I’m going to be charitable and say that there appears to have been a miscommunication somewhere.
The foot patrols in the South Grant area started last weekend.
Sgt. Neumann’s wise-guy quote in the paper notwithstanding, I have spoken directly to the Chief and he assures me that the Police department is indeed complying with the intent of the resolution that was passed by the Council: the foot patrols are ALREADY underway in the South Grant area. Our men and women in uniform are performing this duty on an overtime basis to get it done right now and I’m thankful. Will we have to hire some more officers to maintain this effort? Yes but that is NOT standing in our way of getting it done right now.
What I’m not so thankful for is the inaccurate/absent coverage by the JM. They might argue that “this is what your guy told us” but if they were paying attention (i.e. attending the meeting and talking to Council members) they would have known better. I’m wound up about this. It’s a big deal, we ain’t talking about painting bathrooms at the train station. We’re talking about a singular event in the history of our city and the leadership’s response.
February 16, 2011 at 12:40 pm
What I would call “journalism” has been long absent from our local paper. I reached MY boiling point over their incomplete and often inaccurate coverage of the Fire and Rescue system transition. I’ve long since halted my subscription. I read their local articles online but pretty much with a going in assumption that what I read in a particular article is going to be at least a third wrong/inaccurate/incomplete.
I’ve started reading Patch based on hearing about it here but have yet to form an opinion.
February 16, 2011 at 1:49 pm
I do like Patch but their coverage is uneven. They covered the murder and vigil but that’s it.
I believe that news organizations owe more effort than that to those they attempt to serve. After all, the Council’s response is a big deal. You might believe that the Council acted too late or whatever but if you relied solely on the coverage since the incident, you would believe that the problem has essentially gone unanswered….
February 16, 2011 at 3:56 pm
The MJM has been wrong on the ilegal alien for some time now, so it’s not surprising to see other mistakes made by the paper.
February 17, 2011 at 12:47 am
Hey, Andy…
Go over there and show them the City now has BOTH live streaming and on-demand replay of Council Meetings. Got two weeks worth of Meetings up now.
Runs smooth as a good Kentucky Bourbon across your lips and slicker than bat guano… 🙂
NO excuse now if they can’t get to the Chambers!
February 17, 2011 at 7:11 am
Ray misses very little.
February 17, 2011 at 9:54 am
@Raymond
The viscosity of bat guano? We sent the wrong humans up against IBM’s ‘Watson’ in the Jeopardy face-off.
February 17, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Rich,
Ray is like one of these SETI dishes sometimes. Very little escapes his notice.
February 17, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Andy,
From this citizen, Thanks. Thanks for standing up an leading on this, and refusing to let this get stalled in analysis paralysis.
February 17, 2011 at 5:06 pm
yup…bat quano. Am keeping off my traditional NCO language as respect to Andy and all readers 🙂
@Steve – yup, I watch the terrain. First lesson of combat operations…learn your terrain. Makes it easier to call in an arty fire for effect 😉
February 19, 2011 at 10:19 pm
I too thank you and the rest of the council.
The MJM is almost worthless so it doesn’t surprise me about the lack of or wrong coverage