanny', one problem with John Colson. Read up on her natural quirk tendency here.
John Colson is not just an everyday bully that can be dealt with through social darwinism.
John Colson is a bully who places himself in a position of public trust, that just so happens to be a position that wields a tremendous amount of power to harm and alter the courses of lives.
In her personal view, John Colson should either stop his behaviors or look for another line of work. Be an op-ed columnist. Or be a reporter that adheres to the standards and ethics of journalistic integrity. It is impossible to be both. As far as the bully tendencies, those are personal traits that shouldn't be in either the 'columnist' or the 'reporter' portfolio. Unless, of course, you wish to tackle major social issues through the use of a pseudonym that is strong enough to break through very thick stone walls. Now...that last one is an idea, isn't it? Some cases might even find that kind of style to be leadership in nature. Just think, you could be one of those that wants to be in that role should you alter your course and redirect your energies.
With the above said, let's move on with today's 'SandBox Nanny' post on this latest column by John Colson. Up on the Aspen Times.
Number of editorial letters written in to various newspapers complaining about Colson's output:
- 13 tracked since 2009.
- Dozens and no less than weekly tracked since 2009.
- 5 (including 2 large corporations) tracked since 2009.
- Too many (and too depressing) to count. SandBox and SafePlace stopped at 11 direct names.
- 5 people.
- Too many (and too depressing) to count. SandBox and SafePlace stopped at 4.
Hmmmm.....wonder what the 'kids' will have to say out there in public commentary on John Colson's latest 'rant of vengeance' today? In his column 'Hit and Run'. Up on the Aspen Times.
Click title.
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
4 comments:
Here's a solution to a lowlife reporting style.
Get out of the public trust position and then do whatever you want.
Until then, do a proper job within the guidelines of our industry.
Garfield BOCC acted. They may not have made the most popular decision but they at least acted. The stalemate that is oil shale development will stagnate indefinitely without strong leadership taking the reins.
However, the topic here today is the portrayal of Garfield BOCC by John Colson. Not the actions themselves of Jankovsky, Martin and Samson. By his own pen, Colson forfeits all right to validity in dialogue over the topic of oil shale itself. At his own choice, John Colson makes this personal and off topic.
The petulant whine that fills the vast majority of Colson's portfolio has become an intolerable weekly rant. The Times would be well spotted to eliminate the column and spare the general public further dread in knowing its arrival is imminent each week. Surely there is a novice writer out there that would pump out higher quality content and do so without harming, degrading and demonizing others.
As for Colson's reporting ability, it has been print that has never shone as above standard and in fact has been subpar more often than not. The only time one reads John Colson jazzed on his topic is if he is degrading or demeaning an individual, a company or an industry.
Given the obvious, that it has taken shadow folk's voices speaking up to forward any change at all within the sister publications, at the unbearable and irretrievable cost of full fury retaliation and canned by others press releases every time the one 'shadow person' in "SandBoxNanny" that is personally known gives outlet access; let's just call it a day, Mr. Colson.
Please do exit stage left along with Ms. Weatherred. Don't bother to look back, you will not be missed by area readership. You certainly do not stand a prayer of redemption when up against the class act of anyone participating in this blog nor have you shown yourself to have the courage to craft your trade with honesty and integrity.
Best to you. We'll all be watching for the sure to come retaliation to her that your pen will no doubt produce. How relieving it is to know that you've just now been exposed at your own hand prior to.
Thank you, MB. I know this came from your heart and has been a long time wanting to be said. I appreciate the support.
I think you will also understand when I clarify that I believe the days of "canned by others press releases" where I am concerned are long over for GSPI. I also don't think it's truly personal on Colson's part when he since pumps out flaming reports on any 'news' since where I am concerned.
I believe Colson is just struggling to keep up with the (very tongue in cheek) 'higher bar and standard' he sets for himself when he 'reports' and do not feel it is retaliation for anything. That would be a very long list if I was to believe that John Colson does same to everyone his pen has come in contact with.
I've dropped you an email in addition to clarifying this public comment.
Sad state is that if oil shale was blessed tomorrow by Obama and Udall and annointed as the next coming, Colson would take his little parade and groupie follow the liberals.
Even sadder is that as a grown man he can't see how sad it is that he just publicly put out a column like this.
Post a Comment