Wednesday, December 10, 2003

Editor selective in choosing ‘facts’ about DAPC

It appears the editor of The Citizen has an axe to grind with the outgoing PTC council members and the current PTC Development Authority (his bias).

In the editorial, “PTC Tantrums” [The Citizen, Dec. 3] the editor has told his side of the story from his own biased view of the situation. It is absolutely his right to make assumptions and draw conclusions from things he has read. These are his personal decisions on issues.

What I find really irritating is that he draws conclusions in the editorial that are not necessarily based on facts but on his own interpretation of what he has read and his personal bias on this issue. Too bad the editor did not provide both sides of the story at the same time so those of us who know more about this situation and those who are not quite up to speed can compare the different versions and make our own decisions.

The editor points out what he labels to be “the smoking gun” regarding the accounting practices of the PTC Development Authority and drawing conclusions from words that he has read in the paper (at least that seems to be the source of his information).

After reading the same words (probably in the same newspaper) I came away with a different conclusion, probably a result of my own bias.

If he knows more than what he has read in the newspaper I believe he has a duty as a citizen to provide this factual information to the proper authorities.

Now for such a detailed editorial I would have thought the editor would have at least mentioned that Peachtree City has not, as of yet, established a legal entity to manage either of the two venues and that this very fact was pointed out (in detail) at the very first meeting of this group.

I believe Councilman Dan Tennant mentioned this same fact in his written reply (in the paper) and that was why he and Annie McMenamin chose not attend the council meeting. (I guess we can’t trust his written word and they were just both being vindictive.)

It was probably unimportant that [only] when the mayor and the other two council members agreed to address only those issues that would allow the Tennis Center and the Amphitheater to continue operations and not rush into determining how the Tennis Center and Amphitheater would be managed in the future was there agreement.

If the editor wants to be fair in the future and provide his readers with both sides of the story he should ask someone with a different opinion to provide an opposing view. Debate the issue in the newspaper; it really would be a good thing.

Debating issues has always been a very important part of this country’s political process and serves to bring out what is fact and what are assumptions. Just because people disagree does not mean they hate each other; it just means they disagree on this point.

I have disagreements with my friends, my family, my wife (very infrequently as I know who wins those arguments) and at times the dog, and the majority of them (to include my wife and dog) are still putting up with me. Why not a little less personal and a little more factual.

I for one would like to see the attack editorials stop. Provide your readers with the opportunity to read about both sides of an issue that is discussed in a civil manner and where both responses appear side be side in the same edition of the paper. Only then will you really will be doing this community a service.

And, Cal Beverly, you really do have a really nice first name.

Cal Betz

Peachtree City, Ga.