Below is the email I sent to the Editorial Staff of the Webster-________ Times on 02-28-09 in response to the 02-27-09 edition of the Mailbag. As of this posting for Sunday 03-08-09 I have not received a response from any editor at the Webster-________ Times. I had even left a voicemail message for "Scoop" Corrigan, but not a peep from him.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editors of the Webster-Kirkwood Times,
By printing Reese Forbes’ Mailbag letter this week you once again proved how you have no understanding of issues in Kirkwood. In addition, you in characteristic fashion proved how you are inherently jaded and stilted in how you handle Mailbag letters. The changes you made to my letter, its title and its first paragraph, changed my letter’s meaning. Then, without an ounce of decency or journalistic ethics you printed the letter by Mr. Forbes that calls into question the changes one of you made to my letter.
First to point out how you are inherently jaded and stilted, I had to submit my letter two weeks in a row in response to Ms Loemker’s letter before it got printed in the Mailbag. Mr. Forbes of course got his printed the first time around. And I suspect, so did Ms. Loemker's letter I was responding to.
Here is what I submitted to you each time for the title and first paragraph of the letter:
Smoke-Free Battle Bad For Kirkwood
What was Jean Loemker trying to pull with her Feb. 6th Mailbag letter "Smoke Free Is Good Business?" Did she think Kirkwoodians forgot that her so-called "Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance" from 2006 was defeated by "thousands" of more voters?
Here is what you finally printed for the title and first paragraph of the letter:
Another Fight Against Smoking?
What was Jean Loemker trying to pull with her Feb. 6 letter, Smoke Free Is Good Business? Did she think Kirkwoodians forgot that her so-called "Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance" from 2006 was defeated by thousands of voters?
Please note I put in bold the differences.
Your changing of the title couches my letter so differently from what is reality. Proving once again how you do not understand issues in Kirkwood and how stilted you are in presenting Kirkwood issues anywhere in your paper. Yet, all the while you are proclaiming the Times as “Your Hometown Newspaper.”
Your change in the title frames the discussion going on in our community as if it were “smoking” versus “non-smoking.” Ms. Loemker and her zealots love framing the discussion as “smoking” versus “non-smoking.” It works so well for them, because it allows them to play on peoples' heart strings and play to folks’ emotions due to the health issues related to “smoking.”
Yet, the reality is the issue in Kirkwood has never been about “smoking.” The issue has always been about how we as a community will properly legislate a “smoke-free” ordinance for businesses. Your change undercuts my stance on the issue and hands it to the opposition. Displaying for all how jaded, stilted, unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced you are when it comes to how you handle Mailbag letters.
Keep in mind, I had a “smoke-free” business in Kirkwood at the time we had the last “smoke-free” battle. At my business, I required the smoking employees to walk out the front door, they could not simply go out the back door, then they had to walk all the way to the back of the building in order to smoke. I even annoyed the smoking employees further by only responding to the question, “Can I go have a cancer treatment?” when they were requesting a “smoke break.” So, I am all for “smoke-free” businesses and do not support “smoking” public building or even in my home.
In addition, those of us that opposed Ms. Loemker’s poorly drafted proposal had no issue with a state-wide law for “smoke-free” businesses. We simply asked Ms. Loemker’s group and the numerous advocacy groups backing her to take that battle to where it belongs – Jefferson City. We wanted a fair and even field for our business community. We did not want our business community to be singled out as they planned to "duke it out" municipality by municipality across St. Louis County. See Mailbag letter from Pat Lindsey - Executive Director of Tobacco FreeMO.org from August 2006. That is what they were attempting to do and did not mind telling us they were going to use our businesses and our community as pawns in thier battle. Yet, Ms. Loemker and her zealots ignored us and drafted their own proposal that did not ban just “smoking.” No, the very laborious and cobbled together legal definition they created for "smoking" essentially would have banned “smoke” in Kirkwood. Go look up the proposal that what was submitted by Ms. Loemker at City Hall and read it for yourself.
Your further changes not only manipulated the framing of the issue, but changed the meaning of my letter. Which I find ridiculous to begin with, given you consistently refuse to print my letters if they do not fit within your word length or what you feel violates some other known or unknown code you have about Mailbag letters. So, I spend hours parsing my words and framing a letter that perfectly says what I want to say hoping it will fit within all your constraints. Then, you go and change my words and change the meaning of what I wanted to say.
This is what you did to the original second question of my letter. My second question, before you changed it, was in response to Ms. Loemker’s statement trying to pump up how her flawed proposal was supported by Kirkwood voters. In her letter she said:
In 2006, Kirkwood Council Member Tim Griffin advised Kirkwood voters: "Just don't go there," rather than endorse a Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance supported by thousands of Kirkwood voters.
My original question put her statement in the correct light by reminding folks that “thousands of MORE” Kirkwoodians voted against her proposal. Your change made it a numbers game that Mr. Forbes could easily exploit. Which Mr. Forbes did in his letter you printed without a word from you that you had changed my letter’s wording and my letter’s meaning.
You hold me publicly accountable and allow someone to attack me and my position for your words? How ethical is that? How does that show an ounce of decency? How does that show fairness, accuracy or balance on your part as journalists?
Then, to make matters even worse you did not have the common sense to check if Mr. Forbes’ statement matched “the facts” of the numbers game he was playing. This would have taken about 5 minutes at the most.
Here are the results readily available on-line at the St. Louis County Election Board’s web site for the November 7, 2006 election:
PROPOSITION 1 - CITY OF KIRKWOOD
NO 7,831
YES 6,504
The difference is 1,327. Divide the difference by 2 and round it up and you get is 664.
So, it is not “
The fact is that if 671 voters had changed their vote to "yes" from "no," the ban on smoking cigarettes in workplaces would have passed” as Mr. Forbes’ letter said. They only needed 664 to switch.
Also, please tell me what I misstated in my letter that would cause you to so readily print Mr. Forbes letter? I think this is quite a reasonable request given the fact that Mr. Forbes never backs a single one of his “misstatement” attacks against me and my position with a single fact.
Here let’s take a look at what I said and how it matches to the facts:
Did she think Kirkwoodians forgot that her so-called "Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance" from 2006 was defeated by "thousands" of more voters?Correct: The facts are 7,831 voted NO.
Does anyone remember a single Kirkwood elected official, past or present, who publicly endorsed and campaigned for her flawed proposal?Correct: The facts are no Kirkwood elected official publicly endorsed or campaigned for her flawed proposal.
Did she think those of us who campaigned against her unfair proposal forgot how outrageously punitive it was to Kirkwood businesses rather than to smokers?Correct: The facts are Kirkwood businesses would have outrageously been fined for anyone smoking within 25 feet of their building. How can you control what someone does within 25 feet outside your building? Plus, the punitive fines were set to be higher for business than they were for the violating smoker. In addition, the punitive fines were set to increase at a greater rate for each additional offense for businesses than the fines did for violating smokers.
Did she think we forgot the fact that she had "anti-smoking" zealots shipped into Kirkwood from as far away as Lincoln County, MO to fight for their agenda?
Correct: Here is the list of official petition signature gatherers from “Citizens’ for a Smoke Free Kirkwood” who lived outside of Kirkwood:
Martin Pion, 6 Manor Lane, Ferguson, MO 63135
Mike Doran, 1477 Bent Oak Ridge Court, Fenton, MO 63026
Charles Gatton, 647 Lemonwood, Ballwin, MO 63021
Baker Symes, 465 Catalina, Webster Groves, MO
Richard Hyer, 252 S. Moore School Rd., Troy, Mo. 63379
The facts are nearly 20% of the required signatures from Kirkwoodian voters for a supposedly Kirkwoodian proposal, were gathered by folks that did not live in Kirkwood.
Did she think we forgot the thousands of dollars spent by a state-wide "anti-smoking" coalition that was magically targeting Kirkwood with an anti-smoking ad campaign using four big billboard signs at Kirkwood Road and Big Bend at the same time her flawed proposal was before voters?Correct: The facts are if you contact the billboard company that owns the ones at Kirkwood Road and Big Bend, you will find that TobaccoFreeMO.org paid for 4 billboards around November, 2006.
I want you to know I would not be so rightfully aggravated with you if you would have had the decency to put an editor’s note pointing out how you changed my letter, how the issue is not about “smoking” and how Mr. Forbes can not get his facts straight regarding what he and Ms Loemker submitted in their proposal.
You had ample opportunity to set the record straight when you read Mr. Forbes’ letter. Just how did Mr. Forbes know, “
There was overwhelming support by Kirkwoodians until all those old misstatements, which Mr Toenjes again reiterated in his letter, caused citizens to tell us they were going to switch from "yes" to "no" because they feared they could not barbecue in their backyard (which had nothing to do with the ordinance).” Go read the proposal submitted by “Citizens’ for a Smoke Free Kirkwood” and tell me how you can print that statement much less the rest of his letter with a straight face? Plus, how did Mr. Forbes get this grand understanding to know there was “
overwhelming support by Kirkwoodians?” Does he possess the clairvoyance to read the minds of all Kirkwood voters who rejected his proposal or did not vote at all?
This kind of nonsense attack is par for course for the folks in Kirkwood you have courted with your paper. You consistently allow the “alleged disenfranchised” in our community to try to blame others for their failures. Ms. Loemker, Mr. Forbes and the rest of the “Citizens’ for a Smoke Free Kirkwood” drafted their proposal to their liking and to fit their agenda, they conscripted zealots from far and wide to push their agenda, they timed their proposal to hit while TobaccoFreeMO.com was doing their advertising campaign, then they want to blame the opposition for their proposal failing. How ridiculous!
How many more times do we have to play this game? You consistently allow the “alleged disenfranchised” to muddy the waters and fail to clear up the issue for your readers in Kirkwood. You did the same and continue to do the same for the K-FAIR folks and their ridiculous ward proposal that went down in flames. These two groups of folks have no one to blame, but themselves for their failures. But, they lack what it takes to accept responsibility for their own actions. Then, you make matters worse by letting them perpetrate the blame game on others in our community.
Yet, you do not have any issues clearing up an ignorant Mailbag letter when it comes to a Webster issue. Need I remind you of the DQ – Flowerama sign issue letter you corrected with an editor’s note. You showed you gave a damn about that letter concerning a Webster issue where the writer was making a charge that was not correct. But, you have consistently failed to show you give a damn about a Kirkwood issues when someone is factual incorrect in their letter. Further displaying for all how jaded, stilted, unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced you are when it comes to how you handle Mailbag letters for the community of Kirkwood.
So, the questions I have that deserve an answer are…
How are you going to clear up the mess you created?
How are you going to clear my name and my position on the "smoke-free" issue in Kirkwood?
How are you going to point out how Ms. Loemker and Mr. Forbes do not have a factual grasp of the "smoke-free" issue in Kirkwood?
How are you going set the record straight for the “Hometown” you supposedly serve regarding the entire issue of the “smoke-free” battle?
At this point I do not have any hope of being able to clear up the mess you created with a less than 300 word response to Mr. Forbes and his “misstatements” attack letter. Plus, I have no expectation my original submission would get printed by you as written.
I have included our community's business leaders and our comunity's elected leaders in on this email. I want to to remind them of my last two questions of my Mailbag letter ...
Is Jean Loemker with her letter trying to lay the ground work for Kirkwood to once again be the battleground for an agenda she and her cohorts need to take to legislators in Jefferson City? Do Kirkwoodians really want our community and its businesses to once again be abused like meaningless pawns and subjected to another pointless political battle?
It is time you, the Editors of the Webster-Kirkwood Times, start acting with journalistic ethics and with simple decency in the community of Kirkwood.
Joe Toenjes
---------------------------------------------------------------
With the newest edition of the Webster-________ Times out, it is clear the Editors continue to be more interested in creating controversy in Kirkwood, than being journalist out to present the facts to its readers in Kirkwood. They show they would rather twist people's words. They show they would rather change completely the subject of a Mailbag letter. They show its is more important for them to muddy the waters of an issue, rather than bring clarity and thoughtfulness. Dwight Bitikofer and Don Corrigan prove they are not interested in being fair, accurate or balanced journalists when dealing with issues in Kirkwood.
The Webster-________ Times proclaims "Your Hometown Newspaper" ... I would like to know when?
.jpg)
Posts
