Journal editor's talk cheap

Journal Editors write, link,

Voters would be right to demand a serious debate on real issues...

Their premise; voters have the right to make demands.

Apparently Journal bigwigs believe voters have a right to make demands on would-be politicians and public servants; it would be silly for them to argue voters would be right to demand something they have no right to demand.

If voters have a right to make demands before election, do they have the right to make demands after elections? Obviously Journal editors believe in voters/citizens making demands before election, but when a group of citizens, the Citizens Advisory Council on Communication, went with "demands" to an already elected school board and were denied due process by that board, the Journal chose to ignore it.

Witness the "demand", a legitimate petition signed by more than a hundred people, carried by the Citizens Advisory Council on Communication to the APS School Board, and the wanton denial of due process the school board heaped upon it, link. The Journal knows about it and chooses to ignore the diss, editorially and otherwise.

So, according to the Journal, we should be making demands
on pols and public servants, but don't expect any coverage
(support) from the Journal when the demands fall on deaf ears.

Thanks for nothing, editors.

Thanks for nothing, Kent Walz.




frame grab Mark Bralley